[Gasification] wood gasifiers
jim mason
jimmason at whatiamupto.com
Sun Apr 6 19:37:31 CDT 2008
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Greg and April
<gregandapril at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> The pic's at the web link you provided ( http://theshipyard.org/gek/ ), very
> much remind me of an old propane tank that has been modified - hundreds of
> old propane tanks are scraped each year ( careful treatment lets them be cut
> open where they can then be burned out to eliminate and residue ). When I
> go to the local scrap yard, I see old hydraulic cylinders that has the
> potential to be used in another application.
>
yes, the one in the picture is made from propane tanks and other
common obtainium tanks. the unit is now made with purpose rolled
tubes, given the hassle i've encountered trying to make this work at
scale with only scrap tanks.
while scrap tanks are easy to find, the difficulty in recovering and
altering them is often more than expected. purging, greasy surfaces,
variations in dimension, rust, sourcing, hauling etc often become
rather significant. while i am a big fan of obtainium, i also note
its challenged application in situations where you are trying for
reproducable and standardized dimensions. interchangable parts
require this standardization. even providing a purpose cut round
plate or ring to weld to a cylinder assumes the cylinder is of
standard dimension.
nonetheless, the GEK unit is designed around common 10", 12" and
14.xx" OD tanks. these are cut to make the tubes for the vessels.
10" is commonly used for small air tanks and some odd propane tanks.
12" is the standard for 5, 10 and 15gal propane. 14.xxx is common for
25 gal. these actually vary between 14.5 and 15.1" in OD. i was
surprised how much even contemporary ones vary. there is no ISO
standard. or at least one that is adhered too.
thus the problems with reproducability, or just easy assembly, when
you are trying to weld premade rings around and to the bottom of found
tanks. an 1/8" off becomes significant.
therefore i decided that purpose made tubes and plates are likely
desired for most. with such we can guarantee accuracy of parts and
easy assembly with minimum tools and fabricating expertise. the
problem was finding an inexpensive way to make the tubes. buying them
as large premade pipe is difficult, as large tube is rare and
expensive. stainless chimney inserts are actually on the inch
dimensions, with kaowool between the tubes. you can buy a 12" OD, 10"
ID ss chimney insert in 12", 18" and 24" lengths. these are great,
but expensive. and the point here is to be able to modify easily,
thus ss is a bit overkill for a non heat intensive surface. so we
just decided to roll the tubes ourselves. with the round plates, you
have a "jig" to fit and hold the rolled sheet while you weld it
perfectly into shape. no free air assembly.
so yes, i started at the junkyard, but ended up affirming the value
added of purpose manufacturing, if such can be done cheaply. and
making that purpose manufacturing mirror common obtainium shapes and
sizes gives flexibility so that an individual can go either way, as
their circumstances suggest.
this might be an interesting strategy for a variety of diy and dev
world building concerns. in such realms we often follow one or the
other path. i don't think i've seen a situation which attempts to
combine both in a motivated way. i just stumbled upon this strategy
and have come to like it very much. so i'm going to test it out and
see if it proves useful (or not).
j
> There is multiple possibilities - the problem is figuring out how to put it
> together to get what we want.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
>
> Greg H.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jim mason" <jimmason at whatiamupto.com>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
>
>
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 14:19
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] wood gasifiers
>
>
> >i see little reason a traditional gasifier type unit should request
> > the prices we currently see. they are, afterall, mostly tank shaped
> > vessels made out of mild steel. the only thing that is expensive here
> > is the expertise, and the assumption that one must recover it over a
> > rather low number of purchases. i am somewhat baffled why even the
> > indian manufacturers are setting such high price points. yes,
> > industrial 24/7 uses have requirements that justify high prices. but
> > not the individual scale, diy, developing world and research type
> > uses. there is much room for lowering the prices and increasing the
> > expertise access for these more hands on applications. the GEK kit is
> > one attempt at this. (still same old pictures here:
> > http://theshipyard.org/gek/)
> >
> >
> > here's our proposition for gasifier cost reduction:
> >
> > the manufacture of the GEK kit has been reduced to rolled sheet metal
> > tubes, and round end plates/rings. no esoteric shapes or sizes of
> > metal to purchase. only typical thickness mild steel sheet metal is
> > needed. with this we can reproduce the "obtainium" tanks around which
> > the unit was designed and the first one was built. so really, you can
> > build the design from common obtainium tanks, or the tube and rings
> > shapes we purpose manufacture. same design: two manufacturing
> > scenarios.
> >
> > we can cut all the tube shapes for both the reactor and cyclone out of
> > one 4x8' sheet of 1/16" sheet metal on the cnc plasma cutter. all the
> > end plates and rings are similarly cut from about one third of a sheet
> > of 1/8" sheet metal. thus two cad files and two presses of "go" and
> > we have all the puzzle pieces to weld together to make a the vessels
> > for a gasifier reactor and cyclone. this includes two basic main
> > reactor inserts: one as the base to explore all the nozzle and
> > constriction type reactors, and one as the base to explore all the the
> > open core types, including multipoint air injection, TLUD, and biochar
> > pyrolysis units. the parts to add on for each of these sub designs
> > will be additional purchases or user made.
