[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
Mike Donnell
modonnell7 at cogeco.ca
Wed Jan 26 14:14:45 CST 2011
Hi, I'm sorry for sending you this huge and garbled e-mail but this is what
I receive from you every day. (notice all the repetition!)
Is there something wrong with my e-mail program? I use Incredimail 2.0.
-------Original Message-------
From: gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: 01/26/2011 3:00:43 PM
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
Send Gasification mailing list submissions to
gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
gasification-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gasification digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages (jonathan at woodgas.net)
2. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Kevin)
3. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Daniel Chisholm)
4. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
5. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Tom Miles)
6. Re: Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
(JWCARTER33 at aol.com)
7. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (jim mason)
8. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Arnt Karlsen)
9. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (andrew schofield)
10. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
11. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Anand Karve)
12. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Thomas Koch)
13. Re: [Digestion] composition of pyrolysis gas (nari phaltan)
14. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Jim Leach)
15. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Otto Formo)
16. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Kevin)
17. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Kevin)
18. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Gerald Kutney)
19. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Gerald Kutney)
20. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Thomas Koch)
21. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:34:10 -0600
From: jonathan at woodgas.net
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Gasification] Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
Message-ID: <20110125143410.88201fzijokbt0pw at www.woodgas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
format="flowed"
Hello,
I just spent a fair amount of time updating my website www.woodgas.net
. I am looking to add new member pages. Please contact me,
jonathan at woodgas.net I am sure we can get something put up for you.
Also if anyone wants to exchange links send me an email.
Jonathan
Jonathan at woodgas.net
www.woodgas.net
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:46:54 -0400
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <650F678D767247D0B40C41AF12B7840A at usera594fda0bf>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Dear Arnt
I got another bad one from you. :-(
Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the message
I received from the Gas List....
Any idea what is causing the hash?
Best wishes,
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> z{Zr+
z?4mzvy?r*'IC ?
YK H[ LH L? LH LL ?
?H[Y\YHQQ Q
> QL
XXZ[ [LL?\
?[ O?\Y[?[
[][
>
H
[
H[Y?YH?H?PUUSSK\\
\H\
^\\H]\Y[
?X?ZX?
X[??HY[Y]]H
X
\
Y
H
]\
\H[X]B[KH
[X\H
^Y\
\
[H]HXYH
\H
Z\Y]
?
]\
]
H\
^H]H?X]Y8
SPRSSP8
HB\
[
^H\\H\H][[?HYXY[
\[H
B\?\Y?Y
Y
>
^H
X
Z\[\\
]Z]B
[\
K
ZH?
?[H][Z]
Y\
\?XH?
B
X[???[
XZY
XH[[
\]]H
Z\
[K[
XH
\Y[[
\[\
\[H
[?Y\[[\Y[
[\
H
[H?
H[Z]
YHY[Y[H
X[
[
YY
H?
YZ\?HZ]]
H?
H
[Y]B
]
?YY[?
H
\?
H
\]
]?\
H
X\B]\H?
X8'\'H
[]H
Z\
[
Y
]Y
>
\B\HXY[
?
?YY[[
]X?]\
H^\B[\]YHH
\Y[
\[
X?]K]
[X]
\?Y\]
?
H
[\Z[H\??[[?^K]
[H?Y\Y
?
HY][[\[\X\Y8'[Y8'H
\[K]ZY
B[Y]\8'?
K[
X\KH
\\Y
\H]
]]X\?HY[X\?
H[Z]
YK?\
H
HYY
?Y\[H
[KXZ[
X[HYYXH
[Z\
H
[\
X[
>
Y^H
X\
?Y\
H[
\H
[H
][X\?BYKI?HY[
^YY[YYH[Y\H^H?\Y[
H
\X?
H?^H
[\[[\Y][?
> Y\[Z[\S[P?XZ\H]
\
]X]\X[?
H
]
X[ZX[[
\
H
[
]
>
Z[[?[?[KKHYY
[Y[
[H
][Y\
H\\
[]H[X\?
\X\
[\[
\[\
K[\[[
^\YH[
]
?
YN\\K
?\K[\[\K?\YX][?XZ[[\
[HY\YH
H\
>
\H
H[XZ[Y
\?\YX][?[[\[\
???SP?PH?[H
[\\]
[
\H
H
X
YB
\
?[[\[\
??XZ[X[\[\YX][?\
?[[\[\
????[?H\YY\][[?X][?
YH\
]N
\YY\?[[\[\
??
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:10:09 +0000
From: Daniel Chisholm <dmc at danielchisholm.com>
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID:
<AANLkTin+YfhJN0wKTc4=YOfyCAawqJkKP0Dabdt4xyhG at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a bit
broken.
Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here are
the very first and very last lines of the message body:
T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
(...a bunch of lines here...)
Zy8K
Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your email
client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain ASCII
text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
(GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
you might want to start digging into why the list software might be messing
up his emails.
- Daniel
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> Dear Arnt
>
> I got another bad one from you. :-(
>
> Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
> message I received from the Gas List....
>
> Any idea what is causing the hash?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
>> z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q Q Q
>> QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [
>> H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\ Y [
?
>> X?ZX X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H
^Y\ [
>> \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS S
>> P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
>
>
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/801c1936/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:15:25 -0800
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <011401cbbcdd$5ee102b0$1ca30810$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Reads fine with my Outlook client.
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
Chisholm
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:10 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a bit
broken.
Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here are
the very first and very last lines of the message body:
T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
(...a bunch of lines here...)
Zy8K
Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your email
client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain ASCII
text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
(GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
you might want to start digging into why the list software might be messing
up his emails.
- Daniel
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
Dear Arnt
I got another bad one from you. :-(
Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the message
I received from the Gas List....
Any idea what is causing the hash?
