[Gasification] Getting both heat and char .....

Fri Jan 6 10:40:57 CST 2017

Rolf,
There was a discussion on the Yahoo woodgas list in 2010 about firing
ceramics using a WoodGas unit.  If you search on postings by onerr0r,
his postings will show up.  He was firing pottery in an artist's size
kiln (not room sized), but interesting data.  Here is a cut-and-paste:
 On the bottom is the "flame shelf" which helps shield the ware from
direct flame (even though the whole works is probably engulfed) and is
150F hotter than the pyrometer indicates.  This means 2267+150 or
2417F (cone 12).  The top shelf usually runs 100 degrees cooler than
the middle....

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Energies Naturals C.B.
<energiesnaturals at gmx.de> wrote:
> Many thanks to Doug, Paul and others.
>
> Sorry, I had a busy day away from home and could not check my mails.
>
> The Shasta 2 carbonizer is a very interesting design.
> How could it be optimized to make high temperature "flare" gas?
>
> Recover heat from the char cooling to preheat the combustion air?
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:26:09 -0600
> Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Doug,    (and a thank-you to Art for his comments also)
>>
>> Your archive update
>> http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/Feb2015/Shasta2update.html    was very
>> informative.   Although larger and with operational differences, there
>> are strong similarities with the Chip Energy Biomass Furnace that Paul
>> Wever and I designed and made some years ago.  Info is at
>> chipenergy.com  That is not a TLUD, but is a true up-draft gasifier with
>> a few innovations that I have written about in 2007 as AVUD (Another
>> Variation Up-Draft) gasifier.
>> > http://www.drtlud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/BP53-Anderson-14.pdf
>>
>> I agree that what Rolf is seeking is not a TLUD.
>>
>> You wrote:
>> > May be the ash from the carbon dust will settle in the tunnel
>> > depending on combustion gas velocity. Usually, a correctly sized flue
>> > stack is required to assist with removing the exhaust gas, and this is
>> > where ash dust can become an emission.
>> I have not experienced carbon dust or ash from carbon dust or ash dust
>> with the AVUD design.
>>
>> Again, thank you for your strong support for gasification of biomass.
>>
>> 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 1/5/2017 12:27 AM, Doug wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Paul,Rolf and Colleagues,
>> >
>> > This is to clarify Paul's questions. I hope the separations do not
>> > confuse too much.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Pyrolytic  gas can be quite wet so precise temperatures are risky to
>> > quote.
>> >> Yes.  There is no scrubbing or drying or other preparation of the
>> >> pyrolytic gas.  In the TLUD world, the gases are usually created in
>> >> the 500 C to 650 C range.  And the raw biomass fuel might enter with
>> >> as much as 15% to 20 % Moisture Content (MC).
>> >>
>> >> If the MC of the raw fuel was lower (such as 5% MC), would that help
>> >> raise the temperature?
>> >
>> > The short answer is yes, we don't need steam to displace gas volume.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hypothetical question:  Part A.   if the pyrolytic gases were cooled
>> >> to below 100 C, water could be removed by condensation, and we would
>> >> have lots of wood vinegar.   However, there would also be massive
>> >> amounts of tars and "gunk" being deposited also.   However, the
>> >> final, non-condensed gases just might have the desired temperature
>> >> when combusted.   Those gases would be H2, CO,
>> >> methane-and-related-gases, and what else?
>> > Cooling the gas is a waste of the heat that it contains. Any condensed
>> > tars, hydrocarbons, or vinegars may have applications, but also add to
>> > the technical difficulties for their collection. Their removal, other
>> > than moisture best removed by drying the wood, reduces the calorific
>> > energy of the pyrolysis gas. Difficult to calculate, but also adding
>> > to the gas heating value will be carbon particles. Normally we would
>> > seek to minimize these by using a cyclone, but ceramics need reducing
>> > atmospheres, or read that as carbon rich heated atmospheres, so carbon
>> > dust is great.
>> >>
>> >> Part B.  Alternatively, after the removal of the wood vinegar,
>> >> perhaps the remaining gases plus the reheated tars, etc. could be
>> >> reheated to become a dry, quality gas for higher burning
>> >> temperatures.   All of this would be with losses of thermal energy
>> >> during condensation and then the need to add thermal energy.  Could
>> >> this have benefits that could justify the expense?
>> > I think the previous answer covered this, but I see no benefit at all
>> > to this suggestion. At a later date after there is a system working,
>> > you will then have opportunity to extract condensates. Our experience
>> > tells us that as toxic black liquor, the less you have the healthier
>> > the working site. No exaggerating, it's a health and safety hazard.
>> >>>
>> >>> What I can tell you from experience, is that it always burns hotter
>> >>> than clean producer gas, upwards of 1,050C,
>> >>>
>> >> If that is the maximum, will this be sufficient for Rolf and his
