[Gasification] ..back to defining gasification, was: cold/hotgas efficiency

[Dries Vansteenkiste]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] ..back to defining gasification, was: 
cold/hotgas efficiency


> On Wed, 10 May 2006 10:30:31 -0700, Jigme wrote in message
> <44622337.8060903 at turboisp.com>:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Why should it require combustibility?
>
> .."helps" legislators distinguish us from the incinerator people.
>

extension of the question of Jigme (or did I misinterprete?):
in analogy with the petrochemical industry, couldn't some components of the 
gas be used as a feedstock in the chemical industry?
in other words: is gas from biomass only produced for combustion?
if not, this would call again for a very simple definition of a gasifier