[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 20
Bjorn Dahlroth
Bjorn.Dahlroth at KSL.SE
Fri Jul 20 07:38:46 EDT 2007
Hi everybody
The best tree to use varies with the climate and the soil. There has been a lot of experimentation in Sweden with energy forests. Those who grow energy today in this country use various clones of willow Salix Viminalis. The yield on good soil with sufficient amount of water for willow can go up to as much as 12 metric tonnes of dry byomass per hectar and year. You harvest every fourth or fifth year using special machinery originally developed for cutting sugar cane. If the soil is not that good of course the yield will be less may be even down to half. Another alternative is aspen tree. Especially the willow is sensitive to early frost. The aspen a little less sensitive. If the climate is too cool another alternative is reed canary grass. Grasses in general have a high ash content though. Can be harvested with ordinary agricultural machinery. One way to handle the problem with the ash is to harvest in the spring just after the snow has melted and the soil dried but then the yield will be less. Further south in Europe an alternative is elephant grass or corn. Actually ordinary wheat also produces a rather high quantity of baiomass per year close to willow if you take both grain and straw but it does require more fertilizer. There are plenty of other alternatives. A lot of biomass is burned in Sweden today and the cheapest is to use branches and treetops from forrestry. It is chiped and burnt in district heating plants for electricity and space heating. The quite big thermal biomass gasification plant using gas and steam turbines (combined cycle for electricity and district heating)that was built in Varnamo Sweden more than 15 years ago was designed for forrest residues. It gasified at high pressure in a fast circulating fludised bed and after filtering and clean up the gas was burnt in a gasturbine. As I remember the booster compressor used for the gas was some kind of large piston compressor (from a supplier in India) just because of the tar content. Today the plant has been converted to an experimental plant dedicated to research on how to produce automotive fuels from biomass in a more efficient way by starting with thermal gasification.
If you google up "Varnamo" and "gasification" you will certainly find much more information.
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 20 juli 2007 12:58
Till: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Ämne: Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 20
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. fasts trees (Javier Bonet)
2. Re: fasts trees (AJH)
3. Re: fasts trees (Michael Redler)
4. Re: fasts trees (Francesco Murer)
5. Re: fast trees and grasses (Roger Samson)
6. Re: fast trees and grasses (Francesco Murer)
7. Re: fast trees and grasses (Tom Miles)
8. Re: fast trees and grasses (Mark Ludlow)
9. Re: fast trees and grasses (Roger Samson)
10. Re: fasts trees (Kevin Chisholm)
11. Re: fasts trees (mike labauve)
12. Re: "ecogas" defined (mike labauve)
13. Re: fasts trees (Reg Preston)
14. "tube in tube" hearth design pictures (jim mason)
15. Re: "ecogas" defined (doug.williams)
16. Re: fasts trees (Energies Naturals)
17. Re: "tube in tube" hearth design pictures (Energies Naturals)
18. Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17 (Bjorn Dahlroth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Javier Bonet" <jabonet at runbox.com>
Subject: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <E1IBabt-0000Zq-Vu at fenris.runbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear gasification list.
if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest, acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to harvest, and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets supose cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
Javier Bonet
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:02:25 +0100
From: AJH <list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <5lcv931b987qldftub2r8q73c4aq0eg0k8 at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:20:21 +0200 (CEST), Javier Bonet wrote:
>if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest, acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree,
This will be site variable and dependant on sunshine, rain and soil.
In temperate Europe probably a polar or willow clone, maybe a
eucalyptus in the south will be highest yielders but probably not
"best".
> time to harvest,
This depends on the planting density and species, technically it's
when the current annual increment drops to the mean annual increment.
This will mean around 3 years for willow coppice (spit) to 40 years
for a fast conifer crop.
> and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets supose cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
There will be big differences in conversion with scaling like this.
You need about 1 dry tonne of wood to produce 1MWhr(e), So for
constant running at 1MW(e) for a year you need 8766 oven dry tonnes
best yields in UK are around 10 odt/ha/year which suggests about
876.6 ha with a yield class around 35m^3/ha/yr about twice the average
of classic forestry yields.
AJH
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:02:45 -0400
From: Michael Redler <redlerm at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <469FB555.3040705 at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Javier,
I'm told that some varieties of willow are working out well in India.
Mike
Javier Bonet wrote:
> Dear gasification list.