>> >> friend to use?    There is no way to turn 1000 C into 1300 C, correct?
>> > Not well explained, sorry. Clean tar free gas will not burn over
>> > 1,050C, but if the system design produces pyrolysis gas which has all
>> > it's hydrocarbons, then the temperatures will be upwards and over
>> > 1,050C, a basic tar test for cleaner specification gas,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But your next words I do not understand.
>> >>>
>> >>> 13-1500C is a rough rule of thumb for gas exiting the combustion
>> >>> chamber.
>> >>>
>> > If you combust pyolysis gas full of hydrocarbons, then the flame
>> > temperature will be 1,300-1,500C.  One of the most difficult areas of
>> > combustion is that thermo-couples start going crazy over 1,300C.
>> > Expensive ceramic ones damage too easily, so once the TC melts, you
>> > know the higher temperatures are present, possible over 1,500C.
>> >
>> >
>> > >I am not understanding what that means.   The combustion chamber is
>> > the "burner" of the pyrolytic gases?
>> >
>> > The short answer is yes if we were just creating heat. Ceramics like
>> > Rolf is seeking to fire, are done in a tunnel kiln, and the tunnel
>> > becomes the combustion chamber. The geometry is important to create
>> > the combustion phenomena, but to design this we first need a tunnel
>> > kiln to use.
>> >
>> > >>It has a very high radiation factor useful for refractory
>> > application, but the price for this is that you will get a high ash
>> > content in the kiln and flue dust emissions.
>> >
>> > >Something in the above sentence is not clear to me.   The "kiln" is
>> > part of the gasifier or is it where the materials are being heated?
>> > And the pyrolytic gases of TLUDs do not >have ash in them.   And I am
>> > not understanding the source of any flue dust emissions.
>> >
>> > The gasifier is close coupled to the kiln, and the burner is mounted
>> > in this case, on the end of the tunnel kiln which forms it's own
>> > combustion chamber containing the ceramics. The spent gas has to exit
>> > the tunnel at some point, above the condensation temperature. May be
>> > the ash from the carbon dust will settle in the tunnel depending on
>> > combustion gas velocity. Usually, a correctly sized flue stack is
>> > required to assist with removing the exhaust gas, and this is where
>> > ash dust can become an emission. It would be good to put aside TLUD
>> > understanding, as they work on a totally different principle not
>> > relevant to this project need.
>> >>
>> >> Are your comments somehow referring to the FULL gasification
>> >> processes in downdraft gasifiers (pyrolysis AND char-gasification are
>> >> both occuring)?
>> > No, Downdraft gasifiers more often than not make pyrolysis gas and
>> > need char extraction to work. Full gasification as you say, need
>> > minimum bed disturbance and between 1-4% of the fuel drops out as
>> > char. Rolf only has a downdraft engine gasifier for his first trials,
>> > and we should get plenty of pyrolysis gas out of that, at least for
>> > the first tests to fire the ceramics. Maybe we will have to extract
>> > char as well, but all that is still a long way off at this point.
>> >>>
>> >>> The actual combustion is complex, but achievable in a non regulated
>> >>> situation, emissions being the issue, both dust and toxic gas
>> >>> CO,CH4, and Dioxins. Combustion of these gases have been our focus
>> >>> for some 6-7 years, and current work at CalForest in California, is
>> >>> to use this gas to dry the incoming fuel to the charmaker.
>> >>>
>> >> The above sentences seem to indicate that your explanation is about
>> >> FULL gasification and not about only the pyrolysis process with
>> >> resultant charcoal creation.
>> > We take raw producer gas from the Shasta gasifier, meaning hot
>> > cycloned hydrocarbon free downdraft  gas for the boiler green house
>> > application. This has high carbon dust content which burns to ash.
>> > This is a problem for the boiler, but just needs more cleaning cycles
>> > than anticipated.
>> >
>> > The Charmaker is an updraft system and burns to waste the very dirty
>> > pyrolysis gas. The gas flare vertically from high stacks making them
>> > safer, as we have no space to work with them on the ground. The
>> > radiant heat cooks you from about 3-4ft, so the chances are, unless
>> > you have stood by an oil rig flare, many researchers just haven't
>> > acquired this type of experience from pyrolysis gas flares.
>> >
>> > You might like to look again at the Fluidyne Archive last update
>> > showing the charmaker and gas flares in action. The bigger flares at
>> > higher output are not shown mainly due to us too busy keeping up with
>> > the input fuel flow.   Earlier updates show the Cyclomix burners and
>> > combustion chamber hooked to a heat exchanger, so there is plenty of
>> > info to brush up on  as we developed these larger gas making system
>> > components. When operational, we collect data from those points
>> > important to both the gasifier and process, including continuous gas
>> > analysis, which cannot be used for pyrolysis gas. (to dirty)
>> > http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/
>> >
>> > Doug Williams.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Energies Naturals C.B. <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-- 
Ray  Menke