[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
Viswanathan KS
viswanathanks at gmail.com
Wed Jan 26 19:54:53 CST 2011
I use gmail and I have no problem in receiving mails. Please change over to
gmail
2011/1/27 Mike Donnell <modonnell7 at cogeco.ca>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, I'm sorry for sending you this huge and garbled e-mail but this is
> what I receive from you every day. (notice all the repetition!)
> Is there something wrong with my e-mail program? I use Incredimail 2.0.
>
>
>
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> *Date:* 01/26/2011 3:00:43 PM
> *To:* gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> *Subject:* Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
>
> 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.bioenergylists.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. Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages (jonathan at woodgas.net)
> 2. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Kevin)
> 3. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Daniel Chisholm)
> 4. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
> 5. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Tom Miles)
> 6. Re: Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
> (JWCARTER33 at aol.com)
> 7. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (jim mason)
> 8. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Arnt Karlsen)
> 9. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (andrew schofield)
> 10. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
> 11. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Anand Karve)
> 12. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Thomas Koch)
> 13. Re: [Digestion] composition of pyrolysis gas (nari phaltan)
> 14. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Jim Leach)
> 15. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Otto Formo)
> 16. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Kevin)
> 17. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Kevin)
> 18. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Gerald Kutney)
> 19. Re: A small literature review re: syngas (Gerald Kutney)
> 20. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Thomas Koch)
> 21. Re: Range Fuels Closing Plant (Mark Ludlow)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:34:10 -0600
> From: jonathan at woodgas.net
> To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Gasification] Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
> Message-ID: <20110125143410.88201fzijokbt0pw at www.woodgas.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
> Hello,
>
> I just spent a fair amount of time updating my website www.woodgas.net
> . I am looking to add new member pages. Please contact me,
> jonathan at woodgas.net I am sure we can get something put up for you.
> Also if anyone wants to exchange links send me an email.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan at woodgas.net
> www.woodgas.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:46:54 -0400
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <650F678D767247D0B40C41AF12B7840A at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
> reply-type=original
>
> Dear Arnt
>
> I got another bad one from you. :-(
>
> Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
> message
> I received from the Gas List....
>
> Any idea what is causing the hash?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> >
> > z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q Q Q
> > QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [
> > H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\ Y [ ? X?ZX? X [? ? H Y[ Y
> ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H ^Y\ [ \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ? ] \ ] H \
> ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS S P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[ \ [H B \?\Y ? Y Y
> > ^H X Z\ [ \\ ]Z] B [\ K ZH ? ? [H ] [Z] Y\ \ ?X H ? B [ X [? ? ?[ X ZY XH
> [ [ \] ]H Z\ [K [ X H \ Y[ [ \[ \ \ [H H [ ? Y \[ [\ Y[ [ \ H [ H ? H [Z] YH
> Y [ Y[ H X [ [ Y Y H ?[ YZ\? H Z]] H ? H [ Y]B ] ? Y Y[ ? H \ ? H \ ] ] ? \
> H [X\B ]\H ? X 8' \'H [ ]H Z\ [ Y ]Y
> > \B \H XY [ ? ? Y Y[ [ ] X? ] \ H ^ \B [\] Y H H \ Y [ \ [ [ X ?] K ] [ X]
> \ ? Y\] ? H [\ Z[H \ ? ?[ [?^K ] [ H ?Y \Y ? H Y ] [ [\ [ \ X \ Y 8' [ Y8'H
> \ [K ] ZY B [ Y ] \8' ?'K [ X \K H \ \Y \H ] ] ] X\ ?H Y[X\ ? H [Z] YK ?\ H
> H YY ? Y\[ H [ K XZ[ X[H YY XH [ Z\ H [ \ X[
> > Y^H X\ ?Y\ H [ \H [H ] [ X\? BYK I?H Y[ ^YY [Y YH [Y\ H ^H ?\Y[ H \X ? H
> ?^H [ \ [ [ \ Y] [ ?
> > Y\[Z[\S[P? XZ\ H ] \ ] X] \X[ ? H ] X [ZX[ [ \ H [ ]
> > Z[ [? [? [K KH YY [ Y [ [ H ] [ Y\ H \ \ [] H [X\ ? \ X\ [ \ [ \ [\ K [\[
> [ ^\ YH [ ] ? YN \ \K ? \K [ \ [ \K?\YX] [? XZ[ [ \ [ H Y\YH H \
> > \H H [XZ[ Y \?\YX] [? [[\[ \ ??? SP?PH ? [H [\ \ ] [ \H H X YB \ ?[[\[ \
> ??XZ[ X[ \ [\YX] [? \ ?[[\[ \ ???? [?H \YY\ ] [ [?X] [? YH \ X ] N \YY\?[[\[
> \ ??
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:10:09 +0000
> From: Daniel Chisholm <dmc at danielchisholm.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin+YfhJN0wKTc4=YOfyCAawqJkKP0Dabdt4xyhG at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a
> bit
> broken.
>
> Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
>
> Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here are
> the very first and very last lines of the message body:
>
>
>
> T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
>
> (...a bunch of lines here...)
>
> Zy8K
>
>
> Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your email
> client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain
> ASCII
> text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
>
> Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
> (GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
> you might want to start digging into why the list software might be messing
> up his emails.
>
>
> - Daniel
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Arnt
> >
> > I got another bad one from you. :-(
> >
> > Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
> > message I received from the Gas List....
> >
> > Any idea what is causing the hash?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> > To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >
> >
> >
> >> z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q Q Q
> >> QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [
> >> H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\
> Y [ ?
> >> X?ZX X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H
> ^Y\ [
> >> \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS
> S
> >> P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
> >
> >
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/801c1936/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:15:25 -0800
> From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <011401cbbcdd$5ee102b0$1ca30810$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Reads fine with my Outlook client.
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of Daniel Chisholm
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:10 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
> FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a
> bit broken.
>
>
>
> Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
>
>
>
> Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here are
> the very first and very last lines of the message body:
>
>
>
>
> T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
> (...a bunch of lines here...)
>
>
> Zy8K
>
>
>
>
> Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your email
> client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain ASCII
> text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
>
>
>
> Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
> (GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
> you might want to start digging into why the list software might be messing
> up his emails.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Daniel
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Arnt
>
> I got another bad one from you. :-(
>
> Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
> message I received from the Gas List....
>
> Any idea what is causing the hash?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
>
> z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q
> Q Q QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O
> ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [ H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H
> \ ^ \ \H ]\ Y [ ? X?ZX X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \
> H [X] B [K H [X\H ^Y\ [ \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H
> \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS S P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
>
>
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/2a3441a0/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:27:31 -0800
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> Message-ID: <00d701cbbcdf$0f32afa0$2d980ee0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kevin, Daniel,
>
> You seem to be making your own hash. Gerry and Arnt's emails came through
> just fine.
>
> Tom Miles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:42 AM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> Dear Gerald
>
> Your message came across as hash.. could you send it in a different way, so
> we can read it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>; <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 1:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
>
> >
> > z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC H ]H Y H \\[? ? H Y[] [? ? [\
> > [ \\ \H ] ?X] [ \\ [ Y \H \H Y [X[ Y] ] [\ [ H \ H Y[Y
> > H ]H Y] YH X\ H Y\[\ ] X \ \ Z[K H \H [ \\ \? \ X\ ]H Z[Y [ \] H \[ H
> > X H Y?JH \?XH H ] X] \X[ ? H \ ]\ ] ]ZX H X[YH H [ \ \H ? X[YX \Y \? [ H
> X? Y ] [? ? H X?X \S Y\ [X Y XH ? [ZX[ X K ?H \ \X Y H \ \ ? X[YX \Y \ [ [ ?
> [ \\ \
> > YH L MK
> > NMK \H ] \ Y[ [?Y XH [ ] X [ZX[ H H ] \ \ [ ] \ \ Y XX [?? [ YY[
> > [ \ X[ [Z\ K
> > NM H \ ? [ \\ \ Y] \H \ Y ] Z[ZX X[YX \Y \ [ [ Y \ \YX] [? ] Z\ [ ?
> >
>
> L [ \\ \ \ [\ H Y[Y \ H Z^ \H ? [
> > H \ X H [[? ? H Y[X\ ? \ \
> > ] [ [H \ H X\ H Y\[\ X \ [\ Y[] [?? H [ Y]H ] \ \ [ [\ ? [ \YH H X\Y \
> > \ \H \ Y[] H ?\[? ? ] \ [\ [ ]H H [Z] Y Y[] [? ? H Y Y[] [?\[ ] ^K
> > X[Y[ \X ?^ [ [Y[ \ Z[X H X[Y[Y[ ?\KBKKKKS?Y[[ Y\YKKKKKBN \YX] [?X[\ \
> ?[[\[ \ ?? XZ[ ?\YX] [?X[\ \ ?[[\[ \ ??H ? Z [ ? [H X\?[
> Y \ ^K X[X\
> > K L B ? \YX] [? [[\[ \ ???XX
> N \YX] [?H H X[ ] \] \H ]Y] N [\?? Y
> > X K L ]
> > NL K X\ ]YX[ X\ [ \ X??? ? N H Y Y YH ? H \ \ H ]H ? [
> > [ ^ X Y B [ \\ [ \ \ ^H [ ] H H ] \ \\[? U? [ ?
