September 2004 Gasification Archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Sep 1 00:07:45 2004
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 01:07:45 EDT
Subject: [Gasification]http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_...
Message-ID: <9e.137f5d86.2e66b321@aol.com>

In a message dated 2004-08-31 8:47:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au writes:

> On a related topic I have a friend involved in our State Emergency
> Service who is interested in disposing of animal mortalities following a
> major disaster like a disease outbreak. I have picked up on a couple of
> leads through this group, but thought I would throw it wider. Any
> responses welcome!
>
>

See my post titled "Florida Debris Disposal." Perhaps you could pile
carcasses on-site, cover with an insulative blanket and incinerate them.

There is an interesting phenomenon that was originally being investigated as
'spontaneous human combustion' wherein a human body seemed to be nearly
entirely incinerated, say, in a small bedroom, with minimal damage to the
surrounding combustibles.

It was finally determined that what was happening was that someone was
falling to sleep while smoking, starting a smoldering fire on the clothes which
continued to burn, in starved-air conditions, until all the available fuel (human
fat, flesh and bone) are consumed. Only the extremities remain uncombusted,
but every other part of the body is burned to fine ash.

Although relatively slow, it appears to be complete incineration, and it
seems reasonable to believe a similar result would occur with animal carcasses.

This web page debunks the spontaneous human combustion hypothesis and gives
reasonable explanations for how starved-air combustion incinerates the body
without a raging fire.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9611/shc.html

Vernon Harris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/13f76a48/attachment.html

From CAVM at aol.com Wed Sep 1 07:46:08 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:46:08 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
Message-ID: <157.3e1b5af0.2e671e90@aol.com>

The option of burying the debris and setting it afire under an earthen cover
is very interesting. It sounds a little like the cover placed over a manure
lagoon to capture methane. I think that you could gasify large quantities
of material underground with an air pipe to meter in enough O2 to maintain the
gasification process and a pipe to capture the gases. But, how do you make
us of these far flung gasification sites?

Perhaps a Caterpillar low BTU fuel engine could produce power from the gas
but how to use this power since it is a temporary set up?

Neal Van Milligen
_www.kentuckyenrichment.com_ (http://www.kentuckyenrichment.com)
_cavm at aoll.com_ (mailto:cavm at aoll.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/12f5084c/attachment.html

From krishnakumar_07 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 07:51:13 2004
From: krishnakumar_07 at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:51:13 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [Gasification] UN-SUBSCRIBE me FROM LIST
In-Reply-To: <157.3e1b5af0.2e671e90@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20040901125113.91094.qmail@web25302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

PLEASE

UNSUBSCRIBE ME FROM STOVES AND GASIFICATION LIST

=====
krish

___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

From CAVM at aol.com Wed Sep 1 08:12:42 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:12:42 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Somebody has invented gasification for hydrogen and
charcoal production
Message-ID: <1f0.299d7e0a.2e6724ca@aol.com>

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:56:57 -0000
From: "tallex2002" <mail at alternate-energy.net>
Subject: peanut shell hydrogen production

Hi all,

Some of you may be interested in this development.

Charring Peanut Shells for Hydrogen Fuel

Washington - Donald C. Reicosky, an Agricultural
Research Service soil scientist at the North
Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory
in Morris, Minn., has teamed up with an inventor
of a patent-pending process to turn agricultural
biomass--wastes like peanut shells--into hydrogen
fuel and charcoal fertilizer. The inventor, Danny
Day, president of Eprida, Inc., a technology and
development company in Athens, Ga., has also joined
forces with U.S. Department of Energy scientists
who hold a patent on a related technology.

Volatiles and steam released by charring biomass
produce hydrogen. The charring turns the biomass
into charcoal pieces. This charcoal becomes a
nitrogen-enriched fertilizer with the addition
of ammonia formed by combining a third of the
hydrogen with nitrogen. The remaining hydrogen
can be sold as fuel, both for a hydrogen-based,
clean diesel and to run fuel cells.

This morning, at the American Chemical Society's
228th national meeting, in Philadelphia, Pa.,
Day made a presentation on the fuel production.
Tomorrow, he will discuss the charcoal's
fertilizer value. The porous charcoal potentially
gives soil microbes an improved environment for
nutrient cycling. If the charcoal were used as
a scrubber in the smokestack of a coal-burning
power plant to remove carbon dioxide, it could
then become more valuable as an ammonium
bicarbonate nitrogen fertilizer.

full article here

http://www.alternate-energy.net/peanut_shell_hydrogen04.html

regards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/bac7fbbd/attachment.html

From dglickd at pipeline.com Wed Sep 1 08:47:51 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:47:51 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug
References: <d7.137e5c4a.2e6699d7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <086d01c4902a$470cbda0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello All -- Below are my thoughts on the Florida Energy Program -- vintage 2003

The State of Florida announced in summer 2003 a Governor's initiated program ". to develop a Statewide Energy Plan: Energy Planning for Florida's Future". Workshops were held throughout the state, with stakeholder meetings in Tallahassee, "to gather public input". It was further indicated; "Learn more about how energy affects you and your community and offer your ideas and recommendations, by participating in one of the . meetings". Certain scheduled meetings were canceled in late fall, but a report was published, under the aegis of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP, on January 27, 2004 together with a response to the Report's recommendations by the FDEP

-- http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energy_future.htm --.

Energy Planning is required recognizing that Florida's population and development will continue to increase. Haphazard Energy Planning has traditional accompanied additional demands for those things population increases affect: the size of energy systems and concomitant impacts on the environment. To manage these Florida's impacts, under economic reality, require sustainability of development without degradation of, and even improving, Florida's environment. The Report, page 9, however, contains the statement:

"The prime source of funds to support advances in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources in Florida is controlled by private utilities, whose business objective is to maximize profits rather than to conserve scarce energy resources."

Clearly, whatever might be recommended in order to accomplish orderly energy planning would have to be "supported by . private utilities"; that is, if such planning interferes with utilities' business objectives, planning objectives would have little chance of succeeding.

Best, Dick

www.CorpFutRes.com

I have a Fla electrical needs study done for the Governor that I can send you.

I will send you my sunshine energy proposal in PDF wherein I discussed with the state bio mass Ethanol and plasma energy using garbage and agricultural waste stream of Fla.

Leonard E. Wheeler, Jr, MPA/REM
Former State Disaster Engineer
Former Appointed Member Lake Co.. Landfill Oversight Committee
Etc....
"thin on the ground, round in the middle, and getting older by the day"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/01787bd8/attachment.html

From FMurrl at aol.com Wed Sep 1 09:27:36 2004
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:27:36 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug
Message-ID: <b8.617e8a0a.2e673658@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/1/2004 9:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dglickd at pipeline.com writes:

Clearly, whatever might be recommended in order to accomplish orderly energy
planning would have to be ?supported by ? private utilities?; that is, if
such planning interferes with utilities? business objectives, planning
objectives would have little chance of succeeding.

Everyone:

Here are my two cents.

I attended a couple of the open hearings on this energy policy docket. I
believe it is well recognized by the PSC and political pundits that the
interests of renewable energy proponents and investor owned utilities may diverge. I
feel that it is possible (I won't say "likely") that an energy policy may be
proposed by the PSC and enacted by the Florida legislature that is not fully
supported by the IOCs in Florida.

I do not believe that the members of the PSC who attended the hearings, or
their staff, believe that they must have the permission of the IOCs and the
major municipalities before proposing a policy. I challenge the earlier
statement that the policy must be "...supported by the private utilities..." to
succeed.

Of course, only time will tell. I am just saying that I wouldn't give up on
this process yet. However, if the Florida legislature meets in 2005 and
doesn't address the issue of Florida's energy policy and the legislation proposed
from the work product of the Governor's initiative, then we will have good
reason to be discouraged.

Regards,
Frederick J. Murrell
Biomass Development Company
1401 Manatee Avenue West Suite 910
Bradenton, Florida 34205
_www.biomassdev.com_ (http://www.biomassdev.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/92e5a791/attachment.html

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Wed Sep 1 09:45:00 2004
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:45:00 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Florida/Danny Day/Utilities
Message-ID: <1094049945_121699@mail.rose.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/6eb20f3d/attachment.html

From FMurrl at aol.com Wed Sep 1 10:12:25 2004
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:12:25 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida/Danny Day/Utilities
Message-ID: <53.14f23566.2e6740d9@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/1/2004 10:47:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
boilrmkr at surfsouth.com writes:

Just confirmed (AGAIN) what we've always known. Talking with a local
consultant last week who's husband has recently retired from very high up in the
Southern Co. food chain. Renewable/Biomass energy production, of any kind, is an
inside joke. They ain't interested. They ain't paying for it. They don't
want it. These federal renewable energy % mandates are laughed at. They are too
intertwined with their coal/gas/oil buddies to care.

Everyone:

I know the Southern Company guys very well, and I completely disagree with
this assessment. The comments above are someone's misguided opinion, and
nothing more than that.

Any reasonable utility company will want to make only those business
decisions that make sense, and biomass-to-energy power production is perceived to be
difficult, aggravating and expensive (compared to coal). Also, an IOC or
other profit-based company (including municipalities) will only do what the
economic rules in place dictate. Right now, renewables don't compete against
coal. As long as there aren't rules in place to force development, then the
result will be polite disregard for renewables.

That doesn't mean that the IOCs and municipalities are bad guys. It simply
means that the rules in place don't encourage them to be proactive.

The statement "...These federal renewable energy % mandates are laughed
at..." within Southern Company is an unsupported editorial comment. The fact is
that THERE ARE NO FEDERAL MANDATES. What's to laugh at?

The comment "...They are too intertwined with their coal/gas/oil buddies to
care..." shows a lack of knowledge about what this person is talking about.
The Southern Company guys are professionals. They are not against renewables.
There simply is nothing in the current economic and juridical reality that
encourages the development of renewable energy -- even the Section 45 power
production credit has sunsetted, and the Congress has failed to renew it.

If we are looking to castigate a group or groups, we might better look at
Congress and the legislatures of the 35 states who have been unable to come to
grips with developing a coherent energy policy. Silly diatribes regarding
companies like Southern Company doesn't move anyone's agenda anywhere. It only
makes people like us who support renewables look like a fringe group.

Regards,
Frederick J. Murrell
Biomass Development Company
1401 Manatee Avenue West Suite 910
Bradenton, Florida 34205
_www.biomassdev.com_ (http://www.biomassdev.com)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/d5272fa7/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 1 10:48:42 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:48:42 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
Message-ID: <ae.6121ad82.2e67495a@aol.com>

Unfortunately as the material burns, the earthen or other cover will collapse
and allow the gases to escape. It could never get a permit. By the way, most
regulations concerning emission sources are based upon permanent siting.
"Temporary" doesn't exist in the vocabulary.

From tmiles at trmiles.com Wed Sep 1 12:02:32 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:02:32 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
References: <157.3e1b5af0.2e671e90@aol.com>
Message-ID: <013801c49045$dc43a3a0$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>

Underground gasification of forest slash was done in Siberia, Russia in the 50s-70s for disposal. It was recently proposed to us as a means of remote heat and power by a retired forester there. It never developed to the point of recovering the gas to run an engine or even to heat water.

The modern equivalent is a pit burner combustor. The air curtain distructor by Air Burners LLC has been in development and use since the 1970s.

http://www.airburners.com/

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: CAVM at aol.com
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal

Perhaps a Caterpillar low BTU fuel engine could produce power from the gas but how to use this power since it is a temporary set up?

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm at aoll.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/20040901/a4f62a86/attachment.html

From dglickd at pipeline.com Wed Sep 1 12:48:05 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:48:05 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug
References: <b8.617e8a0a.2e673658@aol.com>
Message-ID: <12b601c4904b$d69f2f40$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

I, too, attended many if not all of the stakeholder's meetings of the Florida's Energy Future Group that were conducted in Tallahassee. The Group's final communicated statement, I believe, summarizes that the initial investigative Group was sidestepped:

For those who may not have seen the earlier announcement, please note that the October 2 Stakeholder Forum in Tallahassee has been cancelled. In addition, the deadline for written comments from stakeholders and the public has been extended to October 3. Comments received by this date will be considered by the project team for purposes of its report to the State.

During the course of this project, a transition has occurred in lead administrative responsibility for the State?s energy program from the chief planning agency (DCA) to the Department of Environmental Protection. The project has evolved with this change. The team of experts selected to carry out the project has been called upon to provide data, information and recommendations to the State for its use in evaluating Florida energy issues, needs and options so that the State can undertake a meaningful course of action in the energy realm. The DEP is excited about this opportunity and its new role as the lead agency for the Florida Energy Office and its programs. The consultant team has been called on to provide its final report to the Department by October 15, 2003.

I sincerely hope that something will be done to develop a plan for Florida's Energy Future -- I sincerely doubt that Florida's energy providers and associated components -- the Florida Public Service Commission as they are currently structured, as an example -- will offer guidance for such a plan.

Best, Dick

www.CorpFutRes.com

----- Original Message -----
From: FMurrl at aol.com
To: dglickd at pipeline.com ; LWheeler45 at aol.com ; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug

In a message dated 9/1/2004 9:49:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dglickd at pipeline.com writes:
Clearly, whatever might be recommended in order to accomplish orderly energy planning would have to be ?supported by ? private utilities?; that is, if such planning interferes with utilities? business objectives, planning objectives would have little chance of succeeding.

Everyone:

Here are my two cents.

I attended a couple of the open hearings on this energy policy docket. I believe it is well recognized by the PSC and political pundits that the interests of renewable energy proponents and investor owned utilities may diverge. I feel that it is possible (I won't say "likely") that an energy policy may be proposed by the PSC and enacted by the Florida legislature that is not fully supported by the IOCs in Florida.

I do not believe that the members of the PSC who attended the hearings, or their staff, believe that they must have the permission of the IOCs and the major municipalities before proposing a policy. I challenge the earlier statement that the policy must be "...supported by the private utilities..." to succeed.

Of course, only time will tell. I am just saying that I wouldn't give up on this process yet. However, if the Florida legislature meets in 2005 and doesn't address the issue of Florida's energy policy and the legislation proposed from the work product of the Governor's initiative, then we will have good reason to be discouraged.

Regards,
Frederick J. Murrell
Biomass Development Company
1401 Manatee Avenue West Suite 910
Bradenton, Florida 34205
www.biomassdev.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/dbbe7e8e/attachment.html

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Wed Sep 1 12:50:00 2004
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:50:00 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2
Message-ID: <1094061015_140283@mail.rose.net>

<I know the Southern Company guys very well, and I completely disagree with
<this assessment. The comments above are someone's misguided opinion, and
<nothing more than that.

Well Fred, I'm sure everyone is impressed with your extensive inside connections with the Southern Co. guys and you're definitely welcome to your own misguided opinion. As am I. Unfortunately, it sounds like you've swallowed their propaganda hook, line and sinker. I'll assure you that my opinions and observations are formed from EXPERIENCE with these guys. The ONLY time they will do a renewable energy project (to date) has been when it meant they were gonna snag a new electric customer and needed to "sweeten" their offer to take care of some waste stream at a particular location to "do the deal". We've done it for Duke, Southern and a few others. Bottom line is I'm not new to this list (lurking for years and years) or this business (designing/selling/installing biomass steam systems for 18 years).

<polite disregard for renewables.

Well, there ya go. Thanks, Fred. My original comment reiterated by yourself.

<That doesn't mean that the IOCs and municipalities are bad guys. It simply
<means that the rules in place don't encourage them to be proactive.

Never said they were bad guys. I just think they are very good at making a tidy living out of all of our monthly budgets. \;-)

<The statement "...These federal renewable energy % mandates are laughed
<at..." within Southern Company is an unsupported editorial comment. The fact is
<that THERE ARE NO FEDERAL MANDATES. What's to laugh at?

Didn't qualify the original statement so here goes. PROPOSED federal renewable energy mandates contained within the terribly flawed, misguided (by the utilities and oil companies) and dead(?) Bush energy bill. Fred, I never say anything that is not supported by fact. It's not what's to laugh at, it's what's to cry about that renewable energy is NOT considered by the utilities to be a money making proposition.

<The comment "...They are too intertwined with their coal/gas/oil buddies to
<care..." shows a lack of knowledge about what this person is talking about.
<The Southern Company guys are professionals. They are not against renewables.
<There simply is nothing in the current economic and juridical reality that
<encourages the development of renewable energy -- even the Section 45 power
<production credit has sunsetted, and the Congress has failed to renew it.

Fred, how many renewable energy projects have you designed, installed, started up and are currently operating (without gov't subsidy of any kind)? "This person" is here to open your eyes and tell you that we are currently making a very tidy profit manufacturing and installing working renewable energy power plants to the total and undying consternation of the utilities that will do everything (including dropping their electricity prices to the basement when threatened after emptying our clients' pockets for years with high prices) to prevent us from installing renewable energy cogen facilities. I didn't say they weren't professionals. They certainly are good at spending billions of our dollars in a rush to deplete our natural gas supplies with the recent installation of hundreds, maybe thousands, of gas turbines around the country. They simply could care less about promoting, much less taking advantage of current, economically viable renewable energy technologies when they are ALL subsidized (to some extent) by our gov't to use coal and petroleum products. Imagine that!!

<If we are looking to castigate a group or groups, we might better look at
<Congress and the legislatures of the 35 states who have been unable to come to
<grips with developing a coherent energy policy. Silly diatribes regarding
<companies like Southern Company doesn't move anyone's agenda anywhere. It only
<makes people like us who support renewables look like a fringe group.

Hey, Fred! Ya didn't have to think too hard to find another group deserving castigation, didja?
I don't have a agenda, Fred. I've got a job and a career. Designing/Selling/Installing renewable energy systems. And proud to have been able to do it profitably for 18 years without taking a single grant from anyone or any gov't agency.
Not here to argue semantics, verbage or politics. Just here, when I feel like it, to shake things up, share experiences and jog the ol brain cells. My "silly diatribe" is over. I gotta get back to work writing these sales orders.

Fred, welcome to the fringe group of renewable energy supporters. Glad to have you.

Best Regards,
Gene Zebley
Energy System Sales

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21791 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738

Phone: (877) 994-8778, Toll Free US/Canada
Phone: (229) 346-3545, Ext. 139
Fax: (229) 346-3874
Cell: (229) 798-0664

http://www.hurstboiler.com/solid_fuel_fired.htm
mailto:boilrmkr at surfsouth.com

Sure been a long time since anyone called what I had to say silly \;-) Thanks, Fred. Kinda gets the ol' juices flowin again.

From dglickd at pipeline.com Wed Sep 1 14:02:27 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:02:27 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2
References: <1094061015_140283@mail.rose.net>
Message-ID: <12d801c49056$39d9d1a0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

Southern Company supported a waste fuel co-product project -- "Fiber Fuels" -- several years ago -- did the test and left -- it seemed to just complicate a defined process without sufficient reward. We discussed another with them and it went nowhere.

We spent several years with Duke Engineering & Services (might have caused Duke Energy to sell DE&S) -- It didn't work out under the most favorable conditions -- we were meeting regularly until the final execution, engineering and construction stage -- then they decided we weren't needed -- the constructed facility -- perhaps co-incidentally we would like to think -- failed. Many reasons for this, but the "big guys" possess an arrogance that makes it difficult for other then an equal or a client to keep everyone moving in a profitable direction?

Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Zebley" <boilrmkr at surfsouth.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1:50 PM
Subject: [Gasification] RE: Gasification Digest, Vol 2, Issue 2

<I know the Southern Company guys very well, and I completely disagree with
<this assessment. The comments above are someone's misguided opinion, and
<nothing more than that.

<polite disregard for renewables.

Well, there ya go. Thanks, Fred. My original comment reiterated by yourself.

<That doesn't mean that the IOCs and municipalities are bad guys. It simply
<means that the rules in place don't encourage them to be proactive.

Never said they were bad guys. I just think they are very good at making a tidy living out of all of our monthly budgets. \;-)

Fred, welcome to the fringe group of renewable energy supporters. Glad to have you.

Best Regards,
Gene Zebley
Energy System Sales

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21791 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738

Phone: (877) 994-8778, Toll Free US/Canada
Phone: (229) 346-3545, Ext. 139
Fax: (229) 346-3874
Cell: (229) 798-0664

http://www.hurstboiler.com/solid_fuel_fired.htm
mailto:boilrmkr at surfsouth.com

Sure been a long time since anyone called what I had to say silly \;-) Thanks, Fred. Kinda gets the ol' juices flowin again.
_______________________________________________
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/20040901/eb161354/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Sep 1 21:42:02 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:42:02 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] please post
Message-ID: <1cb.29f4a7f1.2e67e27a@aol.com>

I agree with this observation. I also add if the plan conflicts with the
piped natural gas prices of Florida you won't be going very far either.

Solid fact no debate Until Charlie and Francis. A new player has come to the
team field FEMA. " Federal Easy Money Agency " as I have been quoted to call
it.

The Report, page 9, however, contains the statement:

?The prime source of funds to support advances in energy efficiency and
renewable energy resources in Florida is controlled by private utilities, whose
business objective is to maximize profits rather than to conserve scarce energy
resources.? Look at your power bill NOTE THE Gov FEES AND CHARGES.

Clearly, whatever might be recommended in order to accomplish orderly energy
planning would have to be ?supported by ? private utilities?; that is, if
such planning interferes with utilities? business objectives, planning objectives
would have little chance of succeeding. Unless you had them in a real bind.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/19bb01b9/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Sep 1 23:36:21 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:36:21 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] My nickel's worth on resistence and salesmanship
Message-ID: <1de.290a0f0a.2e67fd45@aol.com>

I have not spoken to this many PhD's since I was a grad student. There are
more PE's in this group than were in FEMA and the State covering Andrew. And you
guys get around too! We have met many of the same empty suits!

It is interesting for me personally to note that there have been very similar
experiences expressed to me by persons in this group that are nearly
identical to those experiences I had when I was working with FEMA COE State Fla and
"government" and my recent voyage into Plasma Redux with Lake Co. and Allan B at
FDEP.

The core problem that I have experienced and some of the others have is the
outright rejection of anything new.

I will send you the transcript of the meeting that Lake Co had with the CEO
of Startech a Plasma Co. you want proof.

The Co was willing to build a multimillion dollar plant at their expense in
exchange for the guarantee of a waste stream and the arrangement with Progress
Energy to purchase the electrical power generated. Covanta has that deal now.

For the FIRST TIME in the year I was on the board the County Atty. paid a
visit and spoke. Local News reporter came in and then the Startech CEO a PE made
his presentation and was attacked on cross examination by the director of
solid waste. He was lucky to leave alive!

When in March 2004 We both met with Allan Bedwell Deputy Sec DEP. This CEO
offered to bring his company to Central Fla to continue to install plasma Redux
on cruse line ships and hire locals from Central Fla to do it and he did not
even get a thank you card for the trouble of the visit.

As a rule I usually get at least a police escort from the gov building... Zip
nothing. I got a card in my file from Claude R. Kirk, Jr for just coming to
sign the guest register. The insurance Commissioner even sent me a Christmas
card that year. Socks the W.H. Cat sent my cat a card. Where has civil courtesy
and pretentious suck up gone?

Having compared notes with those list folks that called I realize it was not
my after shave or deodorant that failed me. It was my too polite and soft
spoken technique of persuasion.

Apparently there is something to be said for the effectiveness of the Wayne
Huizenga technique to overcome sales resistance as Broward police reports and a
civil lawsuit attest to over his early primitive but effective sales
techniques. Check it out on the web it is insightful!

Seriously. There are many factors in the failure to get our projects off the
ground.

The first for me seems to be providing the validation of the engineering
economics.
The second one is competing against the safe status quo. The energy companies
that I have briefly communicated with on ethanol, hydrogen, and plasma redux
syngas are interested but want large scale commercially validated projects.

Recently, I have seen some real weakening in Fla. to distributed energy
Only till Nov 2.

Regards,
Leonard
"... and their minds and heart will follow.." Wayne H

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040902/92d25960/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Sep 2 15:28:39 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:28:39 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] GREAT JOB GENTLEMEN I commend you
Message-ID: <103.4ed0395d.2e68dc77@aol.com>

Some of the proposals sent have been forwarded to interested parties not all
in government.

Others proposals I am still waiting for.

Clearly some of the gassyfied folks in Vt, Ark, AZ and Tallahassee have some
really sharp honed presentation skills.

So you earned them PhD's PE's and Advanced degrees the old fashioned way did
you? And you are in the business for profit and actually make some.

My pleasure to meet you all.

I am going to lose my E mail, cell and computer electric likely Sat and no
telling when it will come back on for me or the folks in Fla I am talking to.
All are in the path of destruction. Give me your Commercial Gasification
proposals today for Fla Hurricane and agricultural debris to some useful product 4
pages or less.

Engineering validated as commercial at the proposed scale only please.

Time to build and cost analysis roughly est as well as co experience in the
marketplace Ref too if you can supply. Submissions will all be public record
under the laws of Fla when I send them out. No trade secrets please.

Kindly,
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040902/46e0e797/attachment.html

From Carefreeland at aol.com Thu Sep 2 23:14:00 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:14:00 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
Message-ID: <9a.13ad68f0.2e694988@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/1/04 12:41:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
VHarris001 at aol.com writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk replies

>
> In the olden days, they'd open-burn the stuff. In case of emergency, such
> as the economic impact of enormous volume transport and disposal, might the
> government consider that again?

