[Gasification] CHAB unit .. was Re: [Stoves] Natural draft TLUD turn-down
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Wed May 21 09:39:05 CDT 2014
Lloyd,
1. You should change the Subject line to reflect the topic.
2. I think Crispin is not subscribed to the Gasification Listserv, so I
am sending my reply plus your message to him.
3. What you describe (including making biochar) is most closely met by
the Chip Energy Biomass Furnace. See www.chipenergy.com The
realities are:
a. $50,000 for the full big system; To fit on a pallet-size
footprint, the $15,000 for the stripped system is without heat
exchanger/water pump, etc.
b. With 4 units commercially made, we know that it works. However, it
is a unit that should have support including some R&D for the specific
application/location; it is not a "plug and play" system.
c. Your expectations about using a wide variety of dry biomass fuels
would require R&D at the expense of the operator. Fuel from shipping
pallets sounds easy, but the metal nails and bolts prohibit "chipping"
and require a grinder with magnet to extract the metal (significant
effort/investment).
Chip Energy is interested in such a project, but it is a project, not
just a turn-key product. Contact me for further details.
psanders at ilstu.edu
Please let us know if there are other candidates for that project.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 5/20/2014 2:14 PM, Lloyd Helferty wrote:
> Crispin (and all), [CC; gasification list]
>
> This is a very interesting conversation regarding ND TLUD power
> (heat) variability and its implications, and (as you know) I do have a
> keen interest in this topic since being introduced to the TLUD 'stove'
> concept back several years ago (by Dr. Anderson, when he came to
> Ontario to demonstrate his small "Champion" stove and similar devices
> at the Laepple farm in June 2009), especially since the TLUD is one of
> the few simple technologies that can produce biochar cleanly at a
> small (or possibly at a medium) scale for local use ~ while producing
> (hopefully) useful amounts of energy (heat).
>
> What I am working on right now here in Toronto might interest you or
> others on this list.
> I have been approached by a business in Toronto that would like to be
> able to implement a small-scale char-making technology at their
> manufacturing site in the Toronto area (GTA) that would utilize the
> (dry) 'residuals' from their food production process in order to make
> heat energy that could lower their (fossil) energy use [natural gas
> costs] while also turning their (dry) 'food waste' into a biochar
> (and/or high-char ash) that could be re-integrated back into a (wet)
> food composting system (vermicompost) that is already being
> implemented onsite at their operations here in the city.
>
> The primary use of the heat would be to heat up water, but it would
> also be welcome if it could be used in the preparation of the 'raw'
> food (drying, roasting certain products to a certain temperature --
> i.e. an 'oven') that goes into their recipes, which includes
> 'fair-trade' sourced (temperate and tropical) foodstuffs that have
> been either grown or imported into Canada in bulk, and which are
> prepared on-site (including de-hulling etc. of several of the key
> ingredients).
> Essentially, this company would like to know if it might be possible
> to come up with either a "customized" or an "off-the-shelf" system
> that has a fairly small footprint (about the size of a shipping pallet
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallet#Dimensions>, or ~16 sq. ft = 40"
> × 48", as commonly used in the food industry) that would be able to
> meet the following requirements:
>
> * Provides space heating and/or hot water heating (for their
> kitchen), with the possibility also for using the heat for
> "roasting" their ingredients (@ ~140 Celsius max. -- possibly
> using a heat exchanger, if necessary).
> * something flexible and rugged
> * can accept multiple fuel inputs (different sized feedstocks,
> different moisture/energy content -- not just woodchips)
> * no smoky emissions (after-burner, if necessary) so that it can
> meet local emissions regs
>
>
> Of course they are interested also in custom of "commercial"
> gasifiers [as well], but small systems (stoves) that could do the job
> they are seeking might suffice, although they probably want the system
> to be as automated (hands off) as possible to that the minimum amount
> of human intervention is required... although it would need to be as
> low-cost as possible (almost a "DIY" system -- they could actually
> make it themselves since they do have some expertise, including a
> machinist & a "master builder" who has built and operated a series of
> gassifier stoves for several years and "who is more than capable of
> manufacturing" something -- if they had the 'plans' for an open-source
> system/design that could do the job).
>
> Ideally this company would be interested in seeing 2 or 3 designs
> that might work for them (a few devices that they could initially
> assess)... so that they could work with the designers to get more
> details. They would then choose a final design that they would then
> incorporate into their head office (operations), but then possibly
> also into a "franchise system" that they are designing (and that would
> operate like a "food truck" would in /any/ city ~ except instead of
> the truck being electricity or natural gas or propane-powered, the
> 'portable' food production/processing system would operate partially
> off of its own 'waste'... and/or wood chips [or pellets] that could be
> produced or supplied locally ~ possibly even from chipped shipping
> pallets that have /only/ transported food products -- i.e. clean,
> 'food-grade' "green waste" like the type that can be found at the back
> of nearly every supermarket in the country... including all the broken
> ones.)
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
> Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
> www.biochar-consulting.ca
> 48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
> 905-707-8754
> CELL: 647-886-8754
> Skype: lloyd.helferty
> Steering Committee coordinator
> Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
> CURRENTS, A working group of Science for Peace
> http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
> President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
> National Office, Canadian Carbon Farming Initiative (CCFI)
> Organizing team member, 2013 N/A Biochar Symposium:
> www.carbon-negative.us/symposium
> Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
> Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
> Advisory Committee Member, IBI
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
> http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
> http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
> http://www.biocharontario.ca
> www.biochar.ca
>
> "Producing twice as much food with diminishing resources, without further loss of natural habitats and biodiversity and in a changing climate may be the greatest challenge facing humanity."
> - Lloyd Helferty
> On 2014-05-19 7:38 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> Dear Roberto
>>
>> I agree with your analysis. There is a lot of merit in keeping the
>> secondary flame in close proximity to the top of the fuel bed. The
>> most important is that the secondary flame is harder to put out with
>> a slight breeze (because it relights). The second is that when the
>> primary air is turned down to control the power, the secondary flame
>> is able to remain hot enough to stay alight. Combined with external,
>> down-drafting secondary air preheating (not like the Peko Pe) one can
>> maintain the secondary air feed ration under different primary air
>> conditions.
>>
>> Read and heed! TLUD's are not succeeding in meeting the turndown
>> ratios required by ordinary cooking. To burn clean at different burn
>> rates, whatever the fuel, you have to control both the primary and
>> secondary air flows.
>>
>> While a 'double controller' can work, turning the secondary air down
>> at exactly the same time as the primary leads to a 2-3 minute period
>> of very high PM and or CO and VOC's because of the retained heat in
>> the fuel bed and stove body. This is worse if the combustion chamber
>> is ceramic or cast iron.
>>
>> If the secondary air feed it an automatic, buoyancy-driven ?supply,
>> it will draw in additional air as required during the cooling-off
>> period. This explains the strange layout of the air supply in a Vesto
>> Stove which tried to address the problems inherent in David Hancock's
>> (very advanced at the time) 1984 Tsotso Stove (which is still in
>> production).
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin in Seoul enjoying spring
> <snip>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140521/cecea08e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9985 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140521/cecea08e/attachment.jpe>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list