[Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 21, Issue 5
Ananda S.K. Weerakkody
askweerakkody at gmail.com
Tue Mar 4 20:07:28 CST 2008
*Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
*
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) made a Rice Husk Gasifier for
combined heat and power in the year 2002. This generated 30 Kw. The project
consultant was a Japanese professor from MIE University. He has worked with
Rice Husk Gasifiers in Japan since 1985.
We learned many things from him. Gasifier temperature was kept around 700C.
Bulk of the tar produced in producer gas was absorbed through a Saw Dust
filter. Nothing was wasted in this operation. Wood Vinegar produced inside
the scrubber is a good pesticide and the Carbonised Rice Husk is a bio
fertiliser.
Rice Husk Ash produced below 700C is highly active amorphous Silica. This
can be used together with cement as a cement substitute. There is a UN
article on the Internet as to how to use Amorphous Silica in developing
world as a cement substitute.
Certain Power Generators in Malaysia burn rice husk below 700C in their
boilers mainly to obtain amorphous Silica for export.
Cristobalite is not an issue which nobody talks about in this part of the
world. The only worry is the environmental hazard due to acrid smoke when
burning it in the open fields or on road side. In the Glass Fiber Reinforced
Cement industry, Silica sand from rice husk can be used as a substitute for
fine river or desert sand. In fact I have used this(rain washed) in making
cement mortar myself.
Ananda Weerakkody
Philippines & Sri Lanka
On 3/5/08, gasification-request at listserv.repp.org <
gasification-request at listserv.repp.org> wrote:
> 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. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
> 2. Re: Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel (Rolf)
> 3. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Katahdin Energy Works)
> 4. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Kenn Johnsen)
> 5. new oil field - Google-s?gning (Kenn Johnsen)
> 6. refilling oil fields - Google-s?gning (Kenn Johnsen)
> 7. Re: Gasification Operational Principles (Oscar)
> 8. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Kevin Chisholm)
> 9. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Greg and April)
> 10. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Bob Stuart)
> 11. TREES THAT THREATEN FORESTS (Benjamin Domingo Bof)
> 12. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Greg and April)
> 13. Re: Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel (Tom Miles)
> 14. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (David Rezachek)
> 15. Re: Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no
> future. (Greg and April)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 06:28:37 EST
> From: MMBTUPR at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: kchisholm at ca.inter.net, gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Message-ID: <c0b.2a7d8fe3.34fe8c65 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> from Lewis L Smith
>
> The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is not
> about
> demand.
>
> Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak is
> coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already occurred,
> as in
> 2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until 2032.
>
> If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of demand ] for
> any
> reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction of
> crude
> oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not going
> to
> eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive someday
> within somebody's planning horizon.
>
> Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> World's
> economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to people
> who
> have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> exploration
> and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
>
> At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
>
> Cordially ###
>
>
>
>
> **************
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> Finance.
> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:29:34 +0100
> From: "Rolf" <energiesnaturals at gmx.de>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <002f01c87df3$67f36b30$2101a8c0 at Uhle>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hallo Tom,
> can you tell us (me ) more about these suspension burners for husks ?
>
> Thank you
> Rolf
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] Im Auftrag von Tom Miles
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. M?rz 2008 01:24
> An: 'Ferruccio Pittaluga'; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> gasification'
> Betreff: Re: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
>
> Ferruccio,
>
> I haven't heard of cristobalite being a problem with rice husk gasifiers.
> It
> may be in the ash and not measured.
>
> It was my understanding that peak temperatures are the primarily case of
> cristobalite formation. You can see the temperature range for cristobalite
> on a silica phase diagram. Cristobalite appeared as a problem initially
> when milled rice husks were burned in suspension in California. It was
> collected as a fine particulate that was a health hazard when handled. The
> burners had been supplied by a licensee that ignored the low temperature
> design of the originators in Louisiana. Peak temperatures in the burners
> were subsequently lowered to reduce the amount of cristobalite. Current
> burners supplied for suspension burning husks, in Thailand for example,
> limit cristobalite formation through temperature control.