>
> if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest, acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to harvest, and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets supose cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
>
> Javier Bonet
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:38:38 +0200
From: "Francesco Murer" <francesco.murer at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<bd4a5f5e0707191338k3815dbecnd23cea1179e13d9b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
It depends a lot on the weather conditions and the type of soil where the
plantation is going to be cultivated.
The most promising species are poplar, for woody biomass, and miscanthus,
for herbaceous crops. There are examples of these plants almost in every
country.
Poplar can be harvested every 1, 2 or 5 years (the density depends on
frequency of harvesting).
Miscanthus is annual crops.
Poplar is harvested from november to march (during the vegetation pause,
when it has no leaves), the yield depends on soil and weather conditions.
Poplar has a problem: high moisture content.
Miscanthus (thus it's not a woody biomass, it's worth to be indicated) is
harvested in late winter / early spring, when the moisture content is the
lowest. The problem can be the snow, because it pushes the plant down to
ground.
It has a good calorific value.
It can be harvested also in autumn, but the moisture content is higher and
the nutrients are still on the plant (so the soil must be feeded with Na,
K...).
In the cases you ask about (20 - 100 - 1000 kWe), you should consider the
CHP option: it increases the performance and it's not very difficult to be
applied in small scale plant (domestic / farm / small industrial user).
Best regards
Francesco Murer
2007/7/19, Javier Bonet <jabonet at runbox.com>:
>
> Dear gasification list.
>
> if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest,
> acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to harvest,
> and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets supose
> cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
>
> Javier Bonet
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 5
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:52:07 -0400
From: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <200707192052.l6JKqHhO005645 at mailscan1.cc.mcgill.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Francesco and all
Any results out there on extended firing of miscanthus giganteus in
commercial applications? We are looking at biomass quality of grasses. The
late maturity and thick stem of giganteus seems to make the worst biomass
quality of any warm season grass quality data we have seen published. We
don't consider it a promising candidate in Canada. It seems the moisture
can't leach out the grasses relative to thinner stemmed earlier maturing
materials. Even the inner wall of the grass are double the thickness of
ecotypes of switchgrass. I am a little bit concerned it may load dioxin
because of the high chlorides that won't wash out easily. We don't see this
problem with thinner stemmed species like switchgrass. I have heard there is
scale up of miscanthus in England. Is it only in the cooler wet regions
people are making it work because they get higher rates of leaching due to
the moist climate?
Roger Samson
Executive Director
REAP-Canada
Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
T: (514) 398-7743
T: (514) 398-7972
E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
W: www.reap-canada.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Murer
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
It depends a lot on the weather conditions and the type of soil where the
plantation is going to be cultivated.
The most promising species are poplar, for woody biomass, and miscanthus,
for herbaceous crops. There are examples of these plants almost in every
country.
Poplar can be harvested every 1, 2 or 5 years (the density depends on
frequency of harvesting).
Miscanthus is annual crops.
Poplar is harvested from november to march (during the vegetation pause,
when it has no leaves), the yield depends on soil and weather conditions.
Poplar has a problem: high moisture content.
Miscanthus (thus it's not a woody biomass, it's worth to be indicated) is
harvested in late winter / early spring, when the moisture content is the
lowest. The problem can be the snow, because it pushes the plant down to
ground.
It has a good calorific value.
It can be harvested also in autumn, but the moisture content is higher and
the nutrients are still on the plant (so the soil must be feeded with Na,
K...).
In the cases you ask about (20 - 100 - 1000 kWe), you should consider the
CHP option: it increases the performance and it's not very difficult to be
applied in small scale plant (domestic / farm / small industrial user).
Best regards
Francesco Murer
2007/7/19, Javier Bonet <jabonet at runbox.com>:
>
> Dear gasification list.
>
> if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest,
> acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to
harvest,
> and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets
supose
> cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
>
> Javier Bonet
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 6
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:18:46 +0200
From: "Francesco Murer" <francesco.murer at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<bd4a5f5e0707191418u5bab9645n947bb2d2610938de at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Roger,
I must admit I don't know many projects involving miscanthus as the main
fuel for gasification/combustion, apart from England.
I understand you don't like the high chlorine content of miscanthus, but
there are technologies for flue gas treatment that allow to solve this
problem. Besides this, there are worst biomass fuels, such as wheat straw,
with higher chlorine content.
It can appear incredible, but since miscanthus and wheat straw are
biomasses, in France the law doesn't request the flue gas treatment for HCl
coming from biomass combustion.
