[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 24

Björn Dahlroth bjorn.dahlroth at telia.com
Fri Dec 31 09:33:51 CST 2010


Hi everyone
Most kinds of technology under development will finally have to be tested
economically. Will it find a market in the future and can it compete with
other methods? Will it find its application in some special narrow sectors
only or does it have a much broader potential? When it comes to making
electricity from biomass there are competing technologies which must be
considered. When you are talking about units from say 1 MW electric power
and upwards the conventional steam power plant with high a speed geared
turbine is a competitor and for units below that size the steam
reciprocating engine or rotary steam screw expander are possibilities. For
smaller units it is possible to consider generating sets using combustion
engines especially optimised for running on bio-oil or ethanol/methanol/DME
that you buy on the future automotive fuel market. Has anyone tried to make
such studies? One must consider not only efficiency but also the capital
investment, operation and maintenance and the cost of fuel which can vary
quite a lot. Biomass for small scale gasification can be something that does
not cost money but your own labour but it can also be wood pellets which you
by from the wood fuel market at a gradually increasing in price. If the
technology can only find special narrow markets the capital cost will be
high. If the application will be broad, then series production will lower
the investment cost. Finally - electricity production might not be the most
important future application of bio-mass gasification.

(It can be interesting to look at what happened in the 1980ies to large
scale thermal gasification of coal for electricity production with combined
cycles. There was much hope for very high efficiency and you might remember
the big cool water demonstration plant in the USA. So what happened? In
Denmark it was demonstrated that similar efficiencies could be reached with
some development work on conventional coal powder fired steam power plants
by going up in steam temperature with more advanced materials and working
more with refining the rest of the process. The competitor is always a
moving target.)

Bjorn Dahlroth
Sweden


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] För
gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Skickat: den 30 december 2010 11:13
Till: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Ämne: Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 24

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.bioenerg
ylists.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. Economy for CHP on Biomass (Thomas Koch)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:12:26 +0100
From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
	<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
Message-ID:
	<9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCCD8 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I just looked through the presentations from the Copenhagen meeting.
 
My aim was to try to find out what the costs for small scale CHP om biomass
can be expected to be in the near and the far future
 
It was not easy to draw a conclusion from the presentations.
 
The Skive plant is using fuel at 1200 DKK/tons (162 EUR) and has an
availabilty of 50 % now.
The pyroforce techmology seems to work but there where no economical numbers
in their presentation. 
The Stirling present investment figures of 1,4 MEUR for a 140 KWel plant and
present a payback times of 5,5 years if they can sell the electricity at 270
EUR/MWh and the heat at 45 EUR/MWh and the maintenace cost are defined at 45
kEUR/years.
V?lund technology definetely works and produce electricity, heat and taroil
but they present no economical data.  
DONG presented their 85/15 plan which is almost financed by converting taxed
fuel (coal) into non taxed fuel (biomass) - but rumours say that the tax
issue most be solved first (who is going to pay for the hospitals if the
energy tax on fossils are not payed?)
 
For our own 3 stage gasification technology we are expecting a total
electricity production  cost of 300-400 EUR/MWh with a fuel price of  5
EUR/GJ and no income for heat for a 1 MWel gasifier in generation 3. We base
this number on approx 12000 hours operation wtih two 50 kWel gasifier.
More details can be given if anyone are interested.
 
Does anybody have data concerning the present and expected future operation
economy of small scale CHP on biomass they would like to share? 
 
Best regards
 
Thomas Koch
www.tke.dk 
 
 
 

________________________________

Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af Tom Miles
Sendt: on 29-12-2010 23:15
Til: mark at ludlow.com; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_



A thumbnail sketch of developments in small scale CHP including
gasification, and the development of gasifiers for syngas production can be
seen in this year's meetings and workshops of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass
Gasification and IEA Task 32 on Biomass Combustion and Cofiring. 