> > H \YH H H X?H \? \ X\ [ \[ H X\ ] [ [\[
> > [\ \ ? [ Y\ Y ]H Y[ \ ?Y Y ? ? B Y \ [\H ? [
> > [\ \ ? [ \Y Y\ \ [ [ Y H \Y ? [ \\ ? X ? [\ \ [ Y[H H \Y \? [\[ \H [ YH
> \\?X\ [ XY [ Y [\ ^ [\ \ \K H [ ? [H \B H \H [\? [ YH ]? ? H [\[ \H ? H \?
> XY Y YH ?H ? [X\ \X[ ?\[? ] ?[ ] [? \ [ \\ \\ [ ] [ \ \ [ ? \H ? \K ] H ][
> [H ? H [\X? \YH \?\ \[? IH \ \Y YH ][ YH XZ? [Y\ [ \ \\?[ \ \H \[ ] [YH H \
> H \ \\?][ \ ?\ XZ?] H X[[ \ H [\X \K H [B[[X\^H H ] H ? YZ\ H Y\Z[ H [?H Y ]
> [?[ [\ ? H \O ] Y[\ H [X\ \H X[[ [
> H \ \X [? ? \H [\ [\ H \ [X [
> > ] [ [X\ ? H \[ [ ] \ X \ \ X ] [
> > H [\ \\ [ [\? \[? H YH [ H [\ K Y [H [\] H \?[\ O? [ H \ Y \ \X[? ^H Y\ \
> ] H [\X \YB? H \H \ X^XH H
> > L L
> > H [Y[? ^ [\ \ \H [ [ \ ] ] \ X X[ H ]X Y \ [ \? ] Y[\ ][ Y \ [ H XY [ZX ?
> [ [ \ [ ? [H \ K Y[ \ [ H \Y \X H \ Y[ [ \ \\ ? [ \[ X\ [? [[\ [ \ \[\? Y[ \
> Y \ \YX] [? [ X H ] \ \ Y Y \ H
> > ] [ [ H \?XY \ H [\
> > H Z^ \B ? [ K X [ H \Y X[YX \H Y] [
> > [[[?XK \ \ \]ZY ? Y [ ? \H [ Y[ [
> >
> > K H Z] X[ ] H ? H \ X[ \ \YK KK H Y[ \ ]X[ ] K \ ] \Z[Y H H \? \ ] [? [ H
> ][ ? ? [Z[] [? H \ X[ ] \ [ [ B \ [ ] [X? Z[[ \ ?[ [ \ [ \
> > JK H [ \? ? ] [ [\H [ [H ? Y [\ \] \H Z\ X[B \YX] [? ? [X\ [ \ Q Y
> > ^ Y PY \ H \YY\ [ ? ? [[\] [? [ \X[ X] Y[ X Y\ [^ \^?H
> >
> > K]
> \[YK[ ?XY? ?S T? ? ?L ?L \ \ ^\ \ Y H
> > 8/ H H X] H [X\
> > L H H 8/L 0 [ \XH \X[ H [??H [X\ [ [[[
> > 8/ H ? X\K [\?
> > 8/ H ? X\K [ \[
> > 8/ H ? X\K H [\H \]Z\Y \] B H \ \ ^\ \8/
> > MIH ? H [ [\H ] [ H \]Y H B H [X\? [ \ \ [\ \H \Y?Y \H H [\ [\] Y H B \H
> ^\ ?Y H [ H [\H YY ? H \ ^\ H Z\
> >
> > K H \[ \[? H [ [ [ [\[ ? [][ [[\ H X[ [[\K \X[[ H \]Y\ \[ \? [ B [\ ?[ [
> [ ] \ ]X[ ] K Y??
> > L M LN J
>
> > K [\ ?H H \X[ YXY[H [ Y X H \ ] [? ? [\ ]\[ [Y\X [ [ ]H Y[ ][ Y ? [X\
> ?\[? \ [\? H [
> > K YZ[ 0? H
> > ][ \X[ \ X ? [ Z[Y [ [\ \] \H [ H [X\ ] YYY ? Y \YY\ [Y\X[ \[ ? \ YY Y[\
> > LJ
> > K [Y[ ? H ] YYY ? Y [ [ ] [ ] ? Z\ [ [X\ ] ] ? [\ [ \ \? H \H8& \ \\&H \
> \ X[ H \Y Z] \ ?
> > [[ ] X[ \ \K ? ? [[\H \ [\ ] \ \H H ?Y\\ [Z] Y \[ \[ [ \Y XH Y [ [\ [[[
> X] ? [ X X] H
> > Y ] \ ] [ NNNJK H Z X[ \ ? [ \ ? [\?Y[ [ X[Y[Y[
> Y[B [ X K
> > X\ [?[Y\ [Y\?
> JK Y \] H [\
> > KK ]X[ ] Y\ ? [\ X \ H \ ^ [Y[ B [YXX[ ? Y[ [ [ZX[ [ \\ [H ] X [ X[ H Y
> X\? H ^H [ ? ? X[H \]Z\ Y[
> > ]\ H ZY [ [\ ?Y Y [ X HH [ H [ \ ] Y \ [[ \]Z\[Y[ ? \H \ [?H ] ] Y H ] Y\
> [\ \ ] [? ? [[B X\ [? [ ? \[H X\ [? H ?Y \Y [ \ [XX H ] ?[ [?[ [ Y[
> > ] \[ \ ? \ [ ] H [ H [ [\H X^ [][H ^ X[ ] H ? [ \ X[ ? ] [ ] H \ X] [? [\
> X] [ [ YH YY H X?H
> > LH RL? ] [\ \] \\ ?X] \ [ L LL
> > ] H ? Y] [K Y \ Y \? ? \ \ ?YY [
> > [ X [? \ X^ [Z^Y ] ] \]Z\[ H \ \ ?\[? \
> > [X\ \YX] [? \ H ?\[? ? [ ?[X?\?X[\? YY H \ X[ Y ] [? [ H \[\ X
> > [ \\ \ ?8' [\8'H ?\ [ [X\[ H ? [ H ] \\ [[[ ? ? K Y \ Y \?
> > ?K [ ] [
> > K H XX [? \B \YY ] ] [ ]] Y [\ \] \\ L LM
> > [ ] [ \X ? [ ]] Y \\\ \ \
> >
>
> > XJK H Y [ \Y [ H Z\ \H Y[ X[H ? H Z^ \H ? \H \\? Z\X\Y \YY\? \ X[ H XH H
> X \ ? Z[[ H [ ] ][ H Y ?[ ] [? ? ] [ ] H X] [ [ YH ] Y[ [ RL
> > LLMB K?
> > K Y[ [ X[KX\Y \YY\ XH H X \ ? Z[[? H [ ] ][ H Y ?[ ] [? ? Y [ [ ] H X] [
> [ YB ] Y[
> > L [ RL
> > ML K? K X H
> \ ] [? ? [X\Q \]Y [\? H [ Y \ H MMK HKM
> > ?K H
> KMK ? H M B H Y\
> > X\[ [ X\[ [X\ \YX] [? X Y\ ? Y[ [ZX[ [ Y [ X [? T \ ? [\B U
> > K]
> XK K? X Y\[ \\YX] [? X ?X\\?[[ H \[ [ Y[ \ H X\ \
> > H [ \\ \ ? [\H ] ?\ [X\[ H ? \Z[ ] [ ? Y [ [ \? [? Y H
> > K H ]Z \ ? X[\H [\N [ \ [ [ \\ [\ \ [ \?
> > K]
> ?\ ] ?K []KY K?] X[K [ KNMKK ? K \]Y[OLO [ ?
> > H \YH H H X?H \? \ X\ [ \[ H X\ ] [ [\[
> > [\ \ ? [ Y\ Y ]H Y[ \ ?Y Y ? ? B Y \ [\H ? [
> > [\ \ ? [ \Y Y\ \ [ [ Y H \Y ? [ \\ ? X ? [\ \ [ Y[H H \Y \? [\[ \H [ YH
> \\? ^H Y\Y \YH \ Y[ [ H \ H Z\X ? R XZ\? X\ \? \ \ ] H \? \H \ [X\ Y B ? Y\
> H \K [\? Z[ XY H ] ? ? X[K H ? [H ] H X?H \ ] \? X]H H [\[ ]
> > X[ \K Y\ X\ ]YX[ [ \ X? ? H \YX] [? \ \ [?Y ? \YX] [? [[\ \ ??
> > H X\H \ ] H [\ [XZ[ ? X ? Y X H [K X\H \]
> [?[[\[ \ ?? ? [?H ] ? H \ [?K [ [K \YX] [? Y Z[\ ] ?KH
> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKB[H
> X\?X] N
> ? ] X[]\ ?B\[ ?X ?