Best regards
Francesco Murer
2007/7/19, Roger Samson <rsamson at reap-canada.com>:
>
>
>
> Francesco and all
>
> Any results out there on extended firing of miscanthus giganteus in
> commercial applications? We are looking at biomass quality of grasses. The
> late maturity and thick stem of giganteus seems to make the worst biomass
> quality of any warm season grass quality data we have seen published. We
> don't consider it a promising candidate in Canada. It seems the moisture
> can't leach out the grasses relative to thinner stemmed earlier maturing
> materials. Even the inner wall of the grass are double the thickness of
> ecotypes of switchgrass. I am a little bit concerned it may load dioxin
> because of the high chlorides that won't wash out easily. We don't see
> this
> problem with thinner stemmed species like switchgrass. I have heard there
> is
> scale up of miscanthus in England. Is it only in the cooler wet regions
> people are making it work because they get higher rates of leaching due to
> the moist climate?
>
>
> Roger Samson
>
> Executive Director
>
> REAP-Canada
>
> Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
>
> Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
>
> T: (514) 398-7743
>
> T: (514) 398-7972
>
> E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
>
> W: www.reap-canada.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco
> Murer
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
>
> It depends a lot on the weather conditions and the type of soil where the
> plantation is going to be cultivated.
> The most promising species are poplar, for woody biomass, and miscanthus,
> for herbaceous crops. There are examples of these plants almost in every
> country.
> Poplar can be harvested every 1, 2 or 5 years (the density depends on
> frequency of harvesting).
> Miscanthus is annual crops.
>
> Poplar is harvested from november to march (during the vegetation pause,
> when it has no leaves), the yield depends on soil and weather conditions.
> Poplar has a problem: high moisture content.
>
> Miscanthus (thus it's not a woody biomass, it's worth to be indicated) is
> harvested in late winter / early spring, when the moisture content is the
> lowest. The problem can be the snow, because it pushes the plant down to
> ground.
> It has a good calorific value.
> It can be harvested also in autumn, but the moisture content is higher and
> the nutrients are still on the plant (so the soil must be feeded with Na,
> K...).
>
> In the cases you ask about (20 - 100 - 1000 kWe), you should consider the
> CHP option: it increases the performance and it's not very difficult to be
> applied in small scale plant (domestic / farm / small industrial user).
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Francesco Murer
>
> 2007/7/19, Javier Bonet <jabonet at runbox.com>:
> >
> > Dear gasification list.
> >
> > if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest,
> > acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to
> harvest,
> > and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets
> supose
> > cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
> >
> > Javier Bonet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:03:13 -0700
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <008501c7ca50$a695ad50$f3c107f0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A commercial operation in the UK is cubing miscanthus for cofiring with
coal. We understand that it mills quite readily at fairly high moisture
content, up to 35%. Since it is probably cofired at a low rate - 5% - it is
not likely that it has any significant effect on emissions or boiler
operation.
We don't know of any commercial gasification of miscanthus. There is small
production in Illinois near Moline.
Tom
> Any results out there on extended firing of miscanthus giganteus in
> commercial applications? We are looking at biomass quality of grasses.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:05:53 -0700
From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <01ad01c7ca50$fa840920$0301a8c0 at minimark>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Roger,
I assume anyone would prefer to scrub the HCl as a matter of practicality as
it would be very corrosive to downstream processes. Is HCl the sole
emission of concern or is dioxin also a prime concern?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Murer
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:19 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
Roger,
I must admit I don't know many projects involving miscanthus as the main
fuel for gasification/combustion, apart from England.
I understand you don't like the high chlorine content of miscanthus, but
there are technologies for flue gas treatment that allow to solve this
problem. Besides this, there are worst biomass fuels, such as wheat straw,
with higher chlorine content.
It can appear incredible, but since miscanthus and wheat straw are
biomasses, in France the law doesn't request the flue gas treatment for HCl
coming from biomass combustion.
Best regards
Francesco Murer
2007/7/19, Roger Samson <rsamson at reap-canada.com>:
>
>
>
> Francesco and all
>
> Any results out there on extended firing of miscanthus giganteus in
> commercial applications? We are looking at biomass quality of grasses. The
> late maturity and thick stem of giganteus seems to make the worst biomass
> quality of any warm season grass quality data we have seen published. We
> don't consider it a promising candidate in Canada. It seems the moisture
> can't leach out the grasses relative to thinner stemmed earlier maturing
> materials. Even the inner wall of the grass are double the thickness of
> ecotypes of switchgrass. I am a little bit concerned it may load dioxin
> because of the high chlorides that won't wash out easily. We don't see
> this
> problem with thinner stemmed species like switchgrass. I have heard there
> is
> scale up of miscanthus in England. Is it only in the cooler wet regions
> people are making it work because they get higher rates of leaching due to
> the moist climate?
