[Bioconversion] Carbon Arc Steam Reforming of biomass

[Peter Singfield]

C+H2O > CO+H2 - 56,145 B.T.U.

However -- any CO that recombines with O2 is doing so in a highly
exothermic manner -- as well as H2 going to H20

N2  44.2 
H2  28.1 
CO  14.8
CO2 11 
H2O  5 

Those from the medical waste tests in that large PDF

One can be sure that the CO2 and H2O got there in the most exothermic manner.

>one was that almost all reactions had very high carbon
>dioxide

Ergo -- less energy required to make that H2 --

I have appended and old Tom Reed "Jem" that kind of explains things --

And as example of what the "old" gas list was like to.


Peter/Belize


At 04:29 PM 6/24/2007 +1000, Geoff  Thomas wrote:
>Hi Guys, I find this very interesting stuff, mind you I suspect there is
no free lunch anywhere
>in the carbon cycle, but there are lots of things we do with consuming
carbon where there is
>waste heat so it may just be a matter of organisation.
>Two things I my ignorant un trained self thought I noticed with Mike
Antals stuff, (and you know
>he has made a charcoal fuel cell!) - one was that almost all reactions had
very high carbon
>dioxide, - I thought not good but maybe need to go back and be more
specfic, - another was the
>closeness to the mixture he advocated, to the Sago tree, - ahh isn't it
good if you have an
>obsession?
>Whatever, I am still truly interested in the carbon arc idea as one of my
situations has an
>excess of power at 850 volts, (DC) (90 amps) and that could be a very good
situation for a carbon
>arc. - ?assuming the rest of the situation culd be organised to take
advantage of that
>opportunity, (weather constrained).
>Cheers,
>Geoff.
>

**************appended************

From: Reedtb2 at cs.com
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:06:27 EST
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Re: Pyrolysis vs. Gasification
To: VHarris001 at aol.com, Gasification at crest.org
Sender: owner-gasification at crest.org

Dear Vern: 

I'll be interested in hearing Harry's reply.  Here's mine after 25 years in  
the field. 

The first step when air enters the reaction zone is the combustion of 99%+
of  
the volatiles in a process I call "flaming pyrolysis".  This is like flaming  
combustion, (as in a match) but since there is insufficient air, it results  
in a mixture of CO, CO2, H2, H2O, CH4 etc. PLUS 5-25% charcoal, depending on  
the superficial velocity.  "Starved air combustion" is also a good name for  
this stage.  I would also call it pyrolysis fueled by combustion of the  
pyrolysis gases as they form.   

The gas temperatures in flaming pyrolysis can reach 1400C, so there is a lot  
of excess energy which causes the gases then to immediately react further  
with the charcoal, immediately reducing the CO2 and H2O to make more CO and  
H2 until the temperature reaches ~ 800C, at which point the reactions with C  
become too slow.  (See our Handbook of Biomass Gasifier Engine Systems).   

Unfortunately, Nature does not honor our lexicon, so if you really want to  
understand, look at the reactions and don't worry too much about the old  
names.   

Harry? 

Yours truly,                        TOM REED 

In a message dated 1/22/01 11:06:58 PM Mountain Standard Time,  
VHarris001 at aol.com writes: 


Hello Dr. Parker, 

Based on the definitions you provided below, can I safely assume that the  
primary process occurring in a suction air-biomass (not coal) gasifier is  
"starved-air combustion?"  For instance, since it uses air, the process is  
not primarily pyrolysis.  Since external energy is not being added, the  
process is not primarily gasification.  And finally, since oxygen is not  
being added, it is not primarily autothermic gasification. 

By my reckoning, that leaves starved-air combustion as the primary process  
occurring, producing CO and VOC's.  So, am I safe in assuming that the  
wood-gas vehicles that were running around Europe during WW2 were, for the  
most part, running on the products of starved-air combustion (CO and VOC's)  
and NOT the products of the water-gas reaction (CO + H2)? 

Thanks, 
Vernon Harris