[Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas

Luke Gardner lgardner at wwest.net
Thu Jan 27 12:14:10 CST 2011

I remember watching an episode of the twilight zone in which the average joe, father, husband,employee becomes left behind by a rapidly changing language.  starts off pequiliar  just one word every once in a while.  His wife asks "if had a nice launch home form work.?"  , he ends up arguing with coworkers in following days ,,  and trying to correct his wife and children,,  soon everyone is just talking  complete jibberish, and he realises that it is he that has fallen behind.  story ends showing the kids playing in the yard I believe,  camera pans back through a window and the man is curled up in his childs dark closet, but  in the beam of sunlight coming in the window, reading a childs book by himself desperatly clinging to sanity,  he had entered THE TWILLIGHT ZONE.   da.da.da.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gerald Kutney 
  To: 'doug.williams' ; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' ; gasification at bioenergylists.org 
  Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas

  Your comments are very much appreciated.  This discussion, though, just illustrates the ambiguity out there on the term syngas and synthesis gas.  The literature in this sector does little to clarify the situation.  Therefore, one should not jump to conclusions if someone uses syngas in a general sense.  The simple term syngas does not imply that someone is attempting to take advantage of “unsuspecting investors.”  Otherwise NETL and the American Gas Association may have to be lumped in with this group, as I had shown by the earlier definitions.  Developers have enough problems without being questioned for the use of a word that recognized organizations and references use in the same way.  That said, investors should always be leery of any claims, but the use of the word syngas is the least of their problems.




  From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of doug.williams
  Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:13 PM
  To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification; gasification at bioenergylists.org
  Subject: Re: [Gasification] A small literature review re: syngas


  Hi Gerald,


  You bring an interesting "slant" to this discussion, and as I initiated it, feel obliged to dig into my files to seek some answers.


  >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. 


  There appear to be no reference to syngas in any of my reference material until the FT process, or gas production for chemical feed stock after 40's.


   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.  


  This is I think where the terminology may have been taken less importantly by Chemical Engineers who can work with anything, than the Mechanical engineers who actually had more to do with it's manufacture and application as a source of energy.

  > 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.


  I had to read through considerable material in books, so have taken a few days to assemble a few facts.

  In 1961, I rescued four bound volumes (V72 1930, V74 1931, V75 1932, V76 1933) of Power, a monthly magazine for engineers in the power industry, published by McGraw-Hill.

  One might expect they also had a similar magazine for the chemical engineers, possibly from a later date.

  Having read these books from cover to cover more than once, producer gas is the only term used, for the discussion of making gas using air with steam in the case of coal, and nothing is discussed using high pressure retorts and processes one associates with the term syngas.


  These books reported all types of projects for energy production in most countries, including engine development of many kinds, coal processing, boilers, hydro, railways, and shipping. They are also a goldmine of information of new products, patent applications, and people in the industry. Nothing on Chemical Engineering.


  Next I consulted the set of books issued in 1954 by "The College of Fuel Technology" for Solid and Gaseous Fuels, the study of which was required to pass the examinations of the City and Guilds of London Institute.  It covers all gas making from coal, and all you need to know about coal as a fuel.  They define producer gas as: A mixture of combustible and non-combustible gases, the proportions of which may vary over wide ranges.


  Gas producers are covered in my set of Engineering Works Practice (1950's) published by George Newnes of London, again only producer gas is mentioned. These volumes provide operating instructions for engineers taking charge of factories. In my 1965 copy of Fowlers Mechanical Engineers Pocket Book, producer gas is defined as: Made by passing air, or air and steam through red hot coke, making 34.7% CO, and 65.3 Nitrogen. They quote the water bottom producers as better, free of clinkering problems with, CO2 4.2%, CO 25.2%, H2 22.6%, Nitrogen 44%.


  Finally, the 1984 " Small Scale Gas Producer Engine Systems" Albrich Kaupp/John Goss, (ISBN 3-528-02001-6) published by Gate a special division of GTZ, the German Technical Cooperation agency, review the history of gasification, and review nearly 600 papers, but syngas is not covered at all, because all producer gas as we have come to understand it, contains nitrogen. This publication is also the source from which I extracted the analysis of Pyrolisis Gases and chemical content requested by Dr Karve, which was sent directly to him.


  There would appear to be a need for closer scrutiny of any process that describes it's gas as syngas, which clearly is used to jolly up the unsuspecting investors. I didn't invent either term, but at some point in time, someone lumped the two process incorrectly, and it has continued due to lack of attention to the non-combustible gas content. While we may seek accountability from those with failed projects, it is more important to have accountability before an event, because it prevents incorrect presentation., that is "IF"the scrutiny can be applied. Having said all that, possibly more interest in the differences will emerge, and some correction made to how we should describe what we do.


  It might help this discussion, if anyone can identify functioning chemical processes that use producer gas with nitrogen content as feedstock,


  Hope this may be of assistance.

  Doug Williams,

  Fluidyne Gasification.




  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

  for more Gasifiers,  News and Information see our web site:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110127/3989a6f3/attachment.html>

More information about the Gasification mailing list