DD Sure, They probably will eventually when rot starts to set in and the
stuff stinks to high heaven on election day. Just wait for the misquotes! Why
would the Bushy Brothers even consider utilizing an enormous source of energy
measured in terrawatts while grandpaw is reaping the oil profits from
$2.00/gallon gasoline? Better dispose of the competitive fuel before someone actually
improves the economy for common folk with it.

>
> If not, I wonder if it might be possible to cover piles of dozer-compacted
> combustible debris with a large insulative blanket, with an attached,
> close-coupled, blower driven secondary combustion chamber. Slow burn the debris in
> the oxygen-starved 'primary combustion chamber' formed by the earth and
> blanket, and incinerate the off-gas in the high-temperature secondary combustion
> chamber. After the burn, scrape to the soil surface for ash removal and
> disposal.
>
> Rather than haul the debris to a central site, have many small, local,
> supervised sites. Pick a flat or slightly domed spot, pile the debris, compact it
> with a dozer, cover it with the blanket, and set it ablaze. The burn would
> be contained and controlled, minimizing the risk of run-away, while giving a
> clean secondary burn for the off-gas.
>
> I suppose you could also consider covering the debris with earth instead of
> a blanket, but that might result in insufficient oxygen, and also would
> require digging out the ash for disposal.
>
> I've heard that high-temperature ground-burns can destroy the nutritive
> value of the soil. There likely are factors which might make this difficult --
> or even impossible. But perhaps it is worth examining in a disposal crisis.

DD A disposal crisis caused by what? Who was it in 1988 that predicted major
turbulance in the weather caused indirectly by the unrestrained dumping of
specific pollutants in the air? I guess it will take four or five landfalling
major hurricanes in a year before someone admits there is a problem. I just sit
back, grease and oil my snowplows.

>
> Any thoughts, suggestions, critiques from list members?
>
> Vernon Harris
>
>
> DD A year or two ago when a major Hurricane hit Belize, Peter and I
> discussed at length the possibility of a sea going barge mounted charcoal facility
> just for such purposes. Charcoal is the ultimate storable fuel. There is one
> and only one reason that major biomass energy is not in more widespread
> use-continuous government intervention.

DD Lets face facts people, the global banking system is controlled by the
Heirs to the Rockefeller fortune through two banks - Citicorp and Chase. This
was all well documented in Robert Reich's book many years ago. Ever visit
Sonnenburg Gardens? These banks have changed names and merged with others but the
deal is still the same. Will the government allow us to operate without banks
or insurance??
DD Recently, Citicorp re-staked out it's territory controlling all the
domestic banking traffic and Morgan Chase is dominating the all the Global traffic
in currency. If they don't want you to get a loan for your project you don't.
Citicorp made record profits on record bankrupsys - Hmm. How much does a green
machine transaction or computer transfer of funds really cost them? Why
doesn't the government just let them print the funny money themselves already?
DD As long as the wealthy are making a killing holding us all over an oil
barrel, banking transaction, or insurance cost/approval, there is no hope for
alternatives. Except possibly for one purpose - to free ourselves from tyranny
on an independent individual basis.
DD If George Bush was serious about Biomass energy there would be a heck of a
lot of millionaires on this list as well as the others, starting 3 years ago.
That seems pretty obvious to me, like the urban forest for all it's trees.
DD I contributed a wellspring of ideas to these lists after 9-11 hoping that
finally this great country could just once unite and see the energy they were
drowning in. Look what has happened since then?? Total waste!! If we took all
the money spent just on spanking Saddam and put it into immediate development
of alternatives we would be drowning Saddam in his own oil by now. Maybe he'd
die of lonelyness.
DD We supposedly worry someone might get a cough from some sweet woodsmoke
while tens of thousands of our best boys and even school kids are being blown
apart by truck bombs and suicide bombs. What is wrong with this picture people?
Where I come from in O-HI-O this is known as making lousy excuses for dirty
personal favors instead of getting the job done.
DD Sorry to have interrupted this nice conversation with some timely
political rhetoric. I just spent the day on an excavator digging 165 ft of 6" drain
for some unfortunate person with a spring taking over and flooding the
backyard. Once again I was reminded - water is everywhere and it always flows
downhill, just like energy. It just takes some idiot who wants to run a drain into a
concrete curb to silt the darned thing up and cause everybody headaches. Then
we pay the power company to pump uphill what would run downhill by itself if
just left alone. Just like an oil company.
DD I make more money running water downhill and building brick walls to hold
dirt where it always was, than teaching others to grow and harness abundant
solar/ biomass energy for economic growth. What does that say about the state
of mind of the current administration and Congress? I thought we got rid of
our senile King a couple of hundred years ago. Come get me down off the digger,
out of the greenhouse, or up out of the irrigation well when someone in power
is SERIOUS about Biomass energy. I got lots of ideas with all this time to
think. ;-)
Thank you,

Dan Dimiduk Global Patriot.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040903/be1e94da/attachment.html

From robdeutsch at online.com.kh Thu Sep 2 12:49:53 2004
From: robdeutsch at online.com.kh (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:49:53 +0700
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>

Dear Gasers,

I was interested in the practical experience of some of you with adapting IC engines to run on woodgas... someone said that 12:1 compression IC was best, but elsewhere it was suggested that a diesel engine (20:1 is standard I think) with injectors replaced with spark plugs.

What compression ratio is most appropriate?

Robert
Phnom Penh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040903/bc114bfe/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Sep 3 05:53:21 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:53:21 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <012901c491a4$3b0e1820$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear All:

Very high compression diesel engines are regularly used by aspirating producer gas into the intake air and keeping a pilot ignition of ~20% diesel. These engines can run on producer gas or straight diesel. They can also be run on 5% pilot diesel if smaller injectors are substituted, according to the manufacturers, but then you can't return to full diesel operation.

They can also be converted to spark and skip the diesel by attaching electronic ignition to the end of the injector pump.

Prof. Parikh at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay says she believes that there is an optimum CR around 12/1 because gains from higher compression above this are offset by friction losses. I hope she'll make more extensive comments to the GASIFICATION group here.

Yours truly, TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas

Dear Gasers,

What compression ratio is most appropriate?

Robert
Phnom Penh

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

From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Sep 3 07:07:11 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:07:11 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Minimal emission, maximum efficiency combustion
References: <000101c4913b$075d0090$0100a8c0@home>
Message-ID: <013f01c491ae$8c6a99f0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Crispin and All:

For >100,000 years fire has been the human's friend and enemy. Arguably humans could not exist without fire. Cooking is a major extension of the digestion process and makes possible the enormous variety of food we use compared to primates.

For <40 years it has been possible to measure the correct air/fuel ratio for complete combustion of fuels using the stabilized ZrO2 oxygen sensor now on every vehicle and giving a signal changing from >0.7 mv for rich flames and <0.2 mv for lean flames. The availability of these cheap sensors should soon make them mandatory for most industrial combustion processes, including at least some cooking applications. ($50 for those heated by the exhaust, < $1000 for wide band sensors that can measure a linearized signal across the lean-rich transition) Once one knows where complete combustion occurs it is a relatively simple matter to adjust the air/fuel ratio, even by hand.

Unfortunately, those who burn solid fuels often can't afford to put these or the cheaper CO sensors in a chimney or hood above their fires. So we need to use standardized fuels so that we can at least approximate the correct air fuel ratios. Palletizing fuels gives a much more convenient, shippable, storable usable fuel that one can burn much more cleanly. The wood pellet and corn stoves are the tip of the iceberg of clean combustion for heat.

Looking forward to a new level of civilization and health with clean combustion, I remain your truly, J

Thomas Reed BEF etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispin at newdawn.sz>
To: <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: [Stoves] RE:how free are smoke free stoves.

> Dear Stovers
>
> I want to jump on Deans bandwagon of advocating chimneys to solve a lot
> of problems (if the Halifax Hermit didn't shout loudest about it first).
>
> I have had the rare priviledge of having a very advanced piece of
> equipment to analyze combustion and it is just about impossible to tell
> 'from experience' what the pollution is when looking at a fire. Things
> that seem quite normal and 'good' are often dreadful emitters of CO.
>
> I have decided that to train people in the making of the paraffin stove
> (which I will do in Bloemfontein this coming week), which can have huge
> difference in emissions depending on a few minor changes, I will have to
> discuss with the students what to look for in a good flame. I am trying
> to convince myself that one could learn what a clean burning stove
> 'looks like' but it certainly isn't intuitive for me. What the meter
> says is a shock sometimes. There is not a lot of dimensional difference
> between 4500 ppm and 60 ppm CO.
>
> For example last night I was testing how much oxygen was available in
> the stack of the paraffin stove, having reduced the number of 8mm holes
> feeding air from 58 to 43. The flame looked pretty good but there
> simply wasn't enough air getting in = 1% excess oxygen. It was
> starving. Putting in the 58 holes raised O2 to 6% and the CO dropped
> from 4% to 0.03%. I _think_ it will be possible to train people to make
> clean burning stoves, but a chimney solves a number of things and covers
> a number of sins. Making a really clean wood fire takes experience and
> a knowledge of the fuel, which I expect people living in an area for a
> long time to gain. For the rest of us, a chimney isn't such an
> expensive addition.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20040903/d535e7c9/attachment.html

From d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 07:39:04 2004
From: d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk (David Fulford)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:39:04 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
In-Reply-To: <012901c491a4$3b0e1820$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040903131554.03779c70@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>

Dear Tom and All,

The amount of diesel required also depends on the size of the engine.

You need 20% diesel for 5 kW (BHP) engines, to get good smooth running.
Smaller injectors might help, but the amount of diesel injected is
controlled by the injector pump. Most small engines have an automatic
control system that adjusts the diesel volume according to the engine
speed. If gas is introduced into the air stream, the engine speeds up, so
the amount of diesel injected is reduced, until the engine runs steadily
again. The volume of gas into the air supply can be increased until the
diesel supply gets down to about 20%. After that the ignition becomes
erratic and the engine starts misfiring. I had some experience with running
small (slow running) Indian and UK engines on biogas, but their behavior on
producer gas is not that much different.

A 5 MW (BHP) engine (as quoted by landfill gas operators in the UK) only
needs about 5% diesel to give good ignition, so would benefit from the use
of smaller injectors. I am not sure if the relationship between engine size
and % diesel required is linear. I think that a 100 kW engine needs about
10% diesel, but I do not have a valid reference for this. Landfill and
sewage gas operators tend to supercharge both air and gas into the engine,
which increases the brake mean effective pressure, without increasing the
friction losses too much. The use of turbochargers driven by the exhaust
gases reduces the losses further.

regards,

David Fulford

At 04:53 03/09/2004 -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>Very high compression diesel engines are regularly used by aspirating
>producer gas into the intake air and keeping a pilot ignition of ~20%
>diesel. These engines can run on producer gas or straight diesel. They
>can also be run on 5% pilot diesel if smaller injectors are substituted,
>according to the manufacturers, but then you can't return to full diesel
>operation.
>
>They can also be converted to spark and skip the diesel by attaching
>electronic ignition to the end of the injector pump.
>
>Prof. Parikh at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay says she
>believes that there is an optimum CR around 12/1 because gains from higher
>compression above this are offset by friction losses. I hope she'll make
>more extensive comments to the GASIFICATION group here.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:robdeutsch at online.com.kh>Robert Deutsch
>To: <mailto:GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>Gasification
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:49 AM
>Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
>
>Dear Gasers,
>
>I was interested in the practical experience of some of you with adapting
>IC engines to run on woodgas... someone said that 12:1 compression IC was
>best, but elsewhere it was suggested that a diesel engine (20:1 is
>standard I think) with injectors replaced with spark plugs.
>
>What compression ratio is most appropriate?
>
>Robert
>Phnom Penh
>
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

*** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Engineering Building ***
*** School of Construction Management and Engineering ***
*** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
*** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-378 8563, ***
*** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford at Reading.ac.uk ***

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Sep 3 12:17:56 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:17:56 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] A couple of suggestions to the group
Message-ID: <6d.32c7c1df.2e6a0144@aol.com>

Your proposals has been most impressive.

Your experiences in failing to get to serious commercial opportunity has been
similar to mine and some of my clients.

Let me help you better understand how to play.

1. There is now no state with "extra money " Fla has filled in after 911 with
bond money at low interest rates which are going up.

2. the Fed Gov is credit card poor.

3. Risk capital in Fla is invisible and intends to remain so.

There are some very interesting MUST reads for your current Fla Disaster
marketing focus.

You must read the materials of the Ethanol Governor's Coalition and renewable
fuels group. You must read the Michigan Energy Crop 2002 study. You must read
the 1999 and 2004 California Ethanol study and you must read the Energy
Policy act of 1992 and DOE Vision 21 and the 1995 Hawaii Ethanol applications
study.
I also recommend the 1977 book on water by former Democratic Speaker of the
House from Texas Jim Wright. Also the Fla electrical needs study submitted to
the Governor.

Then find a book on current costing of modern oil refineries. How much goes
for each component just like is done in the California study of 2004. Indicate
the waste stream volume and percentage as well. And what you plan to do with
it. Forget landfill. Forget aquifer water. Think agricultural waste and storm
debris ONLY.

Plug in your process and do the engineering costing math with a breakout for
increments of scale from smallest commercial to largest commercial size. If
you can make the equal of the ethanol or syngas, replacement gas or hydrogen or
whatever cheaper and have engineering commercial validation of your process.
You have arrived.

SEND IT TO ME NOW in the format of the California Study cost analysis
spreadsheet for ethanol.

Also indicate are you willing to participate as a joint venture. Do you
guarantee your process and your costing figures? Are you willing to self finance
for a piece of the operation Profits? Are you willing to locate to Fla? Is your
system ISO certified? CARB certified DOE previously funded?

Any EPA testing and certifications?

I expect there are several PE types and Ph.D. type that will need to OK your
numbers engineering as well as proposal before it will even get to RFP stage.

Points for using Fla made Westinghouse high efficiency turbines or
generators.

THE FLA MARKET IS SO LARGE ALL QUALIFYING CAN PARTICIPATE.

I also have similar needs/interest in NC and Mich.

That is in next week u all.
Leonard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040903/70426c03/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Sep 4 01:29:37 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:29:37 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <000b01c49248$8f147640$cc8f58db@newpc>

Robert,

Producer gas engines with spark plugs are ideally 12.5 :1 compression ratio. Dual fuelled diesel engines are O.K. up to 17 :1, but over that you hit get spontaneous ignition taking place. Replacing injectors with spark plugs can run into difficulty if the recess is very deep, causing the plugs to cook and the H.T. leads to burn. Sone conversions I have seen use ceramic lead extensions, but they are expensive and need careful handling.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

What compression ratio is most appropriate?

Robert
Phnom Penh

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040904/ea46db64/attachment.html

From praufast at free.fr Sat Sep 4 10:15:57 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:15:57 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <20040904141518.BCBF21739B1@postfix3-1.free.fr>

Hello ,

Maybe a small blower with ducts blowing over the plugs will cool them enough...
What kind of plugs are the more suitable : hot or cold type ?
I think the hot type keep the heat inside, so less problems with wires.
How long will they whistand a 19:1 compression ratio and is there a recommended brand or type ?
For high CR maybe an injection of a small mist of water wil prevent spontaneous ignition...
And spontaneous ignition is like HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition), the timing could be controlled with water injection, according to load, engine temp., RPM, etc... So no spark-plug needed ? But the injectors will cook if not used, so why not inject a water-diesel emulsion ?
This system is used in marine engines for fuel economy at partial load. A desemulsionner is needed before return to tank.
Diesel will be used for starting, and at small ratio with water to lubricate and cool fuel-pump and injectors.
I think water injection will also work as a bottom cycle, transforming combustion gases lost heat into pressure and more torque, maybe it will reduce derating ?

Anyone has experience with oil microfilter ? They keep the engine oil very clean, intervals between oil change are biggers and engine wear is reduced.
If it work as claimed, it will lower the cost of running a genset.

Philippe Raufast, from France.

>Robert,
>
>Producer gas engines with spark plugs are ideally 12.5 :1 compression ratio. Dual fuelled diesel engines are O.K. up to 17 :1, but over that you hit get spontaneous ignition taking place. Replacing injectors with spark plugs can run into difficulty if the recess is very deep, causing the plugs to cook and the H.T. leads to burn. Sone conversions I have seen use ceramic lead extensions, but they are expensive and need careful handling.
>Doug Williams,
>Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> I was interested in the practical experience of some of you with adapting IC engines to run on woodgas... someone said that 12:1 compression IC was best, but elsewhere it was suggested that a diesel engine (20:1 is standard I think) with injectors replaced with spark plugs.
>
> What compression ratio is most appropriate?
>
> Robert
> Phnom Penh
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From praufast at free.fr Sat Sep 4 12:52:35 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:52:35 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] woodgas cleaning by Sonic Beam Flocculation
Message-ID: <20040904165157.082D81739B5@postfix3-1.free.fr>

Hello !

This thing looks interesting !

Philippe.

SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS & RESEARCH
15262 Pipeline Ln.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone:
PI:
Topic#: (714) 373-5509
Jay B. Cleckler
AF 98-103
Title: Neutralization of Airborne Chemical by Sonic Beam Flocculation
Abstract: The international proliferation of chemical weapons of mass destruction agents has become a very serious threat to national security.. A critical need exists to neutralize airborne chemical agents, in the event of their deliberate, collateral or accidental release. Sonic flocculation is a proven technique that rapidly and efficiently settles airborne droplets, dust and smoke. Intense high frequency sonic fields induce the rapid agglomeration of suspended particulates. The resulting heavier particles rapidly settle from the air to the ground. During Phase I, SARA will perform critical experiments to quantify the sonic frequency and intensity levels required to rapidly (under 30 sec) neutralize airborne fogs and dusts. Simulant materials will be chosen to provide particle sizes and densities comparable to actual specified chemical or biological warfare agents. To achieve sonic flocculation of large air volumes, high energy sources are required (>10's of Kilowatts). SA
RA's High energy acoustic beam weapon technology can significantly exceed these acoustic powers. Our Phase II experiments will be used to design the Phase II test device for critical outdoor (field demonstations). In addition to military application, sonic flocculation can be applied to anti-terrorist missions as well as control of accidental (industrial) releases of hazardous materials.

From bpjackso at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 12:24:42 2004
From: bpjackso at yahoo.com (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
Message-ID: <20040904172442.19279.qmail@web40607.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi,
I have been out in the bush two shifts per day now
that its wood season here. Since the last time I
posted about producer gas engines, I was able to
attend the 37th Buckley Old Engine Show.
I was able to spend a great deal of time watching and
learning about constant volume engines. Seeing as all
my producer gas references are from the era when these
"hit and miss" engines were built, it was a great help
for my comprehension, to actually see them operating.
What facinated me and excited me enough to try and
relate it here on the list, was the underlying concept
with which these engines operate. They don't have
carburetors. They don't change the volume of the
charge entering the cylinder. Hence, constant volume.
So if its a 20 cubic inch engine set to operate with a
18 cubic inch charge then thats what it uses every
time it cycles. Its a stunning concept for someone who
grew up with the switch from carburetors to electronic
engine management. It doesn't take a billion dollars
to develop a constant volume engine because there
isn't a nth dimensional matrix to have to compute for
every engine cycle.
All this really made me realize that using producer
gas in a variable volume engine and saying that it is
"derated" because of the low BTU count of the gas,
doesn't represent the whole story. A variable volume
engine would be derated if it was using a full charge
everytime. They don't though. Thats why they have
vacuum gauges to indicate fuel economy. Under full
vacuum they have a very small volume of charge.
My conclusion is that by opening the throttle plate a
bit more so the machine can accept a bigger charge
will raise the power back to an underated level. The
problem with the conclusion is that I have a few more
hours of work to go before I am able to test the idea.
Anyone know what I am writing about and have you
tested the idea?
Thanks
Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From snkm at btl.net Sat Sep 4 13:35:49 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:35:49 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040904114109.00a95100@pop.btl.net>

At 04:15 PM 9/4/2004 +0100, Philippe Raufast wrote:
>Hello ,

>But the injectors will cook if not used, so why not inject a water-diesel
emulsion?

Aguahol -- also known as "strong-rum" -- 80% alcohol -- 20% water.

Peter / Belize

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Sep 4 17:03:24 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:03:24 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
References: <20040904141518.BCBF21739B1@postfix3-1.free.fr>
Message-ID: <004f01c492cb$0eeac5e0$d58f58db@newpc>

Philippe,

You can do any thing you wish to run engines and devise any number of
ways to improve every describable problem. The type and brand of plus is a
local issue and it's a mater of supply, Platinum plugs made by Champion
were used in the deep seated Ford diesel conversion used by our U.K.
project, but I will have to dig for the actual model number. You seem to
have missed the point of 17 :1 being the maximum practical compression with
out spontaneous ignition taking place.

This discussion really covers engines on producer gas, not variations of
diesel fuelling. Water is the last thing a engine needs except in the
radiator. At least applying to producer gas.

Before Fluidyne made gasifiers, we made engine by-pass oil filters of the
type you refer too. They do have a big effect on engine servicing costs, and
extend both engine and oil life. The element was a toilet roll. We made them
for oil diesel fuel and compressed air.

Oil condition is monitored using the blotter spot test, developed by the
French Navy I do believe. You can see blotter spots on the Fluidyne Archive
under engine oil. www.fluidynenz.250x.com
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

From ktwu at itri.org.tw Mon Sep 6 03:38:47 2004
From: ktwu at itri.org.tw (ktwu at itri.org.tw)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:38:47 +0800
Subject: [Gasification] Syngas co-firing conditions
Message-ID: <OFA55F524B.B6BCB341-ON48256F07.002D504F-48256F07.002F7F40@itri.org.tw>

Dear Listers

The co-firing gasification has been developed well, such as Zeltweg
(Austria), Lahti (Finland), Amer (Netherlands), and Vermont (US).

However, what are the suitable syngas conditions or compositions for
co-firing? Are there any limitations? For example, combustion rate of
hydrogen is very fast, so perhaps there is a limitation concentration of
hydrogen in co-firing syngas to prevent the explosion. Or the heating value
of the syngas is the only thing to be considered?

Injecting steam into gasifier can enhance hydrogen yield. Except that, can
we manipulate the syngas composition in the gasification process as we
like?

Regards,

Keng-Tung
-------------------------
Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Biomass Energy Laboratory
Industrial Technology Research Institute
TAIWAN, ROC

From praufast at free.fr Mon Sep 6 06:12:18 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:12:18 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Burner in reduction zone
Message-ID: <20040906101139.2F2C5182017@postfix4-1.free.fr>

Hello,

Is it a good idea to put in the reduction zone a burner with a rich fuel / air ratio ?
The extra heat will improve the reduction reactions and most of the tars wil be cracked ?
What about the gas heating value ?
Does it work and what are the drawbacks ?

Regards, Philippe.

From praufast at free.fr Mon Sep 6 06:12:07 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:12:7 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] How many liters of air are required to gasify 1 kg
of wood ?
Message-ID: <20040906101128.F40921841A7@postfix4-1.free.fr>

Hello,

How many liters of air are required to gasify 1 kg of wood ?

Regards, Philippe.

From praufast at free.fr Mon Sep 6 06:12:26 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:12:26 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Afterburning Ericsson Cycle Engine
Message-ID: <20040906101147.25305181861@postfix4-1.free.fr>

Hello,

The Afterburning Ericsson Cycle Engine is and open cycle hot air engine, external combustion.
No need to cool the hot producer gas, so the overall efficiency will be improved .

http://209.238.233.132/

Hear it run : http://www.proepowersystems.com/HRPG_Test.wma

Regards, philippe.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Sep 6 08:44:39 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:44:39 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040906074319.00ac3100@pop.btl.net>

>At 03:01 PM 9/6/2004 +0100, Philippe Raufast wrote:

>but none are lubricants and the high-pressure diesel pump will seize...

Brake fluid?? (Aguahol and veggie oil)

One can also carburete aguahol into the diesel air intake -- that is being
done now -- for dual fueling. 80% aguahol (by carbureting) -- 20% diesel
(by injection)

So -- tri-fueling??

Mostly producer gas -- some aguahol -- and a very little oil by injection
for charge ignition.

Oil can be diesel or veggie.

If veggie -- then you are having a totally green-machine. Or -- a totally
none petroleum product dependent power.

Sound complicated -- but in reality -- addition of one small carburator to
intake stream -- installing small injectors. Maybe one extra butterfly valve.

At 03:01 PM 9/6/2004 +0100, Philippe Raufast wrote:
>>At 04:15 PM 9/4/2004 +0100, Philippe Raufast wrote:
>>>Hello ,
>>
>>>But the injectors will cook if not used, so why not inject a water-diesel
>>emulsion?
>>
>>
>>Aguahol -- also known as "strong-rum" -- 80 alcohol -- 20 water.
>
>but none are lubricants and the high-pressure diesel pump will seize...
>>
>>Peter / Belize
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Mon Sep 6 09:13:42 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:13:42 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Afterburning Ericsson Cycle Engine
In-Reply-To: <20040906101147.25305181861@postfix4-1.free.fr>
Message-ID: <000001c4941b$b791f3c0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Good day all !!

Philippe, I have to say, that is some engine, I listened to the WMA file of
it running, and noticed the following:

1) It's "angle of ignition" (within 360 deg.) is somewhat like a Wisconsin
TJD (not other 2 cyl. Wisconsin's, as they are 180 deg each cyl.)

