[Gasification] Re: Properties of "hydrogen rich gas"

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:04:16 -0600, Thomas wrote in message 
<4461E4D0.5050109 at comcast.net>:

> Dear Rant and All:

..I rant a lot, but my name's Arnt.  ;o)

> After all the oil and gas are gone or too expensive we will still have
>  "hydrogen rich gas" (our preferred name for producer gas, town gas, 
> syngas etc.) from biomass and  coal by gasification and all other
> fuels  by reforming. 
> 
> We know the bad sides of this gas, since it was widely available to
> the  world from 1850 to 1950 and is coming back in China etc.  It has
> a low  energy content relative to natural gas and propane, so is more
> difficult  to store and ship.  The CO is deadly, so don't breathe it. 
> 
> BUT:  It is relatively easy to make from all other fuels which are
> easy  to store and ship.  It has a high burning velocity and can burn
> very  lean or very rich.  And it has very low emissions compared to
> all other  fuels. 
> 
> The burning velocity of most fuels in air is 40-60 cm/sec.  The
> burning  velocity of hydrogen is 300 cm/sec.  The burning velocity of
> really pure  CO is 30 cm/sec, but a small amount of impurity makes it
> comparable to  all other fuels.  So, "hydrogen rich gas" burns faster
> than most fuels  with a wider combustion limit. 
> 
> I wish that some laboratory would undertake the task of defining the 
> flame velocity and combustion limits of hydrogen rich gas.  I have one
> Dutch paper from the 1950s in my archives giving a linear dependence
> on CO-H2 content up to 300 cm/sec and some combustion limits, but we
> need more than that.
> 
> Any volunteers?

.."show me the money."  ;o)   There's some good stuff on this in Gengas,
and I believe this part of your translation would be nice to see on a
web site.  ;o)

> Yours truly,
> 
> TOM REED       THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION
> 
> 
> 
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:21:50 +0200, astrupgaard wrote in message 
> ><20060510062143.TXLR21582.fep45.mail.dk at ag17276f29bb5e>:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>- and that is why a gasifier definition should never include a
> >demand >for cooling of the gas! (Apparently that is the case in
> >Californian >legislation)
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >..it should however require combustibility of the product gas in air,
> >say under standard athmosphaeric conditions like under standard 
> >aviation conditions such as under the ICAO/ FAA standards, 
> >15C/60F, 1013.25mb/760mmHg etc, which _any_ viable gasifier 
> >can be set up to produce. 
> >
> >  
> >
> 


-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...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.