 

They held a joint workshop in October 7,2010 in Copenhagen on
"State-of-the-art technologies for small biomass co generation". Individual
presentations can be seen at: 

http://www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/index.html

 

The last meeting of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass Gasification was held June
1-3, 2010 in Helsinki. Minutes of that meeting can be found at:

http://media.godashboard.com//gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf
<http://media.godashboard.com/gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf> 

 

This meeting lists activities in the principal countries that are developing
gasifiers for syngas and producer gas applications. Highlights from other
countries that did not present at the 2010 meeting can be found at:

http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminu
tes.xml
<http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskmin
utes.xml> 

 

Additional presentations for research and commercial systems can be found in
the Programme of "Gasification 2010," the International Seminar on
Gasification held 28-29 October, in Gothenburg, Sweden

http://www.sgc.se/gasification2010/programme.asp

 

Happy Holidays

 

Tom Miles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Ludlow
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:37 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

 

Hmmm,

Ben a lot of "gas" generated on this topic but not much useable energy!
Chicken Little would feel right at home! I doubt that many who buy the GEK
expect to go into methanol production. Do I smell just a little envy?

 

From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Pannirselvam P.V
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Cc: M at ry; Rajesh sk
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_

 

     Tom ,Jim,Toby

 

 We need happy end to the hot debate on  syngas 2010

         Many list member can agree with me that public or private retrack
statements  is a correct  peaceful end   as  proposed by Jim as more damage
was being done  to him and GEK, I can prove that  this is not the request of
crew of Jim  as some one put here , but  independent observer .Every member
here has their voice  heard , independent they are from poor country or rich
country , independent  of person like me with Phd , working with university
or an technical person with elementary school.The new social network make
this possible via our lists with equal rights .some  are   proved expert of
the start of art  as much as Jim  or more , but if one  do not explained
well here , the experience  alone can not make one  for other to follow as
crew. We  all here can not blindly follow with hero workship of few people
or expert or so called  imaginary  Jim crew, even though he has world wide
network, disciples.wiki,fotoblog  etc,There is no need for him to use the
power of his gas
ification  crew against  few misunderstanding. 

If he really use his syngas based hydrogen  globalizeded  distributed
network  power as some one supect here , our list can be innudated with
emailsand .our list email  system could have exploded wiith this syngas
based hydrogen  explosives emails and bda demage done to GEK  and JIM could
have disappeared

 

    But , as Jim travel  and know the biodiversity , really respect all even
one who misunderstand too open minded , not too much commercial business
minded , but there is always limit to this .

 

 Thus I wish especial new near to Jim and Toby , making the debate live  and
the good side of this very hot debate

 

Jim even though , too much demaged his  true image and good motivation , has
not asked public apology , but very educated and polite to ask only publick
retrack and I hopethat  he accept too private retrack ,latter inform about
the same 

 

 Making  error is human ,  I hope the persons misunderstood They  can fell
and be super human  , if they can if not publick retrack openly  or  at
least send private  email retrack.

 

 I wish Jim accept this private re-track and we will end this big mis
understanding in our very big lists 

 

As really what we need for this list  in the new year is peace , progress,
unity in diversity , respect for all list members , including  All the
energy experts , academics  like me , farmers , Small  Energy enterprise
owners .Our unity in diversity make our list very especial and diferent as
we need all, the more divesity much better for the  sustainable growth of
our list.

 

 

Yours truely

Dr.Panniselvam 


      

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM, jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Toby Seiler <seilertechco at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Jim was right, I'm working on a machine that is intended to some degree to
integrate principles of making synthesis gas, so I have a vested interest in
his use of terminology used in marketing his product that, I believe,
contributes to a public misunderstanding.  I've asked Jim nice many times in
the past to consider the differences that Doug, Bill Klein, Greg and many
other professionals on this list have explained to Jim and myself years ago.
>

well toby, there you go again.  and now you've also ignored the raw
data, in addition to the previous detailed description and logical
argument.  again, the comedy here is I AM NOT USING THE TERM SYNGAS TO
DESCRIBE OR MARKET THE GEK.

i posted the raw data relating to the use of the syngas term on the
gek site.  you glossed over it without impact on your claims.  here it
is again below.  i would like for you to respond to this data.  and
hopefully retract your statement that i am using this term to market
the GEK currently, along with the assertion that i am actively trying
to mislead about the nitrogen content in the gek gas (of which there
is plenty).

that represents the current state of affairs and representation.

as for future states of affairs and representations, the more i look
into the history of this term, its use internationally, and general
movement in use academically, govt, commercially and popularly, i
think i am going to start using it actively.  the transition is
actually much further along than i realized when i was just waving
hands around here about it being a better term.

but again, the current representation of the gek on our site does not
use the term actively.  please respond to the data i have presented.
show some nuance.  if we cannot respond reasonably to data clearly
presented, description and argument clearly constructed, how are we
every going to make meaningful progress on the problem of biomass
thermal conversion?  vocabulary might be the least of our problems
here . . .

here's the gek site term use inventory.  you may have to click "show
hidden" to see it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------




below is an inventory of actual usage of the terms in
question on the gek site.  i've done this for the 8 most visited pages
on the site, in order.  i've then pulled out a much lower visited
page, but the one where i thought my "sins" would be the most
pronounced.  this is the one where the details of gasification are
explained.  it is the 14th most visited page.

as you will see, there is no sentence of the type "the GEK makes
syngas".  in actuality, the "syngas" term is barely even used.  in the
top 8 pages, only 3 occurrances, 1 to note that "syngas" is one of
many terms used for the gas, and 2 in passing while talking about
mixing systems.  in contrast, there are 82 occurrances of the term
"gasifier", 28 occurrances of the term "gasification", 9 for "wood
gas", 0 for "producer gas", 0 for "suction gas", 0 for "synthesis
gas".   i'll even eliminate the two passing uses of the term while
discussing mixing if that helps quell this nonsensical lexical
tempest.

more to your point, the selling pages have exactly 0 declarations that
"syngas" is the gas being made by the GEK.  that's right- zero.  the
term is in not used anywhere to make a claim about the type of gas the
gek makes, nor to promote its sale.   not sure if this changes
anything, but that's the data.  as a man of science, i trust you will
recalibrate your conclusions in relation to the real data.


here's the detail inventory.  it is done over the permanent content on
each page.  not rss feeds in the left column from elsewhere, which
change constantly and not in my control (though i could find zero
occurances of the "syngas" term there either).

1. GEK gasifier home page: http://www.gekgasifier.com
<http://www.gekgasifier.com/> 
gasifier (9), gasification (4), syngas (1), wood gas (0), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)
     the "offending" syngas sentence at the bottom of the page:
"The system automatically adjusts syngas/air mixture via a wide band
Bosch oxygen sensor, shakes the grate when needed, and removes ash via
a mechanical auger.")

2. How to make the GEK page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/wood-gasifier-plans/
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

3. Power Pallet info and buy page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-genset-skids/
gasifier (19), gasification (3), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
gas (0), synthesis gas (0)
      the two 2 syngas references are again in the context of
talking about fuel/air mixing

4.  Store front:  http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

5. Wiki page with detail plans and CAD drawings on making and using
the GEK:
http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123754/How-to-Build-and-Run-the-GEK-Gasi
fier
gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

6. BEK biochar info page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/reactor-options/pyrolysis-biochar/
gasifier (5), gasification (2), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)

7. Gasification Basics, intro to the tech:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/
gasifier (8), gasification (6), syngas (0), wood gas (0), producer gas
(0), synthesis gas (0)
   the closest i get to sin here is:
"Gasification is the use of heat to tranform solid biomass, or other
carbonaceous solids, into a synthetic "natural gas like" flammable
fuel.")

8. Gasifier kits info and buy page:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-systems-and-kits/
gasifier (17), gasification (4), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer
gas (0), synthesis gas (0)


Here's where i thought my biggest "sins" would be.  This is the page
with the detailed explanation of how gasification works:
http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/how-it-works/
gasifier (8), gasification (18), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
gas (1), synthesis gas (0), suction gas (1)
    there are 2 sentences with syngas.  the "offending sentences:
"The gas produced by this method goes by a variety of names: "wood
gas", "syngas", "producer gas", "suction gas", etc."
"This is why an engine run on syngas can have such clean emissions."


those appear to be the facts from my neck of the woods.  others are
invited to review the above pages and point out where they think
things are otherwise or should be changed.  i'll happily change them,
as i don't really have a horse in this race.

percentage nitrogen density isn't really the relevant racetrack to
work out the real issues with this tech.


jim













>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> _______________________________________________
> 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
<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>  for more news on the list move.
> Thank you,
> Gasification Administrator
>



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Jim Mason
Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com <http://www.whatiamupto.com/> 
Current Projects:
   - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
<http://www.gekgasifier.com/> 
   - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
<http://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.bioenerg
ylists.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 Qu?mica
CT - Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova - Natal/RN
Campus Universit?rio. 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 21027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists
.org/attachments/20101230/533030b7/attachment.bin>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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/



End of Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 24
*******************************************





More information about the Gasification mailing list