[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 34
Wayne hipkin
whipkin at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 17:05:21 CDT 2011
hi wayneagain on the 50KW Gasifier thanks
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Wayne hipkin <whipkin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> we also look n for 50KW
> gasifier any info PLS Thanks Wayne
> > Do you have a gassifier of
> that range 40 - 50 kW gas, not engine kW ?
>
> ..yes, 2 actually, I have one that needs a new home, it's ready to go
> wherever you want it, it's fueled up and ready to run on arrival.
> The other one is in parts, stored with the rest of my stuff, books,
> tools, furniture and ready to move.
>
>
>
> On 12/30/10, gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <gasification-request at lists.bioenergylists.org> wrote:
>> 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. Re: Economy for CHP on Biomass (Robert Kana)
>> 2. Re: Economy for CHP on Biomass (Thomas Koch)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:26:21 +0700
>> From: Robert Kana <sinan at biomassindo.com>
>> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
>> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>> Message-ID: <4D1D313D.7070206 at biomassindo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Dear Tom,
>> I guess they built good gasifier but their information work is sloppy.
>> When copied 50 mm size from the cell, it automatically goes up 1 number
>> in Excel files, this is how they end up with 51 and 52 mm. Instead they
>> should copy and paste.
>> The high temperature in the metric table, is actually a Fahrenheit not
>> Celsius. Is a copy and paste from English table which is 1650-1830
>> Fahrenheit. 900-1000 degrees Celsius= 1650-1830 Fahrenheit
>> Regards,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:27:21 +0100
>> From: "Thomas Koch" <TK at tke.dk>
>> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
>> <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>> Message-ID:
>> <9346E1844DED164EB6371F0BF87FBCF74DCCE1 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> I have been looking for niches for my gasifier technology for 10 years
>> without identifying any.
>>
>> The question that i ask myselves is: Why did I develop this technology?
>>
>> The only reasonanble answer i can give is that there was a lot of public
>> support money available and it was good fun.We all (us that spend public
>> money with out thinking about market possibilities) believed that as soon as
>> something would be working support structures would be implemented and our
>> technologies would be sold at the price level it had.
>> Like it happended to the windmills and Stirling now selling electricity at
>> 270 EUR/MWh ~ 350 $/MWh.
>>
>> The relevant discussion to me is to find out how much we are willing to pay
>> for energy?
>>
>> What are the alternatives? How much will it cost to install windmills and
>> hydro enegy storages - or cofired coal/biomass waste plants with CCS?
>> Will smal scale gasification - waveenergy - 2 gen bioetanol etc ever get a
>> chance in the market?
>>
>> An example:
>> A family in Denmark:
>> Gross income 100000 EUR pr year - personal income tax 40000 EUR - Left for
>> consumption 60.000 EUR pr year
>> Energyconsumption:
>> 8 MWh ~ price 40 EUR + tax 200 EUR = 320 EUR + tax 1600 EUR
>> 2000 liter petrol ~ price ,6 EUR + tax ,7EUR = 1200EUR + tax 1400 EUR
>> 1500 m3 nat gas ~ price ,5 EUR + tax ,8 EUR = 750 EUR + tax 1200 EUR
>> Total energy bill 2270 EUR -- tax 4200 EUR.
>>
>> Thus the energy tax is close to 10 % of what this family pays in tax
>>
>> If this family converts to non taxed energysources - the tax will have to
>> come from some where else.
>>
>> Thus our price target is the net price and not the gross price and if
>> technologies will need economic support for the next many years we will end
>> in the unavoidable discussion - du you want better schools - hospitals or
>> (maybe) green energy?
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af Tom Miles
>> Sendt: to 30-12-2010 20:58
>> Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
>> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas,
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is a "niche" for gasifiers in power generation here it is for CHP
>> applications at less than 10 MWe. 1 MWe is often too small to pay off the
>> balance of plant costs. 2-8 MWe may be a market niche.