2) The "higher pitched" wiper sound, I would assume is the exhaust sound,
after the heat recovery section, giving rise to an assumption that the
prototype has parts that would not last for a long time, but it's only a
prototype anyhow.

3) In the WMA file I hear the engine "miss" 3 times (about 1/3, 2/3 & 3/3's
of the way through the file, as well as once it almost stalls. (NOTE: this
is NOT a bad thing, simply an observation of a prototype, that's all.... :)

I wish I could get any of my engines to run that smooth !!

Happy fall, all ! (Or spring, I guess)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Philippe
Raufast
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 6:12 AM
To: Gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Afterburning Ericsson Cycle Engine

Hello,

The Afterburning Ericsson Cycle Engine is and open cycle hot air engine,
external combustion.
No need to cool the hot producer gas, so the overall efficiency will be
improved .

http://209.238.233.132/

Hear it run : http://www.proepowersystems.com/HRPG_Test.wma

Regards, philippe.

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

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Mon Sep 6 09:25:41 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:25:41 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <20040904172442.19279.qmail@web40607.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000101c4941d$63ed6040$1900a8c0@a31server>

Yet again, good day all !!

Bruce, my two cents worth...

I think the issue of "opening the throttle a bit more" would give rise to
one overly simple problem, of what would happen to the gasifiers operating
vacuum.

Hold on, I am speaking from the following aspect, most gasifers that I have
worked with are down draught, and any that have been connected to an engine,
have used the engine as the "draw" system for the gasifier (after initial
startup plume).

I guess one could install an external pump of sorts between the gasifier &
the engine, but that might open an entire other "can of worms" due to
something up stream of the engine now having a pressure differential...

Best wishes,

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Bruce
Jackson
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:25 PM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From luizmagri at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 11:38:27 2004
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <000101c4941d$63ed6040$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20040906163827.36483.qmail@web11706.mail.yahoo.com>

I think there is also another point to be clarified on
whether there is or there isn?t room for the mentioned
"underating by dethrothling". As far as I know, IC
engines are usually designed in order to provide as
low as possible pressure drop in the inlet manifold.
So that it would be little to do in the way of
increasing air flow.

For a fixed air flow, there is no doubt that the lower
the PCI (or rather - the PCI "corrected" for the
air-fuel ratio since the stoichiometry also varies
among the fuels), the lower the power.

Luiz Magri
Rio de Janeiro

--- a31ford <a31ford at inetlink.ca> wrote:

> Yet again, good day all !!
>
> Bruce, my two cents worth...
>
> I think the issue of "opening the throttle a bit
> more" would give rise to
> one overly simple problem, of what would happen to
> the gasifiers operating
> vacuum.
>
> Hold on, I am speaking from the following aspect,
> most gasifers that I have
> worked with are down draught, and any that have been
> connected to an engine,
> have used the engine as the "draw" system for the
> gasifier (after initial
> startup plume).
>
> I guess one could install an external pump of sorts
> between the gasifier &
> the engine, but that might open an entire other "can
> of worms" due to
> something up stream of the engine now having a
> pressure differential...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Greg Manning,
>
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On
> Behalf Of Bruce
> Jackson
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine
> revisited...
>
>
> Hi,
> I have been out in the bush two shifts per day now
> that its wood season here. Since the last time I
> posted about producer gas engines, I was able to
> attend the 37th Buckley Old Engine Show.
> I was able to spend a great deal of time watching
> and
> learning about constant volume engines. Seeing as
> all
> my producer gas references are from the era when
> these
> "hit and miss" engines were built, it was a great
> help
> for my comprehension, to actually see them
> operating.
> What facinated me and excited me enough to try and
> relate it here on the list, was the underlying
> concept
> with which these engines operate. They don't have
> carburetors. They don't change the volume of the
> charge entering the cylinder. Hence, constant
> volume.
> So if its a 20 cubic inch engine set to operate with
> a
> 18 cubic inch charge then thats what it uses every
> time it cycles. Its a stunning concept for someone
> who
> grew up with the switch from carburetors to
> electronic
> engine management. It doesn't take a billion dollars
> to develop a constant volume engine because there
> isn't a nth dimensional matrix to have to compute
> for
> every engine cycle.
> All this really made me realize that using producer
> gas in a variable volume engine and saying that it
> is
> "derated" because of the low BTU count of the gas,
> doesn't represent the whole story. A variable volume
> engine would be derated if it was using a full
> charge
> everytime. They don't though. Thats why they have
> vacuum gauges to indicate fuel economy. Under full
> vacuum they have a very small volume of charge.
> My conclusion is that by opening the throttle plate
> a
> bit more so the machine can accept a bigger charge
> will raise the power back to an underated level. The
> problem with the conclusion is that I have a few
> more
> hours of work to go before I am able to test the
> idea.
> Anyone know what I am writing about and have you
> tested the idea?
> Thanks
> Bruce Jackson
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Sep 6 16:55:10 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:55:10 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
References: <000101c4941d$63ed6040$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <001101c4945c$692a52e0$d18f58db@newpc>

Greg and Bruce

If you are running an engine on producer gas then the issue of derating of
power is a non issue, because it only compares power output between one fuel
and another. If producer gas is your fuel then you have a producer gas
engine with an output related to the volumetric capacity of the cylinder and
the calorific value of the gas.

The old hit and miss engines I assume refer to the engines that had a speed
governor controlling the magneto ignition circuit, so that it misfired to
keep the speed under control. For sure the exhaust emission would be quite
illegal in the regulated climate that exists around engine operations today.

All engines have the ability to operate without any throttle controlling the
inlet fuel, but if you do that you have to then have some way of exerting a
load on the engine to soak up all the energy. Without a load, the engine
would just go into some level of maximum rpm limited by fuel flows into the
engine. The last CHP engine generator system we installed in Germany was set
up just like this with the engine able to run flat out generating as much
load as it could with the control system being part of the grid connection.
It was interesting to see the electrical load slightly fluctuating in a
regular manner to match the cyclic behaviour of the gas making process in
the gasifier.

Within reason the gasifier should respond to load change or increased rpm of
the engine without hesitation. If the gasifier is set up to operate at a
fixed output, and incorporates incorrect proportions of the gas making
zones, the quality of the gas will droop until the increased temperature of
the higher input air flow provides the exothermic heat, to drive the
endothermic heat of the reduction zone. The engine droop should then restore
to the higher output. Some gasifiers do have a suction fan between the
gasifier and engine and are used to over come the pressure drop of the
gasifier system that can increase slowly reducing the gas flow. It's really
a case of adding another component instead of fixing what amounts to be a
design fault.

Hope this helps.

Doug Williams.
Fluidyne Gasification.

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Sep 6 20:48:05 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:48:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you for the answer. Just got my power
restored.
Message-ID: <64.43720bb7.2e6e6d55@aol.com>

Thank you for the answer

Since the debris from Francis Charlie and daily vegetative waste streams is
already picked up and transported to my county landfill and a fee of 45 dollars
a ton is paid to get rid of it I don't have that problem. It does cost the
county $170,000 per cell to landfill all that free energy, however.

Hello --

Your question as to, "Why not use debris?" -- generally has an all too simple
answer -- collection and transportation costs -- unfortunately this is almost
always the reason why, without substantial subsidies -- most biomass energy
projects, those that require the above, are unprofitable.

Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040906/9d16809c/attachment.html

From mittaln at iitb.ac.in Tue Sep 7 06:28:23 2004
From: mittaln at iitb.ac.in (NEERAJ MITTAL)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:58:23 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [Gasification] UNSUBSCRIBE me from list
Message-ID: <58365.10.209.4.1.1094556503.squirrel@gpoext.iitb.ac.in>

Dear Sir,

Please unsubscribe me from the listserv.repp.org. I'll be thankful.

Neeraj

From mittaln at iitb.ac.in Tue Sep 7 06:28:44 2004
From: mittaln at iitb.ac.in (NEERAJ MITTAL)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:58:44 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [Gasification] UNSUBSCRIBE me from list
Message-ID: <41777.10.209.4.2.1094556524.squirrel@gpoext.iitb.ac.in>

Dear Sir,

Please unsubscribe me from the listserv.repp.org. I'll be thankful.

Neeraj

From praufast at free.fr Tue Sep 7 07:46:02 2004
From: praufast at free.fr (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:46:2 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] DIY Electrostatic precipitator
Message-ID: <20040907114521.05CBA173A1C@postfix3-1.free.fr>

>" It works fine for
stationary operations but if the chain swings off line there is the usual
cascade of sparks and over heated power supplies. And, if you think that
you can tie the thing down by applying some tension at the bottom you will
be frustrated by the moisture causing flashover of that bottom insulator.
And be warned you will even have problems in keeping the top insulator clean
and dry as well! I will try again to find the conference proceedings that
the paper is in, but for the meantime happy dreams and schemes. Ken C.
"
---------------

Hello,
I think the chain can be replaced with a small roll of chicken wire, so it will be rigid and have a greater surface area.
It can be fixed on the central rod of a 40 000 V powerline glass insulator .
For the HV generator look for Tesla coils schematics.

Regards, Philippe Raufast.

From bpjackso at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 14:42:57 2004
From: bpjackso at yahoo.com (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Doug, to clarify about "hit and miss" engines
Message-ID: <20040907194257.58465.qmail@web40614.mail.yahoo.com>

Doug,
You and I have been making the wrong assumption about
the "hit and miss" engines all along.
They are constant volume engines. That is, when they
fire, they fire a fixed charge. A constant volume of
charge. To govern the speed they vary the number of
times that they fire per a given number of
revolutions. They do this by opening the exhaust valve
and not pulling in any fresh charge. They don't simply
not fire the plug. Because some of them had hot tube
ignitions there was no way to not engage the ignition
system.
As far as emissions, well you can figure out as well
as I can that it must have worked well seeing as
Chrysler is doing this to their 300C and the Dodge
Magnum. Although in this case they are deactivating
four cylinders.
later,
BPJ

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

From bpjackso at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 15:09:07 2004
From: bpjackso at yahoo.com (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] I got some time for a test!
Message-ID: <20040907200907.84554.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi!
Well, I got the producer hooked up to the generator
and gave it a test. The generator would not run with
the gas shut off. I tried a lit match in the intake
pipe and it went right out. I think the gas wasn't
flammable.
What I did...
I filled up the producer with cardboard, bark, and
maple splinters. I lit it at the base and closed the
door after the fire was going. Then I closed the top.
A thick yellow white smoke issued from the leaks
around the top.
With the generator running on gasoline, I attached
the outlet from the gasifier filter. I let the engine
suck from the filter until I felt the filter outlet
begin to warm up. Then I shut off the gasoline. Once
the gasoline was up, no amount of adjusting the air
mixture valve would allow the engine to run. It simply
bogged down and stopped.
So I am not real sure where to go from here.
My next idea was to use a computor fan to pull gas
through the producer and waft it over a flame. Then I
could see if and when the gas became flammable.
Ideas?
My rig is similiar to that described in the F.E.M.A.
phamphlet. Down draft suction, filtering through
sawdust then through a big Catepillar air filter.
Thanks, Bruce Jackson

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Tue Sep 7 15:56:08 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:56:08 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <001101c4945c$692a52e0$d18f58db@newpc>
References: <000101c4941d$63ed6040$1900a8c0@a31server>
<001101c4945c$692a52e0$d18f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <a08sj09iusrs2410di3pcqs1j3ro8q1gu1@4ax.com>

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:55:10 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:

>Greg and Bruce
>
>If you are running an engine on producer gas then the issue of derating of
>power is a non issue, because it only compares power output between one fuel
>and another. If producer gas is your fuel then you have a producer gas
>engine with an output related to the volumetric capacity of the cylinder and
>the calorific value of the gas.

Fine, if we are talking about a spark ignition engine then this is
related to the volumetric efficiency (how much stoichiometric mix you
can cram in) and how much you pressurise it before adding heat
(compression ratio before spark or detonation if you have it wrong).
The heat per charge is the limiting factor all other things being
equal.
>
>The old hit and miss engines I assume refer to the engines that had a speed
>governor controlling the magneto ignition circuit, so that it misfired to
>keep the speed under control. For sure the exhaust emission would be quite
>illegal in the regulated climate that exists around engine operations today.

I thought this about hit and miss engines until Bruce's post prompted
me to look at one and ask a question on an old engine enthusiasts
group.

In fact they are not as crude as that and are a good compromise when
strict speed control is not necessary (with modern electronic
switching this relevant for small scale electricity generation).

These engines had massive flywheels and hence energy was stored for a
number of revolutions. There would be a mechanical hysteresis set
between the governor stopping power production and then restarting it.
In the past the control was by overriding the exhaust cam and holding
the valve open. As Bruce says this has big advantages for volumetric
efficiency. As for managing the depression on the gasifier I don't
know, I have never been involved in connecting a reciprocating engine
to run on biomass ;-), but average demand will remain the same as a
throttled engine, it's the engine efficiency that changes.

I know from a grabbed conversation, at a wedding reception with an
employee of Ricardo, 4 years ago, that Daimler Benz were looking at a
refinement of this sort of management system on their luxury car V8s.

Talking to these old engine collectors I realise that there were a
number of elegant solutions to specific engine requirements which we
have bypassed in our acceptance of high speed ci and si engines.

AJH

From santo at poczta.fm Tue Sep 7 16:30:55 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:30:55 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] I got some time for a test!
In-Reply-To: <20040907200907.84554.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040907200907.84554.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <475866962.20040907233055@poczta.fm>

B> Ideas?

From what I've read (not having time to build my own FEMA-gasifier,
but surely will do it soon) I suggest:
- use a blower to suck out the gas from the gasifier until it is
flammable (I can't tell from your email if you checked the gas for
being flammable),
- then try to start the engine.

If it doesn't work, perhaps adjusting ignition advance or compression
ratio will do?

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal INTERIA.PL zaprasza... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f17cb

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Tue Sep 7 18:06:58 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:06:58 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <a08sj09iusrs2410di3pcqs1j3ro8q1gu1@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <000801c4952f$60d57560$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello Graeme, Andrew and all.....

I got onboard this versation, simply because of my latest venture into my
conversion to the v8's we are doing, However, I will be the first to
admit.... I have no idea of what I'm talking about :) but would like to
learn.

I see Bruce is having problems... can we help him, and I can learn also ??

The reason I'm saying this is.... my burner unit worked great ! HOWEVER....
I'm having somewhat the same problem Bruce is... when it comes to running an
Engine...

NOTE: I can get it running, but for an unknown reason, the engine will quit
(NOT at the same time or point within operation), the gas stream is still
functional, as I incorporated a "low" RPM level plume fan startup as a
backup function to protect the gasifier incase of this exact problem...

Anyone have any ideas as to what is causing it? It is completely random in
nature, sometimes the engine will run for 5 min, other times 3 hours, has me
totally baffled !

Regards,

Greg Manning,

Brandon,Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Andrew
Heggie
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 3:56 PM
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:55:10 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:

>Greg and Bruce
>
>If you are running an engine on producer gas then the issue of derating of
>power is a non issue, because it only compares power output between one
fuel
>and another. If producer gas is your fuel then you have a producer gas
>engine with an output related to the volumetric capacity of the cylinder
and
>the calorific value of the gas.

I thought this about hit and miss engines until Bruce's post prompted
me to look at one and ask a question on an old engine enthusiasts
group.

In fact they are not as crude as that and are a good compromise when
strict speed control is not necessary (with modern electronic
switching this relevant for small scale electricity generation).

AJH

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

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Tue Sep 7 18:15:10 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:15:10 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
References: <000801c4952f$60d57560$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <019901c49530$87bf0c30$169a0a40@kevin>

Dear Greg

Sorry to hear about your bafflement.

Are there any measurements you can take that would potentially give an
insight into what is happening?

For example, can you watch the temperature of the gas as it comes off the
gasifier? You might have periodic slugs of wet wood or particularly dry
wood, that can be detected by gasifier output temperature. This could change
the calorific value of the gasifier product.

Can you do a gas analysis? You may also have insufficient air in the system,
bringing you below the lower explosibility limit. Or perhaps too much.

Best wishes,

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...

> Hello Graeme, Andrew and all.....
>
> I got onboard this versation, simply because of my latest venture into my
> conversion to the v8's we are doing, However, I will be the first to
> admit.... I have no idea of what I'm talking about :) but would like to
> learn.
>
> I see Bruce is having problems... can we help him, and I can learn also ??
>
> The reason I'm saying this is.... my burner unit worked great !
HOWEVER....
> I'm having somewhat the same problem Bruce is... when it comes to running
an
> Engine...
>
> NOTE: I can get it running, but for an unknown reason, the engine will
quit
> (NOT at the same time or point within operation), the gas stream is still
> functional, as I incorporated a "low" RPM level plume fan startup as a
> backup function to protect the gasifier incase of this exact problem...
>
> Anyone have any ideas as to what is causing it? It is completely random in
> nature, sometimes the engine will run for 5 min, other times 3 hours, has
me
> totally baffled !
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Manning,
>
> Brandon,Manitoba, Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Heggie
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 3:56 PM
> To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:55:10 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:
>
> >Greg and Bruce
> >
> >If you are running an engine on producer gas then the issue of derating
of
> >power is a non issue, because it only compares power output between one
> fuel
> >and another. If producer gas is your fuel then you have a producer gas
> >engine with an output related to the volumetric capacity of the cylinder
> and
> >the calorific value of the gas.
>
> Fine, if we are talking about a spark ignition engine then this is
> related to the volumetric efficiency (how much stoichiometric mix you
> can cram in) and how much you pressurise it before adding heat
> (compression ratio before spark or detonation if you have it wrong).
> The heat per charge is the limiting factor all other things being
> equal.
> >
> >The old hit and miss engines I assume refer to the engines that had a
speed
> >governor controlling the magneto ignition circuit, so that it misfired to
> >keep the speed under control. For sure the exhaust emission would be
quite
> >illegal in the regulated climate that exists around engine operations
> today.
>
> I thought this about hit and miss engines until Bruce's post prompted
> me to look at one and ask a question on an old engine enthusiasts
> group.
>
> In fact they are not as crude as that and are a good compromise when
> strict speed control is not necessary (with modern electronic
> switching this relevant for small scale electricity generation).
>
> These engines had massive flywheels and hence energy was stored for a
> number of revolutions. There would be a mechanical hysteresis set
> between the governor stopping power production and then restarting it.
> In the past the control was by overriding the exhaust cam and holding
> the valve open. As Bruce says this has big advantages for volumetric
> efficiency. As for managing the depression on the gasifier I don't
> know, I have never been involved in connecting a reciprocating engine
> to run on biomass ;-), but average demand will remain the same as a
> throttled engine, it's the engine efficiency that changes.
>
> I know from a grabbed conversation, at a wedding reception with an
> employee of Ricardo, 4 years ago, that Daimler Benz were looking at a
> refinement of this sort of management system on their luxury car V8s.
>
> Talking to these old engine collectors I realise that there were a
> number of elegant solutions to specific engine requirements which we
> have bypassed in our acceptance of high speed ci and si engines.
>
> AJH
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 gjahnke at birch.net Tue Sep 7 19:27:38 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:27:38 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] I got some time for a test!
References: <20040907200907.84554.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001301c07b67$c5505cc0$a628d4d8@shop>

> Hi!
> Well, I got the producer hooked up to the generator
> and gave it a test. The generator would not run with
> the gas shut off. I tried a lit match in the intake
> pipe and it went right out. I think the gas wasn't
> flammable.
> What I did...
> I filled up the producer with cardboard, bark, and
> maple splinters. I lit it at the base and closed the
> door after the fire was going. Then I closed the top.
> A thick yellow white smoke issued from the leaks
> around the top.

First off, make sure that you have good gasifier operation. Empty out the
gasifier and put charcoal in (not the glued together stuff in a kingsford
bag, real charcoal) forget about the engine for now, first step is to make
sure you are making good gas. Find a blower to connect to your line
(computer fan is probably not big enough).

It sounds like an air problem to me (either too much or too little....I
would guess too little)

> With the generator running on gasoline, I attached
> the outlet from the gasifier filter. I let the engine
> suck from the filter until I felt the filter outlet
> begin to warm up. Then I shut off the gasoline. Once
> the gasoline was up, no amount of adjusting the air
> mixture valve would allow the engine to run. It simply
> bogged down and stopped.
> So I am not real sure where to go from here.
> My next idea was to use a computor fan to pull gas
> through the producer and waft it over a flame. Then I
> could see if and when the gas became flammable.
> Ideas?
> My rig is similiar to that described in the F.E.M.A.
> phamphlet. Down draft suction, filtering through
> sawdust then through a big Catepillar air filter.
> Thanks, Bruce Jackson

Is the fema phaphlet you are referring to the same as the gengas unit? You
are on the right track with the computer fan idea, just probably need a
bigger blower than that.

From gjahnke at birch.net Tue Sep 7 19:55:26 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:55:26 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
References: <000801c4952f$60d57560$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <001901c07b6b$a98114e0$a628d4d8@shop>

> I got onboard this versation, simply because of my latest venture into my
> conversion to the v8's we are doing, However, I will be the first to
> admit.... I have no idea of what I'm talking about :) but would like to
> learn.

I have mostly used Chevy straight 6's (easy to fabricate manifolds and
designed for continuous duty), but the theory is the same

> The reason I'm saying this is.... my burner unit worked great !
HOWEVER....
> I'm having somewhat the same problem Bruce is... when it comes to running
an
> Engine...

You are certian that you are producing flammable gas though, right?

> NOTE: I can get it running, but for an unknown reason, the engine will
quit
> (NOT at the same time or point within operation), the gas stream is still
> functional, as I incorporated a "low" RPM level plume fan startup as a
> backup function to protect the gasifier incase of this exact problem...

How does the engine quite? Does it chug to death? Does it start to diesel
when it dies? Does it just turn off like somebody turned off the key? Does
it heat up before it dies? Can you re-start it immediatly after it dies, or
do you have to wait until it cools off? Does it make funny noises when it
dies (I have seen gear type timing setups seize when they heat up and clunk
the engine to a stop)?

> Anyone have any ideas as to what is causing it? It is completely random in
> nature, sometimes the engine will run for 5 min, other times 3 hours, has
me
> totally baffled !

How sure are you of the engine? It sounds like an engine problem more than
a gasifier problem. Specifically, it sounds like an ignition coil going
bad, or, in the case of an electronic ignition (coil inside the cap), an
ignition module going bad. Both these (coil or module) can cause
unpredictable engine shutdowns if they are going out. Sometimes they even
test good when cool, but when they start to heat up have unpredictable
failures. I had a classic nova that had this very problem and it kept me
guessing for over a month until a buddy talked me into replacing the coil
even though it tested good. It would sometimes run all day with no problem,
and sometimes die after running for 5 minutes.

It could also be a timing problem. If the load on the engine changes and
kicks a bad vacuum advance unit wrong, it can sometimes kill your engine (I
have never personally seen this, but have heard people swear that this is
the case).

Final question (and not really related):

Just out of curiousity, why did you choose a 350? I'm sorry if you have
answered that before, I just recently realised that the gasification list
was being blocked by my spam blocking software and automatically being
deleted (I thought the list had died).

And finally a tip:

I don't know if it will work on a 350, but on a straight 6, you can put
several flywheels on the back of the engine together, just use longer bolts
to hold them. This takes up some of the shock from starting large loads. I
started doing this when I realised that I could re-gear connection to a
5.14-1 and still run my 25 KW alternator just fine.

Also, if you don't have a governer set up yet, a cruise control unit from an
early 80's chevy pickup works well. It is driven directly off the
transmission (as opposed to the ones that use engine vacuum to determine
correct setting) and is very accurate. You can simply change the gear on
the end of the cable to one that will mesh with the gears on your flywheel
and then set the speed (rpm's) you need. It will take a little playing with
to get it set just right, but once it is, it is very dependable.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Sep 7 20:03:13 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:03:13 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
References: <000801c4952f$60d57560$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <002701c4953f$9fcff1e0$dc8f58db@newpc>

Greg,
If you still have combustible gas at the gas flare, then I would pick that
the gas /air mix is moving away from the correct ratio. Usually the best
gas comes first right after start up, then it drops away as heat soaking of
the gasifier takes place. The gas quality then starts to improve and
everything settles down.

Start the engine when the gas burns steady,then leave it run slightly faster
than idle. Possibly you are running to fast to soon and consuming the
reduction charcoal and a lot of CO2 is coming through. Stand by the mixer
control to adjust if you hear the sound change even slightly until the
gasifier is up to operating temperature. If you don't have a really good
fan, get one. Gasifiers need real fans not computer accessories
Regards,
Doug Williams.

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Sep 7 23:24:21 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 06:24:21 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <001901c07b6b$a98114e0$a628d4d8@shop>
References: <000801c4952f$60d57560$1900a8c0@a31server>
<001901c07b6b$a98114e0$a628d4d8@shop>
Message-ID: <20040908062421.6176035c.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:13:09 -0600, Greg wrote in message
<001901c07b6b$a98114e0$a628d4d8 at shop>:

> And finally a tip:
>
> I don't know if it will work on a 350, but on a straight 6, you can
> put several flywheels on the back of the engine together, just use
> longer bolts

...and a torque converter (to scare off those fancy crankshaft
harmonics ;-) )...