>
>
> Roger Samson
>
> Executive Director
>
> REAP-Canada
>
> Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
>
> Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
>
> T: (514) 398-7743
>
> T: (514) 398-7972
>
> E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
>
> W: www.reap-canada.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco
> Murer
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
>
> It depends a lot on the weather conditions and the type of soil where the
> plantation is going to be cultivated.
> The most promising species are poplar, for woody biomass, and miscanthus,
> for herbaceous crops. There are examples of these plants almost in every
> country.
> Poplar can be harvested every 1, 2 or 5 years (the density depends on
> frequency of harvesting).
> Miscanthus is annual crops.
>
> Poplar is harvested from november to march (during the vegetation pause,
> when it has no leaves), the yield depends on soil and weather conditions.
> Poplar has a problem: high moisture content.
>
> Miscanthus (thus it's not a woody biomass, it's worth to be indicated) is
> harvested in late winter / early spring, when the moisture content is the
> lowest. The problem can be the snow, because it pushes the plant down to
> ground.
> It has a good calorific value.
> It can be harvested also in autumn, but the moisture content is higher and
> the nutrients are still on the plant (so the soil must be feeded with Na,
> K...).
>
> In the cases you ask about (20 - 100 - 1000 kWe), you should consider the
> CHP option: it increases the performance and it's not very difficult to be
> applied in small scale plant (domestic / farm / small industrial user).
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Francesco Murer
>
> 2007/7/19, Javier Bonet <jabonet at runbox.com>:
> >
> > Dear gasification list.
> >
> > if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest,
> > acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to
> harvest,
> > and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets
> supose
> > cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
> >
> > Javier Bonet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:27:02 -0400
From: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
To: <mark at ludlow.com>, "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
gasification'" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <200707192227.l6JMRBf1003820 at mailscan3.cc.mcgill.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mark
We are looking for feedstocks which we can produce with low aerosol-forming
compounds (this includes potassium, chlorine, sodium and sulphur and even
lead and zinc). The more you get of them the more particulate load you get.
Ideally we would like to have grass pellets with wood pellet like biomass
quality. Thin stemmed prairie grasses can have potassium levels of about
.06% and Cl levels of .01 % if managed in a delayed harvest system. We can't
do much to get rid of S and Na content once it is in the grass, but chlorine
and potassium can leach. The big Miscanthus ecotypes seem to have problems
leaching elements.
One of the reasons biomass combustion is not advancing more rapidly is we
have an ongoing problem with emissions. We need clean herbaceous energy crop
fuels and certification of combustion systems for low emissions. We need to
clean up the industry not just think we have an image problem, when we
really have an emissions problem. We need to strive for excellence in
combustion technology and energy crop fuel quality to get there.
Roger Samson
Executive Director
REAP-Canada
Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
T: (514) 398-7743
T: (514) 398-7972
E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
W: www.reap-canada.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Mark Ludlow
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:06 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
Hi Roger,
I assume anyone would prefer to scrub the HCl as a matter of practicality as
it would be very corrosive to downstream processes. Is HCl the sole
emission of concern or is dioxin also a prime concern?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Murer
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:19 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fast trees and grasses
Roger,
I must admit I don't know many projects involving miscanthus as the main
fuel for gasification/combustion, apart from England.
I understand you don't like the high chlorine content of miscanthus, but
there are technologies for flue gas treatment that allow to solve this
problem. Besides this, there are worst biomass fuels, such as wheat straw,
with higher chlorine content.
It can appear incredible, but since miscanthus and wheat straw are
biomasses, in France the law doesn't request the flue gas treatment for HCl
coming from biomass combustion.
Best regards
Francesco Murer
2007/7/19, Roger Samson <rsamson at reap-canada.com>:
>
>
>
> Francesco and all
>
> Any results out there on extended firing of miscanthus giganteus in
> commercial applications? We are looking at biomass quality of grasses. The
> late maturity and thick stem of giganteus seems to make the worst biomass
> quality of any warm season grass quality data we have seen published. We
> don't consider it a promising candidate in Canada. It seems the moisture
> can't leach out the grasses relative to thinner stemmed earlier maturing
> materials. Even the inner wall of the grass are double the thickness of
> ecotypes of switchgrass. I am a little bit concerned it may load dioxin
> because of the high chlorides that won't wash out easily. We don't see
> this
> problem with thinner stemmed species like switchgrass. I have heard there
> is
> scale up of miscanthus in England. Is it only in the cooler wet regions
> people are making it work because they get higher rates of leaching due to
> the moist climate?