>>
>>
>>
>> Xylowatt seems to have settled on 300 kWe/600kWth modules. 250-300 kWe-
>> seems like the right size for a small sawmill but we don't have one working
>> here yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> The challenge is delivering a system that is robust but with low enough
>> capital and operating costs to be economic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
>> Koch
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:52 AM
>> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> It is the same figures that TK Energi came to 5-7 years ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> If a 1 MWe gasifier plant cost 10 M$ and operates 5000 hours pr year for 10
>> years (total 50000 hours) each KWh elecrticity cost 20 cent in depreciation
>> + maintenance, fuel and O&M - This can easily add up to 50 cent US/KWh.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af Tom Miles
>> Sendt: to 30-12-2010 19:26
>> Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
>> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>>
>> Correction for 1.32 $/EUR
>>
>>
>>
>> 270 EUR/MWH (would be welcome. We can't justify gasification without heat
>> recovery with our electricity (100-180 $/MWH, 76-136 EUR/MWH) and heating
>> fuel ($10-$22/MMBtu, $7.2-15.8 EUR/GJ) costs. Wood fuel is $40-$60/dry ton
>> ($2.50-$3.75/MMBtu, 1.8-2.7 EUR/GJ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Real capital costs are somewhere between $5-$10 Million/MWe(3.8M-7.6M
>> EUR/MWe) for a plant designed with a pro forma capacity factor of 85% (85% x
>> 100% full load capacity x 8760 hours per year). Actual operation is probably
>> more like 50%-60% (4,000-5,000 hours/year) due to heat loads. (You can
>> always design a cheaper plant that is less reliable, or reliable for fewer
>> hours per year.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to those who do real math.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy New Year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Miles
>>
>> www.gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
>> Koch
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:12 AM
>> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
>> Subject: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass
>>
>>
>>
>> I just looked through the presentations from the Copenhagen meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> My aim was to try to find out what the costs for small scale CHP om biomass
>> can be expected to be in the near and the far future
>>
>>
>>
>> It was not easy to draw a conclusion from the presentations.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Skive plant is using fuel at 1200 DKK/tons (162 EUR) and has an
>> availabilty of 50 % now.
>>
>> The pyroforce techmology seems to work but there where no economical numbers
>> in their presentation.
>>
>> The Stirling present investment figures of 1,4 MEUR for a 140 KWel plant and
>> present a payback times of 5,5 years if they can sell the electricity at 270
>> EUR/MWh and the heat at 45 EUR/MWh and the maintenace cost are defined at 45
>> kEUR/years.
>>
>> V?lund technology definetely works and produce electricity, heat and taroil
>> but they present no economical data.
>>
>> DONG presented their 85/15 plan which is almost financed by converting taxed
>> fuel (coal) into non taxed fuel (biomass) - but rumours say that the tax
>> issue most be solved first (who is going to pay for the hospitals if the
>> energy tax on fossils are not payed?)
>>
>>
>>
>> For our own 3 stage gasification technology we are expecting a total
>> electricity production cost of 300-400 EUR/MWh with a fuel price of 5
>> EUR/GJ and no income for heat for a 1 MWel gasifier in generation 3. We base
>> this number on approx 12000 hours operation wtih two 50 kWel gasifier.
>>
>> More details can be given if anyone are interested.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anybody have data concerning the present and expected future operation
>> economy of small scale CHP on biomass they would like to share?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Thomas Koch
>>
>> www.tke.dk <http://www.tke.dk/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Fra: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org p? vegne af Tom Miles
>> Sendt: on 29-12-2010 23:15
>> Til: mark at ludlow.com; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
>> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_
>>
>> A thumbnail sketch of developments in small scale CHP including
>> gasification, and the development of gasifiers for syngas production can be
>> seen in this year's meetings and workshops of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass
>> Gasification and IEA Task 32 on Biomass Combustion and Cofiring.
>>
>>
>>
>> They held a joint workshop in October 7,2010 in Copenhagen on
>> "State-of-the-art technologies for small biomass co generation". Individual
>> presentations can be seen at:
>>
>> http://www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> The last meeting of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass Gasification was held June
>> 1-3, 2010 in Helsinki. Minutes of that meeting can be found at:
>>
>> http://media.godashboard.com//gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf
>> <http://media.godashboard.com/gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>> This meeting lists activities in the principal countries that are developing
>> gasifiers for syngas and producer gas applications. Highlights from other
>> countries that did not present at the 2010 meeting can be found at:
>>
>> http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml
>> <http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml>
>>
>>
>>
>> Additional presentations for research and commercial systems can be found in
>> the Programme of "Gasification 2010," the International Seminar on
>> Gasification held 28-29 October, in Gothenburg, Sweden
>>
>> http://www.sgc.se/gasification2010/programme.asp
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy Holidays
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Miles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Mark
>> Ludlow
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:37 PM
>> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm,
>>
>> Ben a lot of "gas" generated on this topic but not much useable energy!
>> Chicken Little would feel right at home! I doubt that many who buy the GEK
>> expect to go into methanol production. Do I smell just a little envy?