> to hold them. This takes up some of the shock from starting large
> loads. I started doing this when I realised that I could re-gear
> connection to a 5.14-1 and still run my 25 KW alternator just fine.
>
>
> Also, if you don't have a governer set up yet, a cruise control unit
> from an early 80's chevy pickup works well. It is driven directly off
> the transmission (as opposed to the ones that use engine vacuum to
> determine correct setting) and is very accurate. You can simply
> change the gear on the end of the cable to one that will mesh with the
> gears on your flywheel and then set the speed (rpm's) you need. It
> will take a little playing with to get it set just right, but once it
> is, it is very dependable.

--
..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 Tue Sep 7 23:36:43 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:36:43 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <002701c4953f$9fcff1e0$dc8f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <000b01c4955d$71fe87e0$1900a8c0@a31server>

My Reply is to Both Graeme & Greg, and hello to the rest.

Both of you are on track so far, I've found two Issues that I've only had
time to remedy one.

Greg, yes it's an HEI style distributor, and low & behold, the famous
"reluctor trigger coil harness" is partially at fault, I had simply pulled
the vacuum line from the side of the distributor and TADA ! the engine died,
upon closer inspection with an ohm meter, the trigger coil leads would make
connection only most of the time, it was simply a fluke that I found it so
quickly.

Graeme, After the above fix, the engine dies on a regular basis now, about
1 and 1/2 hours into a burn, the plume fan will come on, and I can restart
right away, but must adjust the ratio to get it to run (thought it was me,
but now I see that it's the gas content that is changing).

P.S. the plume system uses a coil based ignition system to start the plume,
once the low RPM warning is triggered, the plume is continuously hit 5 times
a second with an arc, until the low RPM condition is remedied (sounds an
alarm in the house also).

I would assume that the gas content is not as good as last fall's but still
good enough to run a plume, but not an engine...

will look further into this issue..

ON A SIDE NOTE: Greg, the V8's where what I had, and I've got 2 of them,
(only one running at a time), both are clutched to a dual underdrive
combiner gearbox (chaindrive box) with the thinking that one can be quickly
be taken out of service for cleaning/renew, as required. (clutches & ball
valves for a switch-over).

The working engine will run 2100rpm, reduced via chaindrive to 1800rpm (4
pole generator), all in all, so far other than the hair pulling start, the
project is going good, the generator is a 40KWe 120/220Vac Kohler unit, that
is "on loan" so far for a 2 year prototype test bed.

The 350's are also H in CHP, giving heated water, both from water jacket &
marine style exhaust. the water is used for shop & house heating, the
electric will be used for the "main" power source with the local grid now
becoming the "backup" (except the electric furnace, DHW hotwater tank, and
the electric cooking range, these 3 items will stay on the grid), as the
generator is not large enough for them, and the furnace would be the backup
for gasifier failure anyhow. The balance is on a manual 200A switch-over
that is bigger than the generator itself !

As well, exhaust gases are used in an "air to air" heat exchanger to warm
incoming gasifier 1st & 2nd burn air, as well as engine air (remember it
gets to be minus 50c here, so as the outdoor temp falls, the exhaust
exchanger is used somewhat like a HVAC "makeup air" system, simply to get
the air up to some reasonable temp before being used in the gasifier.

Last but not least, the wood chips are semi-heated on the final exchanger,
again, simply so they are not "ice" when entering the gasifier via the 4"
auger.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Williams [mailto:graeme at powerlink.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 8:03 PM
To: a31ford
Cc: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Sep 7 23:46:32 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 06:46:32 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] I got some time for a test!
In-Reply-To: <001301c07b67$c5505cc0$a628d4d8@shop>
References: <20040907200907.84554.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>
<001301c07b67$c5505cc0$a628d4d8@shop>
Message-ID: <20040908064632.3de9054d.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:45:17 -0600, Greg wrote in message
<001301c07b67$c5505cc0$a628d4d8 at shop>:

> > Hi!
> > Well, I got the producer hooked up to the generator
> > and gave it a test. The generator would not run with
> > the gas shut off. I tried a lit match in the intake
> > pipe and it went right out. I think the gas wasn't
> > flammable.
> > What I did...
> > I filled up the producer with cardboard, bark, and
> > maple splinters. I lit it at the base and closed the
> > door after the fire was going. Then I closed the top.
> > A thick yellow white smoke issued from the leaks
> > around the top.
>
> First off, make sure that you have good gasifier operation. Empty out
> the gasifier and put charcoal in (not the glued together stuff in a
> kingsford bag, real charcoal) forget about the engine for now, first
> step is to make sure you are making good gas. Find a blower to
> connect to your line(computer fan is probably not big enough).

..a gutted vacuum cleaner in an airtight-n-piped bucket will do fine
feeding a flare. Flare head: any good shoot gun makes nice holes in a
bucket, jam the vacuum cleaner pipe thru the 2'nd largest hole and point
it straight up, rig a blow torch stand so it blows a wee nice flame into
the flare head (from below, or it'll blow up). Now light up the blow
torch, turn on the bucket motor and light up your gasifier. Once the
blue flame grows up, remove the blow torch, and try start your engine.

> It sounds like an air problem to me (either too much or too
> little....I would guess too little)
>
> > With the generator running on gasoline, I attached
> > the outlet from the gasifier filter. I let the engine
> > suck from the filter until I felt the filter outlet
> > begin to warm up.

..huh? You _are_ cooling the gas?

> > Then I shut off the gasoline. Once the gasoline was up, no amount of
> > adjusting the air mixture valve would allow the engine to run. It
> > simply bogged down and stopped.

..no gas cooling, no surprise.

--
..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 Wed Sep 8 00:02:46 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 00:02:46 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] CHP Engine Governors
Message-ID: <000c01c49561$157b6070$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hi All !!

This is a continuation of what Greg Jankie was telling/asking me about on my
usage of governors.

Greg, I thought about that exact 80's chevy cruise control, but opted for
the older tractor "Flyball" style system, simply because of simplicity and
the fact of direct connection to the throttle assy.

In a "flyball" system it assumes WOT (Wide Open Thottle) at anything below a
preset point (generally under 400 rpm) as the 400 to FGS (Full Governed
Speed) area is generally quite a small RPM area on a long stroke tractor
engine, I felt this would be ideal for my application. (anything over the
400 rpm breakpoint, the unit only slightly adjusts the throttle), once the
low RPM sensor detects anything under 400, the throttle valve assy is
controlled via a Honeywell "Modutrol" unit, that overrides the governor's
setting, and completely closes the throttle so no air returns up the plume
tube.

Other than the problem of gasifier gas contents that I'm currently having an
issue with, I would say the "flyball" style unit is a great cheap unit for
this application.

Don't get me wrong, my system has many forms of electronic
control/failsafe/alarm utilization, but being an old M-M tractor fan, I
again, had them (the governors) around, whereas I would have to outsource
the 80's style cruise control units.

BTW (By The Way), I'm using Propane for engine starts, as the timing is so
close...... what method are you using ??

Regards,

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz Wed Sep 8 10:32:31 2004
From: ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz (=?Windows-1252?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?=)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:32:31 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?
Message-ID: <004d01c495b9$15b88880$4f42ed82@mse.kth.se>

GlacierDear Collegaues,

I am interested in shearing this subject with you: it seems that cashewnut shell liquid (CNSL) is most valuable than the cashewnut shell as fuel. Further, CNSL is referred as most closer to petroleum fuels, it is, CNSL has a calorific value comparable to oil products.

Given these facts, would it be an economically sound option gasifying CNSL to generate fuel gas for different purposes like power generation in the rural areas?

I know that in India, there has been a couple of studies on pyrolysis of CNS as well as the production of bio-oil from CNS. Can we discuss this subject?

I am from Mozambique, and I would appreciate any contruibution around this issue as people are just burning it in an opena fire as a "low quality" energy source and for marginal purposes.

________________________________________________
Alberto J?lio Tsamba
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
Faculdade de Engenharia
Dept. de Engenharia Qu?mica
Cx. Postal 257 Avenida de Mo?ambique, km 1,5
Maputo MO?AMBIQUE
Telefax(tr): +258 1 475 318
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040908/d5e0d0e9/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2743 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040908/d5e0d0e9/attachment.jpe

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Sep 8 14:44:26 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:44:26 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
References: <000b01c4955d$71fe87e0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <003e01c495dc$82494480$c98f58db@newpc>

Greg,
You are in discussion with Doug, not my son Graeme who kindly provides the
computer.

There are two things you should investigate right now before the winter
arrives, then you can do some comparative test to confirm your choice of
action.
1. Preheated air is a problem if it becomes too hot,so do a control to bleed
cold air in to say 10-15C. This is really important for the gasifier, but
less so for the engine which likes densified charging.

2.The symptom of gas quality changing can only be a fuel flow problem. If a
bridge forms the oxidation zone moves down to consume the reduction zone
charcoal and you get an increase of CO2. When it stops, the fuel usually
drops as the sudden change to the thermal bonding in the distillation zone
lets it go. When you check the fuel it appears as though nothing is out of
order, masking the problem.

I'm back in Winnipeg next week to begin the first phase of testing on our
V8s fuelled from the Mk2 Mega Class gasifier before the Winter sets in. The
Winter test programme will certainly test what I have suggested for you to
try, and as we are out in the open, will be a real test for the whole
system. We certainly have a lot of heat to get rid of gasifying 2.5T/hr, and
that's only just ticking over till the fuel feed system is finally set up.
Testing gasifiers is always limited to what you have available at the lowest
cost, and moving large amounts of fuel in a temporary situation is the most
difficult aspect to deal with during development work.

Regards,
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Sep 8 16:15:40 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:15:40 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...
In-Reply-To: <003e01c495dc$82494480$c98f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <000f01c495e8$feb62e00$1900a8c0@a31server>

Ahh, Doug,

I was wondering what was going on with the names thing, I've been to your
site many, many times, and always thought is was Doug.

Sorry for the confusion, and I stand corrected.....

As far as the air temp goes, it's still around the 10c area at the moment,
no pre-heating yet, after yesterdays post, It's become apparent that fuel
feed flow is the culprit, not air, we erected a larger hopper-bottom bin
this summer, to handle the larger need, and we are getting grief from it..

When you are in Winnipeg, would you have time for a brief visit from myself
& the wife ?? we are only a 2 1/2 hour drive from there. I would be ecstatic
to meet you in person, as well as "hitting many birds with one stone" in the
process (Other business in Winnipeg also).

Regards,

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Williams [mailto:graeme at powerlink.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:44 PM
To: a31ford
Cc: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [Gasification] The perfect engine revisited...

Greg,
You are in discussion with Doug, not my son Graeme who kindly provides the
computer.

Regards,
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From tombreed at comcast.net Wed Sep 8 21:39:52 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:39:52 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <02c901c49616$4f72d870$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear All:

They can also be converted to spark and skip the diesel by attaching electronic ignition to the end of the injector pump.

Yours truly, TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:49 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas

Dear Gasers,

What compression ratio is most appropriate?

Robert
Phnom Penh

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

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Sep 9 01:07:43 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:07:43 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
In-Reply-To: <02c901c49616$4f72d870$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<02c901c49616$4f72d870$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <20040909080743.0571ad72.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:39:52 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
<02c901c49616$4f72d870$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:

> Prof. Parikh at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay says she
> believes that there is an optimum CR around 12/1 because gains from
> higher compression above this are offset by friction losses.

..disregarding these losses for, say, turbines, what is then
her opinion on optimum CR?

--
..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 dschmidt at undeerc.org Thu Sep 9 09:55:01 2004
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:55:01 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
Message-ID: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117DC39@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Higher compression ratios = higher efficiency

It appears that CR should be pushed as high as possible the limiting factor
is knock or detonation.

Mukunda has documented 17:1 without detonation in a duel fuel diesel. Best
efficiency and emissions @ 80% diesel replacement with about a 20% de-rate
from the nameplate power output.

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/20040909/850b809c/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 9 10:50:13 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:50:13 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040909094840.009685c0@pop.btl.net>

At 09:55 AM 9/9/2004 -0500, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
> Higher compression ratios = higher efficiency
>
>
>
>It appears that CR should be pushed as high as possible the limiting
factor is knock or detonation.
>
>
>
>Mukunda has documented 17:1 without detonation in a duel fuel diesel.
Best efficiency and emissions @ 80% diesel replacement with about a 20%
de-rate from the nameplate power output.
>
>
>
>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
>
>

As an Aside:

The big advantage of a duel fueled disease set up for Producer gas is
guaranteed continual power output. If gas quality does a dip -- extra
diesel is injected to make up for that.

this keeping original size injectors -- and yes -- getting no better than
80/20 -- and yes -- 20% derate besides.

A few years ago this list discussed duel fueled diesel operation in depth
-- and many were actually practicing such -- especially in India.

One comment remains in my mind:

You soon find that ratio going the other way -- 80% diesel / 20% producer gas

Unless one can figure out a way to intimately monitor gas quality always.

And always remember -- that 20% "oil" fuel need not be petroleum based --
can be veggie oil based.

Some points of interest on that subject.

I am studying special African Palm Oil plantations for this area -- Belize
-- which p[romise production of over 6000 liters per acre per year of palm
oil.

A perfect diesel fuel.

also -- i have had heard rumors that in Germany some people are buying this
same "cheap" cooking oil and using it as diesel fuel in their cars as they
save quite a bit of coin in this manner.

Mind you -- that mostly due to cheating their government of it's fuel taxes!!

Naught -- naughty!

So if you 3rd world oriented.

The nut shell from the oil palm seed is an excellent fuel for a gasifier
and would be available in more than sufficient quantities for running a
large power plant.

One would use dual fuel -- with palm oil as diesel cycle fuel.

A great surplus of oil would be thus produced to be used as further
"portable" fuel -- or sold as food oils.

Now -- if anyone on this list can come up with a "tighter" plan in regards
to solving energy problems in oil poor 3rd world nations -- and in regards
to the ultimate -- no oil be there crunch -- please -- I'd like to hear
about this now.

As far as I know -- nobody else is looking in "this" direction.

Takes 3 years for the old palms to start baring -- at about 2000 or plus
liters per acre. 5 years for full production.

There is also some other "food" value -- a layer of "fruit" -- which is
being investigated for use as animal feed.

If you really want to know a lot more:

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/AGAP/FRG/APH132/chap4.htm

and the supplier of seed at:

http://www.asd-cr.com/

Granted -- this will not be helping all you poor souls living to the North
in the world's industrialized nations.

But then again -- considering present global politics -- you all don't have
anything to look forward to anyway!

The future lies here -- in 3rd world -- and we are moving into it.

The time of the rats racing is reaching it's ending -- and always remember
-- the Rat that wins that race is still a "RAT"!!

For those that are tired of leading a rat's life -- come to Belize -- we'll
start palm oil plantations!

We'll produce energy -- fuel -- and food!

Now -- what more can you want -- what more can you "need" -- eh??

Peter / Belize

From oscar at geprop.cu Thu Sep 9 11:24:08 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:24:08 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D904E36A@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

>>>>Now -- if anyone on this list can come up with a "tighter" plan in regards
to solving energy problems in oil poor 3rd world nations -- and in regards
to the ultimate -- no oil be there crunch -- please -- I'd like to hear
about this now.

.....yeah..!!! perhaps I could be the guy you are looking for in order to answer such question... I suggest to come up and visit us down here and see what a 3rd world small island based on the caribbean region is doing right now in attempting to solve the energy supply problem...
Did you get me..?????

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm at btl.net]
Enviado el: jueves, 09 de septiembre de 2004 10:50
Para: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: Re: [Gasification] CR ratio

As an Aside:

The big advantage of a duel fueled disease set up for Producer gas is
guaranteed continual power output. If gas quality does a dip -- extra
diesel is injected to make up for that.

this keeping original size injectors -- and yes -- getting no better than
80/20 -- and yes -- 20% derate besides.

A few years ago this list discussed duel fueled diesel operation in depth
-- and many were actually practicing such -- especially in India.

One comment remains in my mind:

You soon find that ratio going the other way -- 80% diesel / 20% producer gas

Unless one can figure out a way to intimately monitor gas quality always.

And always remember -- that 20% "oil" fuel need not be petroleum based --
can be veggie oil based.

Some points of interest on that subject.

I am studying special African Palm Oil plantations for this area -- Belize
-- which p[romise production of over 6000 liters per acre per year of palm
oil.

A perfect diesel fuel.

also -- i have had heard rumors that in Germany some people are buying this
same "cheap" cooking oil and using it as diesel fuel in their cars as they
save quite a bit of coin in this manner.

Mind you -- that mostly due to cheating their government of it's fuel taxes!!

Naught -- naughty!

So if you 3rd world oriented.

The nut shell from the oil palm seed is an excellent fuel for a gasifier
and would be available in more than sufficient quantities for running a
large power plant.

One would use dual fuel -- with palm oil as diesel cycle fuel.

A great surplus of oil would be thus produced to be used as further
"portable" fuel -- or sold as food oils.

As far as I know -- nobody else is looking in "this" direction.

Takes 3 years for the old palms to start baring -- at about 2000 or plus
liters per acre. 5 years for full production.

There is also some other "food" value -- a layer of "fruit" -- which is
being investigated for use as animal feed.

If you really want to know a lot more:

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/AGAP/FRG/APH132/chap4.htm

and the supplier of seed at:

http://www.asd-cr.com/

Granted -- this will not be helping all you poor souls living to the North
in the world's industrialized nations.

But then again -- considering present global politics -- you all don't have
anything to look forward to anyway!

The future lies here -- in 3rd world -- and we are moving into it.

The time of the rats racing is reaching it's ending -- and always remember
-- the Rat that wins that race is still a "RAT"!!

For those that are tired of leading a rat's life -- come to Belize -- we'll
start palm oil plantations!

We'll produce energy -- fuel -- and food!

Now -- what more can you want -- what more can you "need" -- eh??

Peter / Belize

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 9 14:10:03 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:10:03 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] 3rd world energy solutions ---
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040909130532.00acdb70@pop.btl.net>

At 12:24 PM 9/9/2004 -0400, Oscar Jimenez wrote:
>>>>>Now -- if anyone on this list can come up with a "tighter" plan in
regards
>to solving energy problems in oil poor 3rd world nations -- and in regards
>to the ultimate -- no oil be there crunch -- please -- I'd like to hear
>about this now.
>
>.....yeah..!!! perhaps I could be the guy you are looking for in order to
answer such question... I suggest to come up and visit us down here and see
what a 3rd world small island based on the caribbean region is doing right
now in attempting to solve the energy supply problem...
>Did you get me..?????
>
>Oscar.

Oscar -- which Island should I be going to??

And what process to solve energy crunch do you promote?

Peter

From oscar at geprop.cu Thu Sep 9 14:41:09 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:41:09 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] 3rd world energy solutions ---
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D904E389@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

Dear Peter.

Thank you very much for kindly answering my message. You know what...???? your interest in solving energy problems in real tight environment took my attention and remind me that there is a 3rd world small island, based on the caribbean region, which exactly matches your energy concern for those living in the 3rd world...(take a look to my email address, please.)
Regarding the <<process to solve energy crunch>>> you are asking for and I am promoting, I'll tell you the same idea I told to a collegue only minutes ago... and that is:

.... Currently we are trying to be wholly open minded when energy supply issue comes into the picture. We are strongly working for introducing renewable energy options (hydro, biomass, PV, wind...etc). Right now we are going to start a GEF funded project for introducing renewable energy based technologies in our second biggest island aimed to providing power and heat to several small process industries. We think that reaching a smart balance in using whatever possible energy resource, renewable or not, should be the key to sucess in the future. So that's what we are trying to demonstrate with our work.

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm at btl.net]
Enviado el: jueves, 09 de septiembre de 2004 14:10
Para: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: [Gasification] 3rd world energy solutions ---

Oscar -- which Island should I be going to??

And what process to solve energy crunch do you promote?

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

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Sep 9 15:13:19 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:13:19 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] 3rd world energy solutions ---
In-Reply-To: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D904E389@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>
References: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D904E389@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>
Message-ID: <20040909221319.518a3d85.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:41:09 -0400, Oscar wrote in message
<A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D904E389 at geprop-server.172.16.1.254>:

> Dear Peter.
>
> Thank you very much for kindly answering my message. You know
> what...???? your interest in solving energy problems in real tight
> environment took my attention and remind me that there is a 3rd world
> small island, based on the caribbean region, which exactly matches
> your energy concern for those living in the 3rd world...(take a look
> to my email address, please.)

..heh. ;-) What _you_ guys _really_ should be doing, is drop props
in between you and Florida and feed the excess to the US grid, the
water _is_ moving at quite a clip, is it 2.5 or 3.5 knots?

> Regarding the <<process to solve energy
> crunch>>> you are asking for and I am promoting, I'll tell you the
> same idea I told to a collegue only minutes ago... and that is:
>
> .... Currently we are trying to be wholly open minded when energy
> supply issue comes into the picture. We are strongly working for
> introducing renewable energy options (hydro, biomass, PV, wind...etc).
> Right now we are going to start a GEF funded project for introducing
> renewable energy based technologies in our second biggest island aimed
> to providing power and heat to several small process industries. We
> think that reaching a smart balance in using whatever possible energy
> resource, renewable or not, should be the key to sucess in the future.
> So that's what we are trying to demonstrate with our work.
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> Oscar.

--
..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 graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 9 15:50:24 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:50:24 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
References: <3.0.32.20040909094840.009685c0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <002c01c496ae$c09ce480$c58f58db@newpc>

Peter,

> The big advantage of a duel fueled disease set up for Producer gas is
> guaranteed continual power output. If gas quality does a dip -- extra
> diesel is injected to make up for that.
>

If the engine has been fitted with a correctly designed dual fuel system,
and the system is set up for maximum efficiency at 80% of its normal rated
output on diesel, the amount of diesel being consumed is insufficient to run
the engine on diesel alone with no load. Power for fluctuations up to the
80% output come from the gas, not the diesel, functioning literally as a
spark plug. What does change is when you go over the 80% output which
requires more diesel, because you are exceeding the dual fuel efficiency,
and that needs more air and less gas, so the diesel consumption naturally
increases in proportion to the gas ratio.

> this keeping original size injectors -- and yes -- getting no better than
> 80/20 -- and yes -- 20% derate besides.
>

This is the reality of what we are dealing with and it is better than
nothing if you are carrying the diesel into remote locations, on your back.
Few people with energy needs have the capability to research and implement
other types of fuel substitution.

> A few years ago this list discussed duel fueled diesel operation in depth
> -- and many were actually practicing such -- especially in India.
>

I have discussed many dual fuel engine questions with Indian
"manufacturers", and I believe there are still gaps in the knowledge for
most in this area of the technology. All you have to do Peter is order an
engine set up for producer gas when you next buy a cheap batch of engines
from India to test their capability.

> One comment remains in my mind:
>
> You soon find that ratio going the other way -- 80% diesel / 20% producer
gas
>
> Unless one can figure out a way to intimately monitor gas quality always.
>

The first requirement to solve this problem is a correctly designed gasifier
and a correctly prepared fuel. Not easy to achieve with do-it-yourself
technology made from scrap. It takes a lot of knowledge to set up a
reliable system of any kind, and is in short supply in those places of most
need. We do monitor gas quality all the time with the most sensitive devise
ever, the engine itself as it samples the gas 25 times a second. Not with
electronics either, strictly mechanical. It's not know how, but know why
that makes the differance in a crunch Peter.

> And always remember -- that 20% "oil" fuel need not be petroleum based --
> can be veggie oil based.
>

I agree and it should be encouraged in those places that can produce their
own bio oils.

> Some points of interest on that subject.
>
> I am studying special African Palm Oil plantations for this area -- Belize
> -- which p[romise production of over 6000 liters per acre per year of palm
> oil.
> The nut shell from the oil palm seed is an excellent fuel for a gasifier
> and would be available in more than sufficient quantities for running a
> large power plant.
>

You are incorrect to assume that palm oil nut shell is good gasification
fuel. It is highly silicieous and forms slag in the high temperatures
required for tar free engine gasification. We did considerable testing on
Malaysian palm nut shell and spent quite a bit of money to visit the mills
and see first hand the whole process. Conclusion: probably best used as
fuel for pyrolysis oil manufacture.

> There is also some other "food" value -- a layer of "fruit" -- which is
> being investigated for use as animal feed.
>

Malaysia exports considerable amounts of the nut kernel after that has been
pressed for its oil, as animal feed. The fibrous layers of the outer cover
would seem to be unpallatable as animal feed after it's oil has been
pressed, but maybe if it had a caustic treatment like they do for straw, it
may become digestable
>

The above is not good ideas or suggestions, but facts gathered from
experience.

Regards from another nice place to live,

Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 9 14:44:42 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:44:42 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<012901c491a4$3b0e1820$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <002b01c496ae$b339c4c0$c58f58db@newpc>

Tom,

snip>
Prof. Parikh at the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay says she believes that there is an optimum CR around 12/1 because gains from higher compression above this are offset by friction losses. I hope she'll make more extensive comments to the GASIFICATION group here.
<snip>

As a point of reference, the optimum CR was established by J.Spiers in Britain with the results published in a report dated March 25th, 1942. They used a Leyland engine [359.7cu.in] connected to a "Government Emergency"Gas Producer fuelled with coal. The tests went up to 16.2 :1 but inconsistent gas quality with B.T.U.up to 170 S.C.F, would have given some conflicting behaviour of the spontaneous ignition point. He concluded that 13.9 :1 with a gas of calorific value at 135 B.T.U. some 68% of the power of gasoline could be achieved. He also stated that the frictional losses consume the extra power with no increase over 11 :1.