>
>
> Roger Samson
>
> Executive Director
>
> REAP-Canada
>
> Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13
>
> Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9
>
> T: (514) 398-7743
>
> T: (514) 398-7972
>
> E: rsamson at reap-canada.com
>
> W: www.reap-canada.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Francesco
> Murer
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
>
> It depends a lot on the weather conditions and the type of soil where the
> plantation is going to be cultivated.
> The most promising species are poplar, for woody biomass, and miscanthus,
> for herbaceous crops. There are examples of these plants almost in every
> country.
> Poplar can be harvested every 1, 2 or 5 years (the density depends on
> frequency of harvesting).
> Miscanthus is annual crops.
>
> Poplar is harvested from november to march (during the vegetation pause,
> when it has no leaves), the yield depends on soil and weather conditions.
> Poplar has a problem: high moisture content.
>
> Miscanthus (thus it's not a woody biomass, it's worth to be indicated) is
> harvested in late winter / early spring, when the moisture content is the
> lowest. The problem can be the snow, because it pushes the plant down to
> ground.
> It has a good calorific value.
> It can be harvested also in autumn, but the moisture content is higher and
> the nutrients are still on the plant (so the soil must be feeded with Na,
> K...).
>
> In the cases you ask about (20 - 100 - 1000 kWe), you should consider the
> CHP option: it increases the performance and it's not very difficult to be
> applied in small scale plant (domestic / farm / small industrial user).
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Francesco Murer
>
> 2007/7/19, Javier Bonet <jabonet at runbox.com>:
> >
> > Dear gasification list.
> >
> > if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a forest,
> > acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree, time to
> harvest,
> > and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per unit of land? lets
> supose
> > cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw of electric power.
> >
> > Javier Bonet
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:34:05 -0300
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <46A0110D.5050407 at ca.inter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dear Javier
The key thing is the "Mean Annual Increment." It is a measure of the new
biomass added each year to the stem of the tree. In addition to the
"stem wood, there is, of course, the branch wood. Very roughly, the
branch wood volume is the same as the stem wood volume.
The Mean Annual Increment will vary greatly, depending on species,
climate soil fertility, moisture, etc. What you need is "the mean annual
increment for a selected species in a chosen area." Then you will be
able to estimate teh wood available from a conventional forest system.
On teh other hand, if you had a hybrid species and did coppice wood
harvesting, the annual biomass yield for fuel could be very much higher.
Hope this is a helpful overview.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Javier Bonet wrote:
> Dear gasification list.
>
> if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a
> forest, acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree,
> time to harvest, and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per
> unit of land? lets supose cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw
> of electric power.
>
> Javier Bonet
>
> _______________________________________________ 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:35:18 -0600
From: "mike labauve" <aetius463 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c7ca76$a9c04410$0a0110ac at YOUR31D05364F6>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
your pine tree is the fastest growing tree second you can add a root stock
t111 to the pine and graft it..
grows good in clay souls or poor soils .
you can do somthing most growers don,t cut down all the crop just some
form every field.
selective choice keep the big heathy ones a seed sorse
second types of wood can be from old lumber not treated never use
treated lumber..
you can turn wood untill its carcoil and use the gas to run a genas
motor...
www.lindsaybks.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
>
> Dear Javier
>
> The key thing is the "Mean Annual Increment." It is a measure of the new
> biomass added each year to the stem of the tree. In addition to the
> "stem wood, there is, of course, the branch wood. Very roughly, the
> branch wood volume is the same as the stem wood volume.
>
> The Mean Annual Increment will vary greatly, depending on species,
> climate soil fertility, moisture, etc. What you need is "the mean annual
> increment for a selected species in a chosen area." Then you will be
> able to estimate teh wood available from a conventional forest system.
>
> On teh other hand, if you had a hybrid species and did coppice wood
> harvesting, the annual biomass yield for fuel could be very much higher.
>
> Hope this is a helpful overview.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> Javier Bonet wrote:
>> Dear gasification list.
>>
>> if you want to produce a constant amount of wood biomass, from a
>> forest, acording to your expiriences, what could be the best tree,
>> time to harvest, and power amount, to achieve the maximun power per
>> unit of land? lets supose cases for producing 20 kw, 100 kw, and 1 Mw
>> of electric power.
