[Gasification] Knoef et al's proposed criteria

[Peter & Kerry]

On 18/04/2012 5:00 AM, David Coote wrote:
> Whoever first gets a small-scale gasifier up that meets Knoef et al's
> proposed criteria on whether or not a gasification technology is
> commercial could do very well.
David,

When we decided to build a commercial specification system we set 
Knoef's criteria as our benchmark. Everything is now capable of being 
met with those bits pending already in train except the 2000hrs at >80% 
availability in a contiguous run, and we will possibly be setting up a 
system to do this when we return from a demonstration event in Victoria 
at the end of this month (subject to other work loads). This last 
criteria to be met is more of a material handling issue than a gasifier 
one, setting up fuel pre-processing in particular, and we now have a 
chipper and fuel supply to suit. We will start at 10hrs/day (which would 
still meet the criteria on cumulative operation) but will fit automated 
feed to run it 24/7 for additional reasons. In any case some of the 
projects we are involved in will achieve this independently in due course.

This would have been achieved twelve months earlier except for some 
games played against us by a large public authority on a biosolids and 
wood chip to biochar and energy project. Having met the first two 
milestones including independent testing of material blends through the 
gasifier at Sutton (near Canberra) we built and delivered the complete 
200kg/hr working plant for onsite trials only to have the client renege 
on agreements re siting and attempt to put us in an open, unsecured 
paddock subject to direct contact with the spray from the treatment pond 
aerators! Then whilst this was being sorted out they completed the 
required reports for the State Government funding agency, received the 
funds for payment of this milestone then withheld these pending us 
signing new contracts which included granting intellectual property 
rights to them! We have only just had the court case resulting, and 
whilst we won the cost has been high and while it was going on resources 
had to be diverted (and we are still awaiting payment).

So having a working gasifier system is not a guarantee of success.

You are quite right about the numerous "enormous amount of small-scale 
biomass assets dotted around the countryside" and the 1500tonnes/yr is 
typical, on a 2500hr/yr duty cycle approximating their normal working 
days this equates to around 600kg/hr or for arguments sake a nominal 
500kWe system. You will find that in practice that this cannot be 
connected to the grid in the majority of locations where this resource 
is available, (even at the a nominal 150-200kWe rating if running 24/7) 
so unless there is a on-site power requirement at this level it is still 
no go. This is the reality we rudely discovered when we first built a 
reliable system capable of this scale. In fact even where the grid 
infrastructure can support it we have found utilities over here 
extremely reluctant.

The point is benchmarks such as Knoef's in the end have limited value 
because they assume in the first instance that the barrier to deployment 
is technical centred only on the gasifier, when in fact it is only when 
this is overcome that a lot of different and new barriers become 
apparent. In the end we have found genuine clients seek us out, not the 
other way round, so achieving some arbitrary benchmark before going 
commercial is moot.

Innovation in application then does not stop with system design, but 
rather begins when this is complete!

Peter