As a paper for that time it has it's limitations, and now with improved lubricants, bearings, etc, C.R. of 121 :1 are able to be used as a "compatible" ratio for S.I. engines, and again from a practical point of limitation, 16-17 :1 is the dual fuel engine. [Fixed by the compression temperature which coincides with the spontaneous ignition temperature of producer gas of 135 B.T.U/]

We can always continue to discuss these limitations and trim a bit here and there, but this is all very old hat tested knowledge, only not known about by those just discovering gasification. Once and for all to every one, record stated facts and stay within well establish boundaries and your failure rate of experience will improve
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040909/4ed134c8/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 9 17:01:18 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:01:18 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040909160005.00acb250@pop.btl.net>

At 08:50 AM 9/10/2004 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:
>Peter,
>
>> The big advantage of a duel fueled disease set up for Producer gas is
>> guaranteed continual power output. If gas quality does a dip -- extra
>> diesel is injected to make up for that.
>>
>
>If the engine has been fitted with a correctly designed dual fuel system,
>and the system is set up for maximum efficiency at 80% of its normal rated
>output on diesel, the amount of diesel being consumed is insufficient to run
>the engine on diesel alone with no load. Power for fluctuations up to the
>80% output come from the gas, not the diesel, functioning literally as a
>spark plug. What does change is when you go over the 80% output which
>requires more diesel, because you are exceeding the dual fuel efficiency,
>and that needs more air and less gas, so the diesel consumption naturally
>increases in proportion to the gas ratio.
>

Your right -- memory serves me poorly -- believe the proper "ratio" is 65%
to 35% using a standard old style diesel and just adding producer gas to
the intake?

>
>> this keeping original size injectors -- and yes -- getting no better than
>> 80/20 -- and yes -- 20% derate besides.
>>
>
>This is the reality of what we are dealing with and it is better than
>nothing if you are carrying the diesel into remote locations, on your back.
>Few people with energy needs have the capability to research and implement
>other types of fuel substitution.

I have mastered the art of oil expressing -- no need to haul fuel anymore --

Here in Belize we have unlimited wild stands of cohune nut which produces
an excellent oil -- almost exactly like coconut oil.

Though extremely labor intensive -- it requires very little -- almost
nothing -- of imported nature -- foreign exchange -- to operate.

The expressor I run is powered by a 12 HP twin cylinder old style Lister --
have feeling this engine is going to out live me!

Though I fuel it at present with diesel -- which is cheaper than the
coconut oil I produce -- it would fuel the operation with a small
percentage of oil extracted.

>
>
>> A few years ago this list discussed duel fueled diesel operation in depth
>> -- and many were actually practicing such -- especially in India.
>>
>
>I have discussed many dual fuel engine questions with Indian
>"manufacturers", and I believe there are still gaps in the knowledge for
>most in this area of the technology. All you have to do Peter is order an
>engine set up for producer gas when you next buy a cheap batch of engines
>from India to test their capability.
>
The cheap old style listers are now expensive -- and not so readily
available. I have ordered a number of Chinese diesels -- that single
cylinder model they use in all their villages for further experimentation.

I here these are becoming popular in India as well??

>
>> One comment remains in my mind:
>>
>> You soon find that ratio going the other way -- 80% diesel / 20% producer
>gas
>>
>> Unless one can figure out a way to intimately monitor gas quality always.
>>
>
>The first requirement to solve this problem is a correctly designed gasifier
>and a correctly prepared fuel. Not easy to achieve with do-it-yourself
>technology made from scrap. It takes a lot of knowledge to set up a
>reliable system of any kind, and is in short supply in those places of most
>need. We do monitor gas quality all the time with the most sensitive devise
>ever, the engine itself as it samples the gas 25 times a second. Not with
>electronics either, strictly mechanical. It's not know how, but know why
>that makes the differance in a crunch Peter.
>

That is how I would do it as well. But you can't have an engineer in every
village! The problem is to keep things real simple.

Filling a fuel tank with coconut (or palm) oil is "simple"!!

>> And always remember -- that 20% "oil" fuel need not be petroleum based --
>> can be veggie oil based.
>>
>
>
>I agree and it should be encouraged in those places that can produce their
>own bio oils.
>
>
>> Some points of interest on that subject.
>>
>> I am studying special African Palm Oil plantations for this area -- Belize
>> -- which p[romise production of over 6000 liters per acre per year of palm
>> oil.
>> The nut shell from the oil palm seed is an excellent fuel for a gasifier
>> and would be available in more than sufficient quantities for running a
>> large power plant.
>>
>
>You are incorrect to assume that palm oil nut shell is good gasification
>fuel. It is highly silicieous and forms slag in the high temperatures
>required for tar free engine gasification. We did considerable testing on
>Malaysian palm nut shell and spent quite a bit of money to visit the mills
>and see first hand the whole process. Conclusion: probably best used as
>fuel for pyrolysis oil manufacture.

I have been working with coconut shell and cohune palm nut shell -- both
are excellent fuels. Neither require drying -- or even mechanical fuel
processing (splitting -- chipping -- etc)

I have no experience yet with African Oil Palm nut shells.

However -- I am still seriously considering going combustion -- fire tube
boiler --

Using a refrigerant is going to be to high tech. So it looks like it has to
be steam. Problem -- at low pressures -- and that is all you get with a
fire tube boiler -- over all efficiencies are really terrible -- certainly
under 4%!!

India claims to do an acceptable job gasifying rice husks -- if true --
certainly palm nut shell will work in those type of gasifiers??

Certainly -- as always -- it hinges on gasifier design.

>
>
>> There is also some other "food" value -- a layer of "fruit" -- which is
>> being investigated for use as animal feed.
>>
>
>Malaysia exports considerable amounts of the nut kernel after that has been
>pressed for its oil, as animal feed.

Yes -- that is the filter cake from the expressor. I feed chicken -- turkey
and one pig well with what I produce. Coconut or cohune nut.

>The fibrous layers of the outer cover
>would seem to be unpallatable as animal feed after it's oil has been
>pressed, but maybe if it had a caustic treatment like they do for straw, it
>may become digestable
>>

There is actually a fruity layer -- like a berry -- on this palm nut. We
have such a palm here -- wild. This is also an excellent source of Vit A.
Very rich in it.

It can't be used pure -- or solely -- as animal feed -- and is difficult to
extract/seperate from kernal.

>
>The above is not good ideas or suggestions, but facts gathered from
>experience.

The advantage to the palm kernel is simple -- economic -- Decorticator
machinery exists.

Hand processing is incredibly labor intensive!

Peter

>
>Regards from another nice place to live,
>
>Doug Williams,
>Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 9 18:20:51 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:20:51 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
References: <00ee01c49115$67327fc0$0caa3442@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<02c901c49616$4f72d870$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <002701c496c3$b5b5dbc0$d08f58db@newpc>

Tom,

Sorry to add to the confusion, I fingered the keys in the wrong order. It should have read:

As a paper for that time it has it's limitations, and now with improved lubricants, bearings, etc, C.R. of 12 :1 are able to be used as a "compatible" ratio for S.I. engines, and again from a practical point of limitation, 16-17 :1 is the dual fuel engine. [Fixed by the compression temperature which coincides with the spontaneous ignition temperature of producer gas of 135 B.T.U/]

Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040909/61a68d1c/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Thu Sep 9 20:31:02 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:31:02 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Compression ratio for woodgas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040909190556.00966180@pop.btl.net>

At 11:20 AM 9/10/2004 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:
>>>>
Tom, Sorry to add to the confusion, I fingered the keys in the wrong
order. It should have read: As a paper for that time it has it's
limitations, and now with improved lubricants, bearings, etc, C.R. of 12
:1 are able to be used as a "compatible" ratio for S.I. engines, and again
from a practical point of limitation, 16-17 :1 is the dual fuel engine.
[Fixed by the compression temperature which coincides with the spontaneous
ignition temperature of producer gas of 135 B.T.U/] Regards, Doug
Williams, Fluidyne Gasification.

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

To further add -- or maybe solve -- confusion.

Your regular modern diesel is 22:1 compression these days. higher
compression -- higher efficiency.

The India and Chinese diesels we were kind of talking about -- the ones I
use -- are "squish-heads" -- or with indirect combustion chambers.

These are usually 17:1 compression ratio.

And as such I feel they are idealy designed for producer gas operation. It
also means a different combustion chamber archeticture.

Your Direct injection high compression diesel is firing into a very thin
disk -- while the indirect chamber is more like a light bulb -- a globe
shape.

I "feel" the indirect combustion chamber allows for operation with more
varied fuel types. So used car engine oil -- veggie oil -- no problem. They
even say old Listers ran on pure crude!!

Further -- the old Listers even allow you to adjust compression ratio on
the fly. Thus you can operate at lower power settings and still get good
engine fuel efficiencies by increasing compression ratio.

The small direct injection diesels at high compression --- efficiency falls
right off when you run at -- say 1/2 rated power.

Like the old flat head IC engines -- the squish head design limits top
compression ratio that can be achieved.

Again as example --

The old Style Listers as made in India still -- the ones still using
"squish-head" (some modernized versions are now direct injection -- 20 to
22:1) gets around 27% fuel efficiencies.

The more modern small diesels of the same HP range using 22:1 get 32 to 34%
efficiencies.

It is getting harder to source Squish heads -- but both China and India
still make some.

The reason folks like the exhaust sound of the old Style Squish Head
diesels is two fold.

One -- they turn so slow.

Two -- the lower compression ratio makes for a more gentle exhaust note.

A well muffled modern diesel can still be making noise 1/8 of a mile away
-- not from muffler -- but from high compression engine knock.

A well muffled Lister is quite 25 feet away -- and you can talk -- in an
almost normal voice - -standing right besides them when they run.

Well -- just some items for the curious.

Peter / Belize

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Sep 9 19:18:19 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:18:19 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] CR ratio
References: <3.0.32.20040909160005.00acb250@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000201c496e2$46bec820$c88f58db@newpc>

Peter,
.
> >
> The cheap old style listers are now expensive -- and not so readily
> available. I have ordered a number of Chinese diesels -- that single
> cylinder model they use in all their villages for further experimentation.
>
> I here these are becoming popular in India as well??

If it's the engine I'm aware of, it is O.K. for mechanical application. The
governor is not sensitive enough to use for electric power generation on
dual fuel.

> India claims to do an acceptable job gasifying rice husks -- if true --
> certainly palm nut shell will work in those type of gasifiers??

Again, it depends on who is making the claims! Rice husks make gas O.K. but
not tar free, but India does't seem to worry about pollution of ground water
from scrubbers, I was asked to provide assistance to restart one of their
bigger rice husk gasifiers, but I didn't believe it possible given it was
for grid supply generation and no money to do it. The original project was
shut down when the grant ran out and it passed to new ownership who hoped to
get it going.

> There is actually a fruity layer -- like a berry -- on this palm nut. We
> have such a palm here -- wild. This is also an excellent source of Vit A.
> Very rich in it.

Sorry, it sounds like a relative of the Palm Nut I have seen. Sounds
interesting.

> Using a refrigerant is going to be to high tech. So it looks like it has
to
> be steam. Problem -- at low pressures -- and that is all you get with a
> fire tube boiler -- over all efficiencies are really terrible -- certainly
> under 4%!!

Some years ago, F.A.O. put out a book for developing countries on steam
generation. I recall it showed an extremely simple low pressure boiler and
used air cylinders for the engine cranking. You only needed brick walls of
some sort to contain the fire and support the top steam drum. The drums just
had end plates, very low tech. With plenty of non specific fuel to burn, who
cares about efficiency?

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Sat Sep 11 08:56:13 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:56:13 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environtmental Solutions
Message-ID: <e4.57e0ab6b.2e745dfd@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

This firm's web site is up and running at < res-energy.com > .
Includes four photos of the Carthage IL plant. Lot's to DL, especially "press
kit". Well worth visiting.

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040911/e2e8cfc8/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Sep 11 21:48:04 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:48:04 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Fluidyne Mk2 Mega Class Update.
Message-ID: <000b01c49873$167bf560$dc8f58db@newpc>

Dear Gasification Colleagues,
When we speak of gasification little attention is drawn to the complete
system. While small systems are quite manageable in their need for fuel
feeding, gas cleaning / cooling and waste clean outs, larger systems take on
a dynamic that in itself is hard to initiate for the systems developer. The
effort to do anything needs the support of men and machines, and time it's
self, nothing is for free.

During June/July 2004 I spent four weeks in Winnipeg, Canada supervising the
building of the prototype cleaning/cooling system for the Mark II Mega Class
Gasifier Project, we also added a temporary fuel lock so that continuous
operation of the gasifier could be maintained for the initial test
programme. The fuel feeding alone became a little frantic during the
operation of the gasifier as the consumption rate exceeded the expected
2T/hr to 2.5T/hr, producing some 5,400m3/hr of gas. So the first tests were
limited to a slightly shorter duration than expected until we built up a
larger fuel stockpile.

Connecting the gas from the cooling system to the flare stack/oxidation
chamber had to be at a high level across the yard, and was achieved by using
10"inch galvanised ducting salvaged from a scrap yard. The joints of the
sections were sealed with duct tape and the whole system was set up in a
very short time.

As can be imagined, cooling large quantities of gas down to ambient
temperature from an input of 300?C requires a large heat exchanger and this
project has provided the opportunity to design a component specifically for
the needs of producer gas. The heat exchanger is supplied with hot gas from
the first stage of the gas cleaning system from a pair of cluster cyclones
with four cyclones to each cluster. This design has been in continuous
evolvement since Fluidyne introduced the principle back in 1983 for the
early model Pacific Class.

Because all the components of the cooling/cleaning system are prototypes,
some used materials have been used in the construction to keep the
development cost at an acceptable level. Once these designs have been fully
tested during the Winter test programme, new modules will be built to
incorporate the finer details not required in the prototype.

No actual emission tests or gas analyses have been done in this current test
programme, nor has the condensate flow of one gallon per minute been tested.
We expect the condensate to contain soot and dissolved ash from the first
stage cooler because it looks like black water - similar to condensate
previously tested. Condensate from the second stage is crystal clear water,
so we don't expect to find much by way of contamination. There is no
visible condensing tar at our tractor test engine and no visible
contamination of the paper filter before the engine. All in all a very
productive cleaning/cooling system test was achieved.

I am returning to Winnipeg on 14 September 2004 to set the Winter test
programme, and evaluate the performance of a second cooling tower which has
now been added to the assembly. It is expected that now the gas has been
proven to be clean, we should be able to fire up the V8 engines and finalise
the completion of the power generation module.

Pictures of the project can be found on the Fluidyne Archive -
www.fluidynenz.250x.com the large areas around the installation facilitates
the movement of large vehicles attending the facility.

A further update on this project will be submitted to this forum later in
the year.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification

From gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Sun Sep 12 12:43:13 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:43:13 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Fly ash
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAQ0gcQPUR3kGV0NTomXmEWwEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

I?m doing somme research and development on fly ash arising from tire
inceniration.

Has somebody experience on that subject ?

Best Regards,

Gregoire Jovicic

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040912/48493f42/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Sep 12 20:01:23 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:01:23 +1200
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Fluidyne Mk2 Mega Class Update.
Message-ID: <002201c4992d$341b5100$d08f58db@newpc>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme at powerlink.co.nz>
To: "Bill Klein" <Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Fluidyne Mk2 Mega Class Update.

> Bill,
> Briefly, I'm out of here.
>
>
> > Please confirm your rate of consumption and gas flow quantity.
>
> The 2.5 T [2500kg] was the wood going in, which at 15% moisture converts
to
> about 5462 cubic metres, I rounded off to 5400. In actual fact the wood
> was quite wet, so the condensate over and above what does come out at
15%,
> will reduce that stated gas volume. The waste char was'nt weighed, but it
> was far less than I expected and very fine.The old rule applies , drier
the
> fuel, the better the gas.
> For this project, the emphisis is on less than perfect fuel, and a clean
> emission, so as we proceede, these very specific performance figures will
be
> not only confirmed, but authenticated by a recognised testing body.
>
> > How many (total diameter) 10 inch "ducting" were employed to carry the
> > cooled producer gas?
>
> There is only the one as you should be able to see. It whistles through it
> quite well.
>
> Bill you should get a free web site and show more of your projects. You
> should also participate in this forum, for what we do and hope to achieve
,
> has to be open eventually to public scrutiny.
>
> Regards and now gone to Canada,
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>

From robdeutsch at online.com.kh Mon Sep 13 19:25:03 2004
From: robdeutsch at online.com.kh (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:25:03 +0700
Subject: [Gasification] Does Bamboo gas?
Message-ID: <004201c499f1$62b9fa60$4781bdcb@Consultant>

Dear Gas listers,

Just heard on the BBC that large expanses of Bamboo in northern India will be doing their 50 year flowering cycle soon. They expect the flowers to produce seeds that will fall to the ground and provide food to rats causing an explosion of rodent population. The idea was put forward that the bamboo should be cut before that happens to avoid the problem. Of course there are many uses for good quality bamboo, but would the rejects make good fodder for gasification? Has anyone done any work with bamboo? How does it cut, dry, handle, gasify, what's in the ash???

Just wondering in Phnom Penh,

Robert-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040913/36bb865e/attachment.html

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 13 19:33:49 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:33:49 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?
In-Reply-To: <004d01c495b9$15b88880$4f42ed82@mse.kth.se>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20040913192221.022a0620@mail.ilstu.edu>

Hello Tsamba, nice to hear from you.

I know Tsamba from my many trips to Mozambique.

He asks a good question, and I hope that someone(s) can respond. And I ask
him the following:

I know that Mozambique is a big producer of cashews. Can you give us some
indication of the quantities of cashewnut oil that could be produced, and
also of cashewnut shells?

Are either the shell oil or the shells currently being used, and is that
use as a fuel or for some other use?

And is the oil relatively EASY to obtain? (because some other nut shells
are very difficult to process to get usable oil).

Tsamba, I know you are working specifically on gasification (in doctoral
studies in Sweden), but could the oil perhaps be used directly in internal
combustion engines, such as something like bio-diesel??

I am also interested in the oil if it is flammable like citronella or
other oils. Please tell us more about the oil characteristics.

(Off topic: Regards to Carlos Lucas. Please ask him to write to me!)

Paul

At 05:32 PM 9/8/04 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?= wrote:
>Dear Collegaues,
>
>I am interested in shearing this subject with you: it seems that cashewnut
>shell liquid (CNSL) is most valuable than the cashewnut shell as fuel.
>Further, CNSL is referred as most closer to petroleum fuels, it is, CNSL
>has a calorific value comparable to oil products.
>
>Given these facts, would it be an economically sound option gasifying CNSL
>to generate fuel gas for different purposes like power generation in the
>rural areas?
>
>I know that in India, there has been a couple of studies on pyrolysis of
>CNS as well as the production of bio-oil from CNS. Can we discuss this subject?
>
>I am from Mozambique, and I would appreciate any contruibution around this
>issue as people are just burning it in an opena fire as a "low quality"
>energy source and for marginal purposes.
>
>________________________________________________
>Alberto J?lio Tsamba
>Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
>Faculdade de Engenharia
>Dept. de Engenharia Qu?mica
>Cx. Postal 257 Avenida de Mo?ambique, km 1,5
>Maputo MO?AMBIQUE
>Telefax(tr): +258 1 475 318
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20040913/7ddb916d/attachment.html

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Sep 13 21:34:19 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:34:19 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Does Bamboo gas?
In-Reply-To: <004201c499f1$62b9fa60$4781bdcb@Consultant>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20040913210253.02292c00@mail.ilstu.edu>

Gasification list members and Stoves list members

Yes, bamboo is good biomass as fuel. It can be burned in the small,
residential pyrolysis gasifiers that Tom Reed and I are developing. I have
no information about if bamboo would serve as fuel in the larger gasifiers
(for producer gas for running IC engines). Bamboo would also cut nicely to
be used in the Rocket-stove type of small stoves. But neither are
currently with much presence in India. But they could burn bamboo in
regular fires.

Makes sense to do a massive cutting of the bamboo that is ready to
flower. It would dry and become fuel. And even if only left to rot, it
would avoid the plague of the rats and the famine that could follow.

Considering that the bamboo would sprout again from the roots, cutting it
would not constitute "deforestation". And just leaving it where it was
growing would not amount to a loss of agricultural land (since there is no
agriculture in the same square meter where the bamboo is growing.)

But it is a LOT of work to cut a square kilometer of mature
bamboo!!! Obviously, the fuel value is not sufficient to finance massive
bamboo cutting in the "regular" years. But is "famine and plague
prevention" sufficient motivation to cut the bamboo before it flowers?

Anyone have more information about this "flowering bamboo" problem? It
probably occurs somewhere in the world almost every year. Does it really
cause such negative results?

(I am sending this message to the "Stoves" list serve so a discussion there
can also occur.) (You will not receive the discussion on the Stoves list
serve unless you are subscribed to that list.) (Sorry for the duplicate
messages that some of us will be receiving, but I suspect there will be
more of "general discussion" on the Stoves list serve and only the
"specific to gasification of bamboo discussion" on the Gasification list
serve.)

Paul

At 07:25 AM 9/14/04 +0700, Robert Deutsch wrote:
>Dear Gas listers,
>
>Just heard on the BBC that large expanses of Bamboo in northern India will
>be doing their 50 year flowering cycle soon. They expect the flowers to
>produce seeds that will fall to the ground and provide food to rats
>causing an explosion of rodent population. The idea was put forward that
>the bamboo should be cut before that happens to avoid the problem. Of
>course there are many uses for good quality bamboo, but would the rejects
>make good fodder for gasification? Has anyone done any work with
>bamboo? How does it cut, dry, handle, gasify, what's in the ash???
>
>Just wondering in Phnom Penh,
>
>Robert-
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Tue Sep 14 00:26:37 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:26:37 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Does Bamboo gas?
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040913210253.02292c00@mail.ilstu.edu>
References: <4.3.1.2.20040913210253.02292c00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4146810D.7020607@legacyfound.org>

Paul Robert, et al.,
For what its worth, I recently went ot a friends house in Ashland oregon
where they had installed a bamboo floor. It had been split, cut into
thin strips with an X section of perhaps 20mm x 40mm, laminated and
planed. Felt and looked like a normal good quality light hardwood floor
but the unique grain gave it a very unique and pleasant appearance.
Alternatively you can make Puluwan Karanda water pumps out of the stuff
as we did back in Sri lanka in the early days of Samma Hamudave (Peace
corps). Wouldn't really recommend the latter because as it rots with
sustained exposure to water it attracts all kinds of things you really
do not want to drink)
You going to the Sv conference in boulder by the way ? If so, look fwd
to seeing you all there with Kobus Venters new and improved gassifier
stove !
Richard Stanley

Paul S. Anderson wrote:

> Gasification list members and Stoves list members
>
> Yes, bamboo is good biomass as fuel. It can be burned in the small,
> residential pyrolysis gasifiers that Tom Reed and I are developing. I
> have no information about if bamboo would serve as fuel in the larger
> gasifiers (for producer gas for running IC engines). Bamboo would
> also cut nicely to be used in the Rocket-stove type of small stoves.
> But neither are currently with much presence in India. But they could
> burn bamboo in regular fires.
>
> Makes sense to do a massive cutting of the bamboo that is ready to
> flower. It would dry and become fuel. And even if only left to rot,
> it would avoid the plague of the rats and the famine that could follow.
>
> Considering that the bamboo would sprout again from the roots, cutting
> it would not constitute "deforestation". And just leaving it where
> it was growing would not amount to a loss of agricultural land (since
> there is no agriculture in the same square meter where the bamboo is
> growing.)
>
> But it is a LOT of work to cut a square kilometer of mature bamboo!!!
> Obviously, the fuel value is not sufficient to finance massive bamboo
> cutting in the "regular" years. But is "famine and plague prevention"
> sufficient motivation to cut the bamboo before it flowers?
>
> Anyone have more information about this "flowering bamboo" problem?
> It probably occurs somewhere in the world almost every year. Does it
> really cause such negative results?
>
> (I am sending this message to the "Stoves" list serve so a discussion
> there can also occur.) (You will not receive the discussion on the
> Stoves list serve unless you are subscribed to that list.) (Sorry for
> the duplicate messages that some of us will be receiving, but I
> suspect there will be more of "general discussion" on the Stoves list
> serve and only the "specific to gasification of bamboo discussion" on
> the Gasification list serve.)
>
> Paul
>
> At 07:25 AM 9/14/04 +0700, Robert Deutsch wrote:
>
>> Dear Gas listers,
>>
>> Just heard on the BBC that large expanses of Bamboo in northern India
>> will be doing their 50 year flowering cycle soon. They expect the
>> flowers to produce seeds that will fall to the ground and provide
>> food to rats causing an explosion of rodent population. The idea was
>> put forward that the bamboo should be cut before that happens to
>> avoid the problem. Of course there are many uses for good quality
>> bamboo, but would the rejects make good fodder for gasification? Has
>> anyone done any work with bamboo? How does it cut, dry, handle,
>> gasify, what's in the ash???
>>
>> Just wondering in Phnom Penh,
>>
>> Robert-
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> <http://www.ilstu.edu/%7Epsanders>
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20040914/8d579b63/attachment.html

From sturn at hawaii.edu Tue Sep 14 18:12:18 2004
From: sturn at hawaii.edu (Scott Q. Turn)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:18 -1000
Subject: [Gasification] Post Doctoral Fellow Position
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040914130725.03259398@mail.hawaii.edu>

List members,
We are currently seeking motivated individuals to fill a post doctoral
fellow position at the University of Hawaii. Details are provided at the
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute website:
http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/employ.asp?view=vacancy
Scott

Scott Q. Turn, Ph.D.
Associate Researcher
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Phone (808) 956-2346
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
University of Hawaii Fax: (808) 956-2336
1680 East-West Rd., POST 109 email: sturn at hawaii.edu
Honolulu,
HI 96822 http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From sturn at hawaii.edu Tue Sep 14 18:12:35 2004
From: sturn at hawaii.edu (Scott Q. Turn)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:12:35 -1000
Subject: [Gasification] Graduate Research Assistantships Available
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040914093217.0321fcd0@mail.hawaii.edu>

List members,
We are currently seeking motivated individuals to fill graduate research
assistant positions at the University of Hawaii. Details are provided below.
Scott

Graduate Research Assistantships Available at the University of Hawai'i

The Hawai'i Natural Energy Institute, an organized research unit at the
University of Hawai'i (UH) is offering graduate research assistantships to
students participating in experimental research in areas of (1) biomass
gasification product gas conditioning for hydrogen production and (2)
biomass processing to improve fuel characteristics with emphasis on sugar
cane trash.

