[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17
Bjorn Dahlroth
Bjorn.Dahlroth at KSL.SE
Fri Jul 20 06:57:39 EDT 2007
Hi
Tar is alway a problem with turbo macinery. It sticks to the blades and changes the aerodynamic properties. Gasturbines have to be fed with fuel at high presure directly in the combustion section, whereas gasengines compress their fuels themselves. Turbocompressors can be very sensitive to tar - axial more than radial. If you want to run a gasturbine on thermaly gasified biomass it is necessary to do either of the following alternatives 1 clean the gas extremely well before compression with a turbocompressor, 2 gasify at high pressure and break down the tars by with a catalyst 3 use some other type of compressor. All of these things have been tried more or less successfully but whatever you do it cost money. Alternative 1 and 2 do not seem practical for very small scale plants.
Regards
Bjorn Dahlroth
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] För gasification-request at listserv.repp.org
Skickat: den 16 juli 2007 18:00
Till: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Ämne: Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17
Send Gasification mailing list submissions to
gasification at listserv.repp.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gasification-request at listserv.repp.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
gasification-owner at listserv.repp.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gasification digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Homemade gas turbines (Ian Vincent)
2. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Bob Stuart)
3. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Harmon Seaver)
4. Re: Homemade gas turbines (David G. LeVine)
5. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Michael Redler)
6. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Michael Redler)
7. Re: Homemade gas turbines (David G. LeVine)
8. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Daniel Chisholm)
9. Re: Homemade gas turbines (doug.williams)
10. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Michael Redler)
11. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Mark Ludlow)
12. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Tom Miles)
13. Re: Homemade gas turbines (doug.williams)
14. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Mark Ludlow)
15. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Daniel Nicoson)
16. Re: Homemade gas turbines (David G. LeVine)
17. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Harmon Seaver)
18. Re: Homemade gas turbines (Viswanathan KS)
19. turbines or ICE ? (Energies Naturals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:14:55 +1200
From: Ian Vincent <vincent at igrin.co.nz>
Subject: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20070716100728.02fe2298 at pop3.igrin.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Hi
I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this that is not immediately obvious?
Ian
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:27:39 -0600
From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart at sasktel.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <7715C47E-5230-4123-AF17-7922219CF895 at sasktel.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 15-Jul-07, at 4:14 PM, Ian Vincent wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs
> for making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard
> mention of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas
> turbines on this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious
> combination, gasifier + gas turbine + alternator = electricity. Is
> there some basic problem with this that is not immediately obvious?
The only problem I've thought of is that you need two compressor sections, one for the air and one for the fuel gas. Using two turbochargers with one combustion chamber seems an excellent way to work around that, and come up with something affordable and in scale for the individual user.
Best,
Bob Stuart
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:40:52 -0500
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469AA274.6010603 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Ian Vincent wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs
> for making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard
> mention of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas
> turbines on this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious
> combination, gasifier + gas turbine + alternator = electricity. Is
> there some basic problem with this that is not immediately obvious?
>
Yes, it's called efficiency. Tubines suck for efficiency, and one the size of a car turbo would be too small to bother with, especially if you tried to run it on woodgas. You wouldn't be able to make a gasifier small enough to work with it, for one. You could use a bigger gasifier and store the gas somehow and then feed it to the turbine, but still you aren't going to get much out of it. Woodgas is pretty low energy, even in internal combustion engines optimized for it, you only get about 60% of the rated hp.
Now it you had a big turbine, it might be worth doing, but still quite wasteful, and you also have a serious problem with tar from the fuel being deposited on the turbine runners.
--
Harmon Seaver
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:50:13 -0400
From: "David G. LeVine" <dlevine at speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<mailman.6.1184601603.9744.gasification_listserv.repp.org at listserv.repp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
>making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
>of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
>this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
>turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
>that is not immediately obvious?
Two: Cost and efficiency.
There is a wood powered turbine on the web, but the efficiency is in
the single digits.