> > H \YY\ ^ \[Y[ \ ]
> > H RN
> ?Z\YY\B H \\ H H \[ ^H [ Y[ Z X H XN ?\\ YX\[ ^KB
> > H S \ X ? ] \
> ] \K[ \ X? H \ X\ [[H \
> \ ? X\ \
> > K \ [?KX \ X\ \ B?\YX] [? XZ[ [ \ [ H Y\YH H \
> > \H H [XZ[ Y \?\YX] [? [[\[ \ ??? SP?PH ? [H [\ \ ] [ \H H X YB
> \ ?[[\[ \ ??XZ[ X[ \ [\YX] [? \ ?[[\[ \ ???? [?H \YY\ ] [ [?X] [? YH \ X ]
> N
> \YY\?[[\[ \ ????\YX] [? XZ[ [ \ [ H Y\YH H \
> > \H H [XZ[ Y \?\YX] [? [[\[ \ ??? SP?PH ? [H [\ \ ] [ \H H X YB
> \ ?[[\[ \ ??XZ[ X[ \ [\YX] [? \ ?[[\[ \ ???? [?H \YY\ ] [ [?X] [? YH \ X ]
> N
> \YY\?[[\[ \ ??
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:29:17 EST
> From: JWCARTER33 at aol.com
> To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Woodgas.net is looking to add member pages
> Message-ID: <96b2c.701e246d.3a70a8bd at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> BIOFUELS.COM
>
> Jeff Carter
>
>
> | BFC Gas & Electric Companies, LC | 110 Southeast Grant Street | Suite
> 205 |
> Ankeny, IA 50021 | ( 515-964-6787 | *: _J.Carter at Biofuels.com_
> (mailto:J.Carter at Biofuels.com <J.Carter at Biofuels.com>)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2011 2:35:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> jonathan at woodgas.net writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> I just spent a fair amount of time updating my website www.woodgas.net
> . I am looking to add new member pages. Please contact me,
> jonathan at woodgas.net I am sure we can get something put up for you.
> Also if anyone wants to exchange links send me an email.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan at woodgas.net
> www.woodgas.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Carter
> | BFC Gas & Electric Companies, LC | 110 Southeast Grant Street | Suite
> 205 |
> Ankeny, IA 50021 | ( 515-964-6787 | *: _J.Carter at Biofuels.com_
> (mailto:J.Carter at Biofuels.comJeff%20Carter<J.Carter at Biofuels.comJeff%20Carter>
> |%20BFC%20Gas%20&%20Electric%20Companies,%20LC
>
> %20|%20110%20Southeast%20Grant%20Street%20|%20Suite%20205%20|Ankeny,%20IA%20
> 50021%20|%20(%20515-964-6787%20|*:%20J.Carter at Biofuels.comJeff%20Carter
> |%20B
>
> FC%20Gas%20&%20Electric%20Companies,%20LC%20|%20110%20Southeast%20Grant%20St
>
> reet%20|%20Suite%20205%20|Ankeny,%20IA%2050021%20|%20(%20515-964-6787%20|*:%
> 20J.Carter at Biofuels.comJ.Carter@Biofuels.com)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/fff21d8a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:38:26 -0800
> From: jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org>
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimEypOiC=tkdrtccR=JkGvC__3jNaNbMSLSbyd5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Chisholm <dmc at danielchisholm.com
> >wrote:
>
> > FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software is a
> > bit broken.
> >
> >
> must be unexpected tar in the system . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anybody other than Erin or Arnt can probably ignore the following:
> >
> > Arnt's email header includes these two lines:
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> >
> > The main body of his email consists solely of base64 encoded text; here
> are
> > the very first and very last lines of the message body:
> >
> >
> T24gVHVlLCAyNSBKYW4gMjAxMSAxMzo0MDo1MSAtMDUwMCwgR0Ygd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2FnZSAK
> >
> > (...a bunch of lines here...)
> >
> > Zy8K
> >
> >
> > Arnt if you are able to look at the exact internal text sent by your
> email
> > client you should ensure that your message is being sent both in plain
> ASCII
> > text in additions to any other optional fancy-schmancy encoding.
> >
> > Erin if Arnt reports to you that his emailer (X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8
> > (GTK+ 2.23.90; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)is indeed sending out plain ASCII text
> > you might want to start digging into why the list software might be
> messing
> > up his emails.
> >
> >
> > - Daniel
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 21:46, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Arnt
> >>
> >> I got another bad one from you. :-(
> >>
> >> Rather than just replying, I copied all except the first part of the
> >> message I received from the Gas List....
> >>
> >> Any idea what is causing the hash?
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> >> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:19 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> z{Zr+ z?4mzvy?r*'IC ? YK H [ LH L? LH LL ? ? H [ Y\YH Q
> Q Q
> >>> QL XXZ[ [LL?\ ?[ O ?\Y[ ?[ [ ] [
> >>> H [ H [ Y?YH ? H ?PU U S S K \ \ \H \ ^ \ \H ]\
> Y [ ?
> >>> X?ZX X [? ? H Y[ Y ] ]H X \ Y H ]\ \ H [X] B [K H [X\H
> ^Y\ [
> >>> \ [H ]H XY H \H Z\ Y] ] \ ] H \ ^H ]H ?X] Y 8' SPRS
> S
> >>> P8'H B \ [ ^H \\H \ H ] [ [?H YXY[
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > - Daniel
> > Fredericton, NB Canada
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Mason
> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> Current Projects:
> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> www.escapefromberkeley.com
> - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
> - Shipyard Announce list:
> http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/77c07408/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:34:01 +0100
> From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <20110126033401.4b05d791 at celsius.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:38:26 -0800, jim wrote in message
> <AANLkTimEypOiC=tkdrtccR=JkGvC__3jNaNbMSLSbyd5 at mail.gmail.com>:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Chisholm
> > <dmc at danielchisholm.com>wrote:
> >
> > > FYI either Arnt's emailer is (a bit) broken, or the list's software
> > > is a bit broken.
> > >
> > >
> > must be unexpected tar in the system . . .
>
> ..yup, of the base64 kind. ;o)
>
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:25:04 -0500
> From: andrew schofield <scothebuilder at hotmail.com>
> To: <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <BAY150-w21531CDA06D424881B03A2A8FF0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Thomas Koch,
>
> How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
> transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
> each parallel screw-tube?
> we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
> needing to consult you about your experience with
> hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
>
> Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
> guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
>
> Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
> surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates inside.
> Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
> steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
> setting.
> May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
> Fuels attempt at system scale up?
>
> A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
> in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
> hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
> food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
> cooker which can feed an army.
>
> Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
> be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
>
> Andrew Schofield
> Renewable Fuel Systems
>
>
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> Tom
>
> Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> applications. Thomas Koch
>
> From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>
> I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
> when I lived in Denver.
> I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
> methanol project.
> Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
> solved at a small scale.
>
> Tom Reed, Pyrologist
>
> Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
> work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
> course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
>
> did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and
> working? difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the
> ends?
>
> any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
>
> jim
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/42a1e119/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:58:43 -0800
> From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <034801cbbd15$b5b65760$21230620$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> To address the exact issue you describe, designers of equipment that
> incorporates the equivalent of conveyor flighting for mass transport and
> processing add periodic "interrupter bars" that disrupt (mix, actually) the
> mass being conveyed by the auger and prevent any co-rotation. Obviously,
> the
> flighting itself must also be interrupted in the region of the bars.
>
> It's common to have a large shaft core, which is generally heated as well,
> to reduce the radial heat transfer distance and provide torsional stiffness
> to the auger.
>
> No one seems to know for certain how many modes of failure RF's contraption
> had. From TK's description, the pyrolysis section sees overly complex and
> under-designed. But it could that the conversion chemistry part of the
> process was equally ill-conceived.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of andrew
> schofield
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:25 PM
> To: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
> Dear Thomas Koch,
>
> How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
> transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
> each parallel screw-tube?
> we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
> needing to consult you about your experience with
> hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
>
> Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
> guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
>
> Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
> surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates
> inside.
>
> Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
> steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
> setting.
> May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
> Fuels
> attempt at system scale up?
>
> A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
> in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to
> the
> hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
> food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a
> pressure
> cooker which can feed an army.
>
> Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
> be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
>
> Andrew Schofield
> Renewable Fuel Systems
>
>
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> Tom
>
> Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> applications. Thomas Koch
>
> From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>
> I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
> when I lived in Denver.
> I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
> methanol project.
> Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
> solved at a small scale.
>
> Tom Reed, Pyrologist
>
>
>
> Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
> work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
> course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
>
> did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
> difficult
> to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
>
> any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
>
> jim
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/40e44672/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:53:19 +0800
> From: Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin2Cnf9nmwHdMqx8xe2eG1U+mbQeTEVmEWZkg__ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Dr. Kutney,
> I am an absolute novice in this field. The work that I have so far
> conducted
> dealt with biogas, which is produced in an anaerobic biological process.