Qualified students must apply and be granted academic admission to the UH
graduate program. For further information on how to apply, visit the UH
graduate division website at http://www.hawaii.edu/graduate/.

The graduate research assistantship is a half-time academic appointment in
which an eligible graduate student contributes nominally 20 hours a week of
research assistance to the faculty while carrying an academic course load
of at least six degree-related credits (full-time student status for
graduate assistants). Research assistantships of 11 months currently carry
a minimum stipend of $14,382 and include a tuition waiver. Students
supported by these assistantships will be enrolled in an academic program
such as Bioengineering or Mechanical Engineering.

Learn more about the Hawai'i Natural Energy Institute at
<http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/>www.hnei.hawaii.edu. Details of how to apply
for a Graduate Research Assistantship can be found at
<http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/employ.asp?view=vacancy>http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/employ.asp?view=vacancy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040914/2c56caf4/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Sep 14 20:32:29 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:32:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] No Subject
Message-ID: <fe.138ccc0.2e78f5ad@aol.com>

to Gasificaton list from Lewis L. Smith

Google Alert for: "renewable environmental solutions"
RESIDENTS complain about odor from turkey recycling plant
Kansas City Star (subscription) - Kansas City,MO,USA
As a result, residents said Renewable Environmental Solutions in Carthage has
prevented them from enjoying their homes and has reduced property values. ...

MAYOR to meet with plant officials about odor problem
Joplin Globe - Joplin,MO,USA
... Residents filled the Carthage City Council chambers on Tuesday night to
urge City Hall to demand an odor-free operation from Renewable Environmental
Solutions. ...

PLANT to give out complaint number
Joplin Globe - Joplin,MO,USA
CARTHAGE, Mo. - Residents who live near Renewable Environmental Solutions
soon will be receiving a letter from company officials on what the plant is doing
...

CITIZENS ask council to get tough on RES
Carthage Press - Carthage,MO,USA
More than 50 people, accompanied by 600 signatures, stated emphatically and
emotionally that the odor from Renewable Environmental Solutions was disrupting
...

PETITION asks recycling plant to keep promise
Joplin Globe - Joplin,MO,USA
Petitions are being circulated asking for a solution to the odors emitted
from Renewable Environmental Solutions, according to Birl Pruitt, of Carthage.
...

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040914/75575cde/attachment.html

From ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz Wed Sep 15 03:24:17 2004
From: ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:24:17 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?
References: <4.3.1.2.20040913192221.022a0620@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <001201c49afd$6c9c1bf0$4f42ed82@mse.kth.se>

Dear Anderson,

It's was really nice to get your email and you asked very imporatnt and difficult questions. I will try to respond to, one by one.

1. As far as I know from literature (I am in the process of buying the suitable equipment to analyse through thermal methods the biomass characteristics), the typical Africal unshelled cashewnut contains about 20% w/w of CNSL while 25-30% is the nut and the rest (about 50%) is CNShell.

In Mozambique, the annual production of cashewnut is somehow difficult to assess from official statistics as, I think you know this, we were forced by WB to export raw cashew nut to India, which led to a destruction of the local cashewnut processing industry with all consequences anyone can derive. But, in the other hand, we have some plants being re-erected and some totally new to process the CN. Further, we have the small and familiar plantations where people harvest a lot of Cn and process it at household level to be sold along the streets and "bazars" (markets). This menas that we have a huge potential (and this is an undeniable fact) of growing and producing cashewnut. It has to be some incentive to grow cashewnut trees.

2. Presently, the cashewnut industry do utilise just part of CNShells, burning them to roast the raw cashewnut as part of the processing procedures. Even this, is done in a very inefficient way and, for instance, one of the plant owners I talked to, told me that he just burns part of it as it is very powrefull (high calorific value) and he cannot controll easily the temperature when he uses CNShells as fuel. Thus, he prefers to use them to start the oven and then switch to firewood. And he has mountains of CNShells in his dumpsite (amazing, isn't it?). I have my own concerns about this but, let's get back to the point!!!

3. Again from literature review, there are many ways of getting the CNSL extracted. Some of the methods are i)by roasting the nuts and collect the oozed oil, ii)using proper solvents iii)or treating it with superheated steam, iv) through pyrolysis, etc. By pyrolysis, CNSL can be obtained at different temperatures, but, it seems that the main part of it is obtained at temperatures bellow 200?C, and it can be opimised by following a very well designed temperature program in which plateaus are used to define the different heating stages and, by extracting the oozed oil at every stage. Another way is the vaccumm pyrolysis in which about 40% w/w can be extracted as CNSL at 400?C. And, of course, if the temperature goes higher than that, volatiles will rise from the oil causing the CNSL weight to drop. So, I don't think it is an easy task to obtain it but, I think that among us there must be some people who have been working with CNSL and got some valuable experience. I am still trying to find it out through experiments that, hopefully, I will be performing by the end of this year.

4. About its potential as fuel, I would say it is realy good and, i think it can be burnt in IC engines provied that some peculiarities are taken in account (this is for mechanical engineers). I guess Graeme Williams (one of Gas members) can tell you more about it. Also, different sources of information on commercial value of CNSL can be easily found on internet.

I hope I responded to all your questions and, of course, a lot of this information I got from literature. Some of it I cannot defend myself.

Thanks a lot and, please, come back with your comments.

Alberto

(PS. I just forwarded your email to Carlos Lucas)
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson
To: Alberto J?lio Tsamba ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV. REPP. ORG
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?

Hello Tsamba, nice to hear from you.

I know Tsamba from my many trips to Mozambique.

He asks a good question, and I hope that someone(s) can respond. And I ask him the following:

I know that Mozambique is a big producer of cashews. Can you give us some indication of the quantities of cashewnut oil that could be produced, and also of cashewnut shells?

Are either the shell oil or the shells currently being used, and is that use as a fuel or for some other use?

And is the oil relatively EASY to obtain? (because some other nut shells are very difficult to process to get usable oil).

Tsamba, I know you are working specifically on gasification (in doctoral studies in Sweden), but could the oil perhaps be used directly in internal combustion engines, such as something like bio-diesel??

I am also interested in the oil if it is flammable like citronella or other oils. Please tell us more about the oil characteristics.

(Off topic: Regards to Carlos Lucas. Please ask him to write to me!)

Paul

At 05:32 PM 9/8/04 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?= wrote:

Dear Collegaues,

I am interested in shearing this subject with you: it seems that cashewnut shell liquid (CNSL) is most valuable than the cashewnut shell as fuel. Further, CNSL is referred as most closer to petroleum fuels, it is, CNSL has a calorific value comparable to oil products.

Given these facts, would it be an economically sound option gasifying CNSL to generate fuel gas for different purposes like power generation in the rural areas?

I know that in India, there has been a couple of studies on pyrolysis of CNS as well as the production of bio-oil from CNS. Can we discuss this subject?

I am from Mozambique, and I would appreciate any contruibution around this issue as people are just burning it in an opena fire as a "low quality" energy source and for marginal purposes.

________________________________________________
Alberto J?lio Tsamba
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
Faculdade de Engenharia
Dept. de Engenharia Qu?mica
Cx. Postal 257 Avenida de Mo?ambique, km 1,5
Maputo MO?AMBIQUE
Telefax(tr): +258 1 475 318

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

From ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz Wed Sep 15 03:42:14 2004
From: ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:42:14 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?
References: <4.3.1.2.20040913192221.022a0620@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <002001c49aff$ea8577d0$4f42ed82@mse.kth.se>

Dear Anderson,

Something I forgot to mention is that the CNSL HHV is around 40MJ7kg and the ash content is too low (less than 0.1%)!

Regards,

Alberto,

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Anderson
To: Alberto J?lio Tsamba ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV. REPP. ORG
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically sound?

Hello Tsamba, nice to hear from you.

I know Tsamba from my many trips to Mozambique.

He asks a good question, and I hope that someone(s) can respond. And I ask him the following:

I know that Mozambique is a big producer of cashews. Can you give us some indication of the quantities of cashewnut oil that could be produced, and also of cashewnut shells?

Are either the shell oil or the shells currently being used, and is that use as a fuel or for some other use?

And is the oil relatively EASY to obtain? (because some other nut shells are very difficult to process to get usable oil).

Tsamba, I know you are working specifically on gasification (in doctoral studies in Sweden), but could the oil perhaps be used directly in internal combustion engines, such as something like bio-diesel??

I am also interested in the oil if it is flammable like citronella or other oils. Please tell us more about the oil characteristics.

(Off topic: Regards to Carlos Lucas. Please ask him to write to me!)

Paul

At 05:32 PM 9/8/04 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?= wrote:

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 15 05:00:56 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:00:56 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
Message-ID: <e5.133c5d7.2e796cd8@aol.com>

Hmmm, the 20% weld defects must be catching up. It is fairly easy to
deodorize this type of waste using the right microbes to reduce the amine production
which is the smell coming from high nitrogen containing materials.
Their press states that they are producing 200 barrels/day of some form of
fuel replacement oil, but does not say what the input volume is to get this. It
also tries to say that the plant is not losing lots of money.
Although there may be a lot of issues with this plant and there may be some
skeptics who would like to see it not succeed, if it is not a success, the
difficulties of any future waste to energy project including gasification will
only be more to overcome. It will certainly make Con-Agra less likely to get
involved any further in alternative energy plants.

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 Sep 15 07:01:53 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:01:53 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
In-Reply-To: <e5.133c5d7.2e796cd8@aol.com>
References: <e5.133c5d7.2e796cd8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20040915140153.44c25090.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:00:56 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
<e5.133c5d7.2e796cd8 at aol.com>:

> Hmmm, the 20% weld defects must be catching up. It is fairly easy to
> deodorize this type of waste using the right microbes to reduce the
> amine production which is the smell coming from high nitrogen
> containing materials. Their press states that they are producing 200
> barrels/day of some form of fuel replacement oil, but does not say
> what the input volume is to get this. It also tries to say that the
> plant is not losing lots of money. Although there may be a lot of
> issues with this plant and there may be some skeptics who would like
> to see it not succeed, if it is not a success, the difficulties of any
> future waste to energy project including gasification will only be
> more to overcome. It will certainly make Con-Agra less likely to get
> involved any further in alternative energy plants.

..interesting. So, are their share holders interested in recovering
their investment and even make a profit making everyone happy,
or are they not? Time will show us. ;-)

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 15 10:30:44 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:44 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
Message-ID: <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24@aol.com>

In a message dated 9/15/04 2:02:24 PM, arnt at c2i.net writes:

<< ..interesting. So, are their share holders interested in recovering
their investment and even make a profit making everyone happy,
or are they not? Time will show us. ;-)

-- >>

Dear Arnt,
The continuing interest in spending money on the process depends upon
technical issues such as what the technical problems are and if they can be
overcome with a reasonable amount of money. Also factored into this equation is the
sales job done on the investors and how far off the mark this is. If they
feel like they got snowed, they will put the plug and scrap the plant, or try to
sell it to someone else. Another Arbre. This has happened with Occidental's
flash pyrolysis San Diego plant, Synfuels plant on the east coast, the Hawaii
gasification plant, and others. Just more headaches for the rest of the
technology.

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Sep 15 10:47:49 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:47:49 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
In-Reply-To: <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24@aol.com>
References: <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20040915174749.175f51a5.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:44 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
<7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24 at aol.com>:

> > In a message dated 9/15/04 2:02:24 PM, arnt at c2i.net writes:
> >
> > ..interesting. So, are their share holders interested in recovering
> > their investment and even make a profit making everyone happy,
> > or are they not? Time will show us. ;-)
> >
>
> Dear Arnt,
> The continuing interest in spending money on the process depends upon
> technical issues such as what the technical problems are and if they
> can be overcome with a reasonable amount of money. Also factored into
> this equation is the sales job done on the investors and how far off
> the mark this is. If they feel like they got snowed, they will put the
> plug and scrap the plant, or try to sell it to someone else. Another
> Arbre. This has happened with Occidental's flash pyrolysis San Diego
> plant, Synfuels plant on the east coast, the Hawaii gasification
> plant, and others. Just more headaches for the rest of the technology.

..heh, it would be fun skiing these failures with the investors. ;-)

--
..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 Sep 15 12:54:15 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:54:15 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re turkey guts to oil
Message-ID: <7b.33fe5e7a.2e79dbc7@aol.com>

In my conversations recently with Changing World they have several other
projects planned and scheduled. Using garbage was not one of them due to problems
in the mix.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040915/d524ff5e/attachment.html

From bmjenkins at ucdavis.edu Wed Sep 15 17:04:05 2004
From: bmjenkins at ucdavis.edu (Jenkins)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:04:05 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Post-doc position/UC Davis
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040915150343.03582490@purple.ucdavis.edu>

University of California, Davis

Position Announcement for Post Graduate Researcher /Research Specialist

Position Description: Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
is recruiting an Bioenvironmental Engineer with a title of Post Doctoral
Researcher or Research Specialist for a biogas energy and waste
utilization project . The researcher will be conducting research on the
development of an innovative anaerobic digestion system that converts urban
green and food wastes into biogas energy, soil amendment and valuable fiber
products. The researcher will be expected to work with a dynamic
university-industry collaboration project team in performing lab, pilot,
and commercial scale experiments. The researcher will be heavily involved
in the design and operation of pilot and commercial scale anaerobic
digestion systems.

Qualification Requirement: The candidate is required to have a Ph.D. degree
or a M.S. degree with minimum two years of R&D experiences in Agricultural
or Biological Engineering, Environmental Engineering, or related areas. The
candidate should have strong education and research training in
bioconversion engineering processes and renewable energy systems and have a
good understanding of and direct working experiences with the design and
operation of bioreactors and instrumentation needed to control and monitor
bioreactors. Direct research experiences with anaerobic digestion and
composting processes are desired. Prior training and work experiences with
process-engineering and/or mechanical engineering will be
preferred. Strong verbal and written communication skills in English are
required.

Position Duration: 2-3 years.

Application: The position needs to be filled by October 1, 2004. Please
send a written letter that outlines the research interest and education and
training experiences along with resume, transcripts, and a list of three
references via post mail or email to

Dr. Ruihong Zhang, Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: (530)754-9530
Email: rhzhang at ucdavis.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040915/020b04a9/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Sep 15 20:52:07 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:52:07 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Post-doc position/UC Davis
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040915150343.03582490@purple.ucdavis.edu>
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040915150343.03582490@purple.ucdavis.edu>
Message-ID: <20040916035207.5fb277f3.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:04:05 -0700, Jenkins wrote in message
<6.0.1.1.2.20040915150343.03582490 at purple.ucdavis.edu>:
>
> University of California, Davis
>
> Position Announcement for Post Graduate Researcher /Research
> Specialist
>
> Position Description: Biological and Agricultural Engineering
> Department is recruiting an Bioenvironmental Engineer with a title of
> Post Doctoral Researcher or Research Specialist for a biogas energy
> and waste utilization project . The researcher will be conducting
> research on the development of an innovative anaerobic digestion
> system that converts urban green and food wastes into biogas energy,
> soil amendment and valuable fiber products.
> The researcher will be expected to work with a dynamic
> university-industry collaboration project team in performing lab,
> pilot, and commercial scale experiments. The researcher will be
> heavily involved in the design and operation of pilot and commercial
> scale anaerobic digestion systems.

..this rules out thermochemical gasification. Gas, for power and
district heat generation, or as a syntetic "petro"-chemical feed stock
and R&D on producing "ash" for either metallurgical or as concrete
filler type additives, would have been fun getting funded.
Oh well, plan A is carry on doing your own thing. ;-)

--
..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 Wed Sep 15 23:09:26 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:09:26 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it
economically sound?
In-Reply-To: <001201c49afd$6c9c1bf0$4f42ed82@mse.kth.se>
References: <4.3.1.2.20040913192221.022a0620@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20040915230249.025fbca0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Dear Tsamba,

Thanks for the details in your reply. I and most of the members of the
Gasification List Serve have little or no experience with cashewnut shell
liquid (CNSL). So I (and others) have very little to add. We will be
relying on you to get the issues resolved.

Is your doctorate research specific to CNSL. I imagine that India has done
a lot of research about CN and the by-prducts.

Best wishes,

Anderson

At 10:24 AM 9/15/04 +0200, Alberto J?lio Tsamba wrote:
>Dear Anderson,
>
>It's was really nice to get your email and you asked very imporatnt and
>difficult questions. I will try to respond to, one by one.
>
>1. As far as I know from literature (I am in the process of buying the
>suitable equipment to analyse through thermal methods the biomass
>characteristics), the typical Africal unshelled cashewnut contains about
>20% w/w of CNSL while 25-30% is the nut and the rest (about 50%) is CNShell.
>
>In Mozambique, the annual production of cashewnut is somehow difficult to
>assess from official statistics as, I think you know this, we were forced
>by WB to export raw cashew nut to India, which led to a destruction of the
>local cashewnut processing industry with all consequences anyone can
>derive. But, in the other hand, we have some plants being re-erected and
>some totally new to process the CN. Further, we have the small and
>familiar plantations where people harvest a lot of Cn and process it at
>household level to be sold along the streets and "bazars" (markets). This
>menas that we have a huge potential (and this is an undeniable fact) of
>growing and producing cashewnut. It has to be some incentive to grow
>cashewnut trees.
>
>2. Presently, the cashewnut industry do utilise just part of CNShells,
>burning them to roast the raw cashewnut as part of the processing
>procedures. Even this, is done in a very inefficient way and, for
>instance, one of the plant owners I talked to, told me that he just burns
>part of it as it is very powrefull (high calorific value) and he cannot
>controll easily the temperature when he uses CNShells as fuel. Thus, he
>prefers to use them to start the oven and then switch to firewood. And he
>has mountains of CNShells in his dumpsite (amazing, isn't it?). I have my
>own concerns about this but, let's get back to the point!!!
>
>3. Again from literature review, there are many ways of getting the CNSL
>extracted. Some of the methods are i)by roasting the nuts and collect the
>oozed oil, ii)using proper solvents iii)or treating it with superheated
>steam, iv) through pyrolysis, etc. By pyrolysis, CNSL can be obtained at
>different temperatures, but, it seems that the main part of it is obtained
>at temperatures bellow 200?C, and it can be opimised by following a very
>well designed temperature program in which plateaus are used to define the
>different heating stages and, by extracting the oozed oil at every stage.
>Another way is the vaccumm pyrolysis in which about 40% w/w can be
>extracted as CNSL at 400?C. And, of course, if the temperature goes higher
>than that, volatiles will rise from the oil causing the CNSL weight to
>drop. So, I don't think it is an easy task to obtain it but, I think that
>among us there must be some people who have been working with CNSL and got
>some valuable experience. I am still trying to find it out through
>experiments that, hopefully, I will be performing by the end of this year.
>
>4. About its potential as fuel, I would say it is realy good and, i think
>it can be burnt in IC engines provied that some peculiarities are taken in
>account (this is for mechanical engineers). I guess Graeme Williams (one
>of Gas members) can tell you more about it. Also, different sources of
>information on commercial value of CNSL can be easily found on internet.
>
>I hope I responded to all your questions and, of course, a lot of this
>information I got from literature. Some of it I cannot defend myself.
>
>Thanks a lot and, please, come back with your comments.
>
>Alberto
>
>(PS. I just forwarded your email to Carlos Lucas)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>Paul S. Anderson
>To: <mailto:ajtsamba at zebra.uem.mz>Alberto J?lio Tsamba ;
><mailto:GASIFICATION at LISTSERV. REPP. ORG>GASIFICATION at LISTSERV. REPP. ORG
>Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification of CNShells: Is it economically
>sound?
>
>Hello Tsamba, nice to hear from you.
>
>I know Tsamba from my many trips to Mozambique.
>
>He asks a good question, and I hope that someone(s) can respond. And I
>ask him the following:
>
>I know that Mozambique is a big producer of cashews. Can you give us some
>indication of the quantities of cashewnut oil that could be produced, and
>also of cashewnut shells?
>
>Are either the shell oil or the shells currently being used, and is that
>use as a fuel or for some other use?
>
>And is the oil relatively EASY to obtain? (because some other nut shells
>are very difficult to process to get usable oil).
>
>Tsamba, I know you are working specifically on gasification (in doctoral
>studies in Sweden), but could the oil perhaps be used directly in internal
>combustion engines, such as something like bio-diesel??
>
>I am also interested in the oil if it is flammable like citronella or
>other oils. Please tell us more about the oil characteristics.
>
>(Off topic: Regards to Carlos Lucas. Please ask him to write to me!)
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>At 05:32 PM 9/8/04 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Alberto_J=FAlio_Tsamba?= wrote:
>>Dear Collegaues,
>>
>>I am interested in shearing this subject with you: it seems that
>>cashewnut shell liquid (CNSL) is most valuable than the cashewnut shell
>>as fuel. Further, CNSL is referred as most closer to petroleum fuels, it
>>is, CNSL has a calorific value comparable to oil products.
>>
>>Given these facts, would it be an economically sound option gasifying
>>CNSL to generate fuel gas for different purposes like power generation in
>>the rural areas?
>>
>>I know that in India, there has been a couple of studies on pyrolysis of
>>CNS as well as the production of bio-oil from CNS. Can we discuss this
>>subject?
>>
>>I am from Mozambique, and I would appreciate any contruibution around
>>this issue as people are just burning it in an opena fire as a "low
>>quality" energy source and for marginal purposes.
>>
>>________________________________________________
>>Alberto J?lio Tsamba
>>Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
>>Faculdade de Engenharia
>>Dept. de Engenharia Qu?mica
>>Cx. Postal 257 Avenida de Mo?ambique, km 1,5
>>Maputo MO?AMBIQUE
>>Telefax(tr): +258 1 475 318
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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 LINVENT at aol.com Thu Sep 16 04:14:56 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:14:56 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
Message-ID: <2796F296.1D4777C8.00168ACC@aol.com>

The ridiculous part of anerobic digestion is that most of the original mass is still present which makes for a difficult disposal problem because of the sheer volume of slop generated. Better off going straight to gasification.
--
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 tombreed at comcast.net Thu Sep 16 07:16:16 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:16:16 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
References: <4.3.1.2.20040915235011.025ff2d0@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <003f01c49be6$f7676bb0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Paul and Aul:

GOOD QUESTION. I try to think in good generalizations so here are a few.
(Tom Miles is more expert than I on this and I hope he'll chip in too.)

Green wood (still living) is typically 50% moisture (wet basis) or 100%
moisture (dry basis). It can be "bone dried" in the oven at 220 F and you
can calculate the moisture content by weighing before and after.

"Denver dry" is approximately 10%. I don't know what "Seattle dry" would
be, but probably 20%.

Wood cellular matter has a true density of 1.5 g/cm3. Since wood has a
beautiful cellular structure, it can hold more than it's weight of water,
and wet logs sink and are now being mined.

Yes. Moisture content is all important in using wood as a fuel.

Gotta run...

TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: "The Stoves Discussion List" <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:03 PM
Subject: [Stoves] Moisture in wood

> Stovers,
>
> What is the typical moisture level (%) in a freshly cut living but old
> tree? Just in general, and not specific to any type of tree. Or give a
> common "range" of percentages if that answer makes more sense.
>
> I suspect someone knows the answer already without needing to go make
> measurements.
>
> Concerning "dry" wood, we have heard of "Denver dry" (?) and "kiln dried"
> and "sun dried chips". What percent of moisture do we expect in such
wood?
>
> Dean at Aprovecho has some great wood for use in the testing of the
> stoves. Standard for all to use there. But not necessarily typical for
> the kinds of woods we encounter in the rural villages, etc.
>
> It is clear to me (from my experiments, and from camping trips) that
> "green" wood can give many problems and make even the best of stoves look
bad.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>

From dglickd at pipeline.com Thu Sep 16 10:14:19 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:14:19 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
References: <2796F296.1D4777C8.00168ACC@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000301c49bff$d78b68a0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

The 'ridiculous' part of anaerobic fermentation -- when waste is used -- is
using waste -- biomass grown specifically as a feedstock -- produces a
valuable anaerobic compost -- not 'slop'!

Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:14 AM
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion

>
> The ridiculous part of anerobic digestion is that most of the original
> mass is still present which makes for a difficult disposal problem because
> of the sheer volume of slop generated. Better off going straight to
> gasification.
> --
> 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 Thu Sep 16 10:32:03 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:32:03 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
Message-ID: <ea.58d4a8a6.2e7b0bf3@aol.com>

Excuse me, but any soil microbiologist will argue that anerobic materials
applied to the soil are anathema to the aerobic populations which support the
crop. I have seen thousands of acres wiped out by an untimely rain which reduces
the pH of the soil and destroys the root system and soil microflora. It is
well known that excessive organic matter depletes the nitrogen system and is less
well known that continuous application of organic matter increases soil
phosphate which becomes toxic to the soil system. This is why composting does not
have more acceptance, it has a finite beneficial life cycle.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
decompressing files

From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Thu Sep 16 12:26:00 2004
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:26:00 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
Message-ID: <1095355605_51024@mail.rose.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040916/105bd244/attachment.html

From dglickd at pipeline.com Thu Sep 16 12:28:27 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:28:27 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
References: <ea.58d4a8a6.2e7b0bf3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c49c12$949ba830$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

Efforts in Florida are directed toward sandy soils as found in Polk County
(center of current activity) -- one of the principal citrus growing counties
in Florida. These soils are particularly benefited by application of high
carbon, low oxygen containing organic dressings. If the discussion is to
center on soil additives, we can address the issue of additional
treatment -- low cost -- that takes into account 'soil food web'
appropriate transfer biology agents that can be included in the above
indicated composts -- vastly increasing the now organic-fertilizer-compost
activity.

Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <dglickd at pipeline.com>; <LINVENT at aol.com>; <arnt at c2i.net>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] anerobic digestion

> Excuse me, but any soil microbiologist will argue that anerobic materials
> applied to the soil are anathema to the aerobic populations which support
> the
> crop. I have seen thousands of acres wiped out by an untimely rain which
> reduces
> the pH of the soil and destroys the root system and soil microflora. It is
> well known that excessive organic matter depletes the nitrogen system and
> is less
> well known that continuous application of organic matter increases soil
> phosphate which becomes toxic to the soil system. This is why composting
> does not
> have more acceptance, it has a finite beneficial life cycle.
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Agronics Inc.
> Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
> 505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
> To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
> decompressing files

From dglickd at pipeline.com Thu Sep 16 12:35:11 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:35:11 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
References: <1095355605_51024@mail.rose.net>
Message-ID: <001a01c49c13$858c69a0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

Not panties undone -- just attempted generalizations unnecessarily made. Slop is what has been available -- and it is not generally a valuable soil additive. When one is produced under acceptable anaerobic conditions, it is stigmatized as the same 'ol' slop'! And it ain't!

There are large scale, acceptable renewable circumstances.

Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Zebley
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] anerobic digestion

Gosh, Dick. Unwad your panties, man. He called it what it is. Slop. \;-)

Leland was just making the same point I've been making for years.

Biodigestion is not a complete solution. Period.
A large % of solids are left requiring additional material handling and the associated high parasitic energy costs (equipment to empty the holes, load the material, move the material, store the material, load the material, distribute the material).
By removing the "good" stuff you've also conentrated everything else. Good and bad.
Gasification is the best and most complete solution. Period.
Very small % of solids left over.
The fertilizer co's will pay handsomely for the ash.
Much more efiicient waste to energy conversion.
Relatively low parasitic energy costs related to drying (when using steam) and end product material handling (directly load the trailer and deliver to Scott's).

We have a system installed in Iowa (400 BHP output) @ the largest dairy farm in the state that will do the job nicely when we are finished.

Best Regards,
Gene Zebley
Energy System Sales

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21791 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738

Phone: (877) 994-8778, Toll Free US/Canada
Phone: (229) 346-3545, Ext. 139
Fax: (229) 346-3874
Cell: (229) 798-0664

http://www.hurstboiler.com/solid_fuel_fired.htm
mailto:boilrmkr at surfsouth.com

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

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Thu Sep 16 14:14:53 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:14:53 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
References: <ea.58d4a8a6.2e7b0bf3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002701c49c21$72bbf170$acbdf204@7k6rv21>

Leland,

You said:
> It is well known that excessive organic matter depletes the nitrogen
system and is less
> well known that continuous application of organic matter increases soil
> phosphate which becomes toxic to the soil system. This is why composting
does not
> have more acceptance, it has a finite beneficial life cycle.

You have made the exact point for the necessity to compost organic matter
with that statement. Pure organic matter (sawdust) has a Carbon to nitrogen
(C:N) ratio of about 500:1. It has almost no nitrogen. Properly made
compost has a C:N ratio of about 15 - 20:1. This means that compost brings
nitrogen with it as well when it is applied to the soil so it its NOT
nitrogen depleting. Adding pure organic matter (uncomposted) can lead to
nitrogen depletion but we are talking about composting it here.

If continuous application of organic matter is toxic to the soil system, the
earth would be a barren ball of rock by now. Now that is what it might look
like in New Mexico but here, where there is some rainfall, it doesn't look
barren at all. Follow the analog on how life does it and there is less
mystery to nature.

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

From vvnk at teri.res.in Thu Sep 16 23:20:46 2004
From: vvnk at teri.res.in (V V N Kishore)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:50:46 +0530
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
Message-ID: <s14ab393.005@dakghar.teri.res.in>

Taking cue from Tom Reed about generalities:
One cannot probably use anything available in nature and use it directly in modern society. Everything needs processing and that includes wood. If more and more people start thinking about this, there would be better chances for success of biomass. Processing obviously involves some kind of organization. So there is need to make available, in a systemic way, processed (dried, cut to size etc) wood to as many users as possible, including campers. Tom, your camp stove will be a through-and-through winner in such a scenario.
-Kishore.

Dr V V N Kishore
Senior Fellow
Biomass Energy Technology Applications
The Energy and Resources Institute
Darbari Seth Block
India Habitat Centre
Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003

>>> "TBReed" <tombreed at comcast.net> 09/16/04 05:46PM >>>
Dear Paul and Aul:

GOOD QUESTION. I try to think in good generalizations so here are a few.
(Tom Miles is more expert than I on this and I hope he'll chip in too.)

"Denver dry" is approximately 10%. I don't know what "Seattle dry" would
be, but probably 20%.

Wood cellular matter has a true density of 1.5 g/cm3. Since wood has a
beautiful cellular structure, it can hold more than it's weight of water,
and wet logs sink and are now being mined.

Yes. Moisture content is all important in using wood as a fuel.

Gotta run...

TOM REED BEF

_______________________________________________
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/20040917/d7e3149f/attachment.html

From Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au Fri Sep 17 00:33:44 2004
From: Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:03:44 +0930
Subject: [Gasification] anerobic digestion
References: <ea.58d4a8a6.2e7b0bf3@aol.com>
<002701c49c21$72bbf170$acbdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <414A7738.DCC55596@adelaide.edu.au>

G'day All,

I think the biggest barrier to wider acceptance of composting, anaerobic
digestion or any "natural" technology is the convenience of getting a
solution "out of the bag", which ignores the energy cost of creating the
"solution".

If you are concentrating just on waste "disposal", energy "creation" or
have woody waste that won't compost/digest gasification is fine, but if
you look at the larger system the facts change a bit!

The "Beginners Tour of Biogas" at
<http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/pharris/biogas/beginners.html> may
provide some useful background information if you want to follow up on
AD - you may also like to join the REPP discussion list at
<http://listserv.repp.org/cgi-bin/wa.cgi> (its not as lively as
"gasification, but then digestion is a much slower process as well!).

Have a good day,
HOOROO

Art Krenzel wrote:
>
> Leland,
>
> You said:
> > It is well known that excessive organic matter depletes the nitrogen
> system and is less
> > well known that continuous application of organic matter increases soil
> > phosphate which becomes toxic to the soil system. This is why composting
> does not
> > have more acceptance, it has a finite beneficial life cycle.
SNIP
>
> If continuous application of organic matter is toxic to the soil system, the
> earth would be a barren ball of rock by now. Now that is what it might look
> like in New Mexico but here, where there is some rainfall, it doesn't look
> barren at all. Follow the analog on how life does it and there is less
> mystery to nature.
>
> 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

--
Mr. Paul Harris
Faculty of Sciences, DP710
The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
contact again (by fax?)
http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb

CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
-----------------------------------------------------------
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
and contains information that may be confidential and/or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

From snkm at btl.net Fri Sep 17 10:17:06 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:17:06 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Straight through gasification by steam reformation
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040917091526.00988d10@pop.btl.net>

OK -- all kinds of questions -- all kinds of problems.

Would it not be nice just to throw the dead turkeys -- guts -- sewage
wastes -- grass clippings -- wood chips -- shavings -- you name that
biomass and add it -- into one super blend -- blend well -- then turn that
into a high quality gas with a very minimum of residues??

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

Download -- it is a zipped archive file -- unzip and click -- just keep
clicking!

BriteStar -- another failed venture -- but look at the flow diagrams -- OK??

Think what a little technical effort can do to get that flow working.

Personally -- I have solutions for every problem they encountered -- and
all at a practical and economical level of application.

Their huge problem was "seals" and feeding the flow.

A very easy solution to this --- at much less cost than their attempts --
which failed.

Further -- I can easily achieve and maintain pressures and temps required
to go the super critical water gasification (synthesis gas as product) for
this flow diagram.

We need to change direction folks -- but for a little innovative thinking
-- we are missing grabbing this ring!

Peter / Belize

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Sep 17 13:54:36 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:54:36 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
In-Reply-To: <s14ab393.003@dakghar.teri.res.in>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20040917135221.02130b10@mail.ilstu.edu>

V V,
Thanks for the great message. I was within 200 meters of your office
this past January. I went to the Improved Cook Stoves people and to the
Gasification office.

Next trip (??) I hope that we can meet. Meanwhile, can you please tell us
more about you and your work in India. And does your office deal at all
with the issue of bamboo as fuel and the flowering of the bamboo soon?

Paul

At 09:50 AM 9/17/04 +0530, V V N Kishore wrote:
>Taking cue from Tom Reed about generalities:
>One cannot probably use anything available in nature and use it directly
>in modern society. Everything needs processing and that includes wood. If
>more and more people start thinking about this, there would be better
>chances for success of biomass. Processing obviously involves some kind of
>organization. So there is need to make available, in a systemic way,
>processed (dried, cut to size etc) wood to as many users as possible,
>including campers. Tom, your camp stove will be a through-and-through
>winner in such a scenario.
>-Kishore.
>
>Dr V V N Kishore
>Senior Fellow
>Biomass Energy Technology Applications
>The Energy and Resources Institute
>Darbari Seth Block
>India Habitat Centre
>Lodhi Road
>New Delhi - 110 003
>
>
> >>> "TBReed" <tombreed at comcast.net> 09/16/04 05:46PM >>>
>Dear Paul and Aul:
>
>GOOD QUESTION. I try to think in good generalizations so here are a few.
>(Tom Miles is more expert than I on this and I hope he'll chip in too.)
>
>Green wood (still living) is typically 50% moisture (wet basis) or 100%
>moisture (dry basis). It can be "bone dried" in the oven at 220 F and you
>can calculate the moisture content by weighing before and after.
>
>"Denver dry" is approximately 10%. I don't know what "Seattle dry" would
>be, but probably 20%.
>
>Wood cellular matter has a true density of 1.5 g/cm3. Since wood has a
>beautiful cellular structure, it can hold more than it's weight of water,
>and wet logs sink and are now being mined.
>
>Yes. Moisture content is all important in using wood as a fuel.
>
>Gotta run...
>
>TOM REED BEF
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>To: "The Stoves Discussion List" <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:03 PM
>Subject: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
>
>
> > Stovers,
> >
> > What is the typical moisture level (%) in a freshly cut living but old
> > tree? Just in general, and not specific to any type of tree. Or give a
> > common "range" of percentages if that answer makes more sense.
> >
> > I suspect someone knows the answer already without needing to go make
> > measurements.
> >
> > Concerning "dry" wood, we have heard of "Denver dry" (?) and "kiln dried"
> > and "sun dried chips". What percent of moisture do we expect in such
>wood?
> >
> > Dean at Aprovecho has some great wood for use in the testing of the
> > stoves. Standard for all to use there. But not necessarily typical for
> > the kinds of woods we encounter in the rural villages, etc.
> >
> > It is clear to me (from my experiments, and from camping trips) that
> > "green" wood can give many problems and make even the best of stoves look
>bad.
> >
> > 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:
> <http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders>www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
> > NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> > For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> > Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> >
> <http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
><http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Sep 17 14:28:56 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:28:56 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Straight through gasification by steam reformation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040917091526.00988d10@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040917091526.00988d10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040917212856.40586234.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:17:06 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20040917091526.00988d10 at pop.btl.net>:
>
> OK -- all kinds of questions -- all kinds of problems.
>
> Would it not be nice just to throw the dead turkeys -- guts -- sewage
> wastes -- grass clippings -- wood chips -- shavings -- you name that
> biomass and add it -- into one super blend -- blend well -- then turn
> that into a high quality gas with a very minimum of residues??
>
> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
> Download -- it is a zipped archive file -- unzip and click -- just
> keep clicking!
>
>
> BriteStar -- another failed venture -- but look at the flow diagrams
> -- OK??
>
> Think what a little technical effort can do to get that flow working.
>
> Personally -- I have solutions for every problem they encountered --
> and all at a practical and economical level of application.
>
> Their huge problem was "seals"

..design them away? Jack pack in the fuel and let that do the seal job?

> and feeding the flow.

..multistep membrane pumps?

> A very easy solution to this --- at much less cost than their attempts

..I can see a challenge in trying to do it more expensively too. ;-)

> -- which failed.
>
> Further -- I can easily achieve and maintain pressures and temps
> required to go the super critical water gasification (synthesis gas as
> product) for this flow diagram.
>
> We need to change direction folks -- but for a little innovative
> thinking-- we are missing grabbing this ring!

..amen, all I hear the charitable useless "lets help the 3'rd world",
rather than 'show 'em, point them, kick their butts 'n share the
profits from our joint gas business.'

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

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 15:05:41 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration,
was Straight through gasification by steam reformation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040917091526.00988d10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040917200541.75332.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
This is the company I mentioned several weeks
ago. It's called Changing World Technologies that uses
Thermal Depolymerization.
A very good article is in Discover mag from their
5-03 issue and maybe on their website Discover.com.
They have been grinding up biomass for several
yrs and heating it up to about 500F and that creates
about 600psi from the water in it for 15 minutes then
flashed to low pressure removing minerals, water then
DD heating to 900F, then using vertical distillation
columns like refineries do and get light diesel type
oil, C18 and lower, and methane, other gases. This is
for Turkey butts, ect.
The flashedoff steam is used to preheat the
incoming feedstock stream. Maybe this heated steam
could be heated to 1500F by the waste gas to get H2
and O2 before it's used to preheat the incoming
feedstock.
Different pressures, temps, time are used for
different source biomasses from tires to straw.
They say much of it is old tech so maybe parts
can be done without their patents.
This sounds like something we could do! Any
comments? Thoughts?
HTH's,
jerry dycus

--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> OK -- all kinds of questions -- all kinds of
> problems.
>
> Would it not be nice just to throw the dead turkeys
> -- guts -- sewage
> wastes -- grass clippings -- wood chips -- shavings
> -- you name that
> biomass and add it -- into one super blend -- blend
> well -- then turn that
> into a high quality gas with a very minimum of
> residues??
>
>
http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
> Download -- it is a zipped archive file -- unzip and
> click -- just keep
> clicking!
>
>
> BriteStar -- another failed venture -- but look at
> the flow diagrams -- OK??
>
> Think what a little technical effort can do to get
> that flow working.
>
> Personally -- I have solutions for every problem
> they encountered -- and
> all at a practical and economical level of
> application.
>
> Their huge problem was "seals" and feeding the flow.
>
> A very easy solution to this --- at much less cost
> than their attempts --
> which failed.
>
> Further -- I can easily achieve and maintain
> pressures and temps required
> to go the super critical water gasification
> (synthesis gas as product) for
> this flow diagram.
>
> We need to change direction folks -- but for a
> little innovative thinking
> -- we are missing grabbing this ring!
>
> Peter / Belize
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 21:29:31 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration,
was Straight through gasification by steam reformation
In-Reply-To: <20040917200541.75332.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040918022931.32612.qmail@web41005.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Jorge? and All,
I don't know what the energy balance is but
probably directly related to how much water there is
and how much heat you can recover from it.
He says 15% of the inputs energy is needed for
the process but that's variable depending on the
feedstock.
I'd bet it's good with woody, leafy feedstock
as little water would be needed. Worse with turkey
butts. Maybe better with some nickel mixed in as a
catalyst to convert more water, steam into fuel.
It's leafy, woody biomass I'm interested in as
in Fla it's coming out of our ears even without
hurricanes!!! I wonder what the output products would
be from them? Any ideas? Oil or just gas?
We are about to burn up enough to run Fla for 6
months if it could be converted into something
useful!!!
From a man of 175 lbs he says you get 38
pounds oil, 7 pounds gas, 7 pounds minerals and 123lbs
water so doing animal byproducts isn't going to be
that eff dispite what he says unless you split the
water, steam into H2-O2 with the burnible gas if you
can use it and use it's waste heat to drive the
system. You could use it to make methanol in a bigger
operation. Still it would be worthwhile.
Other things like tires, PET bottles, other
plastics should be quite good.
It has value in disposing of wastes which is a
good added value that needs to be included.
. Hth's,
jerry dycus

--- jerry dycus <jerry5335 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter and All,
> This is the company I mentioned several
> weeks
> ago. It's called Changing World Technologies that
> uses
> Thermal Depolymerization.
> A very good article is in Discover mag from their
> 5-03 issue and maybe on their website Discover.com.
> They have been grinding up biomass for several
> yrs and heating it up to about 500F and that creates
> about 600psi from the water in it for 15 minutes
> then
> flashed to low pressure removing minerals, water
> then
> DD heating to 900F, then using vertical distillation
> columns like refineries do and get light diesel type
> oil, C18 and lower, and methane, other gases. This
> is
> for Turkey butts, ect.
> The flashedoff steam is used to preheat the
> incoming feedstock stream. Maybe this heated steam
> could be heated to 1500F by the waste gas to get H2
> and O2 before it's used to preheat the incoming
> feedstock.
> Different pressures, temps, time are used for
> different source biomasses from tires to straw.
> They say much of it is old tech so maybe parts
> can be done without their patents.
> This sounds like something we could do! Any
> comments? Thoughts?
> HTH's,
> jerry dycus
>
>
> --- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK -- all kinds of questions -- all kinds of
> > problems.
> >
> > Would it not be nice just to throw the dead
> turkeys
> > -- guts -- sewage
> > wastes -- grass clippings -- wood chips --
> shavings
> > -- you name that
> > biomass and add it -- into one super blend --
> blend
> > well -- then turn that
> > into a high quality gas with a very minimum of
> > residues??
> >

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From snkm at btl.net Fri Sep 17 22:13:18 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:13:18 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration,was Straight through
gasification by steam reformation
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>

>This sounds like something we could do! Any
>comments? Thoughts?

Never mind the gas -- diesel fuel is fine!!

And yes -- something I should be doing in my back yard -- using chicken
wastes from the local slaughter house.

Certainly -- used tires abound to!!

Peter

At 01:05 PM 9/17/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:
> Hi Peter and All,
> This is the company I mentioned several weeks
>ago. It's called Changing World Technologies that uses
>Thermal Depolymerization.
>A very good article is in Discover mag from their
> 5-03 issue and maybe on their website Discover.com.
> They have been grinding up biomass for several
>yrs and heating it up to about 500F and that creates
>about 600psi from the water in it for 15 minutes then
>flashed to low pressure removing minerals, water then
>DD heating to 900F, then using vertical distillation
>columns like refineries do and get light diesel type
>oil, C18 and lower, and methane, other gases. This is
>for Turkey butts, ect.
> The flashedoff steam is used to preheat the
>incoming feedstock stream. Maybe this heated steam
>could be heated to 1500F by the waste gas to get H2
>and O2 before it's used to preheat the incoming
>feedstock.
> Different pressures, temps, time are used for
>different source biomasses from tires to straw.
> They say much of it is old tech so maybe parts
>can be done without their patents.
> This sounds like something we could do! Any
>comments? Thoughts?
> HTH's,
> jerry dycus
>
>

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Sep 17 23:51:57 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:51:57 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Questions
Message-ID: <dc.14fc4d94.2e7d18ed@aol.com>

Where is the largest operational Gasification system located?
What is the fuel source and what is produced?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040918/6d3d99bf/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Sep 18 05:02:36 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:02:36 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] thermal depolymerization?
Message-ID: <38AECAF4.4B7B0BCE.00168ACC@aol.com>

Explain this equation: thermal depolymerization=pyrolysis?
--
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 Sat Sep 18 05:04:25 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration,
was Straight through gasification by steam reformation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040918100425.75376.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> >This sounds like something we could do! Any
> >comments? Thoughts?
>
> Never mind the gas -- diesel fuel is fine!!

The gas is ok as you can use it for the process,
electricity. Oil is what I want mostly too or some
fuel liquid.

>
> And yes -- something I should be doing in my back
> yard -- using chicken
> wastes from the local slaughter house.

They said the first part does most of the work
with turkey parts and the oil should seperate
naturally avoiding the light DD and distillation steps
but may have more wastes leftover.

>
> Certainly -- used tires abound to!!

Using them together would be even better as the
carbon from the tires could be used to turn the split
steam into something useful like methanol, more
fischer-throp oil especially if output is run through
a nickel catalyst or maybe just run the gas part thru
the cat..
The output sounds like FT oil which is about C18
and lighter between gasoline and diesel.
What do you think using yard wastes would the
output be from TD? 500F at 600psi flashed to 15psi.

The low temps should give more liquid fuels VS DD
at high temps.
Any links to other processes they allude to?

Thanks,
jerry dycus
>
> Peter
>
> At 01:05 PM 9/17/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:
> > Hi Peter and All,
> > This is the company I mentioned several
> weeks
> >ago. It's called Changing World Technologies that
> uses
> >Thermal Depolymerization.
> >A very good article is in Discover mag from their
> > 5-03 issue and maybe on their website
> Discover.com.
> > They have been grinding up biomass for several
> >yrs and heating it up to about 500F and that
> creates
> >about 600psi from the water in it for 15 minutes
> then
> >flashed to low pressure removing minerals, water
> then
> >DD heating to 900F, then using vertical
> distillation
> >columns like refineries do and get light diesel
> type
> >oil, C18 and lower, and methane, other gases. This
> is
> >for Turkey butts, ect.
> > The flashedoff steam is used to preheat the
> >incoming feedstock stream. Maybe this heated steam
> >could be heated to 1500F by the waste gas to get H2
> >and O2 before it's used to preheat the incoming
> >feedstock.
> > Different pressures, temps, time are used for
> >different source biomasses from tires to straw.
> > They say much of it is old tech so maybe parts
> >can be done without their patents.
> > This sounds like something we could do! Any
> >comments? Thoughts?
> > HTH's,
> > jerry dycus
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 05:04:59 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration,
was Straight through gasification by steam reformation
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040918100459.94213.qmail@web41012.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> >This sounds like something we could do! Any
> >comments? Thoughts?
>
> Never mind the gas -- diesel fuel is fine!!

The gas is ok as you can use it for the process,
electricity. Oil is what I want mostly too or some
fuel liquid.

>
> And yes -- something I should be doing in my back
> yard -- using chicken
> wastes from the local slaughter house.

They said the first part does most of the work
with turkey parts and the oil should seperate
naturally avoiding the light DD and distillation steps
but may have more wastes leftover.

>
> Certainly -- used tires abound to!!

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Sat Sep 18 07:02:42 2004
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:02:42 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration, Waht the Net Energy Gain?
In-Reply-To: <20040918100459.94213.qmail@web41012.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>

Dear All,

So, I will ask you learned folks the same question that I asked Brian Appel
(who claims the process), what is the net energy gain from this process
after all heat inputs are accounted for? He got very upset with me.