Best wishes,
Kevin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q Q Q QL
XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [ H
[ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\ Y [ ? X?ZX
X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H ^Y\ [ \
[H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS S P8'H
B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/2a3441a0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:27:31 -0800
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Message-ID: <00d701cbbcdf$0f32afa0$2d980ee0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Kevin, Daniel,
You seem to be making your own hash. Gerry and Arnt's emails came through
just fine.
Tom Miles
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:42 AM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Dear Gerald
Your message came across as hash.. could you send it in a different way, so
we can read it?
Thanks!
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>; <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> z{Zr+
z?4mzvy?r*'IC H]HY
H\\[??
HY[][??
[\
>
[\\\H
]?X][\\ [
Y
\H\HY[X[
Y]
]
[\
[H\
HY[Y
>
H]H
Y]
YHX\
H
Y\[\
]X
\
\Z[KH
\H[\\\?\
X\
]HZ
Y
[\]
H
\[
H
>
X
HY?JH
\?XH
H
]X]\X[?
H
\]\]
]ZX
HX[YH
H
[\
\H
X[YX
\Y\?[
H
X?Y][??
HX?X\SY\[XYXH?[ZX[XK?H
\XY
H\
\?X[YX
\Y\
[[?
[\\\
>
YH
L
MK
>
NMK
\H]\Y[[?Y
XH
[]X[ZX[
H
H
]\\[
]\\
Y
XX[??[
YY[
> [
\
X[[Z\
K
>
NMH\?
[\\\Y]
\H\Y
]Z[ZXX[YX
\Y\[[
Y\\YX][?
]
\[?
>
L
[\\\\
[\
HY[Y\
HZ^
\H?[
> H
\X
H[[??
HY[X\?
\\
>
][
[H
\
HX\
H
Y\[\
X
\
[\Y[][??H[Y]H
]
\\[[\?[
YH
HX\Y
\
>
\
\H\Y[]H?\[??
]\
[\
[]HH[Z]YY[][??HYY[][?\[
]^K
>
X[Y[\X?^
[[Y[\Z[XHX[Y[Y[?\KBKKKKS?Y[[Y\YKKKKKBN\YX][?X[\\
[[\[\
??XZ[
?\YX][?X[\\
?[[\[\
??H?Z[?[HX\?[
Y\^KX[X\
> K L B?\YX][?[[\[\
???XX
N\YX][?HH
X[]\]
\H
]Y]
N
[\??Y
> X K L]
> NLKX\]YX[X\[
\X???
?NHY
Y
YH?
H
\\H]H?[
> [^
XY
B[\\[
\
\
^H
[]H
H]\\\[?U?[
?
>
H
\YHH
HX?H\?\
X\[\[
HX\][[\[
>
[\\?[
Y\Y
]HY[
\?YY ??BY\ [\H?[
>
[\\?[
\Y
Y\
\[[Y
H
\Y?
[\\?
X
?[\\[
Y[H
H
\Y\?
[\[
\H[
YH\\?X\[
XY[
Y
[\^[\\\KH[?
[H
\BH
\H[\?[
YH]??H[\[
\H?
H\?
XY
Y
YH?H?[X\
\X[?\[?]
?[][?\
[\\
\\[]
[\\[
?\H?\K]
H
][[H?
H[\X?
\YH\?\
\[?I
\
\Y
YH][
YHXZ?[Y\[
\
\\?[\\H
\[]
[YH
H\H
\
\\?][
\?\X
?]
HX[[
\
H[\X
\K
H
[B[[X\^H
H
]H?YZ\HY\Z[
H[?H
Y][?
[\?
H
\O]
Y[\
H[X\\HX[[[
H\\X[??\H
[\
[\H\[X[
>
]
[[X\
?H
\[
[
]\X\
\X ]
[
>
H[\\\[
[\?
\[?H
YH[
H
[\K
Y
[H[\]H
\?[\O?[
H
\Y
\\X[?^HY\
\
]
H[\X
\YB?
H
\H
\X^XHH
> L L
>
H
[Y[?^[\\\H
[[
\]]\X
X[
H]XY\
[
\?]
Y[\][Y
\[HXY[ZX
?
[[\[?[H\KY[\[H
\Y\X
H\Y[[\\\?[
[X\[?[[\[\
\[\?Y[\Y\
\YX][?[
X
H
]\\
Y
Y\
H
>
][[H\?XY\H
[\
> HZ^
\B? [K
X[H
\Y
X[YX
\HY][
> [[[?XK\\
\]ZY
?
Y
[?
\H[Y[[
>
>
KH
Z]X[]
H?H
\X[\
\YKKK
HY[\
]X[]
K\]\Z[YH
H\?\
[?[
H][??[Z[][?H
\X[]\[[B\[
]
[X?Z[[\?[
[
\[
\
> JKH[\??][ [\H[[H?Y[\\]
\HZ\X[B\YX][??[X\[\ Q
Y
> ^Y PY
\H\YY\[ ??[[\][?[\X[
X]Y[XY\[^ \^?H
>
> K]
\[YK[?XY? ?ST? ? ?L ?L \
\
^\
\Y
H
> 8/ H
HX]
H[X\
> L H H
8/L 0[
\XH
\X[
H
[??H[X\[[[[
> 8/ H?X\K
[\?
> 8/ H?X\K[\[
> 8/ H?X\KH[\H
\]Z\Y
\]BH\
\
^\\8/
>
MIH?
H
[[\H
][H\]YH
B
H[X\?[\
\[\\H\Y?Y
\H
H
[
[\]YH
B
\H
^\
?YH[
H[\HYY
?
H
\
^\HZ\
>
>
KH\[\[?H[[[[\[?[][
[[\
H
X[[[\K\X[[
H\]Y\\[\?
[B
\
?[[[]\]X[]
KY??
> L M LN J
>
K[\
?H
H
\X[YXY[H[
YX
H\][??
[\
]\[[Y\X[[
]HY[]
Y?[X\?\[?
\[\?H[
> K YZ[0?H
>
][\X[\
X?[
Z[Y[[\\]
\H[H[X\
]YYY?