>>
>> Javier Bonet
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:38:12 -0600
From: "mike labauve" <aetius463 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] "ecogas" defined
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002201c7ca77$05ba6890$0a0110ac at YOUR31D05364F6>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
lets think on this a coal power plant procduces too much co2 can the gas
from the pipes can run through filter and coolers to diesel engine to power
generators.
kill two birds with one stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Saibhaskar Nakka" <saibhaskarnakka at gmail.com>
To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] "ecogas" defined
> Dear All,
>
> I had gone through all the names suggested. I like woodgas / smoke for
> T-LUD stoves (dry biomass) and Biogas for wet biomass. But if a new
> name is to be given for T-LUD stoves, I would like to call
> "BIOPYROGAS" BIO is added to the name "PYROGAS" suggested by Ron.
> Ecogas / Greengas are the names could be more suitable for highly
> efficient stoves, say with > 30% efficiency.
>
> Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy
>
>
>> Crispin:
>>
>> 1. I think we need to realize that Kevin was NOT favoring
>> "greengas" -
>> and I am inclined to agree.
>>
>> 2. After I jumped in with "cleangas", I had second thoughts like
>> yours.
>>
>> 3. Your suggestion below prompts me to also throw in "pyrogas" - as
>> being somewhat more descriptive than the others (goes well with
>> pyromaniac
>> also). Pyrolysis-gas is presumably too long.
>>
>> Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:04:04 -0500
From: Reg Preston <trpreston at mekarn.org>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <46A02624.1080203 at mekarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Why are most on this list thinking only of energy?
We need food as well as energy. Dual purpose trees are what we should be
promoting. It is nonsense to promote trees only for energy? The leaves
are important sources of protein. .Mulberry will produce 3 tonnes of
protein/ha/year (3 times more than soya) as well as excellent stems for
gasification.
I wonder how may list members actually live in rural areas. It seems
very few. Hence the bias to energy!!
From Reg Preston living and working on a farm in Colombia
--
T R Preston
Senior Editor, Livestock Research for Rural Development
Readers and contributers to LRRD are requested to join the LRRD-Announce List.
http://lists.lrrd.net/mailman/listinfo/lrrd-announce
Fundaci?n para la Produccic?n Agropecuaria Tropical Sostenible Capitulo Colombia,
UTA-TOSOLY - Finca Ecol?gica
Morario - Guapota -
AA # 48, Socorro, Santander, Santander del Sur, Colombia
Tel: 57- 7-7246058
Celular: 315-3536935
http://www.utafoundation.org (Describes the activities at the University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation)
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd (The international on-line journal on sustainable livestock-based agriculture)
http://www.mekarn.org (The web site of the Sida/SAREC Regional Network for livestock training and research in the Lower Mekong basin)
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:04:02 -0700
From: "jim mason" <jimmason at whatiamupto.com>
Subject: [Gasification] "tube in tube" hearth design pictures
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID:
<31a4f6f00707192204y283b622dhf70c4e348c48a033 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
here are some pictures of the previously discussed "tube in tube"
hearth design, finally built and in operation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesshobbs/sets/72157600913638462/
remember, the idea here is a bit of an elaboration on the swedish
inverted V hearth design, trying for a similar "self-insulating with
char" design, but without the need to fabricate the tapered V. tubes
cut to various lengths, sealed at the bottom with welded rings, seemed
an easier way to get something similar. actually, it probably has
better insulation in the combustion area than the inverted V hearth,
as there are multi steel walls to prevent convection air flow. my
anecdotal running of it says "works great", but i have no hard data to
make claims or compare with other designs. about all i can say
definitively is that it works vastly better than the open firetube
stratified downdraft designs of before.
but after building this, i can no longer claim this is an easy way to
create a well insulated constriction type hearth. the many rings at
the bottom were not trivial to make. if one has access to a cnc
plasma or water jet, or just a good hand compass for a plasma cutter
the rings are tolerable to make. but any free hand circle cutting is
far from easy, and the fit of these rings between the tubes is ratther
precise.
i'm currently bringing the air down from the top, with an adjustable
1.5" pipe and side hole nozzles. i want to see if the "easy" top air
in scenario is adequate, as it is much easier to adjust for different
combustion zone sizes, as well as easier than the side nozzles
plumbing.