David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH 03060
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:50:15 -0400
From: Michael Redler <redlerm at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469AA4A7.7080001 at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I've Googled it too. There are a lot of junkyard turbines out there.
There's even a Yahoo! group dedicated to the subject. The idea is simple
(and you only need one turbo charger).
The compressor section is piped back into the exhaust section with a
spark and fuel source introduced in between. Reports vary but, I've
heard several stories of go-carts getting 40+ lbs of thrust.
The only question I can't answer is what kind of efficiency such an
arrangement has.
Mike
Bob Stuart wrote:
> On 15-Jul-07, at 4:14 PM, Ian Vincent wrote:
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are
>> designs for
>> making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard
>> mention
>> of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas
>> turbines on
>> this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination,
>> gasifier + gas
>> turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem
>> with this
>> that is not immediately obvious?
>>
>
> The only problem I've thought of is that you need two compressor
> sections, one for the air and one for the fuel gas. Using two
> turbochargers with one combustion chamber seems an excellent way to
> work around that, and come up with something affordable and in scale
> for the individual user.
>
>
> Best,
> Bob Stuart
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:00:56 -0400
From: Michael Redler <redlerm at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469AA728.6080707 at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically comparable to each other and some statistics even state that turbine efficiencies are better than ICE engines.
Does that "suck"? Maybe. I guess it depends what you compare it to.
I agree with everything else Mr. Seaver said.
Mike
Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Ian Vincent wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
>> making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
>> of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
>> this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
>> turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
>> that is not immediately obvious?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it's called efficiency. Tubines suck for efficiency, and one the
> size of a car turbo would be too small to bother with, especially if you
> tried to run it on woodgas. You wouldn't be able to make a gasifier
> small enough to work with it, for one. You could use a bigger gasifier
> and store the gas somehow and then feed it to the turbine, but still you
> aren't going to get much out of it. Woodgas is pretty low energy, even
> in internal combustion engines optimized for it, you only get about 60%
> of the rated hp.
> Now it you had a big turbine, it might be worth doing, but still
> quite wasteful, and you also have a serious problem with tar from the
> fuel being deposited on the turbine runners.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:37:57 -0400
From: "David G. LeVine" <dlevine at speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<mailman.7.1184601603.9744.gasification_listserv.repp.org at listserv.repp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 07:00 PM 7/15/2007, you wrote:
>Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
>
>Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically
>comparable to each other and some statistics even state that turbine
>efficiencies are better than ICE engines.
>
>Does that "suck"? Maybe. I guess it depends what you compare it to.
>
>I agree with everything else Mr. Seaver said.
>
>Mike
A good gas turbine running in an optimized environment can exceed 60%
efficiency. A gas generator made from a turbocharger is not
optimized for efficiency, but is optimized for ease of building. The
gas generator (turbocharger) does not provide mechanical power
output, you need another turbine for that running from the output of
the gas generator.
Take a good look at the difference between a jet engine and a turbine
powerplant, they are VERY different.
David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH 03060
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:34:25 -0300
From: Daniel Chisholm <dmc at danielchisholm.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <1184549665.3527.31.camel at strangejava.wort.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sun, 2007-15-07 at 16:27 -0600, Bob Stuart wrote:
> On 15-Jul-07, at 4:14 PM, Ian Vincent wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
> > making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
e.g. (though it hasn't been updated in a long time):
http://www.gas-turbines.com/t98ntxx/index.html
http://www.gas-turbines.com/nt6/index.html
IMO, there are few projects whose nifty-o-matic factor exceeds that of a
homemade gas turbine...
> > of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas
> > turbines on
> > this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination,
> > gasifier + gas
> > turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem
> > with this
> > that is not immediately obvious?
>
> The only problem I've thought of is that you need two compressor
> sections, one for the air and one for the fuel gas.
That is if your gasifier runs at atmospheric pressure.
If your gasifier is pressurized (i.e. located between the compressor and
turbine sections), you don't need to do this. Your engine layout is
then pretty much the same as a conventional liquid fueled turbine,
except that you are using a solid fuel instead of a liquid one. You
will need to have a method to to reliably feed wood into the pressurized
gasifier/combustor (e.g. fuel lock hopper).