Y\YY\[Y\X[\[?
\
YYY[\
> LJ
>
K[Y[
?H
]YYY?
Y[[
][
]
?Z\[[X\]
]
?
[\[\\?H
H8&
\
\\&H\
\X[
H
\YZ]\?
>
[[
]X[
\\K??[[\H
\[\
]\
\H
H?Y\\[Z]
Y
\[\[[
\Y
X
Y
[
[\[[[
X]?[X
X]
H
> Y]\][ NNNJKHZX[ \ ?[\?[\?Y[[X[Y[Y[
Y[B[
XK
> X\
[?[Y\ [Y\?
JKY
\]
H
[\
>
KK
]X[]Y\?[\
X\H\^
[Y[
B[YXX[?Y[
[[ZX[
[\\
[H]
X[
X[
H
Y
X\?
H
^H[??
X[H\]Z\Y[
>
]\
HZY[[\
?YY[XHH
[H[\
]Y\
[[
\]Z\[Y[
?\H\[
H]]
YH
]
Y\
[\\][??[[BX\[?
[?
\[HX\[?H?Y\Y[\[X
H
]?[[?[[Y[
>
]
\[\?\[]H[
H[
[\HX^[][H^X[]
H?[
\
X[?
][]
H\
X
[?
[\X][
[
YHYY
HX?H
> LHRL?]
[\\]
\\?X]\
[ L LL
> ]
H?Y][KY\
Y
\??
\\?YY [
> [
X[?\X^[Z^Y
]]
\]Z\[H\\?\[?
\
> [X\\YX][?\
H?\[??[?[X?\?X[\?YY
H
\X[Y][?[H\[\
X
>
[\\\?8'
[\8'H?\[
[X\[
H? [H
]\\[[[
??KY\
Y
\?
> ?K[]
[
> KH
XX[?\B\YY]][]]Y
[\\]
\\L LM
> [][\X?[]]Y
\\\
\
\
>
>
XJKHY[
\Y[HZ\
\H
Y[
X[H?HZ^
\H?
\H\\?Z\X\Y\YY\?
\X[
H
XHH
X\?Z[[H
[]][
HY?[
][??]
[
]HX][
[
YH
Y[[RL
> LLMB
K?
>
K
Y[[
X[KX\Y\YY\
XHH
X\?Z[[?H
[]][
HY?[
][??
Y
[[
]HX][
[
YB]
Y[
> L[ RL
> ML
K? KXH
\][??[X\Q\]Y[\? H[
Y\H MMK HKM
> ?KH
KMK?H M B HY\
>
X\[[X\[[X\\YX][?
XY\?Y[
[ZX[
[
Y
[
X[?T\?[\BU
> K]
XKK?XY\[
\\YX][?
X?X\\?[[ H
\[
[Y[\H
X\\
> H
[\\\?
[\H
]?\
[X\[
H?
\Z[
][?
Y
[[\?[?YH
> KH]Z
\?X[\H
[\N[\[[
\\
[\\[\?
> K]
?\]?K[]KY
K?]
X[K[KNMKK? K\]Y[OLO[
?
>
H
\YHH
HX?H\?\
X\[\[
HX\][[\[
>
[\\?[
Y\Y
]HY[
\?YY ??BY\ [\H?[
>
[\\?[
\Y
Y\
\[[Y
H
\Y?
[\\?
X
?[\\[
Y[H
H
\Y\?
[\[
\H[
YH\\?^H
Y\Y
\YH\Y[
[
H\
HZ\X?RXZ\?
X\\?\
\
]
H\?
\H
\[X\
YB?
Y\
H
\K[\?Z[XYH
]??
X[KH
?[H
]
HX?H\]\?X]HH[\[]
>
X[
\KY\X\]YX[[\X??H\YX][?\\[?Y
?\YX][?[[\\
?
> H
X\H
\]H
[\[XZ[?X
?
YX
H[KX\H
\]
[?[[\[\
???[?H]?
H\[?K[
[K\YX][?YZ[\
]?KHKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKB[HX\?X]N
?]X[]\
?B\[
?X
?
> H\YY\^
\[Y[\]
>
HRN
?Z\YY\B H\\HH\[^H[
Y[
ZXH
XN
?\\YX\[^KB
> HS\X?
]
\
]
\K[
\X? H\
X\[[H\
\
?X\\
> K\[?KX \X\\ B?\YX][?XZ[[\[HY\YH
H\
>
\H
H[XZ[Y
\?\YX][?[[\[\
???SP?PH?[H
[\\]
[
\H
H
X
YB
\
?[[\[\
??XZ[X[\[\YX][?\
?[[\[\
????[?H\YY\][[?X][?
YH\
X
N
\YY\?[[\[\
????\YX][?XZ[[\[HY\YH
H\
>
\H
H[XZ[Y
\?\YX][?[[\[\
???SP?PH?[H
[\\]
[
\H
H
X
YB
\
?[[\[\
??XZ[X[\[\YX][?\
?[[\[\
????[?H\YY\][[?X][?
YH\
X
N
\YY\?[[\[\
??
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
_______________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:29:17 EST
From: JWCARTER33 at aol.com
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
Message-ID: <96b2c.701e246d.3a70a8bd at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
BIOFUELS.COM
Jeff Carter
| BFC Gas & Electric Companies, LC | 110 Southeast Grant Street | Suite
205 |
Ankeny, IA 50021 | ( 515-964-6787 | *: _J.Carter at Biofuels.com_
(mailto:J.Carter at Biofuels.com)
In a message dated 1/25/2011 2:35:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jonathan at woodgas.net writes:
Hello,
I just spent a fair amount of time updating my website www.woodgas.net
. I am looking to add new member pages. Please contact me,
jonathan at woodgas.net I am sure we can get something put up for you.
Also if anyone wants to exchange links send me an email.