> Since ligno-cellulosic material cannot be digeseted by the anaerobic
> process, and because I knew that pyrolysis produced gas, I pyrolysed
> ligno-cellulosic material under anaerobic conditions, collected the gas
> over
> water, and found that it burned. The tarry fraction in the gas was
> condensed
> out of it when it passed through water. I wanted to know the composition of
> the gas that I had produced, and asked some knowledgeable persons in my
> city. Their answer did not satisfy me, because the so called knowledgeable
> persons told me that the gas contained 55% nitrogen. Because I had doubts
> about the presence of nitrogen, I posed the question to this group. I thank
> members of this group because some of them gave me a satisfactory
> answer. I
> am not worried about the definition.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis
> gas)
> > with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should
> be
> > narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this
> > claim. The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during
> > the '40's (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT
> process;
> > however, it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the
> > second edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical
> > Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
> looking
> > for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned to
> > produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
> > reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis
> gas
> > methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
> > with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture
> of
> > CO and H2.
> >
> > I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
> > early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
> > important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on
> whether
> > syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
> >
> >
> > Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
> > Managing Director
> > Sixth Element Sustainable Management
> > www.6esm.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> > gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of jim mason
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
> > To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> > > interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
> > >
> > > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of
> a
> > > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> > intended
> > > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
> as
> > > general term in some cases.
> > >
> >
> >
> > bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
> > the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
> > produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
> > relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
> > there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
> > surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
> > pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
> >
> > given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
> > summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
> > senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
> > direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
> > the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
> > conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
> > sample?
> >
> > when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
> > of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
> > that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
> > the academic world than in our local online circle.
> >
> > j
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
> > combustion
> > > engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly
> water
> > > gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
> > mixture
> > > of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
> > Fischer
> > > Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
> > for
> > > a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> > > composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> > > compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> > > from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> > > Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int.
> Conf.
> > on
> > > Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona
> > (2004).at
> > > <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
> > >
> > > "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C
> and
> > > thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> > > (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
> > operate
> > > a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from
> the
> > > dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
> > the
> > > pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> > > from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> > > Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
> > while
> > > Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
> > >
> > > "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of
> syngas,
> > > several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
> > systems."
> > > from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained
> Flow
> > and
> > > Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American
> Journal
> > of
> > > Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> > > Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
> > biomass,
> > > outputs of syngas and ashes
> > >
> > > "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> > > purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases
> emitted
> > > during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> > > electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> > > from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
> > science
> > > and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
> > >
> > > "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
> > extremely
> > > beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
> > reduces
> > > the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
> > provided
> > > in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> > > "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> > > combustion than for turbine combustion."
> > > "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels
> (natural
> > > gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for
> industrial
> > or
> > > utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> > > "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> > > hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
> > without
> > > requiring a further conversion step."
> > > "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> > > feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> > > ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
> > [CO2,
> > > CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> > > carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> > > elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be
> air,
> > > pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> > > typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
> > concentration
> > > of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> > > Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
> > containing
> > > a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> > > between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> > > "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
> > 0-56%,
> > > H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> > > ...
> > > from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> > > technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
> > Energy
> > > NETL (2002).at
> > > <
> >
> http://seca.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> > > consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> > (CO)."
> > > from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
> > and
> > > Jargon. (2006).at
> > > <
> >
> http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425.pdf?sequence=1
> > >
> > >
> > > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of
> a
> > > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> > intended
> > > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
> as
> > > general term in some cases.
> > >
> > > My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> > > "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass,
> though
> > I
> > > don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> > > The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all
> term.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Bear Kaufmann
> > > All Power Labs
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 for more news on the list
> > move.
> > > Thank you,
> > > Gasification Administrator
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jim Mason
> > Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> > Current Projects:
> > - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> > - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> > 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.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>
> *Please change my email address in your records to: adkarve at gmail.com *
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/cb5fcce6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:55:14 +0100
> From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID:
> <9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCDBE at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Andrew
>
> To me this a kiss of the death.
>
> I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
> universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
> starw pyrolysis unit.
>
> 1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the
> steel -
> 2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both sides
> 3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to reduced
> strenght
> 4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
>
> 1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times
> of years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals.
> The consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be
> well below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes
> place.
> 2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense that
> you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC -
> thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
> gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
> inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
> such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
> 3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into
> the top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and
> 36 - 36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The
> maintenance cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial
> market
> 4. Tars are not easy to handle
>
> Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the Viking
> and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
> The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
> The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
> went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
> 1. Not see how upscale it
> 2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
> 3. See too high maintenance costs
> But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around
> 50-75 cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
>
> The answer to your last question is -- YES
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas Koch
> www.tke.dk
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
> schofield
> Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
> Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Dear Thomas Koch,
>
> How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
> transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
> each parallel screw-tube?
> we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
> needing to consult you about your experience with
> hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
>
> Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May I
> guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
>
> Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers steel
> surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates inside.
> Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
> steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
> setting.
> May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
> Fuels attempt at system scale up?
>
> A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying vegitables
> in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the food to the
> hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make a batch of
> food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use a pressure
> cooker which can feed an army.
>
> Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the wood
> be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
>
> Andrew Schofield
> Renewable Fuel Systems
>
>
> Thomas Koch wrote:
> Tom
>
> Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> applications. Thomas Koch
>
>
> From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
>
> I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about 2007
> when I lived in Denver.
> I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
> methanol project.
> Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
> solved at a small scale.
>
> Tom Reed, Pyrologist
>
>
> Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
> work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
> course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
>
> did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
> difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
>
> any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
>
> jim
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/e9ec50b1/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:56:31 +0530
> From: nari phaltan <nariphaltan at gmail.com>
> To: For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion
> <digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Digestion] composition of pyrolysis gas
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimyaKu3ob_+-w1T8Jomqs+2MdFCdXXoD=jnH1A8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdf
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Jeff Davis <jeff0124 at velocity.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr. Karve,
> >
> > Many variables:
> >
> > <
> >
> http://bioweb.sungrant.org/Technical/Biopower/Technologies/Pyrolysis/Default.htm
> > >
> >
> > "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems" by Dr. Tom
> >
> > CO, CO2, H2, H2O, CH4 and tar vapor
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 09:24 -0800, Anand Karve wrote:
> > > I would like to know the composition of pyrolysis gas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> > www.puffergas.com
> >
> > Sent from any port in the storm via Acer netbook & Ubuntu Remix.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Digestion mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Digestion at bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more information about digestion, see
> > Beginner's Guide to Biogas
> > http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
> > and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
> Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
> P.O.Box 44
> Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
> Ph:91-2166-222396/220945
> e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com <e-mail%3Anariphaltan at gmail.com>
> anilrajvanshi at gmail.com
>
> http://www.nariphaltan.org
> http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110125/a1fc6726/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:18:42 -0800
> From: "Jim Leach" <jleach at danatech.net>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, <mark at ludlow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <B15193892EB844F78ED209F926C94AFC at danatech01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
> up?
>
> JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
> President
>
> DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
> 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
> San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
> Ph 949-496-6516
> Fx 949-496-8133
> Mobile 949-933-6518
>
>
> _____
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of GF
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
> To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Government Grants and Ethanol.
>
>
> I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
> This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
> of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
> The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together with
> the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
> The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
> discovered or adopted.
> So how do they protect their interests?
> Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
> selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
> How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
> Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
> included the grant seekers.
> The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
> perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
> rights revoked.
> There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
> generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
> It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it will
> not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded" system.
> It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to share
> it with at least one member of the committee.
>
> GF
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
> Reply: It pays well.
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> <mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?>>
> ] On Behalf Of
> LINVENT at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
> To: tmiles at trmiles.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Dear Technologists,
> The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
> announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
> industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
> positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
> financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money
> for
> this plant?
> What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
> community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
> work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review
> until
> they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
> make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
> successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
> a winner.
> I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
> private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
> abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
> Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
> mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing
> what
> the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
> factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking my
> brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
> There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
> only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
> catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
> that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
> interesting in this regard.
> DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White House
> because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political pressure
> will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a serious well
> developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
> Below are some of the massive failures:
> Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
> Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
> Range Fuels: $300mm
> Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
> Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
> Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
> Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants except
> for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
> PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
> was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if
> wanted
> the plant for scrap).
> Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an
> engine
> to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of intake
> valves.
> Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal gasification
> 144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas to run on
> pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the project,
> Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
> bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
> separate entity.
> The list goes on and on.
> Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 505.463.8422
> www.thermogenics.com <http://www.thermogenics.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/
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/5a8616ef/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:59:10 +0100 (MET)
> From: Otto Formo <formo-o at online.no>
> To: Thomas Koch <TK at tke.dk>, Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> gasification <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID:
> <8635164.8662.1296064750062.JavaMail.adm-moff at moffice1.nsc.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thomas,
> Does it means that your TKE 3 stage gasifier is still operating in Denmark?
> Have you any connection to or cooperation to the lab of Bioenergy
> Innovation Centre run by SINTEF in Norway?
>
> Paal`s TLUD ND Gasifier PekoPe was tested by the Technical University of
> Denmark in Copenhagen in mid 1990`s. Do you happend to know about how it
> operates?
>
> It seems someone has focused on the "wrong" terms of combustion and fuel
> operations.............who knows?
>
> I gues you can find some more detalis about pyrolysis and gasifier units
> from the Technical Museum of Munich in Bavaria, Germany?