also, i'm interested in adding a venturi pinch in the pipe, using
regular plumbing reducers, at the correct place in the hopper so as to
create tar "recycling" or "scavenging" from the pyrolysis zone, into
the air pipe, and directly into the hot combustion zone. most tar
recyling i've seen does this with a hopper tap that is rerouted around
to the side air inlets, using a fan to drive it. seems to me we can
do this with a venturi in the air inlet, which is well self-contained
if we are doing a top down through hopper air in system. some
experimentation will be needed to get the neck down/up and side
opening in the correct size and location. but well sized and
positioned, it seems such an air inlet venturi would do much to
scavenge tars as they generate, and force them into the hottest area
of the combustion zone for cracking.
this hearth is now in the cafe racer truck. photos of the truck are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/sets/72157600218339882/
we are currently making a glass fuel hopper for the top of the
gasifier vessel so one can see the fuel, steam and tar smoke through
the glass. big metal tanks make little sense to civilians unschooled
in the gasifaction arts. i'm trying to expose the workings wherever
possible.
jim
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim mason
website: www.whatiamupto.com
email: jimmason at whatiamupto.com
announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
current project: mechabolic (http://whatiamupto.com/mechabolic/index.html)
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:58:39 +1200
From: "doug.williams" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] "ecogas" defined
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002601c7caa3$c8ef6280$0701a8c0 at graeme753972b8>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Mike,
Possible your translation to English creates confusion:
> lets think on this a coal power plant procduces too much co2 can the gas
> from the pipes can run through filter and coolers to diesel engine to
> power
> generators.
No, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not a combustible gas that can be collected and
reburnt, as it would need to be CO (carbon monoxide). CO2 is the result of
the oxidation zone (exothermic heat) in a gasifier, but it then must pass
through a charcoal bed with temperatures of over 850C to become CO
(reduction). It requires a large amount of heat, and the reduction process
is called endothermic (heat consuming).
> kill two birds with one stone
No, more like a snake eating it's own tail. (:-)
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibhaskar Nakka" <saibhaskarnakka at gmail.com>
> To: <stoves at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] "ecogas" defined
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I had gone through all the names suggested. I like woodgas / smoke for
>> T-LUD stoves (dry biomass) and Biogas for wet biomass. But if a new
>> name is to be given for T-LUD stoves, I would like to call
>> "BIOPYROGAS" BIO is added to the name "PYROGAS" suggested by Ron.
>> Ecogas / Greengas are the names could be more suitable for highly
>> efficient stoves, say with > 30% efficiency.
>>
>> Dr. N. Sai Bhaskar Reddy
>>
>>
>>> Crispin:
>>>
>>> 1. I think we need to realize that Kevin was NOT favoring
>>> "greengas" -
>>> and I am inclined to agree.
>>>
>>> 2. After I jumped in with "cleangas", I had second thoughts like
>>> yours.
>>>
>>> 3. Your suggestion below prompts me to also throw in "pyrogas" - as
>>> being somewhat more descriptive than the others (goes well with
>>> pyromaniac
>>> also). Pyrolysis-gas is presumably too long.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 16
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:32:28 +0200
From: "Energies Naturals" <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c7cab9$466f0570$2201a8c0 at enrgiesb579897>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hallo Reg,
we do live in a rural environment (mediterranean climate, dry summers) and
we are energy sufficient on solar, wind and wvo base.
Mulberry trees grow very well here, but they are considered "heavy feeders"
compared to other species.Am I right ?
I?m now growing cynara cardunculus, powlonia, miscanthus (in special
conditions) and want to try switchgrass (pannicum).
All these as still experiments. Workwise I plan and install decentralized
energy systems (wind-sun- biomass) , biomass furnaces and burners and build
Listeroid gensets in h&p configuration. This is my point :
I saw your post talking about the Ankur gasifier. I?m planning to buy one
for us and try it on the Listeroids.
What are your experiences with it and the firm behind it ?
Thanks a lot
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reg Preston" <trpreston at mekarn.org>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] fasts trees
Why are most on this list thinking only of energy?
We need food as well as energy. Dual purpose trees are what we should be
promoting. It is nonsense to promote trees only for energy? The leaves
are important sources of protein. .Mulberry will produce 3 tonnes of
protein/ha/year (3 times more than soya) as well as excellent stems for
gasification.
I wonder how may list members actually live in rural areas. It seems
very few. Hence the bias to energy!!