Practical pressure ratios for a single stage gas turbine built from an
automotive turbocharger are 2.5-3, which is relatively low. Compressor
and turbine efficiencies are in the 70-80% neighbourhood. Reasonable
turbine inlet temperatures are in the ~1600F neighbourhood. This will
result in a thermal efficiency in the mid to high single digits.
If you have a productive use for a waste heat stream that is ~1000F (I'd
have to look up my spreadsheet to be more specific), consisting of
90-95% of the heat from your fuel input, then you could have a real
winner of an application.
Using automotive turbocharger(s), if you want to capture shaft power,
you will have to make some sort of mechanical modification to connect to
the turbine shaft (ordinarily there is no power take off). Or you can
use a second turbocharger, cut it in half, and use its turbine as a free
turbine wheel.
If you don't have an economical use for your waste heat, your <10%
efficiency may well override the benefits of the turbine's low capital
cost, simplicity, and (relatively) cheap fuel.
If you need to increase your thermal efficiency, you can:
- increase the pressure ratio. E.g. go to a multi stage compressor
and/or turbine
- add a recuperator (a heat exchanger to capture some of the exhaust
heat into the compressed air)
- use a more efficient compressor and/or turbine. As you increase your
pressure ratio, this becomes ever more significant.
- increase the turbine inlet temperature (though you quickly run into
materials problems that exceed the state of the art!)
--
- Daniel
Fredericton, NB Canada
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:45:55 +1200
From: "doug.williams" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <004d01c7c74b$0d0c4110$0701a8c0 at graeme753972b8>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Ian,
You inquire:
> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
> making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
> of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
> this list at all
I seem to recall that we discussed turbines about 1997-8 on this Forum, you
should check the Gas List Archives.
Not many people can actually run engines on producer gas, and even fewer
turbines. The most obvious problem is that the gas must be pristine in
cleanliness, because the carbon blacks do not burn in the combustion
chamber, but impact to burn on the blades. This causes pitting of the
blades, and a ceramic like ash deposit to form, which flakes off unevenly.
>Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
> turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
> that is not immediately obvious?
Such an obvious combination has not been ignore by researchers or commercial
interests. There is, or was an English Company called Bowman who used direct
coupled small turbines for power generation, and they had a patented system
of electronically controlling the electrical output. They were investigating
ways to join in the turbine research we were associated with in Northern
Ireland. The last I heard, was they were in "financial difficulties", and
could not proceed with their intended development programme.
The research work that I know of personally, was at Queens University in
Belfast, Northern Ireland, where these small turbines were developed to be
used with gas. I was really impressed by this work, because it addressed
issues in the combustion chamber, which showed that a control had to be in
place for any fluctuation of calorific value of the gas. This is a reality
of producer gas, not so much other types of likely gaseous fuels. It was in
this regard, that I took part in a first time test of a turbine fuelled from
one of our gasifiers, to establish the operating parameters to set the
gas/air control system. This must have been about 2004 I think.
To use producer gas in any of these turbine systems, big or small, you must
clean and cool the gas before it can be compressed to fuel the engine. From
memory, turbines also have about a 40% parasitic electrical load, so I think
it will be a while before any are built to run on producer gas, at least
fuelled directly by this gas.
Hope this helps.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:07:08 -0400
From: Michael Redler <redlerm at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469AD2CC.7050200 at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Thanks for the clarification David.
BTW, Daniel wrote: "IMO, there are few projects whose nifty-o-matic
factor exceeds that of a homemade gas turbine..."
I couldn't agree more (even if it's not especially efficient).
Mike
David G. LeVine wrote:
> At 07:00 PM 7/15/2007, you wrote:
>
>> Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
>>
>> Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically
>> comparable to each other and some statistics even state that turbine
>> efficiencies are better than ICE engines.
>>
>> Does that "suck"? Maybe. I guess it depends what you compare it to.
