[Gasification] reducing temp. of gasification

Sat Sep 17 12:01:51 CDT 2011

 Dear  Jim , Dr A.D.Karve

Dear Jim and ADK

 we have been working to  to do what   AD K idealised projects.

    Jim is correct , theer are real problem with h2 and co storage.Even
after diution of both of this dangerous gas from syngas to producer gas  of
lower quality with N2 , the compressibilty problem is yet there , even small
quantity of compressed h2 is explosives .

the best way to solve this problem is  via slow pyrolysis.The pyrolysis gas
can be quenched , the tiem controled and can be used.

the best pyrolyis process from Austraulia is sucess ful one  m comercial
scae inwhic
producer gas from pyrolysed  charcaol is burnt very neat and clean  to do
pyrolysis.

Jim has operated GEk in pyrolysis mode too.

 I am sure biogas methane can make better Hbio oil , gas  thus helping
combined pyrolysis  and trireforming of c02 recyclibg with catalyst.

Idealy getting bio oil , pyrogas and charcoal   as biomass refinary  as ADK
 product demand  can push  this project into reality.Where there is an need
, an apportunity, there innovative tecnology  deveopment  become possible.

se heer more information about syngas  production nusing c02,methane
reforming

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114788987753123175730/posts/esRBsYVGN7n

truly
Pannirselvam P.V

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jim,
> from your message it appears that it is not possible to lower the
> temperature of gasification if we wanted to produce producer gas in an
> oven-and-retort system. We developed, at the end of the last century,
> an oven-and-retort process for producing charcoal from agricultural
> waste. At that time, a researcher from the National Chemical
> Laboratory, Pune, India, tested some catalysts in our oven-and-retort
> system to show that one could produce active charcoal even at the
> relatively low temperature of 300 to 400 C. This led me to thinking
> that one may discover a catalyst which might help us in getting
> producer gas from agricultural waste at this temperature. Some
> preliminary experiments were conducted by us with the help of a
> pyrolyzer being used for producing fuel oil from plastics. The same
> proprietory catalyst was used in this process, which was being used in
> the plastic to fuel oil process. We obtained a fair quantity of
> combustible gas, which we could collect over water, like biogas. We
> burned it in a biogas stove. The success of these experiments lead me
> to think that it might be feasible to produce producer gas in an
> oven-and-retort system.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:25 PM, jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Henri,
> >> yes it is too complicated. I give below my basic reason for using this
> process.
> >> India generates
> >
> >> When we heat the biomass in a closed vessel, can we add a catalyst to
> >> the biomass so that the producer gas is generated at a lower
> >> temperature? In this way, we would require much less material for
> >> burning outside the reactor vessel. If anybody has already done this
> >> kind of work, is the catalyst known? Once we get producer gas without
> >> nitrogen, we can look at filling it into cylinders and supplying it to
> >> rural people as high grade fuel for using in internal combustion
> >> engines.
> >
> >
> > a.d.
> >
> > it would be wonderful to have a conversion route like this.  sadly i
> > think the thermo-chemistry is against us here.  but you should prove
> > us wrong ;-)
> >
> > however even if solved, the result would still be marginally able to
> > be compressed economically in low tech situations.  think of the
> > difficulty in even ch4 compression for fuel volumes.  now, 2-3x that
> > difficulty with pure h2 and co? (btw, what is the actual energy
> > density difference here?)
> >
> >
> > here's some challenges for the "magic retort" that i see.
> >
> > first, you have both a volatile gas/liquid and char conversion
> > problem.  pyrolysis is going to give you both.  yes, we can easily
> > complete pyrolysis at 300c or so with common ic exhaust heat exchange,
> > or other relatively low grade heats.  don't need catalysts to do this.
> >
> > by well controlling the temp, and having lots of time, you can make
> > the tars less nasty to deal with later.  however, they will still be
> > tars needing cracking and/or combustion and reduction.  we usually use
> > the rule of thumb of 1000c to crack them.  if you keep their
> > generation to only primary tars via low temp pyrolysis, it will take
> > somewhat less temp to do this conversion.  how much less i don't have
> > good numbers on yet.  wish i did.
> >
> > however, it is very unlikely that could get down to 300c.  most of the
> > catalytic tar cracking assists i've read about are in the 700c and up
> > range.  mostly really 900c and up.  here's a page from reed's handbook
> > that give results for some common routes, including dolomite:
> >
> http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123685/Catayltic%20Tar%20Cracking%20Methods
> >  (thank you tom)
> >
> > it is also known that putting dolomite in the biomass during pyrolysis
> > will make the tars produced a bit more benign and more easy to deal
> > with downstream.  this is a method used in pyrolysis to oil situations
> > where control of the liquid / gas output is desired.  its still a
> > mess, but a bit less so.  under highly controlled lab conditions,
> > everyone gets excited.  DOE soon writes big checks.  tragedy usually
> > follows.
> >
> > assuming you do somehow solve the tar cracking problem at low temp,
> > either through pyrolysis control or tar cracking, now you have to get
> > rid of the char.  well, you can just agree to use that for biochar too
> > of course.  but if you want that to be fuel you need to get up into
> > temps where reduction happens at useful rates.
> >
> > in a typical reactor situation the usable bottom end temp for
> > reduction ends around 650-700c.  it is usually much higher with
> > smaller reduction volume reactors.  in our units we're usually still
> > 800c at the bottom of reduction.  this is non-ideal, as you are
> > wasting reduction potential.  however you are gaining fines purging
> > out the bell, which is needed to prevent bell packing.
> >
> > as you approach infinite reduction times you can get reduction down
> > into the 500c range.  that is where it stops chemically under atm
> > conditions.  you can use vacuum to assist reduction, but that is hard
> > to gain under temp.  though with batch load the reducing temps will
> > reduce volume and increase vacuum which will help drive more
> > reduction.
> >
> > here's the gas equilibrium charts that reveal some of this.
> > http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123723/Gas%20Equilibrium%20Charts
> >
> > i don't know of any catalysts that alter reduction temp curves.  there
> > must some.  i'd be very interested to know too.
> >
> > but really, you are trying to do this all in one step in a barrel, so
> > separating them like the above isn't fully helpful.  what you are
> > describing here is really a pyrolysis retort, not a gasifier.  it is a
> > magic retort that goes "biomass to gas" in a manner that many have
> > wanted a magic retort that goes "biomass to oil".  the gas in this
> > case being the controlled output, not the oil.  relatively high temps
> > are needed to increase the gas fraction vs liquid fraction, and you do
> > this at the cost of them going progressively nasty and difficult to
> > post process.  this also works against the original desire for low
> > temps.
> >
> > so there's some problems.  you knew all this.  not sure that helped
> > any.  unfortunately, i don't have this magic catalyst in my
> > possession.  if you find it, please do send me a can!
> >
> >
> > jim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

-- 
************************************************
P.V.PANNIRSELVAM
ASSOCIATE . PROF.
Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator
Computer aided  Cost engineering

DEQ – Departamento de Engenharia Química
CT – Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova – Natal/RN
Campus Universitário. CEP: 59.072-970
North East,Brazil
*******************************************
https://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/
 and
http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/

Fone ;Office
84 3215-3769 ,  Ramal 210
Home : 84 3217-1557

Mobile :558488145083

Email:
pvpa at msn.com
panruti2002 at yahoo.com
pannirbr at gmail.com
pvpa at msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110917/9c65e6d6/attachment.html>