From Reg Preston living and working on a farm in Colombia
--
T R Preston
Senior Editor, Livestock Research for Rural Development
Readers and contributers to LRRD are requested to join the LRRD-Announce
List.
http://lists.lrrd.net/mailman/listinfo/lrrd-announce
Fundaci?n para la Produccic?n Agropecuaria Tropical Sostenible Capitulo
Colombia,
UTA-TOSOLY - Finca Ecol?gica
Morario - Guapota -
AA # 48, Socorro, Santander, Santander del Sur, Colombia
Tel: 57- 7-7246058
Celular: 315-3536935
http://www.utafoundation.org (Describes the activities at the University of
Tropical Agriculture Foundation)
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd (The international on-line journal on
sustainable livestock-based agriculture)
http://www.mekarn.org (The web site of the Sida/SAREC Regional Network for
livestock training and research in the Lower Mekong basin)
_______________________________________________
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: 17
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:56:57 +0200
From: "Energies Naturals" <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] "tube in tube" hearth design pictures
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <003301c7cabc$b20b83f0$2201a8c0 at enrgiesb579897>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Great if it works!
In the old days, they used ceramic hearths to keep the embers red without
having to tell dirty jokes continuosly. Good fire concrete stands 1350 + ?
C, that should never be reached considering its own conductivity.Why metal
anyway, considering it warps and erodes/oxidizes ?
Rolf
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim mason" <jimmason at whatiamupto.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:04 AM
Subject: [Gasification] "tube in tube" hearth design pictures
> here are some pictures of the previously discussed "tube in tube"
> hearth design, finally built and in operation.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesshobbs/sets/72157600913638462/
>
> remember, the idea here is a bit of an elaboration on the swedish
> inverted V hearth design, trying for a similar "self-insulating with
> char" design, but without the need to fabricate the tapered V. tubes
> cut to various lengths, sealed at the bottom with welded rings, seemed
> an easier way to get something similar. actually, it probably has
> better insulation in the combustion area than the inverted V hearth,
> as there are multi steel walls to prevent convection air flow. my
> anecdotal running of it says "works great", but i have no hard data to
> make claims or compare with other designs. about all i can say
> definitively is that it works vastly better than the open firetube
> stratified downdraft designs of before.
>
> but after building this, i can no longer claim this is an easy way to
> create a well insulated constriction type hearth. the many rings at
> the bottom were not trivial to make. if one has access to a cnc
> plasma or water jet, or just a good hand compass for a plasma cutter
> the rings are tolerable to make. but any free hand circle cutting is
> far from easy, and the fit of these rings between the tubes is ratther
> precise.
>
> i'm currently bringing the air down from the top, with an adjustable
> 1.5" pipe and side hole nozzles. i want to see if the "easy" top air
> in scenario is adequate, as it is much easier to adjust for different
> combustion zone sizes, as well as easier than the side nozzles
> plumbing.
>
> also, i'm interested in adding a venturi pinch in the pipe, using
> regular plumbing reducers, at the correct place in the hopper so as to
> create tar "recycling" or "scavenging" from the pyrolysis zone, into
> the air pipe, and directly into the hot combustion zone. most tar
> recyling i've seen does this with a hopper tap that is rerouted around
> to the side air inlets, using a fan to drive it. seems to me we can
> do this with a venturi in the air inlet, which is well self-contained
> if we are doing a top down through hopper air in system. some
> experimentation will be needed to get the neck down/up and side
> opening in the correct size and location. but well sized and
> positioned, it seems such an air inlet venturi would do much to
> scavenge tars as they generate, and force them into the hottest area
> of the combustion zone for cracking.
>
> this hearth is now in the cafe racer truck. photos of the truck are here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/sets/72157600218339882/
>
> we are currently making a glass fuel hopper for the top of the
> gasifier vessel so one can see the fuel, steam and tar smoke through
> the glass. big metal tanks make little sense to civilians unschooled
> in the gasifaction arts. i'm trying to expose the workings wherever
> possible.
>
> jim
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> jim mason
> website: www.whatiamupto.com
> email: jimmason at whatiamupto.com
> announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
> current project: mechabolic (http://whatiamupto.com/mechabolic/index.html)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 18
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:57:39 +0200
From: "Bjorn Dahlroth" <Bjorn.Dahlroth at KSL.SE>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 13, Issue 17
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Message-ID: <E456215F510E4649A4085B50AE5347B2BE215F at webmail.ksl.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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-----
Fr?n: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] F?r gasification-request at listserv.repp.org
Skickat: den 16 juli 2007 18:00
Till: gasification at listserv.repp.org
?mne: 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: