[Gasification] Conserve -- Run an Arc reformer now!!

[Peter Singfield]

Thanks for this input Tom;

I have some distant past experiences with plasma arc -- our huge problem at
that time was "melt-downs" -- everything got to hot and melted away -- even
the best refractories we could find then -- and in a very quick and
disorderly manner. So we gave up on it and went in other directions.

However -- I do believe the reformation process can act as a coolant -- 

There are other real technical problems in this process.

Daniel mentions heat losses due to thermal conductivity of reaction
chamber. Such losses -- even if tiny -- make a huge difference in the net
export.

And probably is part of the answer to:

>The recovered electricity sometimes amounts to only about 60-80% of the
>energy required to decompose the waste. 

Now -- let me remind the list -- my interest was spiked not by the Noah
posting so much as it fit with what Leonard Wheeler sent me some time ago.

His studies were made in 1994 -- 95 -- by a certified lab -- after all --
these units were going through the approvable process as hazardous waste
disposal units for Hospitals. No stone was left unturned -- and the figures
were well measured -- well recorded.

That design used a plasma arc torch -- and water jacked reaction chamber --
which was cooled by condensing the steam so produced -- which was then
returned.

That amount of energy was also well measured.

So Daniel -- steam is "waste"??

However -- in the system I envision good insulation will be in place -- as
much as is required -- as my interest will be to direct all energy possible
into the very endothermic steam reaction -- maintained at -- say -- 2200 F
-- and "cooled" by continuous addition of more biomass to process.

Look -- there has always been but one major problem with steam reformation
-- how to get that heat energy into the reaction -- I see the carbon arc
has better potential for achieving that in an easy way than any other
system out there.

The Gongo math Daniel if so confused over -- and absolutely rejects --
simply outlines the possible parameters -- before wasting more time
pursuing what could be a total dud.

Ball park derivations --

Hands on Engineers depend on this -- theoretical engineers do not.

Other options --

Electrical Resistance heating -- but -- not happy at 2200 F

Cat heaters -- would be the absolutely most efficient way of all -- but do
they go hot enough??

That is burning product gas in a catalytic heater to maintain a high btu
flow rate at the 2200 F level.

I'm pressed for time now -- but later I'll "research" cat heaters once more
-- and see.

Theoretical engineers only come into "play" after a process has proven
succesful -- in order to make that process work better. (hopefully!!)

So Daniel -- beat up[ on the hands on engineers well enough -- and you end
up permanently unemployed.

James Watt is the classical example.

How many millions of engineers would never have had a job if he had not
innovated the steam engine??

On the other hand -- without the theoretical engineers -- we would still
have steam engines only getting 1/4% efficiency??

Well -- that is what the theoretical engineers like to believe --

Over priced documenters is what I figure they be ---

>When people stop listening you don't get answers no matter what
>you say. 

And the collary being:

Good answers would shut me up!!

Peter/Belize





At 10:03 AM 6/21/2007 -0700, Tom Miles wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Some of us are studying, designing, testing, installing or fixing operating
>systems. For me that currently includes melters and plasma systems for
>refuse derived fuel for utility clients, biomass gasifiers and pyrolysis
>systems for industrial heat and power and small scale gasifiers. My opinions
>are usually based on extensive research and direct experience.
>
>Our comedian and journalist Will Rogers often prefaced his remarks by
>saying, "All I know is what I read in the papers." Today many people would
>have to say "all I know is what I read on the Internet." The internet and
>internet sources don't have all the answers but discussions like this can
>point to useful sources of experience and information. One serious problem
>with internet sources, including promotional "white papers," is that they
>are usually placed for public view by advocates for a system or technology
>and have not been tested extensively in industry or subjected to critical
>review. There's a lot of useless and misleading information on the internet.
>(It would help if you and others would carefully review and synthesize
>information rather than simply plastering URLS and news articles all over
>the list.)    
>
>As for plasma for gasification or reforming there are many technical
>challenges to using plasma or arc furnaces for refuse or biomass
>gasification starting with fuel feeding, gasification or pre-gasification,
>separation of gas, solids and condensed vapors, gas cleanup, and catalysts
>for synthesis to liquid fuels. There are no pilot systems in operation today
>that can convince a power generator that plasma is not still in a very early
>phase of development. If you can make a gas the weakest link in the
>synthesis gas to liquid fuels field is the lack of catalysts that can be
>used economically. 
>
>There are people on this list who have much more direct experience with
>melters and arc gasification than I do. They are not likely to comment
>because they cannot. Their systems and technologies are proprietary. Over
>the last 15 years our clients have built melters for special wastes -
>medical, hazardous and electronic parts - which have a high enough disposal
>cost to justify melting them and recovering the energy available in the gas.
>The recovered electricity sometimes amounts to only about 60-80% of the
>energy required to decompose the waste. There is a net energy cost to
>building, owning and operating these systems that must be paid for by
>something besides the electricity revenues. So while they may be fun to talk
>about I don't think we'll see many in operation unless they promise to
>reduce disposal costs.
>
>Keep the faith and don't be so generous with the opinions. We'll all pretty
>saturated with Peter posts. After a while people simply tune out the mass of
>messages. When people stop listening you don't get answers no matter what
>you say. 
>
>Tom