>>
>> I agree with everything else Mr. Seaver said.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> A good gas turbine running in an optimized environment can exceed 60%
> efficiency. A gas generator made from a turbocharger is not
> optimized for efficiency, but is optimized for ease of building. The
> gas generator (turbocharger) does not provide mechanical power
> output, you need another turbine for that running from the output of
> the gas generator.
>
> Take a good look at the difference between a jet engine and a turbine
> powerplant, they are VERY different.
>
>
> David G. LeVine
> Nashua, NH 03060
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:53:47 -0700
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "'doug.williams'" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>, "'Discussion of
biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c7c754$88f5d120$9ae17360$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
List,
It seems as if we would save time and *energy* by doing a little 'literature
search' before we all run, half-cocked, concluding that we had invented
sliced-bread. Do we collectively believe that no one has considered
producer-gas turbines before?
Hubris does not substitute for practical evaluation, much less for
analytical dissection. "It would be neat if...(yada, yada, yada...)", is a
poor substitute for actually advancing the State of the Art by documenting
incremental discoveries in 'know-how' that advance our understanding of
existing technologies.
"I think this is a fantastic idea, but I leave it to those with the 'math'
to prove I'm wrong", is non-productive, at best, and is mostly just tedious.
Those who have made the investments, built the prototypes, risked capital
for commercial ventures and both failed and succeeded, must wonder why we
don't just avail ourselves of all of the practical and theoretical
groundwork that they have created, and most often, shared with the List.
The practical limitations of gasification as a viable replacement for
petroleum-derived sources are well understood. This List is at its finest
when it concerns itself, for instance, with how to deal with high-ash
substrates or with the specifics of converting produce gas fuels to shaft
horsepower with existing hardware, suitably modified.
I love the "Aha!" factor, but it needs to be a genuine synthesis of proven
principles, not just another attempt to defeat the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
Cheers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of doug.williams
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
Hi Ian,
You inquire:
> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
> making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
> of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
> this list at all
I seem to recall that we discussed turbines about 1997-8 on this Forum, you
should check the Gas List Archives.
Not many people can actually run engines on producer gas, and even fewer
turbines. The most obvious problem is that the gas must be pristine in
cleanliness, because the carbon blacks do not burn in the combustion
chamber, but impact to burn on the blades. This causes pitting of the
blades, and a ceramic like ash deposit to form, which flakes off unevenly.
>Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
> turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
> that is not immediately obvious?
Such an obvious combination has not been ignore by researchers or commercial
interests. There is, or was an English Company called Bowman who used direct
coupled small turbines for power generation, and they had a patented system
of electronically controlling the electrical output. They were investigating
ways to join in the turbine research we were associated with in Northern
Ireland. The last I heard, was they were in "financial difficulties", and
could not proceed with their intended development programme.
The research work that I know of personally, was at Queens University in
Belfast, Northern Ireland, where these small turbines were developed to be
used with gas. I was really impressed by this work, because it addressed
issues in the combustion chamber, which showed that a control had to be in
place for any fluctuation of calorific value of the gas. This is a reality
of producer gas, not so much other types of likely gaseous fuels. It was in
this regard, that I took part in a first time test of a turbine fuelled from
one of our gasifiers, to establish the operating parameters to set the
gas/air control system. This must have been about 2004 I think.
To use producer gas in any of these turbine systems, big or small, you must
clean and cool the gas before it can be compressed to fuel the engine. From
memory, turbines also have about a 40% parasitic electrical load, so I think
it will be a while before any are built to run on producer gas, at least
fuelled directly by this gas.
Hope this helps.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:53:39 -0700
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "'doug.williams'" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>, "'Discussion of
biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <000001c7c75c$e4da7830$ae8f6890$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Doug,
The Flexenergy and Capstone work on microturbines doesn't seem to have
resulted in any operating producer gas systems.
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/engines
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
You referred us to a company called Turbine Developments in the UK.
http://www.turbinedevelopments.co.uk/ Was this the company with financial
problems? No issue?