>
> Tom
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-
> > bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Ferruccio Pittaluga
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:49 PM
> > To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > Subject: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> >
> > Dear all,
> > it seems to me that a main issue is overlooked when discussing
> > gasification of rice husk. The problem is the possible, maybe even
> > likely, production of cristobalite (Silicon Dioxide,
> > http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/cristoba/cristoba.htm), a
> > polymorph of quartz, but highly carcinogenic. I really do not know if
> > significant amounts of this material are produced in gasification
> > processes, but I know for sure that they are emitted at stack if you
> > burn rice husk mixed with woodchips on moving grid hearth. Has anyone
> > got additional information on this topic?
> > Ferruccio Pittaluga
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > DIMSET/SCL - Savona Combustion Lab
> > pittalug at unige.it
> > http://proxy.sv.inge.unige.it/SCL/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.or
> > g
> > 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: 3
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:38:40 -0200
> From: "Katahdin Energy Works" <KatahdinEnergyWorks at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>, <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Message-ID: <003f01c87ddb$8875a3e0$9960eba0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> So are there any reliable forecasts' of 'peak demand that take into
> account
> the growth of alt. energy sources in the developing Asian economies?
>
> Frank J. Heller, MPA
> KATAHDIN ENERGY WORKS
> 12 Belmont St.
> Brunswick, ME 04011-3004
> 207.729.6090
> http://mysite.verizon.net/fjheller/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
> MMBTUPR at aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:29 AM
> To: kchisholm at ca.inter.net; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order,
> no future.
>
> from Lewis L Smith
>
> The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is not
> about
> demand.
>
> Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak is
> coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already occurred,
> as
> in
> 2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until 2032.
>
> If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of demand ] for
> any
> reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction of
> crude
> oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not going
> to
>
> eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive someday
> within somebody's planning horizon.
>
> Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> World's
>
> economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to people
> who
> have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> exploration
> and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
>
> At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
>
> Cordially ###
>
>
>
>
> **************
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> Finance.
> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:43:11 +0100
> From: Kenn Johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <5FC28764-A4DC-480E-9481-C1A3E6F32378 at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
> scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
>
>
> Den 04/03/2008 kl. 12.28 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
>
> > from Lewis L Smith
> >
> > The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is
> > not about
> > demand.
> >
> > Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak
> > is
> > coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already
> > occurred, as in
> > 2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until
> > 2032.
> >
> > If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of
> > demand ] for any
> > reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction
> > of crude
> > oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not
> > going to
> > eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive
> > someday
> > within somebody's planning horizon.
> >
> > Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> > World's
> > economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to
> > people who
> > have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> > exploration
> > and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
> >
> > At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
> >
> > Cordially ###
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************
> > It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> > Finance.
> > (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:40:11 +0100
> From: Kenn Johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: [Gasification] new oil field - Google-s?gning
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <9C5270A2-B5E8-4B57-9B67-C910C0427F40 at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
> format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> New huge oil field in the Gulf - in Brazil.......and in many other
> places.....some old oil field are refilling. No body knows how many
> new oil field there is to be discovered, but how many have been
> discovered and plugged.....? I have read somewhere that they plug new
> oil drilling, in the Gulf, told by some working out there. And how
> many places are they doing that. Not to forget the story told by
> Lindsey about an huge oil field up in Alaska, it is all a scam.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=da-dk&q=new+oil+field&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:49:24 +0100
> From: Kenn Johnsen <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> Subject: [Gasification] refilling oil fields - Google-s?gning
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <94989B2E-E3B8-4A23-9986-187B059DCAFC at webspeed.dk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Just a quick google and several site with refilling oil fields.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=da&client=safari&rls=da-dk&q=refilling+oil+fields+&btnG=S?g&lr=
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:27:23 -0500
> From: "Oscar" <oscar at geprop.cu>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Operational Principles
> To: "'doug.williams'" <Doug.Williams at orcon.net.nz>, "'Discussion of
> biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" <
> gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <200803041423.m24ENVDV010057 at mailrelay.citmatel.inf.cu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello Doug and list members.
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. I deeply appreciate them and also
> the
> time you've spent answering my queries.
>
> "My ability to not satisfy everyone with these answers, is clearly evident
> from private criptic e-mails that this Forum never sees. "
>
> Never mind about satisfying everyone. Experience says that it is
> IMPOSSIBLE.
> Most important is hear, read and try to learn from those, who having more
> experience, has something to say even if it does not match our knowledge
> or
> point of view.
>
> ...." found that if you use calculations only, you are in for a rude
> shock,
> dealing with the variables of biomass fuels."
>
> I wholly agree with you that calculation is not all that is needed to make
> something work in the engineering field. However having some reliable
> estimates to start with, is something I really appreciate in order not to
> get lost in the jungle of equations, number, figures etc. Experience and
> hands-on the stuff will undoubtedly say the last word. To me, a
> baby-beginner in biomass gasification, is important having engineering
> guides/estimates capable of helping me in ensuring a good design and
> results.
>
> ...." If what you suggest is possible, then I would wonder why so few
> gasifiers built to calculations by students cannot make a tar free gas. It
> is also important to ensure that you are applying the correct calculations
> to the appropriate gasifier, because I see students crossing open cores
> with
>
> information relating to Swedish designs similar to Imbert."
>
> Well, when I suggested it I never thought about students being capable of
> such hard work. Besides my involvement in the biomass gasification project
> I
> am also calculus's teacher at university so I know students very well and
> I
> do know their rather limited boundaries in approaching so complex
> problems.
> I was really thinking on experts/experienced people able to throw some
> light
> on this issue and in position of telling me how far or close I am from
> reality of gasification. Such suggestion comes from hours trying to
> understand what is behind superficial velocity. Unfortunately I have not
> yet
> the possibility of sustaining it through my own experience. I hope maybe
> in
> the future I can get at it.
>
> ..." A gasifier is certainly designed working from a known parameter, but
> if
>
> there is little or no understanding of how packed carbon beds behave in a
> high temperature environment, what do you change to maintain the tar free
> gas making, or indeed keep it making even dirty gas? Can you specifically
> state which gasifiers can be built to your understanding of applying these
> principles, and how variations are controlled, or are you referring to it
> as
>
> a prediction tool, rather than one for proven design?..."
>
> I wholly agree with you. I am referring to having a reliable estimating
> tool
> to start with, which at the same time MUST BE checked up by experience and
> being capable of guarantying a good design which can afterwards be
> optimized, of course.
>
> ...." At this point, I should say that not all information of how
> gasifiers
> work, or should be designed is in the public domain, and commercial
> gasification knowledge has to move on from prior art. It is one thing to
> make a gasifier that can work in a laboratory situation for an hour or
> two,
> using calculations, but this knowledge alone rarely makes it fit for
> commercial application."
>
> Right, I got your point. However currently it seems to me there are many
> proven technology, for example in the chemical process industry, which
> start
> at a laboratory stage and some years later turned out to be a real thing,
> a
> dream comes true. Of course not before the lab-work being supported by a
> lot
> of hard work experience and hands-on the stuff.
>
>
> ..." "IF" you are aiming for tar free gas making, all sizing, including
> output, revolves around the fuel size in it's raw state, it's then
> structural integrity as a charcoal in the oxidation phase, it's size in
> the
> reduction zone, and finally, the amount of heat available for the
> endothermic demand of the reduction zone. Flow resistance is more than
> just
> about the interstitial spacing of the fuel, and is the point where
> gasifiers
> work or fail, at least in their ability to make clean gas continuously..."
>
> Yes, absolutely RIGHT.
>
> ..." researchers in developing countries tried to build their own from
> literature, not one real success story was reported for tar free wood
> gasifiers.."
>
> Yes agree with you. Trying to make something really good only having
> literature, without any real experimentation at some stages, it only lead
> us
> to no real success.
>
> Thanking you one more time for kindly responding to my request.
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> Oscar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] En nombre de doug.williams
> Enviado el: lunes, 03 de marzo de 2008 17:06
> Para: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Asunto: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Operational Principles
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> I will refine my comment:
>
> >" I do not use that measure to establish the correct
> >operating parameters, as flow rates are controlled by resistance set by
> the
> >fuel size...."
>
> This comment relates specifically the downdraft gasifiers with multi air
> nozzles and throat, and having had the dubious benefit if spending
> thousands
>
> of hours upto my elbows in charcoal, ( I really am a slow learner) found
> that if you use calculations only, you are in for a rude shock, dealing
> with
>
> the variables of biomass fuels.
>
> >As far as my modest knowledge let me see it, I think both are
> >linked or strongly interrelated in such a way that fixing one of them the
> >other gets automatically fixed.