Jonathan
Jonathan at woodgas.net
www.woodgas.net
_______________________________________________
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.bioenerg
ylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
Jeff Carter
| BFC Gas & Electric Companies, LC | 110 Southeast Grant Street | Suite
205 |
Ankeny, IA 50021 | ( 515-964-6787 | *: _J.Carter at Biofuels.com_
(mailto:J.Carter at Biofuels
comJeff%20Carter|%20BFC%20Gas%20&%20Electric%20Companies,%20LC
%20|%20110%20Southeast%20Grant%20Street%20|%20Suite%20205%20|Ankeny,%20IA%20
50021%20|%20(%20515-964-6787%20|*:%20J.Carter at Biofuels.comJeff%20Carter|%20B
FC%20Gas%20&%20Electric%20Companies,%20LC%20|%20110%20Southeast%20Grant%20St
reet%20|%20Suite%20205%20|Ankeny,%20IA%2050021%20|%20(%20515-964-6787%20|*:%
20J.Carter at Biofuels.comJ.Carter@Biofuels.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/fff21d8a/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:38:26 -0800
From: jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org>
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimEypOiC=tkdrtccR=JkGvC__3jNaNbMSLSbyd5 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Chisholm <dmc at danielchisholm
com>wrote:
> FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a
> bit broken.
>
>
must be unexpected tar in the system . . .
> Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
>
> Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here
are
> the very first and very last lines of the message body:
>
>
T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
>
> (...a bunch of lines here...)
>
> Zy8K
>
>
> Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your email
> client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain
ASCII
> text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
>
> Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
> (GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
> you might want to start digging into why the list software might be
messing
> up his emails.
>
>
> - Daniel
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Arnt
>>
>> I got another bad one from you. :-(
>>
>> Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
>> message I received from the Gas List....
>>
>> Any idea what is causing the hash?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
>> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>>
>>
>>
>>> z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q Q Q
>>> QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [
>>> H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\ Y [
?
>>> X?ZX X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H
^Y\ [
>>> \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS
S
>>> P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
>>
>>
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
Current Projects:
- Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
- Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
- ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
- Shipyard Announce list:
http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/77c07408/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:34:01 +0100
From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt at c2i.net>
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <20110126033401.4b05d791 at celsius.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:38:26 -0800, jim wrote in message
<AANLkTimEypOiC=tkdrtccR=JkGvC__3jNaNbMSLSbyd5 at mail.gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Chisholm
> <dmc at danielchisholm.com>wrote:
>
> > FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software
> > is a bit broken.
> >
> >
> must be unexpected tar in the system . . .
..yup, of the base64 kind. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...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.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:25:04 -0500
From: andrew schofield <scothebuilder at hotmail.com>
To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <BAY150-w21531CDA06D424881B03A2A8FF0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Thomas Koch,
How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
each parallel screw-tube?
we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
needing to consult you about your experience with
hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates inside.
Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler setting
May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range Fuels
attempt at system scale up?
A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
cooker which can feed an army.
Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
Andrew Schofield
Renewable Fuel Systems
Thomas Koch wrote:
Tom
Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
applications. Thomas Koch
From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
when I lived in Denver.
I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
methanol project.
Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
solved at a small scale.
Tom Reed, Pyrologist
Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/42a1e119/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:58:43 -0800
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <034801cbbd15$b5b65760$21230620$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Andrew,
To address the exact issue you describe, designers of equipment that
incorporates the equivalent of conveyor flighting for mass transport and
processing add periodic "interrupter bars" that disrupt (mix, actually) the
mass being conveyed by the auger and prevent any co-rotation. Obviously, the
flighting itself must also be interrupted in the region of the bars.
It's common to have a large shaft core, which is generally heated as well,
to reduce the radial heat transfer distance and provide torsional stiffness
to the auger.
No one seems to know for certain how many modes of failure RF's contraption
had. From TK's description, the pyrolysis section sees overly complex and
under-designed. But it could that the conversion chemistry part of the
process was equally ill-conceived.
Mark
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of andrew
schofield
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:25 PM
To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Dear Thomas Koch,
How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
each parallel screw-tube?
we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
needing to consult you about your experience with
hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates inside.
Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
setting.
May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range Fuels
attempt at system scale up?
A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
cooker which can feed an army.
Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
Andrew Schofield
Renewable Fuel Systems
Thomas Koch wrote:
Tom
Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
applications. Thomas Koch
From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
when I lived in Denver.
I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
methanol project.
Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
solved at a small scale.
Tom Reed, Pyrologist
Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
difficult
to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/40e44672/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:53:19 +0800
From: Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Message-ID:
<AANLkTin2Cnf9nmwHdMqx8xe2eG1U+mbQeTEVmEWZkg__ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Dr. Kutney,
I am an absolute novice in this field. The work that I have so far conducted
dealt with biogas, which is produced in an anaerobic biological process.
Since ligno-cellulosic material cannot be digeseted by the anaerobic
process, and because I knew that pyrolysis produced gas, I pyrolysed
ligno-cellulosic material under anaerobic conditions, collected the gas over
water, and found that it burned. The tarry fraction in the gas was condensed
out of it when it passed through water. I wanted to know the composition of
the gas that I had produced, and asked some knowledgeable persons in my
city. Their answer did not satisfy me, because the so called knowledgeable
persons told me that the gas contained 55% nitrogen. Because I had doubts
about the presence of nitrogen, I posed the question to this group. I thank
members of this group because some of them gave me a satisfactory answer. I
am not worried about the definition.
Yours
A.D.Karve
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca> wrote:
> I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
> with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should
be
> narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this
> claim. The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during
> the '40's (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT
process;
> however, it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the
> second edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical
> Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
looking
> for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned to
> produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
> reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis
gas
> methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
> with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture
of
> CO and H2.