> Some people on the list were doing some investigations over there, just
> some time back.
>
> Good luck.
> Otto
>
> > From: Thomas Koch [TK at tke.dk]
> > Sent: 2011-01-26 15:55:14 MET
> > To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification [
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org],
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >
> > Dear Andrew
> >
> > To me this a kiss of the death.
> >
> > I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
> universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
> starw pyrolysis unit.
> >
> > 1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the
> steel -
> > 2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both
> sides
> > 3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to
> reduced strenght
> > 4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
> >
> > 1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times
> of years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals.
> The consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be
> well below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes
> place.
> > 2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense
> that you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC
> - thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
> gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
> inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
> such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
> > 3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into
> the top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and
> 36 - 36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The
> maintenance cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial
> market
> > 4. Tars are not easy to handle
> >
> > Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the
> Viking and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
> > The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
> The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
> went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
> > 1. Not see how upscale it
> > 2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
> > 3. See too high maintenance costs
> > But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around
> 50-75 cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
> >
> > The answer to your last question is -- YES
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Thomas Koch
> > www.tke.dk
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
> schofield
> > Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
> > Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >
> >
> > Dear Thomas Koch,
> >
> > How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
> transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
> each parallel screw-tube?
> > we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
> needing to consult you about your experience with
> > hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
> >
> > Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May
> I guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
> >
> > Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers
> steel surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates
> inside.
> > Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
> steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
> setting.
> > May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
> Fuels attempt at system scale up?
> >
> > A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying
> vegitables in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the
> food to the hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make
> a batch of food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use
> a pressure cooker which can feed an army.
> >
> > Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the
> wood be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
> >
> > Andrew Schofield
> > Renewable Fuel Systems
> >
> >
> > Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Tom
> >
> > Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> > pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> > It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> > they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> > screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> > hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> > ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> > applications. Thomas Koch
> >
> >
> > From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
> >
> > I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about
> 2007 when I lived in Denver.
> > I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
> methanol project.
> > Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
> solved at a small scale.
> >
> > Tom Reed, Pyrologist
> >
> >
> > Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> > thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
> work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
> course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
> >
> > did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
> difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
> >
> > any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
> >
> > jim
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:31:14 -0400
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, <mark at ludlow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <57D7E3D7ACB44D38B5946DE09F0AD39E at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Jim
>
> Greg says, among other things, :
> This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
> of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
>
>
> There was an interesting Science program on CBC on 15 Jan, on Climate
> Change. A reference URL to the Program is:
> http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/episode/2011/01/15/january-15-2011/
>
> They have one clip on "Climate 3000". Scroll down and click on "Listen to
> this Item".
>
> It would appear from this article that we cannot be "saved from Climate
> Change."
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Leach
> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' ; mark at ludlow.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
> up?
>
> JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
> President
>
> DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
> 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
> San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
> Ph 949-496-6516
> Fx 949-496-8133
> Mobile 949-933-6518
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of GF
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
> To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Government Grants and Ethanol.
>
>
> I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
> This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
> of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
> The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together
> with the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
> The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
> discovered or adopted.
> So how do they protect their interests?
> Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
> selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
> How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
> Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
> included the grant seekers.
> The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
> perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
> rights revoked.
> There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
> generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
> It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it
> will not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded"
> system.
> It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to
> share it with at least one member of the committee.
>
> GF
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' <
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
> Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
> Reply: It pays well.
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of LINVENT at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
> To: tmiles at trmiles.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Dear Technologists,
> The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
> announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
> industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
> positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
> financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money for
> this plant?
> What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
> community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
> work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review until
> they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
> make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
> successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
> a winner.
> I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
> private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
> abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
> Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
> mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing what
> the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
> factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking m
> y brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
> There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
> only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
> catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
> that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
> interesting in this regard.
> DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White
> House because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political
> pressure will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a
> serious well developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
> Below are some of the massive failures:
> Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
> Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
> Range Fuels: $300mm
> Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
> Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
> Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
> Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants
> except for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
> PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
> was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if wanted
> the plant for scrap).
> Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an
> engine to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of
> intake valves.
> Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal
> gasification 144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas
> to run on pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the
> project, Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
> bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
> separate entity.
> The list goes on and on.
> Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 505.463.8422
> www.thermogenics.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.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5821 (20110126) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.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.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3404 - Release Date: 01/26/11
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/a9d86c73/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:59:36 -0400
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> Message-ID: <859D71B311A944938FC3906E6E5B07DF at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Gerald
>
> What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
>
> WOOD GAS:
> Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
> with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
> "Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any
> other non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating
> value in the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may,
> or may not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar
> content, it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
> ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
> "Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
>
> PYROLYSIS GAS:
> Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
> heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
> partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
> heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
>
> SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
> Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
> value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
> "SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
> that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
> "Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
>
> How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
>
>
> I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis
> gas) with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas
> should be narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up
> this claim. The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity
> during the '40's (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT
> process; however, it quickly became the popular term for manufactured
> gas. In the second edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chem
> ical Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
> looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
> to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
> reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
> methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
> with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
> CO and H2.
>
> I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
> early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
> important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
> syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
>
>
> Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
> Managing Director
> Sixth Element Sustainable Management
> www.6esm.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of jim mason
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
> wrote:
> > I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> > interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of
> a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
> as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
>
>
> bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
> the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
> produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
> relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
> there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
> surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
> pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
>
> given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
> summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
> senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
> direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
> the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
> conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
> sample?
>
> when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
> of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
> that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
> the academic world than in our local online circle.
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
> combustion
> > engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly
> water
> > gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
> mixture
> > of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
> Fischer
> > Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
> for
> > a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> > composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> > compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> > from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> > Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int.
> Conf. on
> > Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona
> (2004).at
> > <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
> >
> > "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C
> and
> > thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> > (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
> operate
> > a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from
> the
> > dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
> the
> > pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> > from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> > Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
> while
> > Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
> >
> > "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of
> syngas,
> > several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
> systems."
> > from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained
> Flow and
> > Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American
> Journal of
> > Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> > Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
> biomass,
> > outputs of syngas and ashes
> >
> > "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> > purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases
> emitted
> > during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> > electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> > from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
> science
> > and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
> >
> > "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
> extremely
> > beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
> reduces
> > the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
> provided
> > in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> > "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> > combustion than for turbine combustion."
> > "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels
> (natural
> > gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for
> industrial or
> > utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> > "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> > hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
> without
> > requiring a further conversion step."
> > "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> > feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> > ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
> [CO2,
> > CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> > carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> > elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be
> air,
> > pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> > typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
> concentration
> > of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> > Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
> containing
> > a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> > between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> > "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
> 0-56%,
> > H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> > ...
> > from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> > technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
> Energy
> > NETL (2002).at
> > <
> http://seca.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf
> >
> >
> > "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> > consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> (CO)."
> > from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
> and
> > Jargon. (2006).at
> > <
> http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425.pdf?sequence=1
> >
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of
> a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used
> as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
> > My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> > "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass,
> though I
> > don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> > The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all
> term.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bear Kaufmann
> > All Power Labs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 for more news on the list
> move.
> > Thank you,
> > Gasification Administrator
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Mason
> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> Current Projects:
> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> 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.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/1545aa97/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:28:58 -0800
> From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> Message-ID: <023d01cbbd8f$477da260$d678e720$@ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kevin, I have always respected your knowledge in this area. And your
> definitions are excellent. Engine-grade gas is especially attractive.
>
>
>
> What I am actually seeking though is not to define any gas, because these
> terms have existed for decades and the literature should have defined
> them. The early references that I have seen do not strictly define syngas
> in a very limited manner. Others have felt so strongly on a limited
> definition that inflammatory statements have been made about organizations
> who claim to make ?syngas?. If we use the term to declare groups to be
> fraudulent, we should ensure that we are also using the terms correctly, as
> t
> hey were originally intended.
>
>
>
> In the dispute over syngas, many references have used the term as a generic
> replacement for any manufactured gas well before members of this list for
> working in the field; that is any gasification process that produces
> hydrogen and carbon monoxide. If members feel that this definition is
> incorrect, which it may be, then recognized early references to such should
> be provided.
>
>
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:00 AM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
>
>
> Dear Gerald
>
>
>
> What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
>
>
>
> WOOD GAS:
>
> Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
> with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
> "Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any
> other non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating
> value in the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may,
> or may not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar
> content, it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
> ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
> "Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
>
>
>
> PYROLYSIS GAS:
>
> Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
> heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
> partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
> heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
>
>
>
> SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
>
> Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
> value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
> "SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
> that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
> "Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
>
>
>
> How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
>
>
> I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
> with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should be
> narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this
> claim. The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during
> the '40's (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT process;
> however, it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the
> second edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemic
> al Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
> looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
> to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
> reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
> methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
> with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
> CO and H2.
>
> I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
> early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
> important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
> syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
>
>
> Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
> Managing Director
> Sixth Element Sustainable Management
> www.6esm.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of jim mason
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
> wrote:
> > I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> > interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
>
>
> bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
> the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
> produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
> relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
> there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
> surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
> pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
>
> given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
> summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
> senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
> direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
> the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
> conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
> sample?
