[Gasification] Emissions fines

[linvent at aol.com]

Dear Tom,
      The original statement which started this thread was that 
gasifiers got violations, now as I initially asked, the installations 
were not gasifiers. If the industry is going to keep it's black eyes to 
a minimum, it needs to deal with misnomers and the like.
      Adding oxidizer over the bed also occurs in combustors. It reduces 
the gas heating value by combusting some of the fixed gases which react 
more rapidly than the aerosols or tars, and the reduced heating value 
of the gas causes problems in operating engines as the PRM system did 
in Sorrento, Italy on olive pits. There are better ways of dealing with 
the tars which increase the heating value of the gas while cleaning it 
adequately to operate IC engine, be transported distances and the like.
      The three vessel unit which takes virtually any combustible 
feedstock and converts it into a clean, cool gas suitable for engine 
operation demonstrates this. A char residue from a cellulosic chemical 
plant with 33% ash,  5500 btu/lb. at 20% moisture was run at what 
appears to be around 40% moisture and the gas had 24-27% hydrogen in 
it. The nitrogen also appears to be much less than normal air fired 
gasification content. Adjustment of operating temperature changes the 
hydrogen content.
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' 
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Emissions fines

Tom,

Don't get Kevin started on definitions of gasification. :-)

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

The plants that received fines do not have gasifiers. The only 
similarity is that they convert wet wood to steam. They use fluidized 
bed combustors. They use excess air directly in the fluidized bed of 
sand. They also burn fuels such as urban wood waste that require acid 
gas control. An FB combustor allows you to control acid gas directly by 
adding limestone to the bed to form calcium sulfate or calcium chloride 
that is removed as a particulate. In a combustor the heat transfer - 
boiler and convective sections - are integral to the furnace-boiler 
design. In the Nexterra and other gasifier application the gas is 
transported from the gasifier to a burner that is in a separate boiler 
enclosure. (From 1985-1998 Interpretations of the tax code allowed the 
grate portion of a furnace to be called a gasifier when operated with 
limited air such that staged combustion within a boiler qualified for a 
producer gas tax credit. That credit has now expired.)

It's important to look at the whole system. Nexterra uses a unique 
proprietary bed design, a low velocity above the bed that reduces 
particulate, a partial oxidation step to clean up tars between the 
gasifier and the burner in the boiler. Tar reduction is similar in 
concept to what other fixed bed suppliers, like PRM and PrimEnergy, 
have done for years. Combustible gas is transported from the gasifier 
to a burner in the boiler. The gas fired in the boiler is clean enough 
to use the ESP for particulate control. The combination of the low NOx 
precursors from the gasifier and their burner design allows them good 
CO and NOx control. Comparative data are in the Levelton report.

Tom Miles


-----Original Message-----
 From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org 
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of 
linvent at aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 4:05 PM
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Emissions fines

Dear Tom,
      In comparing the Kruger Products installation to the ones which
received fines, one might be tempted to say that a fixed bed is better
than a fluidized bed, but one would have to compare emission standards
between the two jurisdictions to firmly make this claim. The Nexterra
design has a relatively high tar yield.
       The word gasification in my opinion is still misapplied unless 
the
gas can be cleaned and transported across a jurisdictional boundary for
use, otherwise, it is still a dual stage combustor.
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
www.thermogenics.com
505-463-8422

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Sun, Feb 20, 2011 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Emissions fines

Pulp and Paper Canada (Feb 2011) reporting on a gasifier-boiler
application:
http://www.pulpandpapercanada.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000402062
Kruger's Biomass Gasifier Fuels Customers' Need for GreenBiomass
gasification has quantifiable environmental benefits to show customers:
fewer GHG emissions, less fossil fuel, better air quality.By: By Tony
Kryzanowski



_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Gasification at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Gasifiers,  News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/