>
> I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
> early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
> important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on
whether
> syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
>
>
> Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
> Managing Director
> Sixth Element Sustainable Management
> www.6esm.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of jim mason
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
> wrote:
> > I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> > interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
>
>
> bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
> the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
> produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
> relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
> there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
> surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
> pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
>
> given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
> summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
> senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
> direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
> the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
> conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
> sample?
>
> when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
> of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
> that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
> the academic world than in our local online circle.
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
> combustion
> > engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly
water
> > gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
> mixture
> > of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
> Fischer
> > Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
> for
> > a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> > composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> > compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> > from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> > Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
> on
> > Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona
> (2004).at
> > <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
> >
> > "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> > thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> > (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
> operate
> > a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from
the
> > dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
> the
> > pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> > from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> > Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
> while
> > Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
> >
> > "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas
> > several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
> systems."
> > from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
> and
> > Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
> of
> > Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> > Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
> biomass,
> > outputs of syngas and ashes
> >
> > "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> > purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> > during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> > electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> > from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
> science
> > and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
> >
> > "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
> extremely
> > beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
> reduces
> > the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
> provided
> > in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> > "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> > combustion than for turbine combustion."
> > "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels
(natural
> > gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
> or
> > utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> > "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> > hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
> without
> > requiring a further conversion step."
> > "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> > feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> > ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
> [CO2,
> > CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> > carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> > elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> > pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> > typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
> concentration
> > of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> > Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
> containing
> > a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> > between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> > "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
> 0-56%,
> > H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> > ...
> > from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> > technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
> Energy
> > NETL (2002).at
> > <
> http://seca.doe
gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf
> >
> >
> > "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> > consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> (CO)."
> > from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
> and
> > Jargon. (2006).at
> > <
> http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425
pdf?sequence=1
> >
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
> > My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> > "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass,
though
> I
> > don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> > The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bear Kaufmann
> > All Power Labs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Gasification list has moved to
> > gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
> > reflect the change.
> > Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list
> move.
> > Thank you,
> > Gasification Administrator
>
>
>
> --
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Mason
> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> Current Projects:
> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> www.escapefromberkeley.com
> - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
> - Shipyard Announce list:
> http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
--
***
Dr. A.D. Karve
President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
*Please change my email address in your records to: adkarve at gmail.com *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/cb5fcce6/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:55:14 +0100
From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID:
<9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCDBE at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Andrew
To me this a kiss of the death.
I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
starw pyrolysis unit.
1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the steel
-
2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both sides
3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to reduced
strenght
4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times of
years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals. The
consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be well
below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes place.
2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense that
you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC -
thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into the
top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and 36 -
36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The maintenance
cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial market
4. Tars are not easy to handle
Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the Viking
and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
1. Not see how upscale it
2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
3. See too high maintenance costs
But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around 50-75
cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
The answer to your last question is -- YES
Best regards
Thomas Koch
www.tke.dk
________________________________
Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
schofield
Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Dear Thomas Koch,
How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
each parallel screw-tube?
we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
needing to consult you about your experience with
hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates inside.
Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler setting
May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range Fuels
attempt at system scale up?
A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
cooker which can feed an army.
Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
Andrew Schofield
Renewable Fuel Systems
Thomas Koch wrote:
Tom
Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
applications. Thomas Koch
From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
when I lived in Denver.
I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
methanol project.
Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
solved at a small scale.
Tom Reed, Pyrologist
Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/e9ec50b1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:56:31 +0530
From: nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com>
To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
<digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Digestion] composition of pyrolysis gas
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimyaKu3ob_+-w1T8Jomqs+2MdFCdXXoD=jnH1A8 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdf
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jeff Davis <jeff0124 at velocity.net> wrote:
> Dear Dr. Karve,
>
> Many variables:
>
> <
> http://bioweb.sungrant
org/Technical/Biopower/Technologies/Pyrolysis/Default.htm
> >
>
> "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems" by Dr. Tom
>
> CO, CO2, H2, H2O, CH4 and tar vapor
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 09:24 -0800, Anand Karve wrote:
> > I would like to know the composition of pyrolysis gas
>
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________
>
> www.puffergas.com
>
> Sent from any port in the storm via Acer netbook & Ubuntu Remix.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digestion mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Digestion at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists
bioenergylists.org
>
> for more information about digestion, see
> Beginner's Guide to Biogas
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
> and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
>
>
--
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
P.O.Box 44
Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
Ph:91-2166-222396/220945
e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com <e-mail%3Anariphaltan at gmail.com>
anilrajvanshi at gmail.com
http://www.nariphaltan.org
http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/a1fc6726/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:18:42 -0800
From: "Jim Leach" <jleach at danatech.net>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, <mark at ludlow.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <B15193892EB844F78ED209F926C94AFC at danatech01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
up?
JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
President
DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Ph 949-496-6516
Fx 949-496-8133
Mobile 949-933-6518
_____
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of GF
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Government Grants and Ethanol.
I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together with
the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
discovered or adopted.
So how do they protect their interests?
Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
included the grant seekers.
The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
rights revoked.
There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it will
not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded" system.
It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to share
it with at least one member of the committee.
GF
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Reply: It pays well.
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?> ] On Behalf Of
LINVENT at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
To: tmiles at trmiles.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Dear Technologists,
The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money for
this plant?
What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review until
they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
a winner.
I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing what
the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking my
brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
interesting in this regard.
DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White House
because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political pressure
will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a serious well
developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
Below are some of the massive failures:
Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
Range Fuels: $300mm
Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants except
for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if wanted
the plant for scrap).
Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an engine
to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of intake
valves.
Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal gasification
144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas to run on
pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the project,
Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
separate entity.
The list goes on and on.
Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
505.463.8422
www.thermogenics.com <http://www.thermogenics.com/>
_______________________________________________
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.bioenerg
ylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/5a8616ef/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:59:10 +0100 (MET)
From: Otto Formo <formo-o at online.no>
To: Thomas Koch <TK at tke.dk>, Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
gasification <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID:
<8635164.8662.1296064750062.JavaMail.adm-moff at moffice1.nsc.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thomas,
Does it means that your TKE 3 stage gasifier is still operating in Denmark?