Best,
Joel Gordes

At 03:04 AM 9/18/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:

> Hi Peter and All,
>--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > >This sounds like something we could do! Any
> > >comments? Thoughts?
> >
> > Never mind the gas -- diesel fuel is fine!!
>
> The gas is ok as you can use it for the process,
>electricity. Oil is what I want mostly too or some
>fuel liquid.
>
> >
> > And yes -- something I should be doing in my back
> > yard -- using chicken
> > wastes from the local slaughter house.
>
> They said the first part does most of the work
>with turkey parts and the oil should seperate
>naturally avoiding the light DD and distillation steps
>but may have more wastes leftover.
>
> >
> > Certainly -- used tires abound to!!
>
> Using them together would be even better as the
>carbon from the tires could be used to turn the split
>steam into something useful like methanol, more
>fischer-throp oil especially if output is run through
>a nickel catalyst or maybe just run the gas part thru
>the cat..
> The output sounds like FT oil which is about C18
>and lighter between gasoline and diesel.
> What do you think using yard wastes would the
>output be from TD? 500F at 600psi flashed to 15psi.
>
> The low temps should give more liquid fuels VS DD
>at high temps.
> Any links to other processes they allude to?
>
> Thanks,
> jerry dycus
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > At 01:05 PM 9/17/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:
> > > Hi Peter and All,
> > > This is the company I mentioned several
> > weeks
> > >ago. It's called Changing World Technologies that
> > uses
> > >Thermal Depolymerization.
> > >A very good article is in Discover mag from their
> > > 5-03 issue and maybe on their website
> > Discover.com.
> > > They have been grinding up biomass for several
> > >yrs and heating it up to about 500F and that
> > creates
> > >about 600psi from the water in it for 15 minutes
> > then
> > >flashed to low pressure removing minerals, water
> > then
> > >DD heating to 900F, then using vertical
> > distillation
> > >columns like refineries do and get light diesel
> > type
> > >oil, C18 and lower, and methane, other gases. This
> > is
> > >for Turkey butts, ect.
> > > The flashedoff steam is used to preheat the
> > >incoming feedstock stream. Maybe this heated steam
> > >could be heated to 1500F by the waste gas to get H2
> > >and O2 before it's used to preheat the incoming
> > >feedstock.
> > > Different pressures, temps, time are used for
> > >different source biomasses from tires to straw.
> > > They say much of it is old tech so maybe parts
> > >can be done without their patents.
> > > This sounds like something we could do! Any
> > >comments? Thoughts?
> > > HTH's,
> > > jerry dycus
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> >
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________
>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

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

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

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

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040918/f1719fb8/attachment.html

From jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 18 08:42:06 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:42:06 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Trailer Mounted Units
Message-ID: <BAY17-F39hpUDSQ7E0r00023af0@hotmail.com>

I am new to this list and somewhat new to learning the gasification field,
what companies are out there, what products are offered etc... so please
excuse my current ignorance as I am undergoing a learning curve and
exploring the whole subject matter. I have not yet found through web
searches any companies that sell small gasifiers for individual and home
use. I did run into New Zealands Fluidyne, which developed their Pacific
Class gasifier unit 20 years ago which looks perfect for a wide variety of
applications but I didn't see any companies that manufacture them in any
significant number.

I am intersted right now in two particular areas and I would appreciate any
feedback. Right now I would like to know what companies manufacure and sell
smaller scale wood gasifiers, both in the US and abroad. Smale scale
meaning something an individual can use to power and heat his house or run
his automobile or possibly even generate modest amounts of methanol for his
families needs. I have obtained a copy of Tom Reeds book published with the
approval of FEMA for emergency gasifiers that are simple and can be made out
of oil drums, trash cans, and other readily available material, but I
haven't yet found the companies that make these or others or kits for do it
yourself projects.

I am very intersted in some kind of versatile trailer mounted wood gasifier
unit, not necessarily to be used to power the automobile towing it (though
it has that capability) but something that is compact, portable can be used
on a small scale for people's homes and is all self contained. This trailer
mounted unit can be used for multiple purposes and power the entire energy
needs of a typical three bedroom home, to provide hot water, electricity and
heat, and may even include a catalyzer unit for producing methanol to power
the family vehicles. I'm sure someone has thought of this type of thing
before I am just wondering if anyone has produced any, what their costs and
economics are, etc...

I believe that the United States is heading toward a very severe energy
crisis in the near future (within 10 years) or a situation in which we
simply can't afford to import the mass quantities of goods at massive trade
deficit as we have been, when that time comes we will suddenly be without
60% of our oil supply, and forced with our backs to the wall to immediately
adopt alternatives. The most obvious alternative is domestic fuel
production through wood and coal gasification. All of the circumstances
favor this development not just on the small scale that it is currently
adopted but on gradually changing the nations entire energy infrastructure.

Jonathan Pratt
Norfolk, VA

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

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Sep 18 10:49:53 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:49:53 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Trailer Mounted Units
References: <BAY17-F39hpUDSQ7E0r00023af0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <004d01c49d97$2b818eb0$6701a8c0@Yellow>

Jonathon,

Most trailer mounted or demonstration systems are one-time projects.

You will find links to small systems from the following sites:

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

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

200 KWe CHP Gasification Systems (REPP)
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Biomass Energy Foundation (Tom Reed)
http://www.woodgas.com

You can also search the Gasification list archives:
http://repp.org/htdig/

Regards,

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Pratt" <jonpratt76 at hotmail.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:42 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Trailer Mounted Units

> I am new to this list and somewhat new to learning the gasification field,
> what companies are out there, what products are offered etc... so please
> excuse my current ignorance as I am undergoing a learning curve and
> exploring the whole subject matter. I have not yet found through web
> searches any companies that sell small gasifiers for individual and home
> use. I did run into New Zealands Fluidyne, which developed their Pacific
> Class gasifier unit 20 years ago which looks perfect for a wide variety of
> applications but I didn't see any companies that manufacture them in any
> significant number.
>
> I am intersted right now in two particular areas and I would appreciate
any
> feedback. Right now I would like to know what companies manufacure and
sell
> smaller scale wood gasifiers, both in the US and abroad. Smale scale
> meaning something an individual can use to power and heat his house or run
> his automobile or possibly even generate modest amounts of methanol for
his
> families needs. I have obtained a copy of Tom Reeds book published with
the
> approval of FEMA for emergency gasifiers that are simple and can be made
out
> of oil drums, trash cans, and other readily available material, but I
> haven't yet found the companies that make these or others or kits for do
it
> yourself projects.
>
> I am very intersted in some kind of versatile trailer mounted wood
gasifier
> unit, not necessarily to be used to power the automobile towing it (though
> it has that capability) but something that is compact, portable can be
used
> on a small scale for people's homes and is all self contained. This
trailer
> mounted unit can be used for multiple purposes and power the entire energy
> needs of a typical three bedroom home, to provide hot water, electricity
and
> heat, and may even include a catalyzer unit for producing methanol to
power
> the family vehicles. I'm sure someone has thought of this type of thing
> before I am just wondering if anyone has produced any, what their costs
and
> economics are, etc...
>
> I believe that the United States is heading toward a very severe energy
> crisis in the near future (within 10 years) or a situation in which we
> simply can't afford to import the mass quantities of goods at massive
trade
> deficit as we have been, when that time comes we will suddenly be without
> 60% of our oil supply, and forced with our backs to the wall to
immediately
> adopt alternatives. The most obvious alternative is domestic fuel
> production through wood and coal gasification. All of the circumstances
> favor this development not just on the small scale that it is currently
> adopted but on gradually changing the nations entire energy
infrastructure.
>
> Jonathan Pratt
> Norfolk, VA
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Sep 18 18:17:05 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:17:05 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration, Waht the Net Energy Gain?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>
<5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20040919011705.659693c2.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:02:42 -0400, jgordes wrote in message
<5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0 at pop.earthlink.net>:

> Dear All,
>
> So, I will ask you learned folks the same question that I asked Brian
> Appel (who claims the process), what is the net energy gain from this
> process after all heat inputs are accounted for? He got very upset
> with me.

..maybe he misunderstood your dedication "to executing ideas"? ;-)

>
> Best,
> Joel Gordes

...

> "...the problem at hand, which is that centrally generated electricity
> is a vulnerable genie. In order to be used it must travel on an ugly,
> complex and inefficient labyrinth of wires and substations...Even from
> a security view (national or otherwise) such a fragile system is
> suicide." Gordes-February 1978 in a published Hartford Courant Letter
> to the editor.
>
> " Distributed generation at many locations around the grid increases
> power reliability and quality while reducing the strain on the
> electricity transmission system. It also makes our electricity
> infrastructure less vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by
> distributing the generation and diversifying the generation fuels. So
> if you're engaged in this effort, it is my view that you are also
> engaged in our national effort to fight terrorism."-- David Garman,
> Assist Sec. of Energy, 10/2/01
>
> "Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
>

--
..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 jgordes at earthlink.net Sat Sep 18 19:09:53 2004
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:09:53 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration, What's the Net Energy Gain?
In-Reply-To: <20040919011705.659693c2.arnt@c2i.net>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>
<3.0.32.20040917211118.0098e200@pop.btl.net>
<5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20040918200137.02421610@pop.earthlink.net>

At 01:17 AM 9/19/2004 +0200, you wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:02:42 -0400, jgordes wrote in message
><5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0 at pop.earthlink.net>:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > So, I will ask you learned folks the same question that I asked Brian
> > Appel (who claims the process), what is the net energy gain from this
> > process after all heat inputs are accounted for? He got very upset
> > with me.
>
>..maybe he misunderstood your dedication "to executing ideas"? ;-)

Dear Arnt et al,

Well said, old bean, and I have executed a good deal of energy savings and
production in the last 29 years. I have also, unfortunately had to keep a
file (seriously) that has grown progressively thicker over the years titled
IISTGTBT which stand for "If it sounds too good to be true..." Why here is
Connecticut (a very small US state) one project even got considerable
funding for what many thought was a close to fraudulent deal. A friend who
lurks on this group will attest to this but will probably keep his
anonymity. A smart person, my Grasshopper.

Best,
Joel "Gordo" Gordes

> >
> > Best,
> > Joel Gordes
>
>...
>
> > "...the problem at hand, which is that centrally generated electricity
> > is a vulnerable genie. In order to be used it must travel on an ugly,
> > complex and inefficient labyrinth of wires and substations...Even from
> > a security view (national or otherwise) such a fragile system is
> > suicide." Gordes-February 1978 in a published Hartford Courant Letter
> > to the editor.
> >
> > " Distributed generation at many locations around the grid increases
> > power reliability and quality while reducing the strain on the
> > electricity transmission system. It also makes our electricity
> > infrastructure less vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by
> > distributing the generation and diversifying the generation fuels. So
> > if you're engaged in this effort, it is my view that you are also
> > engaged in our national effort to fight terrorism."-- David Garman,
> > Assist Sec. of Energy, 10/2/01
> >
> > "Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
> >
>
>
>--
>..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

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From n7ifj at qwest.net Sat Sep 18 20:29:13 2004
From: n7ifj at qwest.net (Evan Burroughs)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:29:13 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration, Waht the Net Energy Gain?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20040918080142.024317a0@pop.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <FNEDLOOIHAKKOIBDKBPLKEFICPAA.n7ifj@qwest.net>

Hi Joel and All,

Maybe this is a stupid question but does there have to be a net energy gain?
I don't recall any claims of such in the turkey waste plant.

I should think that converting a waste product into useful material and
having that useful material have a sufficiently greater monetary value than
the cost of the inputs and process to be profitable should be good enough.

Regards,

Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of jgordes
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:03 AM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Thermal Depolymeration, Waht the Net Energy Gain?

Dear All,

So, I will ask you learned folks the same question that I asked Brian
Appel (who claims the process), what is the net energy gain from this
process after all heat inputs are accounted for? He got very upset with me.

Best,
Joel Gordes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040918/2c9ba448/attachment.html

From mlefcort at telus.net Sun Sep 19 14:14:26 2004
From: mlefcort at telus.net (Malcolm Lefcort)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:14:26 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
Message-ID: <001501c49e7c$e190c0f0$f21a5118@Malcolm>

Dr. Kishore wrote:

> One cannot probably use anything available in nature and use it
directly in modern

> society. Everything needs processing and that includes wood....

As one who has been involved in the gasification and combustion of wet
biomass for the last 28 years in North America's Pacific Northwest, I should
like to take gentle exception to the above two statements.

The Lamb Wet Cell Burner and its successor, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler -
both of which I designed - are industrial, two-stage, biomass combustors
that can readily burn biomass as wet as 65% moisture content on a wet basis.
Depending upon the size of the combustor the material must be sized to
between 3 to 6 inches minus (7.5 to 15 cm minus)

By "industrial" I mean in the 10 to 100 Million Btu/h (3 to 30 MWth) range.
The rating is based on the total enthalpy of the hot products of combustion
leaving the combustor, with respect to a datum of 77F (25C).

By "two-stage" I mean a first stage of gasification followed immediately by
a separate second stage of combustion in which first stage producer gas is
burned.

The Wet Cell was developed in the Vancouver, BC area in the late 1970's, at
a time when US President Jimmy Carter declared "war on energy". It burned
wet bark, freshly removed from logs pulled straight out of the Fraser River.
Emission testing on its stack indicates that particulate is less than 100
mg/Nm3 (i.e., less than 0.125 lb/Million Btu or less than 0.04 gr/dscf), CO
is less than 1 ppm and NOx less than 15 ppm, all at 11% O2 by volume,
straight out of its nominal 1,800F (982C) stack when burning typical sawmill
residue . Wet Cells have been in continuous service in the North American
forest products industry for the last 23 years.

Some of the wetter EnvirOcycler projects presently under development by
Heuristic Engineering deal with the disposal of, and energy recovery from,

a) 60% moisture content municipal sewage sludge in the US Northeast
(1,850/1010C discharge temperature)

b) 65% moisture content palm oil empty fruit bunches in Southeast
Asia (1,750F/954C discharge temperature)

The EnvirOcyclers for both projects operate with an excess air of 15%.

Further information on our two-stage, wet biomass, combustors can be found
at http://www.heuristicengineering.com
<http://www.heuristicengineering.com/>

Malcolm D. Lefcort, Sc.D., P. Eng.
Engineering Manager

Heuristic Engineering Inc

Vancouver, BC Canada

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040919/cd5c32dc/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Sep 20 08:21:23 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:21:23 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Just steam power
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040919192618.0094e100@pop.btl.net>

Going though my archives -- found this small steam boiler power plant --
las checked it out in 2002.

It is still there --

http://stonepathpower.com/product_info.htm

Good for a base-line when discussing village power in 3rd world.

Peter / Belize

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Sep 20 12:52:47 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:52:47 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Just steam power
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040919192618.0094e100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040919192618.0094e100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040920195247.2b9b68f2.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:21:23 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20040919192618.0094e100 at pop.btl.net>:

>
> Going though my archives -- found this small steam boiler power plant
> -- las checked it out in 2002.
>
> It is still there --
>
> http://stonepathpower.com/product_info.htm
>
> Good for a base-line when discussing village power in 3rd world.

.."near" grids, lose that DC inverter gear and spend your money on a
good old fashion 3 phase squirrel cage motor, 3 condensers, a battery
and chargers, an ash auger a wood chipper and auger and a gasifier. ;-)

..oh, with the gasifier, run an IC engine, heat water in its coolant
jacket. ;-)

..wanna cut the price? Cut the boiler and the turbine. ;-)

--
..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 Thu Sep 23 10:20:19 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:20:19 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood
References: <001501c49e7c$e190c0f0$f21a5118@Malcolm>
Message-ID: <00e801c4a180$d63db2b0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Malcolm:

I have a sample of "hurricane mulch" made by tub grinding houses, fences etc. Very wet. There are probably 100 million tons available. Sounds like your wet cell is exactly what they need, but they'll probably landfill it.

We are awash in other sources of energy, but insist on oil and the wars and terrors that go with it...

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm Lefcort
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Moisture in wood

Dr. Kishore wrote:

> One cannot probably use anything available in nature and use it directly in modern

> society. Everything needs processing and that includes wood....

As one who has been involved in the gasification and combustion of wet biomass for the last 28 years in North America's Pacific Northwest, I should like to take gentle exception to the above two statements.

The Lamb Wet Cell Burner and its successor, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler - both of which I designed - are industrial, two-stage, biomass combustors that can readily burn biomass as wet as 65% moisture content on a wet basis. Depending upon the size of the combustor the material must be sized to between 3 to 6 inches minus (7.5 to 15 cm minus)

By "industrial" I mean in the 10 to 100 Million Btu/h (3 to 30 MWth) range. The rating is based on the total enthalpy of the hot products of combustion leaving the combustor, with respect to a datum of 77F (25C).

By "two-stage" I mean a first stage of gasification followed immediately by a separate second stage of combustion in which first stage producer gas is burned.

The Wet Cell was developed in the Vancouver, BC area in the late 1970's, at a time when US President Jimmy Carter declared "war on energy". It burned wet bark, freshly removed from logs pulled straight out of the Fraser River. Emission testing on its stack indicates that particulate is less than 100 mg/Nm3 (i.e., less than 0.125 lb/Million Btu or less than 0.04 gr/dscf), CO is less than 1 ppm and NOx less than 15 ppm, all at 11% O2 by volume, straight out of its nominal 1,800F (982C) stack when burning typical sawmill residue . Wet Cells have been in continuous service in the North American forest products industry for the last 23 years.

Some of the wetter EnvirOcycler projects presently under development by Heuristic Engineering deal with the disposal of, and energy recovery from,

a) 60% moisture content municipal sewage sludge in the US Northeast (1,850/1010C discharge temperature)

b) 65% moisture content palm oil empty fruit bunches in Southeast Asia (1,750F/954C discharge temperature)

The EnvirOcyclers for both projects operate with an excess air of 15%.

Further information on our two-stage, wet biomass, combustors can be found at http://www.heuristicengineering.com

Malcolm D. Lefcort, Sc.D., P. Eng.
Engineering Manager

Heuristic Engineering Inc

Vancouver, BC Canada

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

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Sep 28 07:46:05 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:46:05 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
References: <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24@aol.com>
<20040915174749.175f51a5.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <010d01c4a559$1eeedee0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear All:

Some of us learn from our mistakes, but Humans are eternal optimists and
don't like to hear about failures.

The US DOE has had very few successes, but it is our nature to bury our
mistakes and not look back. As a result we continue to try the same old
things.

The best money the DOE could spend would be to evaluatge the technologies
they funded over the last 30 years (FERCO, Hawaii, ....) objectively and
decide what was positive and what was negative.

Not bloody likely...

TOM REED (Sometimes cynic, but ever optimistic)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <LINVENT at aol.com>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:44 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
> <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24 at aol.com>:
>
> > > In a message dated 9/15/04 2:02:24 PM, arnt at c2i.net writes:
> > >
> > > ..interesting. So, are their share holders interested in recovering
> > > their investment and even make a profit making everyone happy,
> > > or are they not? Time will show us. ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Dear Arnt,
> > The continuing interest in spending money on the process depends upon
> > technical issues such as what the technical problems are and if they
> > can be overcome with a reasonable amount of money. Also factored into
> > this equation is the sales job done on the investors and how far off
> > the mark this is. If they feel like they got snowed, they will put the
> > plug and scrap the plant, or try to sell it to someone else. Another
> > Arbre. This has happened with Occidental's flash pyrolysis San Diego
> > plant, Synfuels plant on the east coast, the Hawaii gasification
> > plant, and others. Just more headaches for the rest of the technology.
>
> ..heh, it would be fun skiing these failures with the investors. ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Sep 28 08:27:52 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:27:52 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Downdraft and upsidedowndraft gasifiers
complimentary...
References: <WALAGAMBAxHbHucVXqx00001159@walagamba.haycarbgrp.com>
Message-ID: <018d01c4a55e$fb9e2210$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear Prabash:

A very perceptive question! I asked it myself in 1985 and hence invented the Top lit updraft gasifier (also known as the "upsidedowndraft gasifier, toplit gasifier, inverted downdraft gasifier etc.

Yes, our "Key" was only measured on the Toplit updraft gasifier which has an upper superficial velocity limit of about 0.1m/s at which point the fuel may become levitated depending on its density.

On the other hand the downdraft gasifier has a lower limit of about 0.08 m/s, below which natural convection forces overtake the forced downward convection and smoke comes out the top of the gasifier. So the two are complimentary.

I could tell you a lot more if you are interested.

Yours truly,

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: Puritas Limited
To: tombreed at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:29 PM
Subject: Request Further Information for the Article appeared on WWW . WOODGAS . COM

Dear Sir

I am referring to your research paper appeared in above web site under 'Superficial velocity- key to design Down draft Gasifier'.

The apparatus you used to demonstrate the trial is vertically oriented cylinder. When it is operating as a down draft Gasifer the initial firing needs to be done from the top.

My question is that if initiate the operation by igniting from the bottom would that become a up draft Gasifier ?

Please Comment

Thanks

Prabash W.R

Chem. Eng.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040928/73c6490c/attachment.html

From gijs.bakker at darwin-bp.nl Tue Sep 28 13:03:23 2004
From: gijs.bakker at darwin-bp.nl (Darwin Business Partners B.V.)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:03:23 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Breakthrough in gassification technology
Message-ID: <005301c4a585$71d5d8d0$697ba8c0@DARWIN>

Dear all,
Success in technology advancements is often considered a 'manageble process', in reality it often comes down to individual endurance, motivation, hard work and overcoming setbacks and frustation. With pride, we can announce that a breakthrough has been realised in gassification technology using oxygen fed tubular reactors, thanks to the incredible endurance of scientist and engineers from Italy who, due to their high personal motivation and integrity have continued where others stopped.
The first commercial installation will be onstream in februari 2005 and various other installations have already been planned in the Netherlands and Italy.
All details of these projects can be supplied to those interested,
Regards,

Darwin Business Partners B.V.
PO Box 528
3190 AL Hoogvliet
The Netherlands

ir. G. (Gijs) Bakker
T: 0031 (0)6 51401716
E: gijs.bakker at darwin-bp.nl
W: www.darwin-bp.nl

This message is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message
unintentionally, please contact the sender by reply and delete it from your
computer; you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to
anyone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040928/0a51df64/attachment.html

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Sep 28 22:51:14 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:51:14 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
References: <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24@aol.com><20040915174749.175f51a5.arnt@c2i.net>
<010d01c4a559$1eeedee0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <008301c4a5d7$969e1270$6701a8c0@Yellow>

Tom,

The best money the USDOE could spend would be to continue to invest in
people.

The programs you mentioned, others during your leadership at SERI in the
Alcohol Fuels Program, and the Regional Biomass Energy Program have created
a couple of generations of people who have invested their careers in biomass
energy. You have helped many of us understand, test and implement new
technologies. This week I was with an entrepreneur who got his start in
ethanol through the Western Regional Biomass Program. He wasn't quite sure
who had organized that first (USDOE) conference he attended in Reno in 1994
but he was thankful that it had gotten him into a productive and now
economically viable industry.

In gasification government has taken risks in the development of various
technologies. Sometimes it has been a business risk of betting on the groups
or individiuals who got the grants. Beyond the issues of which technologies
have survived, and which have not, I see a lot of talented people who have
participated along the way and who have played important roles in private
and public enterprise. Those people have ensured that lessons learned in the
"failed" programs have been put to productive use in private energy
enterprises.

So even though the percentage of individual technology successes may be low
I think the biggests success has been in providing the opportunity for
development and education about biomass energy. Biomass energy including
biomass pyrolysis and gasification could easily have been forgotten in the
US after the oil crisis subsided with the drop in prices in about 1985.

Many thanks,

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>; <LINVENT at aol.com>
Cc: <hchum at nrel.gov>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS

> Dear All:
>
> Some of us learn from our mistakes, but Humans are eternal optimists and
> don't like to hear about failures.
>
> The US DOE has had very few successes, but it is our nature to bury our
> mistakes and not look back. As a result we continue to try the same old
> things.
>
> The best money the DOE could spend would be to evaluatge the technologies
> they funded over the last 30 years (FERCO, Hawaii, ....) objectively and
> decide what was positive and what was negative.
>
> Not bloody likely...
>
> TOM REED (Sometimes cynic, but ever optimistic)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: <LINVENT at aol.com>
> Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
>
>
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:44 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
> > <7a.6187bca1.2e79ba24 at aol.com>:
> >
> > > > In a message dated 9/15/04 2:02:24 PM, arnt at c2i.net writes:
> > > >
> > > > ..interesting. So, are their share holders interested in recovering
> > > > their investment and even make a profit making everyone happy,
> > > > or are they not? Time will show us. ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dear Arnt,
> > > The continuing interest in spending money on the process depends upon
> > > technical issues such as what the technical problems are and if they
> > > can be overcome with a reasonable amount of money. Also factored into
> > > this equation is the sales job done on the investors and how far off
> > > the mark this is. If they feel like they got snowed, they will put the
> > > plug and scrap the plant, or try to sell it to someone else. Another
> > > Arbre. This has happened with Occidental's flash pyrolysis San Diego
> > > plant, Synfuels plant on the east coast, the Hawaii gasification
> > > plant, and others. Just more headaches for the rest of the technology.
> >
> > ..heh, it would be fun skiing these failures with the investors. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > ..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 LINVENT at aol.com Wed Sep 29 06:42:48 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:42:48 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RES NWT TURKEY WASTE PLANT ODOR PROBLEMS
Message-ID: <90.4d119d4d.2e8bf9b8@aol.com>

Dear Tom Miles,
I wonder how much more technology would be out there if all of the money
DOE spent was allocated as a tax benefit to investors structure instead of
being managed by DOE? This used to be a mechanism for funding projects, R&D tax
credits. Perhaps the market is smarter?
The major problem with NWT plant is the huge press impact they had and
minimal technical impact at this point. This creates a credibility issue which
is followed on by a financial limitation. Do you think that if this project is
not viable, will Con(ned)-Agra be receptive to any others?
A great deal of this may be moot once oil passes $50/barrel and gas hits
a steady of $7-8/mmbtu. Anything will go. I haven't seen it just yet, but the
hit rate is definitely increasing.

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Thu Sep 30 18:18:18 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:18:18 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Questions
In-Reply-To: <90.4d119d4d.2e8bf9b8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEDODPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

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

>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?

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.

http://www.sylva.icuklive.co.uk/clip_image002.jpg

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

September 2004 Gasification Archive