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>> [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
>> Pannirselvam P.V
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:22 PM
>> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
>> Cc: M at ry; Rajesh sk
>> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom ,Jim,Toby
>>
>>
>>
>> We need happy end to the hot debate on syngas 2010
>>
>> Many list member can agree with me that public or private retrack
>> statements is a correct peaceful end as proposed by Jim as more damage
>> was being done to him and GEK, I can prove that this is not the request of
>> crew of Jim as some one put here , but independent observer .Every member
>> here has their voice heard , independent they are from poor country or rich
>> country , independent of person like me with Phd , working with university
>> or an technical person with elementary school.The new social network make
>> this possible via our lists with equal rights .some are proved expert of
>> the start of art as much as Jim or more , but if one do not explained
>> well here , the experience alone can not make one for other to follow as
>> crew. We all here can not blindly follow with hero workship of few people
>> or expert or so called imaginary Jim crew, even though he has world wide
>> network, disciples.wiki,fotoblog etc,There is no need for him to use the
>> power of his gasification crew against few misunderstanding.
>>
>> If he really use his syngas based hydrogen globalizeded distributed
>> network power as some one supect here , our list can be innudated with
>> emailsand .our list email system could have exploded wiith this syngas
>> based hydrogen explosives emails and bda demage done to GEK and JIM could
>> have disappeared
>>
>>
>>
>> But , as Jim travel and know the biodiversity , really respect all even
>> one who misunderstand too open minded , not too much commercial business
>> minded , but there is always limit to this .
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus I wish especial new near to Jim and Toby , making the debate live and
>> the good side of this very hot debate
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim even though , too much demaged his true image and good motivation , has
>> not asked public apology , but very educated and polite to ask only publick
>> retrack and I hopethat he accept too private retrack ,latter inform about
>> the same
>>
>>
>>
>> Making error is human , I hope the persons misunderstood They can fell
>> and be super human , if they can if not publick retrack openly or at
>> least send private email retrack.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish Jim accept this private re-track and we will end this big mis
>> understanding in our very big lists
>>
>>
>>
>> As really what we need for this list in the new year is peace , progress,
>> unity in diversity , respect for all list members , including All the
>> energy experts , academics like me , farmers , Small Energy enterprise
>> owners .Our unity in diversity make our list very especial and diferent as
>> we need all, the more divesity much better for the sustainable growth of
>> our list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours truely
>>
>> Dr.Panniselvam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM, jim mason <jim at allpowerlabs.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Toby Seiler <seilertechco at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Jim was right, I'm working on a machine that is intended to some degree to
>>> integrate principles of making synthesis gas, so I have a vested interest
>>> in his use of terminology used in marketing his product that, I believe,
>>> contributes to a public misunderstanding. I've asked Jim nice many times
>>> in the past to consider the differences that Doug, Bill Klein, Greg and
>>> many other professionals on this list have explained to Jim and myself
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>
>> well toby, there you go again. and now you've also ignored the raw
>> data, in addition to the previous detailed description and logical
>> argument. again, the comedy here is I AM NOT USING THE TERM SYNGAS TO
>> DESCRIBE OR MARKET THE GEK.
>>
>> i posted the raw data relating to the use of the syngas term on the
>> gek site. you glossed over it without impact on your claims. here it
>> is again below. i would like for you to respond to this data. and
>> hopefully retract your statement that i am using this term to market
>> the GEK currently, along with the assertion that i am actively trying
>> to mislead about the nitrogen content in the gek gas (of which there
>> is plenty).
>>
>> that represents the current state of affairs and representation.
>>
>> as for future states of affairs and representations, the more i look
>> into the history of this term, its use internationally, and general
>> movement in use academically, govt, commercially and popularly, i
>> think i am going to start using it actively. the transition is
>> actually much further along than i realized when i was just waving
>> hands around here about it being a better term.
>>
>> but again, the current representation of the gek on our site does not
>> use the term actively. please respond to the data i have presented.
>> show some nuance. if we cannot respond reasonably to data clearly
>> presented, description and argument clearly constructed, how are we
>> every going to make meaningful progress on the problem of biomass
>> thermal conversion? vocabulary might be the least of our problems
>> here . . .
>>
>> here's the gek site term use inventory. you may have to click "show
>> hidden" to see it.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> below is an inventory of actual usage of the terms in
>> question on the gek site. i've done this for the 8 most visited pages
>> on the site, in order. i've then pulled out a much lower visited
>> page, but the one where i thought my "sins" would be the most
>> pronounced. this is the one where the details of gasification are
>> explained. it is the 14th most visited page.
>>
>> as you will see, there is no sentence of the type "the GEK makes
>> syngas". in actuality, the "syngas" term is barely even used. in the
>> top 8 pages, only 3 occurrances, 1 to note that "syngas" is one of
>> many terms used for the gas, and 2 in passing while talking about
>> mixing systems. in contrast, there are 82 occurrances of the term
>> "gasifier", 28 occurrances of the term "gasification", 9 for "wood
>> gas", 0 for "producer gas", 0 for "suction gas", 0 for "synthesis
>> gas". i'll even eliminate the two passing uses of the term while
>> discussing mixing if that helps quell this nonsensical lexical
>> tempest.
