[Gasification] ..back to defining gasification

[Jigme Rangdrol]

The Sacramento Pols did not get together and come up with the current
language on their own.
The reason for this whole problem arises from a small group of people
"Spinning" the facts to "Help" sell their device[s].
Just because they do so does not make it right nor does it create a
requirement for anyone else to do so.

There is no reason to kowtow to special interests of any kind.
There is even less reason to cooperate with people who are so greedy and
corrupt that they get specific legislation draw up to profit at the
expense of others.

In any case no good will come from helping them by creating essentially
another confusing version of their definition.
A better device can stand on facts and principle and let the special
interests say whatever they want.

If the simple factual statement is to inspecific, a qualifier,
qualifying prefix or qualifying hyphenation is always available to any
specific device.

"An XYZ-Gasifier uses a thermal process to extract usable gas from XYZ."
"An XYZ-Hydrogen-Gasifier uses a thermal process to extract Hydrogen gas
from XYZ."


MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote:

>                to Gasification List          from  Lewis L Smith
>
> Since California has raised the issue of the end use of the product 
> gas obtained from a gasification process, why not say the following ——
>
>      A gasification process is any thermo-chemical process by which a 
> solid or liquid is transformed primarily into a gas, the larger part 
> of which is not exhausted to the air, as with an incinerator.  Instead 
> this larger part is used for one or more commercially valuable 
> purposes or to substitute one or more purchased goods or services.
>
>      Examples of acceptable end uses are --- feedstock for chemicals, 
> firing a combustion boiler, firing an internal combustion engine, 
> firing a gas turbine, HVAC and whatever purposes for which natural gas 
> is used.
>
> Cordially. End of message.