>
> when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
> of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
> that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
> the academic world than in our local online circle.
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
> combustion
> > engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly water
> > gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
> mixture
> > of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
> Fischer
> > Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
> for
> > a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> > composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> > compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> > from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> > Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
> on
> > Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona
> (2004).at
> > <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
> >
> > "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> > thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> > (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
> operate
> > a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from the
> > dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
> the
> > pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> > from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> > Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
> while
> > Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
> >
> > "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas,
> > several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
> systems."
> > from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
> and
> > Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
> of
> > Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> > Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
> biomass,
> > outputs of syngas and ashes
> >
> > "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> > purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> > during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> > electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> > from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
> science
> > and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
> >
> > "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
> extremely
> > beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
> reduces
> > the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
> provided
> > in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> > "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> > combustion than for turbine combustion."
> > "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels (natural
> > gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
> or
> > utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> > "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> > hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
> without
> > requiring a further conversion step."
> > "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> > feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> > ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
> [CO2,
> > CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> > carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> > elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> > pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> > typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
> concentration
> > of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> > Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
> containing
> > a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> > between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> > "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
> 0-56%,
> > H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> > ...
> > from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> > technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
> Energy
> > NETL (2002).at
> > <
> http://seca.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf
> >
> >
> > "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> > consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> (CO)."
> > from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
> and
> > Jargon. (2006).at
> > <
> http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425.pdf?sequence=1
> >
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
> > My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> > "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass, though
> I
> > don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> > The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bear Kaufmann
> > All Power Labs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 for more news on the list
> move.
> > Thank you,
> > Gasification Administrator
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Mason
> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> Current Projects:
> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> 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.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
>
>
>
> _____
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/403aede0/attachment-0002.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:28:58 -0800
> From: "Gerald Kutney" <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> <gasification at bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> Message-ID: <023d01cbbd8f$477da260$d678e720$@ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kevin, I have always respected your knowledge in this area. And your
> definitions are excellent. Engine-grade gas is especially attractive.
>
>
>
> What I am actually seeking though is not to define any gas, because these
> terms have existed for decades and the literature should have defined
> them. The early references that I have seen do not strictly define syngas
> in a very limited manner. Others have felt so strongly on a limited
> definition that inflammatory statements have been made about organizations
> who claim to make ?syngas?. If we use the term to declare groups to be
> fraudulent, we should ensure that we are also using the terms correctly, as
> t
> hey were originally intended.
>
>
>
> In the dispute over syngas, many references have used the term as a generic
> replacement for any manufactured gas well before members of this list for
> working in the field; that is any gasification process that produces
> hydrogen and carbon monoxide. If members feel that this definition is
> incorrect, which it may be, then recognized early references to such should
> be provided.
>
>
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:00 AM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
>
>
> Dear Gerald
>
>
>
> What would you think of the following proposed definitions?
>
>
>
> WOOD GAS:
>
> Wood gas is a combustible gas produced by gasifying non-fossilized biomass
> with sufficient oxygen to leave little or no char. The biomass feed to a
> "Wood Gas Gasifier" could be woody biomass, agricultural wastes, or any
> other non-fossil biomass based material. The gas produced has a heating
> value in the range of about 125 to 150 BTU per Standard cubic foot. It may,
> or may not, contain significant quantities of tars. With adequately low tar
> content, it would be termed "Engine Grade Wood Gas", or if the tar c
> ontent was too much for longer term use in an engine, it would be termed
> "Fuel Grade Wood Gas."
>
>
>
> PYROLYSIS GAS:
>
> Pyrolysis gas is the gas product produced when non-fossil biomass is either
> heated in a sealed retort, or, when it is "internally heated" through
> partial combustion of the pyrolysis gases. It has a high tar content, and a
> heating value in excess of 200 BTU per Standard Cubic foot.
>
>
>
> SYNTHESIS GAS, and "SYNGAS"
>
> Synthesis gas is any gas produced for the purpose of synthesizing a higher
> value product. Wood gas and Pyrolysis gas can be termed "Synthesis Gas" or
> "SYNGAS" if they are used to synthesize a higher value product. Any such gas
> that is burned as fuel to release its energy content as heat is not
> "Synthesis Gas" or "SYNGAS".
>
>
>
> How do those proposed definitions sound to you?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gerald Kutney <gkutney at shaw.ca>
> Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 17:59
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification <
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>, gasification at bioenergylists.org
>
>
> I have followed the discussion on the definition of syngas (synthesis gas)
> with great interest. Although there are adamant views that syngas should be
> narrowly defined, I have yet to see early references that back up this
> claim. The term "synthesis gas" appears to have gained popularity during
> the '40's (possibly before) to describe the raw material for the FT process;
> however, it quickly became the popular term for manufactured gas. In the
> second edition of the iconic Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemic
> al Technology, one is directed to the chapter on manufactured gas when
> looking for synthesis gas (see vol. 10, p. 355, 1966), where it is mentioned
> to produce synthetic chemicals from the water gas and water gas shift
> reactions. In Riegel's, Industrial Chemistry, 1962, a list of synthesis gas
> methods are listed that mimic manufactured gas and includes gasification
> with air. And on p. 892, synthesis gas is simply defined as the mixture of
> CO and H2.
>
> I respect the opinion of the members of this list, but could you supply
> early references to back up your definitions. I believe that this is an
> important issue to be cleared up, as there is definite confusion on whether
> syngas should have a limited definition or a broad definition.
>
>
> Gerald Kutney, Ph.D.
> Managing Director
> Sixth Element Sustainable Management
> www.6esm.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of jim mason
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:40 PM
> To: gasification at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bear Kaufmann <bear at allpowerlabs.org>
> wrote:
> > I looked through some of the papers I have on hand, and extracted the
> > interesting parts as they relate to the latest discussion, FWIW:
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
>
>
> bear, in reading through your 6 examples here, i find 4 of them use
> the term "syngas" in some flavor of a general term for the gas
> produced through some form of biomass thermal conversion. its
> relationship to synthesis processes and no/low nitrogen gas is also
> there of course. but the prevalence of the "generic" usage is
> surprising. i'm surprised to see even some major names in
> pyrolysis/biochar are using it to name the gas from pyrolysis.
>
> given this over majority leaning towards the generic use, why do you
> summarize the state of affairs by affirming the more "traditional"
> senses of the term? it seems the numbers are leaning in the other
> direction. of course your sample is anecdotal, so putting numbers to
> the resulting statistics is suspect. but still, the emphasis in your
> conclusion i do not see in the sample. btw, how did you generate this
> sample?
>
> when we started this disucssion, my guess was that the generic usage
> of the term was maybe a 10-20% phenomenon. examples are piling up
> that it is actually much higher than this. it seems even higher in
> the academic world than in our local online circle.
>
> j
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "Fuel gas can be used directly as fuel in gas burners or internal
> combustion
> > engines and gas turbines. Fuel gas, after purification and possibly water
> > gas shift to adjust the H2/CO ratio, can be described as a syngas (a
> mixture
> > of H2 and CO), which can be used to manufacture methanol, ammonia,
> Fischer
> > Tropsch liquids, or hydrogen for use in fuel cells (4). The suitability
> for
> > a particular usage, i.e. the fuel gas quality, is determined by the gas
> > composition and the level of contamination by particulates, alkali
> > compounds, nitrogen-containing components, sulphur and tars (5)."
> > from Kalisz, S. et al. Energy Balance of High Temperature Air/Steam
> > Gasification of Biomass in Up-Draft, Fixed-Bed Type Gasifier. Int. Conf.
> on
> > Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, Phoenix, Arizona
> (2004).at
> > <http://gasunie.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2004/3265200/3265200.pdf>
> >
> > "Fast pyrolyzers rapidly (?1 s) heat dry biomass (10% H2O) to ?500?C and
> > thereby thermally transform biomass into bio-oil (?60% of mass), syngas
> > (?20% of mass), and charcoal (?20% of mass). The energy required to
> operate
> > a fast pyrolyzer is ?15% of the total energy that can be derived from the
> > dry biomass. Modern systems are designed to use the syngas generated by
> the
> > pyro- lyzer to provide all the energy needs of the pyrolyzer."
> > from Laird, D.A. The Charcoal Vision: A Win Win Win Scenario for
> > Simultaneously Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon,
> while
> > Improving Soil and Water Quality. Agron J 100, 178-181(2008).
> >
> > "To improve the thermal efficiency and predict the composition of syngas,
> > several numeric models have been developed for biomass conversion
> systems."
> > from Rogel, A. & Aguill?n, J. The 2D Eulerian Approach of Entrained Flow
> and
> > Temperature in a Biomass Stratified Downdraft Gasifier. American Journal
> of
> > Applied Sciences 3, 2068-2075(2006).