>>
>> more to your point, the selling pages have exactly 0 declarations that
>> "syngas" is the gas being made by the GEK. that's right- zero. the
>> term is in not used anywhere to make a claim about the type of gas the
>> gek makes, nor to promote its sale. not sure if this changes
>> anything, but that's the data. as a man of science, i trust you will
>> recalibrate your conclusions in relation to the real data.
>>
>>
>> here's the detail inventory. it is done over the permanent content on
>> each page. not rss feeds in the left column from elsewhere, which
>> change constantly and not in my control (though i could find zero
>> occurances of the "syngas" term there either).
>>
>> 1. GEK gasifier home page: http://www.gekgasifier.com
>> <http://www.gekgasifier.com/>
>> gasifier (9), gasification (4), syngas (1), wood gas (0), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>> the "offending" syngas sentence at the bottom of the page:
>> "The system automatically adjusts syngas/air mixture via a wide band
>> Bosch oxygen sensor, shakes the grate when needed, and removes ash via
>> a mechanical auger.")
>>
>> 2. How to make the GEK page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/wood-gasifier-plans/
>> gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>>
>> 3. Power Pallet info and buy page:
>> http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-genset-skids/
>> gasifier (19), gasification (3), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
>> gas (0), synthesis gas (0)
>> the two 2 syngas references are again in the context of
>> talking about fuel/air mixing
>>
>> 4. Store front: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/
>> gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>>
>> 5. Wiki page with detail plans and CAD drawings on making and using
>> the GEK:
>> http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123754/How-to-Build-and-Run-the-GEK-Gasifier
>> gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>>
>> 6. BEK biochar info page:
>> http://www.gekgasifier.com/reactor-options/pyrolysis-biochar/
>> gasifier (5), gasification (2), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>>
>> 7. Gasification Basics, intro to the tech:
>> http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/
>> gasifier (8), gasification (6), syngas (0), wood gas (0), producer gas
>> (0), synthesis gas (0)
>> the closest i get to sin here is:
>> "Gasification is the use of heat to tranform solid biomass, or other
>> carbonaceous solids, into a synthetic "natural gas like" flammable
>> fuel.")
>>
>> 8. Gasifier kits info and buy page:
>> http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-systems-and-kits/
>> gasifier (17), gasification (4), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer
>> gas (0), synthesis gas (0)
>>
>>
>> Here's where i thought my biggest "sins" would be. This is the page
>> with the detailed explanation of how gasification works:
>> http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/how-it-works/
>> gasifier (8), gasification (18), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer
>> gas (1), synthesis gas (0), suction gas (1)
>> there are 2 sentences with syngas. the "offending sentences:
>> "The gas produced by this method goes by a variety of names: "wood
>> gas", "syngas", "producer gas", "suction gas", etc."
>> "This is why an engine run on syngas can have such clean emissions."
>>
>>
>> those appear to be the facts from my neck of the woods. others are
>> invited to review the above pages and point out where they think
>> things are otherwise or should be changed. i'll happily change them,
>> as i don't really have a horse in this race.
>>
>> percentage nitrogen density isn't really the relevant racetrack to
>> work out the real issues with this tech.
>>
>>
>> jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> The Gasification list has moved to
>>> gasification at bioenerglists.org - please update your email contacts to
>>> reflect the change.
>>> Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>> <http://info.bioenergylists.org/> for more news on the list move.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Gasification Administrator
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jim Mason
>> Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com <http://www.whatiamupto.com/>
>> Current Projects:
>> - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com
>> <http://www.gekgasifier.com/>
>> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com
>> <http://www.escapefromberkeley.com/>
>> - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs
>> - Shipyard Announce list:
>> http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Gasification mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ************************************************
>> P.V.PANNIRSELVAM
>> ASSOCIATE . PROF.
>> Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator
>> Computer aided Cost engineering
>>
>> DEQ - Departamento de Engenharia Qu?mica
>> CT - Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova - Natal/RN
>> Campus Universit?rio. CEP: 59.072-970
>> North East,Brazil
>> *******************************************
>> https://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/
>> and
>> http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/
>>
>>
>> Fone ;Office
>> 84 3215-3769 , Ramal 210
>> Home : 84 3217-1557
>>
>> Mobile :558488145083
>>
>> Email:
>> pvpa at msn.com
>> panruti2002 at yahoo.com
>> pannirbr at gmail.com
>> pvpa at msn.com
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: winmail.dat
>> Type: application/ms-tnef
>> Size: 29542 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL:
>> <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101231/2a625cea/attachment.bin>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> Gasification at bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 34
>> *******************************************
>>
>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list