>
> I agree absolutely, but what I say is that you must establish the fact
> before you can measure the velocity, not the other way around, but in
> fixing
>
> either, that does not automatically give you a working gasifier.
>
> >Superficial velocity let us get an estimate
> >of gasifier diameter along with its height so it should bear influence on
> >gas flow rates and its relationship with the resistance sets out by fuel
> >size which at the same time should match reactor dimensions.
>
> If what you suggest is possible, then I would wonder why so few gasifiers
> built to calculations by students cannot make a tar free gas. It is also
> important to ensure that you are applying the correct calculations to the
> appropriate gasifier, because I see students crossing open cores with
> information relating to Swedish designs similar to Imbert.
>
> >At the same
> >time superficial velocity is a variable which can be quantified for
> >predicting gasifier sizing and operating parameters,
> ..
> A gasifier is certainly designed working from a known parameter, but if
> there is little or no understanding of how packed carbon beds behave in a
> high temperature environment, what do you change to maintain the tar free
> gas making, or indeed keep it making even dirty gas? Can you specifically
> state which gasifiers can be built to your understanding of applying these
> principles, and how variations are controlled, or are you referring to it
> as
>
> a prediction tool, rather than one for proven design?
>
> > however I don't see how
> >easy it could be having a number or quantified estimates of flow rates
> .controlled by resistance
>
> At this point, I should say that not all information of how gasifiers
> work,
> or should be designed is in the public domain, and commercial gasification
> knowledge has to move on from prior art. It is one thing to make a
> gasifier
> that can work in a laboratory situation for an hour or two, using
> calculations, but this knowledge alone rarely makes it fit for commercial
> application.
>
> "IF" you are aiming for tar free gas making, all sizing, including output,
> revolves around the fuel size in it's raw state, it's then structural
> integrity as a charcoal in the oxidation phase, it's size in the reduction
> zone, and finally, the amount of heat available for the endothermic demand
> of the reduction zone. Flow resistance is more than just about the
> interstitial spacing of the fuel, and is the point where gasifiers work or
> fail, at least in their ability to make clean gas continuously.
>
> If I may step back to the 1970's, when gasifiers of European origin (built
> using all the known calculations) were sent out to developing countries,
> and
>
> researchers in developing countries tried to build their own from
> literature, not one real success story was reported for tar free wood
> gasifiers at the 1985, 2nd International Gasification Conference, held in
> Bandung, Indonesia. If anything, it highlighted the need for other types
> of
> gasifiers, away from the traditional European systems, and the variations
> you see today originated from that time. What has not changed, is the
> ability to make tar free gas easily despite all the knowledge of
> calculation, so emphasis has changed to gas cleaning, rather than gas
> making.
>
> >Can you please further a little bit more on these aspects. I would really
> >appreciate your comments.
>
> My ability to not satisfy everyone with these answers, is clearly evident
> from private criptic e-mails that this Forum never sees. Gasification has
> many variations to how it might be presented as a written technology, and
> even that has value to someone trying to give explanation to their own
> work.
>
> I have said many times, that I can share only so much, being restricted by
> commercial obligations, and contribute only as time allows.
>
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 8
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:51:15 -0400
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <47CD61E3.8010109 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Kenn
>
> I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
> unprofessional and amateurish manner.
>
> "Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
> real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
>
> Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing upon
> a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam also.
> You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
> are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
> Warming, yet, in the very same breath, you are inferring that Consensus
> Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
>
> (I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
> Consensus Science employed in the IPCC Report is very much more
> credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable people..")
>
> Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
> statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that is
> internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
> neither polite nor gentlemanly.
>
> What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
> Kenn Johnsen wrote:
> > Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
> > scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
> >
> >
> > Den 04/03/2008 kl. 12.28 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
> >
> >
> >> from Lewis L Smith
> >>
> >> The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is
> >> not about
> >> demand.
> >>
> >> Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak
> >> is
> >> coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already
> >> occurred, as in
> >> 2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until
> >> 2032.
> >>
> >> If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of
> >> demand ] for any
> >> reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction
> >> of crude
> >> oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not
> >> going to
> >> eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive
> >> someday
> >> within somebody's planning horizon.