> > Comments: Shows a stratified downdraft model with inputs of air and
> biomass,
> > outputs of syngas and ashes
> >
> > "The term ?pyrolysis? is typically used either for ...[analytical
> > purposes]... or for bioenergy systems that capture the off-gases emitted
> > during charring and used to produce hydrogen, syngas, bio-oils, heat or
> > electricity (Bridgwater et al, 1999)."
> > from Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management:
> science
> > and technology. (Earthscan/James & James: 2009).
> >
> > "High purity syngas (i.e. low quantities of inerts such as N2) is
> extremely
> > beneficial for fuels and chemicals synthesis since it substantially
> reduces
> > the size and cost of downstream equipment. However, the guidelines
> provided
> > in Table 5 should not be interpreted as stringent requirements. "
> > "There is more latitude with regard to syngas composition for engine
> > combustion than for turbine combustion."
> > "To be considered interchangeable with conventional fossil fuels (natural
> > gas or distillate oils) and to ensure maximum flexibility for industrial
> or
> > utility applications, syngas heating value needs to be above 11 MJ/m3"
> > "At temperatures greater than 1200-1300oC, little or no methane, higher
> > hydrocarbons or tar is formed, and H2 and CO production is maximized
> without
> > requiring a further conversion step."
> > "Biomass gasification is the conversion of an organic...carbonaceous
> > feedstock by partial oxidation into a gaseous product, synthesis gas or
> > ?syngas,? consisting primarily of [H2 and CO] with lesser amounts of
> [CO2,
> > CH4], higher hydrocarbons (C2+), and nitrogen (N2). The reactions are
> > carried out at elevated temperatures, 500-1400oC, and atmospheric or
> > elevated pressures up to 33 bar (480 psia). The oxidant used can be air,
> > pure oxygen, steam or a mixture of these gases. Air-based gasifiers
> > typically produce a product gas containing a relatively high
> concentration
> > of nitrogen with a low heating value between 4 and 6 MJ/m3 (107-161
> > Btu/ft3). Oxygen and steam-based gasifiers produce a product gas
> containing
> > a relatively high concentration of hydrogen and CO with a heating value
> > between 10 and 20 MJ/m3 (268-537 Btu/ft3)."
> > "Table 8. Compositions of Biomass-Derived Syngas" - includes N2 from
> 0-56%,
> > H2 from 5-43.3%, CO from 9-67%, CO2 from 4-40%
> > ...
> > from Ciferno, J.P. & Marano, J.J. Benchmarking biomass gasification
> > technologies for fuels, chemicals and hydrogen production. US Dep of
> Energy
> > NETL (2002).at
> > <
> http://seca.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/BMassGasFinal.pdf
> >
> >
> > "The resulting fuel is a producer gas (a synthesis gas or syngas) that
> > consists primarily of varying ratios of hydrogen and carbon monoxide
> (CO)."
> > from Mukhtar, S. Manure to Energy: Understanding Processes, Principles
> and
> > Jargon. (2006).at
> > <
> http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87462/pdf_2425.pdf?sequence=1
> >
> >
> > In short, the usage from the above doesn't appear entirely clear.
> > But in general, syngas is often suggested to have been upgraded, or of a
> > higher CO/H2/energy content. Syngas is often used to refer to gas
> intended
> > to be used for synthesis of products. Syngas does also seem to be used as
> > general term in some cases.
> >
> > My preferred usage has been to call the gas the air-blown GEK makes
> > "producer gas". Wood gas notes that the carbon source was biomass, though
> I
> > don't prefer the term. "Syngas" being made with O2 or steam.
> > The problem with the above is it doesn't leave a general catch-all term.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bear Kaufmann
> > All Power Labs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 for more news on the list
> move.
> > Thank you,
> > Gasification Administrator
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Mason
> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com
> Current Projects:
> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race:
> 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.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> --
> - Daniel
> Fredericton, NB Canada
>
>
>
> _____
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3402 - Release Date: 01/25/11
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/403aede0/attachment-0003.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:41:58 +0100
> From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
> To: "Otto Formo" <formo-o at online.no>, "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis
> and gasification" <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID:
> <9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCDBF at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Otto
>
> No - our 50 kwel gasifier in Koge is not in operation although almost
> operational.
> The 700 kw el gasifier in Gjol was never started - green electricity
> priceses dropped during construction and ther ewas no public funding to
> finish the project.
> Both gasifier are cheap for sale.
>
> The Viking at TUD have operated for a few thousand hours - as far as I
> known not really continious and the are now upscaling it to a 500 Kw
> gasifier. I heard from a friend in Sri Lanka that they have been qouted 3,8
> mio EUR for 1 MW gasifier from them. Thus the electricityprice will will be
> 3-4-5 times higher than the market price.
>
> An other very interesting project in Denmark is Biosynergi. Henrik Houmann
> have managed to sell public shares in his gasifier project - that is really
> impressing - he might be the one that is able to raise sufficient funds to
> break throgh - although he has many technical challenges ahead of him.
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: Otto Formo [mailto:formo-o at online.no <formo-o at online.no>]
> Sendt: on 26-01-2011 18:59
> Til: Thomas Koch; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification;
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Emne: SV: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
> Thomas,
> Does it means that your TKE 3 stage gasifier is still operating in Denmark?
> Have you any connection to or cooperation to the lab of Bioenergy
> Innovation Centre run by SINTEF in Norway?
>
> Paal`s TLUD ND Gasifier PekoPe was tested by the Technical University of
> Denmark in Copenhagen in mid 1990`s. Do you happend to know about how it
> operates?
>
> It seems someone has focused on the "wrong" terms of combustion and fuel
> operations.............who knows?
>
> I gues you can find some more detalis about pyrolysis and gasifier units
> from the Technical Museum of Munich in Bavaria, Germany?
> Some people on the list were doing some investigations over there, just
> some time back.
>
> Good luck.
> Otto
>
> > From: Thomas Koch [TK at tke.dk]
> > Sent: 2011-01-26 15:55:14 MET
> > To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification [
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org],
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >
> > Dear Andrew
> >
> > To me this a kiss of the death.
> >
> > I started my carier developing screew pyrolysis units at the technical
> universty of Copenhagen for two purposes - one the Viking gasifier - 2 a
> starw pyrolysis unit.
> >
> > 1. It is limited in temperature bedause of material limitations in the
> steel -
> > 2. It is limited in capacity due to heat tarnsfer limitations om both
> sides
> > 3. It is hot mowing part inside that has a limited lifetime due to
> reduced strenght
> > 4. Everywhere you cool eg for bearings tar condenses and cause problems.
> >
> > 1. Maks temperature on the steel plate is 600 oC if you expect life times
> of years even for soem of the most expensive types of refracotory metals.
> The consequense of that is that mea temperatue inside the biomass will be
> well below 600 oC having the consequense that almost no gasification takes
> place.
> > 2. Energy transfer is in the order of 3-4 KW/m2 havinf the consequense
> that you can pyrolyse 5-10 kg pr hour pr m3 at a mean temperature of 500 oC
> - thus a Range fuel pyrolyser should have been 4-800 m2 to PYROLYSE (not
> gasifiy) 4000 kg pr hours. Assuming this made of a 600 mm pipe with a screew
> inside it is a 2-400 meter long pipe !!! - imagine the termal stresses in
> such a construction - and even worse thermal transients!!
> > 3. Imagine 18 pipes in series stacked on top of each other you feed into
> the top and it falls in to the pipe below - each equipped with a screew and
> 36 - 36 pressurised axel sealings!! and 18 drive mechanisms!! The
> maintenance cost will far exeed the income from each line in a commercial
> market
> > 4. Tars are not easy to handle
> >
> > Here in Denmark we have designed 2 real staged gasifiers one is the
> Viking and the other is the TKE 3 stage gasifier.
> > The Viking has a screew pyrolyser very similar to the one that Range use.
> The TKE gasifier uses an internally heated plug pyrolyser. The reason the I
> went a way from the Screew pyrolyser was that i could
> > 1. Not see how upscale it
> > 2. Not see hw to make a safety approval
> > 3. See too high maintenance costs
> > But for both gasifiers electricity made from biomass cost s around
> 50-75 cent US pr kWh in a 3-800 KW gasifier.
> >
> > The answer to your last question is -- YES
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Thomas Koch
> > www.tke.dk
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af andrew
> schofield
> > Sendt: on 26-01-2011 05:25
> > Til: gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Emne: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> >
> >
> > Dear Thomas Koch,
> >
> > How much of a problem for the scaled up Range Fuels plant, was heat
> transfer from the hot fluid outside the auger-tubes to the celluose inside
> each parallel screw-tube?
> > we gather a hint of the problem from your description, and Range Fuels
> needing to consult you about your experience with
> > hot-fluid jacketed screw-pyrolizers.
> >
> > Dr Reed said he saw the liquid fuel process working at small scale. May
> I guess this success was with a jacketed single-screw?
> >
> > Inside the radiation, and convection sections of water-tube boilers
> steel surface temperatures can vary widely, as water vigorously circulates
> inside.
> > Water, being more fluid than wood chips screwing along in a tube, keeps
> steel temperature within certain limits throughout the entire boiler
> setting.
> > May we use this analogy to describe one problem experienced with Range
> Fuels attempt at system scale up?
> >
> > A culinary anology for heat-jacketed auger-tubes is stir-frying
> vegitables in a Chinese wok. The chef adroitly presents new surfaces of the
> food to the hot steel to transfer heat by conduction. The chef can only make
> a batch of food under a certain size. Size beyond which he may choose to use
> a pressure cooker which can feed an army.
> >
> > Would not direct-contact heat exchange between the hot fluid, and the
> wood be more practical at 4 ton/hr?
> >
> > Andrew Schofield
> > Renewable Fuel Systems
> >
> >
> > Thomas Koch wrote:
> > Tom
> >
> > Range fuel gasification technology was an externally heated
> > pressuries pipe with a transport screew inside when I saw it.
> > It was very similar to the pyrolysis unit on the wiking gasifier but
> > they had ideas to upscale it to 4 tons pr hour by stacking pipes with
> > screew conveyers. Thinking of the challenges of making the 1 tons pr
> > hour screew pyrolyser in Haslev i have doubts this principle will
> > ever be competitive for energy production - even for atmospherich
> > applications. Thomas Koch
> >
> >
> > From: Thomas Reed <tombreed2010 at gmail.com>
> >
> > I attended a few of the formative meetings of Range Fuels back about
> 2007 when I lived in Denver.
> > I have known Bud Klepper since about 1988 when we worked together on a
> methanol project.
> > Too bad that many $millions couldn't solve at a large scale what Bud had
> solved at a small scale.
> >
> > Tom Reed, Pyrologist
> >
> >
> > Jim of All Power Labs wrote:
> > thomas, why did you think a stacked array of skinny auger retorts won't
> work? this seems a known solution that tends to work as far as i know. of
> course the proof is in the material handling with specific fuels.
> >
> > did you find it difficult to keep the auger straight and working?
> difficult to keep the heat out of the motor and bearings at the ends?
> >
> > any secret cautionary tales we should know of?
> >
> > jim
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/61121e23/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:57:13 -0800
> From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: "'Jim Leach'" <jleach at danatech.net>, "'Discussion of biomass
> pyrolysis and gasification'" <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
> Message-ID: <046701cbbd93$3fc5c940$bf515bc0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> It is a nasty claim. But we shouldn't be shocked or in disbelief. In recent
> history we have the Iraq war as a paradigm, where the Blackwaters and
> Halliburtons hauled money by the C-5-load out of taxpayer's pockets. How
> many deals had side channels? A little experience in D.C. politics would
> erase any remnant of flag-waving innocence.
>
> When our President started talking about massive infrastructure investments
> last night and put the feel-good marketing phrase "Clean Energy" high on
> his
> list of infrastructure investments that the government would make.I
> cringed!
> Saying that the "US is open for business" sounds a lot like saying that
> Washington's K-Street is open for business. Most of the seminal advances in
> technological and industrial America have not been spurred by government
> largess. Without the catalyst of the "sink-or-swim" requirement that
> private
> investment implies, all of these government initiatives are bound to fail
> or
> at best, provide scant value for the money invested.
>
> In the 19th Century, sociologist Max Weber had it figured out: Once in
> place, a bureaucracy's main function is to maintain and grow its power and
> structure. The same goes for congressional committee chairman and staffers
> and the lobbyists who feed them and golf with them. (Our new Speaker of the
> House played golf 113-times last year; not with his parish priest, you may
> be assured.)
>
> Let the EXXONs of the world pay for "clean energy" development. They will
> be
> the ultimate benefactors in any case. I still remember the energy crunch of
> the 1970s and how rapidly the Energy Giants moved in to stamp-out the
> sparks
> of innovation.
>
> Reality is often depressing.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: Jim Leach [mailto:jleach at danatech.net <jleach at danatech.net>]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'; mark at ludlow.com
> Subject: RE: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
> That is a pretty nasty and bold claim, do you have any facts to back that
> up?
>
>
>
> JAMES T. LEACH, P.E.
>
> President
>
>
>
> DANA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
>
> 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite D
>
> San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
>
> Ph 949-496-6516
>
> Fx 949-496-8133
>
> Mobile 949-933-6518
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of GF
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:41 AM
> To: mark at ludlow.com; gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Government Grants and Ethanol.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think we all agree on: THE GREAT ETHANOL SWINDLE.
>
> This is where our tax dollars are diverted into non economic production
>
> of a fuel additive which supposedly saves us from climate change.
>
> The primary players in this scam have made sure their methods together with
> the cash cow they have created "REMAINS INTACT"
>
> The last thing they desire is a new and more efficient system to be
> discovered or adopted.
>
> So how do they protect their interests?
>
> Quite simply, take control of any new committees responsible for the
> selection of grants which might produce an alternative to their scam.
>
> How could such a wasteful and useless system be chosen for Federal
> Investment unless the people on the committee had an agenda which also
> included the grant seekers.
>
> The naivety of those who believe that poor judgment on the part of the
> perpetrators is the primary cause of such "losses" should have their voting
> rights revoked.
>
> There are no accidents or poor judgment in politics. That is the excuse
> generated by a stupid and trusting electorate.
>
> It will not matter how merit worthy your claim is for grant money, it will
> not be considered worthy if it challenges an established "funded" system.
>
> It might be chosen if it has "floors", in which case, be prepared to share
> it with at least one member of the committee.
>
>
>
> GF
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Ludlow <mark at ludlow.com>
> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 11:20 am
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
> Tom writes: Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
>
>
> Reply: It pays well.
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [
> <mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org?>
> >
> mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of
> <mailto:LINVENT at aol.com <LINVENT at aol.com>> LINVENT at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:27 AM
> To: <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com <tmiles at trmiles.com>> tmiles at trmiles.com;
> <mailto:gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Range Fuels Closing Plant
>
>
>
> Dear Technologists,
> The failure or whatever it is spun by Mr. Klepper in the article
> announcing the closure of the plant, is by itself devastating to the
> industry. Without a successfully operating plant, the industry has no
> positive markers for the investment community. Do you think that the
> financing group would do another bio-refinery after putting up the money
> for
> this plant?
> What is more difficult is that nowhere in the technical review
> community used to fund this plant was the critical eye which said "It won't
> work". Of course, the developers may have shopped the technical review
> until
> they got what they wanted to hear. The DOE is quite apparently not able to
> make the distinction as they approved the funding. This also means that a
> successful technology would not be known by them. It takes a winner to know
> a winner.
> I had early meetings with parts of the Klepper movement. A small
> private group which had put $1+mm into the project and were basically
> abandoneed when the technology was sold to another group for development.
> Their concerns were the reactor design which apparently relied upon a
> mechanical system which they didn't think would scale well. Not knowing
> what
> the issues with the plant not operating, this may have been a contributing
> factor. They also said that they were sticking with it and just picking my
> brains which I suspected and didn't contribute anything of significance.
> There were also issues with the catalyst. Reports that it produced
> only ethanol using the proprietary catalyst were suspect as most of the
> catalysts for ethanol production produce methanol also. The press statement
> that they ran a methanol batch first and then an ethanol batch, are
> interesting in this regard.
> DOE is doing a lot of soul searching at the behest of the White House
> because of the dearth of bio-energy project successes. Political pressure
> will not make it happen, money will not make it happen, but a serious well
> developed , innovative, simple process and technology will.
> Below are some of the massive failures:
> Occidental's flash pyrolysis unit in Sad Diego: $100mm
> Britestar/EDL pyrolysis unit in Australia: $200mm
> Range Fuels: $300mm
> Molten Metals: $90mm(mostly DOE earmarked funds)
> Hawaii IGT/EPRI/Westinghouse/HPL/ gasification unit: $30-50mm?
> Battelle's dual fluidized bed gasification system: $60mm?
> Thermoselect's two stage combustion system: $125mm/plant 4-5 plants except
> for the one in Japan which I think is still operating.
> PRM's Philadelphia sewage sludge gasification system: $2-3mm (blew up and
> was shut down very shortly after installation, I was called to see if
> wanted
> the plant for scrap).
> Italian sawdust gasification plant near Venice, 1 Mwe couldn't get an
> engine
> to run more than 40 hours between valve jobs due to tar fouling of intake
> valves.
> Farmland's acquisition of the Daggett, California Texaco coal gasification
> 144 Mwe power plant and reconstituting it in Coffeville, Kansas to run on
> pet coke for ammonia production. Texaco was thrown out of the project,
> Farmland finished the plant got it running on petcoke, had to file
> bankruptcy and sell the 1100 ton/day ammonia production unit using it to a
> separate entity.
> The list goes on and on.
> Wonder why anyone stays in this field?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 505.463.8422
> <http://www.thermogenics.com/> www.thermogenics.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> <mailto:Gasification at bioenergylists.org<Gasification at bioenergylists.org>>
> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioener
> gylists.org>
>
> 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/>
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 5821 (20110126) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> <http://www.eset.com> http://www.eset.com
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110126/23213a89/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 5, Issue 27
> *******************************************
>
> [image: FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=614188&rui=128571907&sd=20110126>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110127/34d618cf/attachment.html>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list