Thanks
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of doug.williams
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
Hi Ian,
You inquire:
> I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
> making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
> of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
> this list at all
I seem to recall that we discussed turbines about 1997-8 on this Forum, you
should check the Gas List Archives.
Not many people can actually run engines on producer gas, and even fewer
turbines. The most obvious problem is that the gas must be pristine in
cleanliness, because the carbon blacks do not burn in the combustion
chamber, but impact to burn on the blades. This causes pitting of the
blades, and a ceramic like ash deposit to form, which flakes off unevenly.
>Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
> turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
> that is not immediately obvious?
Such an obvious combination has not been ignore by researchers or commercial
interests. There is, or was an English Company called Bowman who used direct
coupled small turbines for power generation, and they had a patented system
of electronically controlling the electrical output. They were investigating
ways to join in the turbine research we were associated with in Northern
Ireland. The last I heard, was they were in "financial difficulties", and
could not proceed with their intended development programme.
The research work that I know of personally, was at Queens University in
Belfast, Northern Ireland, where these small turbines were developed to be
used with gas. I was really impressed by this work, because it addressed
issues in the combustion chamber, which showed that a control had to be in
place for any fluctuation of calorific value of the gas. This is a reality
of producer gas, not so much other types of likely gaseous fuels. It was in
this regard, that I took part in a first time test of a turbine fuelled from
one of our gasifiers, to establish the operating parameters to set the
gas/air control system. This must have been about 2004 I think.
To use producer gas in any of these turbine systems, big or small, you must
clean and cool the gas before it can be compressed to fuel the engine. From
memory, turbines also have about a 40% parasitic electrical load, so I think
it will be a while before any are built to run on producer gas, at least
fuelled directly by this gas.
Hope this helps.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:00:59 +1200
From: "doug.williams" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002001c7c766$4d55aac0$0701a8c0 at graeme753972b8>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Tom,
You say:
> The Flexenergy and Capstone work on microturbines doesn't seem to have
> resulted in any operating producer gas systems.
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/engines
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
Not sure why Flexenergy are not delivering on producer gas, as the last I
heard was that Daren over in Grand Forks was waiting to test it with the
Ankur gasifier a couple of years ago. Capstone have been supplied to a
couple of gasified research projects, but you never hear more than the
original hype of how it's all going to happen! I think to add a turbine to
any sort of producer gas project is technology window dressing, and I think
to improve the chances of attracting funding.
> You referred us to a company called Turbine Developments in the UK.
> http://www.turbinedevelopments.co.uk/ Was this the company with financial
> problems? No issue?
No, this was not the company that had financial issues. There were two guys
at Queens who were working separately on turbines, and this one was to tap
into the new emission laws as applied to U.K. Landfills and methane
emissions. It should have been a fantastic opportunity, but the law was
never enforced, and the project was stopped dead in the water. The
containerized turbine demonstration package was in U.K.storage when we found
out about it, and it was organized to borrow it on extended loan, to Rural
Generation Ltd in Londonderry.
A project to run it on producer gas, then bought in the other guy at Queens
who had the Patent on the gas/air control loop, and attracted the attention
of Bowman who also were making these small turbine generation package
plants. Their aim was to develop a range of producer gas turbines from 5-45
kWe. I was informed that Bowman's could not participate due to financial
reasons, but from memory, the funding did go through, and it was used up,
but not to the benefit of gasification.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:45:16 -0700
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <001901c7c76c$7d8fa5f0$78aef1d0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
60% in CHP?
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of David G. LeVine
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:38 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
At 07:00 PM 7/15/2007, you wrote:
>Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
>
>Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically
>comparable to each other and some statistics even state that turbine
>efficiencies are better than ICE engines.
>
>Does that "suck"? Maybe. I guess it depends what you compare it to.
>
>I agree with everything else Mr. Seaver said.
>
>Mike
A good gas turbine running in an optimized environment can exceed 60%
efficiency. A gas generator made from a turbocharger is not
optimized for efficiency, but is optimized for ease of building. The
gas generator (turbocharger) does not provide mechanical power
output, you need another turbine for that running from the output of
the gas generator.