Have you any connection to or cooperation to the lab of Bioenergy Innovation
Centre run by SINTEF in Norway?
Paal`s TLUD ND Gasifier PekoPe was tested by the Technical University of
Denmark in Copenhagen in mid 1990`s. Do you happend to know about how it
operates?
It seems someone has focused on the "wrong" terms of combustion and fuel
operations.............who knows?
I gues you can find some more detalis about pyrolysis and gasifier units
from the Technical Museum of Munich in Bavaria, Germany?
Some people on the list were doing some investigations over there, just some
time back.
Good luck.
Otto
> From: Thomas Koch [TK at tke.dk]
> Sent: 2011-01-26 15:55:14 MET
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification [gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org], gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Dear Andrew
>
> To me this a kiss of the death.
>
> I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
starw pyrolysis unit.
>
> 1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the
steel -
> 2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both
sides
> 3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to reduced
strenght
> 4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
>
> 1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times
of years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals.
The consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be
well below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes
place.
> 2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense
that you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC
- thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
> 3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into
the top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and
36 - 36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The
maintenance cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial
market
> 4. Tars are not easy to handle
>
> Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the Viking
and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
> The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
> 1. Not see how upscale it
> 2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
> 3. See too high maintenance costs
> But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around 50-75
cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
>
> The answer to your last question is -- YES
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas Koch
> www.tke.dk
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
schofield
> Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
> Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Dear Thomas Koch,
>
> How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
each parallel screw-tube?
> we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
needing to consult you about your experience with
> hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
>
> Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May
I guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
>
> Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers
steel surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates
inside.
> Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler setting
> May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
Fuels attempt at system scale up?
>
> A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
cooker which can feed an army.
>
> Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
>
> Andrew Schofield
> Renewable Fuel Systems
>
>
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> Tom
>
> Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> applications. Thomas Koch
>
>
> From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>
> I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
when I lived in Denver.
> I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
methanol project.
> Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
solved at a small scale.
>
> Tom Reed, Pyrologist
>
>
> Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
>
> did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
>
> any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
>
> jim
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:31:14 -0400
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, <mark at ludlow.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <57D7E3D7ACB44D38B5946DE09F0AD39E at usera594fda0bf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Jim
Greg says, among other things, :
This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
There was an interesting Science program on CBC on 15 Jan, on Climate Change
A reference URL to the Program is:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2011/01/15/january-15-2011/
They have one clip on "Climate 3000". Scroll down and click on "Listen to
this Item".
It would appear from this article that we cannot be "saved from Climate
Change."
Best wishes,
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Leach
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' ; mark at ludlow.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
up?
JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
President
DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Ph 949-496-6516
Fx 949-496-8133
Mobile 949-933-6518
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of GF
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Government Grants and Ethanol.
I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together
with the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
discovered or adopted.
So how do they protect their interests?
Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
included the grant seekers.
The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
rights revoked.
There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it will
not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded" system.
It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to share
it with at least one member of the committee.
GF
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' <gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Reply: It pays well.
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
LINVENT at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
To: tmiles at trmiles.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Dear Technologists,
The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money for
this plant?
What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review until
they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
a winner.
I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing what
the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking m
y brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
interesting in this regard.
DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White
House because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political
pressure will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a
serious well developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
Below are some of the massive failures:
Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
Range Fuels: $300mm
Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants except
for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if wanted
the plant for scrap).
Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an
engine to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of
intake valves.
Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal gasification
144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas to run on
pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the project,
Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
separate entity.
The list goes on and on.
Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
505.463.8422
www.thermogenics.com
_______________________________________________
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/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 5821 (20110126) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3404 - Release Date: 01/26/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/a9d86c73/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:59:36 -0400
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Message-ID: <859D71B311A944938FC3906E6E5B07DF at usera594fda0bf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Gerald
What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
WOOD GAS:
Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any other
non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating value in
the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may, or may
not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar content
it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
PYROLYSIS GAS:
Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
Best wishes,
Kevin Chisholm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should be
narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this claim
The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during the '40
s (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT process; however
it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the second
edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chem
ical Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
CO and H2.
I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
Managing Director
Sixth Element Sustainable Management
www.6esm.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of jim
mason
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
wrote:
> I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
as
> general term in some cases.
>
bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
sample?
when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
the academic world than in our local online circle.
j
>
> "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
combustion
> engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly
water
> gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
mixture
> of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
Fischer
> Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
for
> a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
on
> Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona (2004)
at
> <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
>
> "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
operate
> a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from
the
> dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
the
> pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
while
> Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
>
> "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas
> several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
systems."
> from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
and
> Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
of
> Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
biomass,
> outputs of syngas and ashes
>
> "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
science
> and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
>
> "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
extremely
> beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
reduces
> the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
provided
> in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> combustion than for turbine combustion."
> "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels
(natural
> gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
or
> utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
without
> requiring a further conversion step."
> "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
[CO2,
> CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
concentration
> of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
containing
> a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
0-56%,
> H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> ...
> from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
Energy
> NETL (2002).at
> <http://seca.doe
gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf>
>
> "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
(CO)."
> from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
and
> Jargon. (2006).at
> <http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425
pdf?sequence=1>
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
as
> general term in some cases.
>
> My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass,
though I
> don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
>
> Cheers,
> Bear Kaufmann
> All Power Labs
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Gasification list has moved to
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
> reflect the change.
> Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list
move.
> Thank you,
> Gasification Administrator
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
Current Projects:
- Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
- Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley
com
- ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
- Shipyard Announce list:
http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/1545aa97/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:28:58 -0800
From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
<gasification at bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Message-ID: <023d01cbbd8f$477da260$d678e720$@ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Kevin, I have always respected your knowledge in this area. And your
definitions are excellent. Engine-grade gas is especially attractive.