> >
> > to this one must add the plumbing, radiator and filter. most builders
> > can find and understand these components more easily than the reactor
> > and cyclone, so i anticipate most will want to buy without these
> > components in the kit.
> >
> > thus we can offer the lowest level of the GEK kit as simply all these
> > cut pieces, still flat, and mailed between two pieces of cardboard.
> > you find a roller and welder to assemble. this will be around $500.
> > if we roll and weld the tubes and plates together i'm thinking
> > something around $1000. if we assemble everything done from beginning
> > to end of the system, with pluming, radiator, burner, gauges, etc., we
> > should be somewhere around $3000. or people can take the cad file and
> > set up manufacturing anywhere they can find sheet metal, a roller and
> > a cnc plasma cutter. well, you can use a manual plasma cutter too,
> > but it is slower and less accurate. given the simple nature of the
> > raw materials, manufacturing should also be possible through the
> > emachine "manufacturing on demand" type operations. thus with this
> > kit we are open sourcing a design, as well as a manufacturing process.
> > or you can just use the shareware design instructions and build it
> > from local junk. i think the shareware instructions will be a
> > suggested payment of $50.
> >
> > i am interested in input on these price points. how do these work for
> > people?
> >
> > do note that in this scenario we are NOT providing the full service
> > expertise for set up and running. the expertise for configuring and
> > adapting this base to specific use situations will grow over time
> > through a discussion board and wiki. if the base unit is shared, then
> > configuration scenarios for specific fuel and use situations, new add
> > ons, use reports and real data can be shared and directly applied by
> > others. direct collaboration is now possible and good running
> > solutions likely. the kit is not promising turnkey performance
> > (which is an unwise promise given the tempermental nature of a
> > downdraft). rather, it is promising full flexibility to reconfigure
> > all relevant parameters towards adequate performance or running a
> > specific testing scenario.
> >
> > yes, all these traditional downdraft types are highly sensitive to
> > fuel type and other run parameters. they need to be configured to
> > specific fuels and those fuels well controlled. and this is usually
> > provided by an expert consultant onsite, at high dollar. this is one
> > of the pinch points which creates the current high cost of entering
> > the gasifier world. i think we can moderately fix this problem with
> > some minor information engineering for the small scale user. not the
> > industrial user, mind you. that is a different problem.
> >
> > the physical GEK base also anticipates other more elaborate
> > multi-stage and kinetic bed gasifier types which i personally believe
> > can solve most of the fuel sensitivity problems of current gasifiers.
> > these add ons will come later in the process. right now we're just
> > trying to well model and provide access to the current state of
> > affairs.
> >
> >
> > jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM, mark crorey <mark.crorey at att.net> wrote:
> >> A very major cost of a gasifier to electricity system would be the
> >> generator
> >> system. Electrical equipment could cost easily $100.00 per kw if it is
> >> industrial quality.
> >>
> >> Would considering a price per kw / year be a more effective way of
> >> assessing
> >> costs? (rather than cost / kw initially)
> >>
> >> Mark Crorey
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> >>
> >> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 6:37 PM
> >> To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
> >> Subject: Re: [Gasification] wood gasifiers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr. Krishnaswamy,
> >>
> >> This exchange illustrates the major challenge that we've had with
> >> considering small scale gasification for commercial use in North
> >> America.
> >> Our fuel, labor and capital costs are all high relative to the value of
> >> the
> >> heat and electricity that we produce. US $0.10/kWh is a good price. In
> >> some
> >> areas utility incentives for small generator net metering can push that
> >> up
> >> to about $0.14/kWh. But we still need to meet a target cost of about
> >> $3,000/kW for the capital plant.
> >>
> >> Recent demonstration gasifiers have been going in for $5,000-$11,000/kW.
> >> Costs have come "down" to $250,000/50 kW, or about $5,000/kW but they
> >> need
> >> to come down further to be economic. Still there are several groups that
> >> are
> >> working to develop commercial systems.
> >>
> >> Is Energreen Power Ltd. ready to export the IISc system to North
> >> America? If
> >> so there are projects that could probably get demonstration funding to
> >> bridge to more favorable economics. These are in the 25kWe-300 kWe
> >> range.
> >> I'm sure there are companies the would be interested.
> >>
> >> Of particular interest is the promise of the IISc technology for using
> >> chipped, and sawdust-like fuels. I understand that the tar burning
> >> feature
> >> of the open core reburn technology may offer more fuel flexibility than
> >> a
> >> typical downdraft.
> >> See
> >>
> >> http://cgpl.iisc.ernet.in/site/Portals/0/Technologies/Gasification%20Technol
> >> ogy.pdf
> >> We have a lot of mulch like wood waste available from portable chippers.
> >> What is the smallest size of fuel that can be gasified in the IISc
> >> systems
> >> as provide by Energreen Power?
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Tom Miles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > jim mason
> > website: www.whatiamupto.com
> > current project: mechabolic (http://www.mechabolic.org)
> > announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim mason
website: www.whatiamupto.com
current project: mechabolic (http://www.mechabolic.org)
announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com
More information about the Gasification
mailing list