Take a good look at the difference between a jet engine and a turbine
powerplant, they are VERY different.
David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH 03060
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:41:34 -0400
From: "Daniel Nicoson" <A6intruder at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <KMEGIPPMDGHIFFAKGOLEAEBHJNAA.A6intruder at adelphia.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
All efficiency and control issues aside, the biggest practical problem with
using vehicle turbochargers to produce electricity is the RPM at which
turbochargers operate. Most sized for passenger cars and light trucks run
50,000 to over 100,000 RPM.
So consider how you would either build an alternator that can operate at
these RPMs or consider how to step down those same RPMs to normal sub 10,000
RPM? Most gear, chain and belt drives get unhappy over 20,000 RPM
(depending on the actual technology selected). For sure it would be a
difficult task for a home-experimenter to achieve without extremely high
costs.
Dan Nicoson
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Ian Vincent
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:15 PM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
Hi
I was googling about over the weekend and found that there are designs for
making a gas turbines from vehicle turbochargers yet I never heard mention
of such on this list. In fact I never saw much about using gas turbines on
this list at all. Yet it seems like an obvious combination, gasifier + gas
turbine + alternator = electricity. Is there some basic problem with this
that is not immediately obvious?
Ian
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:45:06 -0400
From: "David G. LeVine" <dlevine at speakeasy.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: mark at ludlow.com, Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<mailman.8.1184601603.9744.gasification_listserv.repp.org at listserv.repp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:45 AM 7/16/2007, you wrote:
>60% in CHP?
"The thermal efficiency of a combined cycle power plant is the net
power output of the plant divided by the heating value of the fuel.
If the plant produces only electricity, efficiencies of up to 59% can
be achieved. In the case of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_heat_and_power>combined heat
and power generation, the efficiency can increase to 85%." (Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle )
Please note that this is not the source I originally quoted and the
efficiency to electricity here includes generator losses.
David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH 03060
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:03:57 -0500
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469B88DD.6000305 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Michael Redler wrote:
> Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
>
> Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically comparable to each other and some statistics even state that turbine efficiencies are better than ICE engines.
>
If turbines are as efficient as IC engines, it's funny they've never
caught on in cars and trucks. And one place where they were more
recently tried, the US military tanks, they have been replaced at great
expense with diesels to get more range.
--
Harmon Seaver
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:45:05 +0530
From: "Viswanathan KS" <viswanathanks at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Homemade gas turbines
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<45076d970707160815g8120cdcjf63fab8e21dc64d6 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Efficiency of small gas turbines would be less than 20%, while IC engines
have an
efficiency of about 25% with petrol as fuel and about 35% with diesel as
fuel
K.S. Viswanathan
On 7/16/07, Harmon Seaver <hseaver at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Redler wrote:
> > Harmon wrote: "Tubines suck for efficiency"
> >
> > Internal combustion engines and gas turbines are typically comparable to
> each other and some statistics even state that turbine efficiencies are
> better than ICE engines.
> >
>
> If turbines are as efficient as IC engines, it's funny they've never
> caught on in cars and trucks. And one place where they were more
> recently tried, the US military tanks, they have been replaced at great
> expense with diesels to get more range.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:39:47 +0200
From: "Energies Naturals" <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
Subject: [Gasification] turbines or ICE ?
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c7c7bf$8aac7f30$2201a8c0 at enrgiesb579897>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hallo,
I'm new on the list, but enjoying the fresh spirit.
I work with Listeroids on 100% WVO .
These are sturdy engines and quite cheap , too.
If anybody wants to see to the gas producer side, I would gladly adapt the engine as a joint project.
Presently I have 12 hp 1000 rpm and 6 hp 650 rpm in stock.
They can either run in dual fuel mode or be converted.
The extractable prechamber would make an easy place to insert a sparkplug.
Anybody seriously interested ?
Rolf
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
End of Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17
********************************************
More information about the Gasification
mailing list