What I am actually seeking though is not to define any gas, because these
terms have existed for decades and the literature should have defined them.
The early references that I have seen do not strictly define syngas in a
very limited manner. Others have felt so strongly on a limited definition
that inflammatory statements have been made about organizations who claim to
make ?syngas?. If we use the term to declare groups to be fraudulent, we
should ensure that we are also using the terms correctly, as t
hey were originally intended.
In the dispute over syngas, many references have used the term as a generic
replacement for any manufactured gas well before members of this list for
working in the field; that is any gasification process that produces
hydrogen and carbon monoxide. If members feel that this definition is
incorrect, which it may be, then recognized early references to such should
be provided.
Gerald
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:00 AM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Dear Gerald
What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
WOOD GAS:
Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any other
non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating value in
the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may, or may
not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar content
it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
PYROLYSIS GAS:
Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
Best wishes,
Kevin Chisholm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should be
narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this claim
The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during the '40
s (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT process; however
it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the second
edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemic
al Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
CO and H2.
I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
Managing Director
Sixth Element Sustainable Management
www.6esm.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of jim
mason
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
wrote:
> I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> general term in some cases.
>
bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
sample?
when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
the academic world than in our local online circle.
j
>
> "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
combustion
> engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly water
> gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
mixture
> of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia, Fischer
> Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
for
> a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
on
> Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona (2004)
at
> <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
>
> "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
operate
> a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from the
> dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
the
> pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, while
> Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
>
> "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas,
> several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion systems.
> from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
and
> Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
of
> Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
biomass,
> outputs of syngas and ashes
>
> "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
science
> and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
>
> "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
extremely
> beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
reduces
> the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
provided
> in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> combustion than for turbine combustion."
> "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels (natural
> gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
or
> utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
without
> requiring a further conversion step."
> "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of [CO2,
> CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high concentration
> of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
containing
> a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from 0-56%
> H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> ...
> from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
Energy
> NETL (2002).at
> <http://seca.doe
gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf>
>
> "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO).
> from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles and
> Jargon. (2006).at
> <http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425
pdf?sequence=1>
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> general term in some cases.
>
> My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass, though
I
> don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
>
> Cheers,
> Bear Kaufmann
> All Power Labs
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Gasification list has moved to
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
> reflect the change.
> Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list move
> Thank you,
> Gasification Administrator
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
Current Projects:
- Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
- Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
- ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
- Shipyard Announce list:
http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
_____
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/403aede0/attachment-0002.html>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:28:58 -0800
From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
<gasification at bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Message-ID: <023d01cbbd8f$477da260$d678e720$@ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Kevin, I have always respected your knowledge in this area. And your
definitions are excellent. Engine-grade gas is especially attractive.
What I am actually seeking though is not to define any gas, because these
terms have existed for decades and the literature should have defined them.
The early references that I have seen do not strictly define syngas in a
very limited manner. Others have felt so strongly on a limited definition
that inflammatory statements have been made about organizations who claim to
make ?syngas?. If we use the term to declare groups to be fraudulent, we
should ensure that we are also using the terms correctly, as t
hey were originally intended.
In the dispute over syngas, many references have used the term as a generic
replacement for any manufactured gas well before members of this list for
working in the field; that is any gasification process that produces
hydrogen and carbon monoxide. If members feel that this definition is
incorrect, which it may be, then recognized early references to such should
be provided.
Gerald
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:00 AM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
Dear Gerald
What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
WOOD GAS:
Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any other
non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating value in
the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may, or may
not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar content
it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
PYROLYSIS GAS:
Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
Best wishes,
Kevin Chisholm
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should be
narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this claim
The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during the '40
s (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT process; however
it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the second
edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemic
al Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
CO and H2.
I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
Managing Director
Sixth Element Sustainable Management
www.6esm.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of jim
mason
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
wrote:
> I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> general term in some cases.
>
bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
sample?
when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
the academic world than in our local online circle.
j
>
> "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
combustion
> engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly water
> gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
mixture
> of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia, Fischer
> Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
for
> a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
on
> Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona (2004)
at
> <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
>
> "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
operate
> a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from the
> dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
the
> pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, while
> Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
>
> "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas,
> several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion systems.
> from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
and
> Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
of
> Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
biomass,
> outputs of syngas and ashes
>
> "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
science
> and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
>
> "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
extremely
> beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
reduces
> the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
provided
> in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> combustion than for turbine combustion."
> "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels (natural
> gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
or
> utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
without
> requiring a further conversion step."
> "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of [CO2,
> CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high concentration
> of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
containing
> a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from 0-56%
> H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> ...
> from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
Energy
> NETL (2002).at
> <http://seca.doe
gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf>
>
> "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO).
> from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles and
> Jargon. (2006).at
> <http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425
pdf?sequence=1>
>
> In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas intended
> to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> general term in some cases.
>
> My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass, though
I
> don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
>
> Cheers,
> Bear Kaufmann
> All Power Labs
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Gasification list has moved to
> gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
> reflect the change.
> Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org for more news on the list move
> Thank you,
> Gasification Administrator
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
Current Projects:
- Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
- Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
- ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
- Shipyard Announce list:
http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
_____
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/403aede0/attachment-0003.html>
------------------------------
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:41:58 +0100
From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
To: "Otto Formo" <formo-o at online.no>, "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis
and gasification" <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID:
<9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCDBF at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Otto
No - our 50 kwel gasifier in Koge is not in operation although almost
operational.
The 700 kw el gasifier in Gjol was never started - green electricity
priceses dropped during construction and ther ewas no public funding to
finish the project.
Both gasifier are cheap for sale.
The Viking at TUD have operated for a few thousand hours - as far as I known
not really continious and the are now upscaling it to a 500 Kw gasifier. I
heard from a friend in Sri Lanka that they have been qouted 3,8 mio EUR for
1 MW gasifier from them. Thus the electricityprice will will be 3-4-5 times
higher than the market price.
An other very interesting project in Denmark is Biosynergi. Henrik Houmann
have managed to sell public shares in his gasifier project - that is really
impressing - he might be the one that is able to raise sufficient funds to
break throgh - although he has many technical challenges ahead of him.
Regards
Thomas
________________________________
Fra: Otto Formo [mailto:formo-o at online.no]
Sendt: on 26-01-2011 18:59
Til: Thomas Koch; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification;
gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Emne: SV: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Thomas,
Does it means that your TKE 3 stage gasifier is still operating in Denmark?
Have you any connection to or cooperation to the lab of Bioenergy Innovation
Centre run by SINTEF in Norway?
Paal`s TLUD ND Gasifier PekoPe was tested by the Technical University of
Denmark in Copenhagen in mid 1990`s. Do you happend to know about how it
operates?
It seems someone has focused on the "wrong" terms of combustion and fuel
operations.............who knows?
I gues you can find some more detalis about pyrolysis and gasifier units
from the Technical Museum of Munich in Bavaria, Germany?
Some people on the list were doing some investigations over there, just some
time back.
Good luck.
Otto
> From: Thomas Koch [TK at tke.dk]
> Sent: 2011-01-26 15:55:14 MET
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification [gasification at lists
bioenergylists.org], gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Dear Andrew
>
> To me this a kiss of the death.
>
> I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
starw pyrolysis unit.
>
> 1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the
steel -
> 2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both
sides
> 3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to reduced
strenght
> 4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
>
> 1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times
of years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals.
The consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be
well below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes
place.
> 2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense
that you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC
- thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
> 3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into
the top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and
36 - 36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The
maintenance cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial
market
> 4. Tars are not easy to handle
>
> Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the Viking
and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
> The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
> 1. Not see how upscale it
> 2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
> 3. See too high maintenance costs
> But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around 50-75
cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
>
> The answer to your last question is -- YES
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas Koch
> www.tke.dk
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
schofield
> Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
> Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Dear Thomas Koch,
>
> How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
each parallel screw-tube?
> we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
needing to consult you about your experience with
> hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
>
> Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May
I guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
>
> Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers
steel surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates
inside.
> Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler setting
> May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
Fuels attempt at system scale up?
>
> A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
cooker which can feed an army.
>
> Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
>
> Andrew Schofield
> Renewable Fuel Systems
>
>
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> Tom
>
> Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> applications. Thomas Koch
>
>
> From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>
> I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
when I lived in Denver.
> I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
methanol project.
> Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
solved at a small scale.
>
> Tom Reed, Pyrologist
>
>
> Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
>
> did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
>
> any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
>
> jim
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/61121e23/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:57:13 -0800
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
To: "'Jim Leach'" <jleach at danatech.net>, "'Discussion of biomass
pyrolysis and gasification'" <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Message-ID: <046701cbbd93$3fc5c940$bf515bc0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Jim,
It is a nasty claim. But we shouldn't be shocked or in disbelief. In recent
history we have the Iraq war as a paradigm, where the Blackwaters and
Halliburtons hauled money by the C-5-load out of taxpayer's pockets. How
many deals had side channels? A little experience in D.C. politics would
erase any remnant of flag-waving innocence.
When our President started talking about massive infrastructure investments
last night and put the feel-good marketing phrase "Clean Energy" high on his
list of infrastructure investments that the government would make.I cringed!
Saying that the "US is open for business" sounds a lot like saying that
Washington's K-Street is open for business. Most of the seminal advances in
technological and industrial America have not been spurred by government
largess. Without the catalyst of the "sink-or-swim" requirement that private
investment implies, all of these government initiatives are bound to fail or
at best, provide scant value for the money invested.
In the 19th Century, sociologist Max Weber had it figured out: Once in
place, a bureaucracy's main function is to maintain and grow its power and
structure. The same goes for congressional committee chairman and staffers
and the lobbyists who feed them and golf with them. (Our new Speaker of the
House played golf 113-times last year; not with his parish priest, you may
be assured.)
Let the EXXONs of the world pay for "clean energy" development. They will be
the ultimate benefactors in any case. I still remember the energy crunch of
the 1970s and how rapidly the Energy Giants moved in to stamp-out the sparks
of innovation.
Reality is often depressing.
Mark
From: Jim Leach [mailto:jleach at danatech.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:19 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'; mark at ludlow.com
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
up?
JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
President
DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Ph 949-496-6516
Fx 949-496-8133
Mobile 949-933-6518
_____
From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of GF
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Government Grants and Ethanol.
I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together with
the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
discovered or adopted.
So how do they protect their interests?
Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
included the grant seekers.
The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
rights revoked.
There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it will
not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded" system.
It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to share
it with at least one member of the committee.
GF
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Reply: It pays well.
From: <mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
<mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?>
mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
<mailto:LINVENT at aol.com> LINVENT at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
To: <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com> tmiles at trmiles.com;
<mailto:gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
Dear Technologists,
The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money for
this plant?
What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review until
they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
a winner.
I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing what
the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking my
brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
interesting in this regard.
DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White House
because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political pressure
will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a serious well
developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
Below are some of the massive failures:
Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
Range Fuels: $300mm
Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants except
for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if wanted
the plant for scrap).
Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an engine
to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of intake
valves.
Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal gasification
144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas to run on
pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the project,
Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
separate entity.
The list goes on and on.
Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
505.463.8422
<http://www.thermogenics.com/> www.thermogenics.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<mailto:Gasification at bioenergylists.org> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioener
gylists.org>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenerg
ylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
<http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists
org/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5821 (20110126) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
<http://www.eset.com> http://www.eset.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists
bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/23213a89/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
End of Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/7e70474f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: stampa_girl_line_en.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 46417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/7e70474f/attachment.gif>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list