> >>
> >> Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> >> World's
> >> economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to
> >> people who
> >> have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> >> exploration
> >> and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
> >>
> >> At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
> >>
> >> Cordially ###
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> **************
> >> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> >> Finance.
> >> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:06:03 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <00be01c87e09$4456be00$6401a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Don't get me started on GW!
>
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenn Johnsen" <kennj at webspeed.dk>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:43
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order,no future.
>
>
> > Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
> > scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:15:05 -0600
> From: Bob Stuart <bobstuart at sasktel.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <8AF09D55-01A2-4E77-B7C9-2DA9DFCB6259 at sasktel.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On 4-Mar-08, at 8:51 AM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> > Dear Kenn
> >
> > I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
> > unprofessional and amateurish manner.
> >
> > "Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
> > real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
> >
> > Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing
> > upon
> > a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam also.
> > You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
> > are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
> > Warming, yet, in the very same breath, you are inferring that
> > Consensus
> > Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
> >
> > (I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
> > Consensus Science employed in the IPCC Report is very much more
> > credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable
> > people..")
> >
> > Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
> > statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that is
> > internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
> > neither polite nor gentlemanly.
> >
> > What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
>
> I think that people who insist that any uncomfortable predictions are
> manipulative lies are just revealing their own relationship to
> truth. Perhaps we should just offer bets and get paid for our
> efforts to separate wheat from chaff. Anyway, I'd like to share
> another perspective on the problem, featuring easy-to-see evidence.
>
> At 92 pages long, this document from Friends of the Earth is not a
> quick read, but it sure got my attention. However, a synopsis may be
> in order:
>
> Last fall, there was so much open water in the Arctic ocean that the
> predictions about global warming are clearly too optimistic. We now
> have proof that .8 degrees C is enough to progressively melt the
> polar ice, which leaves a relatively warm, solar-absorbing ocean
> beside the Greenland ice cap, which has also started to melt
> quickly. That melting would raise sea levels by many meters, and
> probably doom the West Antarctic ice sheet, which rests on the sea
> bottom. And, even if we stopped all burning tomorrow, another .6
> degree of warming is already in the system. Coastal cities would
> need massive dikes and, too often, desalinization of their water supply.
>
> Clearly, there is already too much carbon dioxide in the air, and
> some will have to be removed as soon as possible to avoid runaway
> effects from melting permafrost releasing carbon and other
> unrecoverable disasters. There has been talk of aiming to wind up
> with the earth 2 degrees warmer, or maybe 3, but both those figures
> lead to major disasters and extinctions, and could flip to even
> warmer conditions. We are already taking chances with the planet far
> more reckless than those we accept on a public road. Loosing it is
> Not An Option.
>
> The good news is that by putting the economy on an emergency basis,
> as was done for WW II, we still have time to create a modern,
> sustainable technology while drawing carbon out of the air. One low-
> tech method is to produce a stable soil enhancement - terra preta.
> Business as usual is headed, lemming-like, for a perfect crash.
> However, determined regulation guided by hard science can easily
> transform industries without loss of employment or even profit.
> Waste, however, will have to become prohibitively expensive, before
> the next generation winds up with most of the bill. Companies are
> only a product of the laws that form them, so we must change the
> rules, and with all haste.
>
> http://www.carbonequity.info/climatecodered/index.html
>
>
> Best,
> Bob Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:38:38 -0300 (ART)
> From: Benjamin Domingo Bof <benjaminbof at yahoo.com.ar>
> Subject: [Gasification] TREES THAT THREATEN FORESTS
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <337845.50590.qm at web57009.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Trees that threaten forests 04/03/2008 Agency FAPESP - For a forest in
> danger, nothing as the birth of new trees. At least it is this what the
> common sense allows to imagine, but the reality is not this well. To the
> list of threats to the tropical forests a new can be added: trees. According
> to a study made for researchers of the United States, not native trees when
> entering tropical forests provoke alterations in the found basic biological
> structure in the places. Or either, they make with that the forest if
> becomes less hospitable the myriad of plants and species of animals that of
> it depend. The study printed of the Proceedings magazine will be published
> this week in the site and briefing in the edition of the National Academy of
> Sciences (Pnas). The group, led for Gregory Asner, of the Department of
> Global Ecology of the Carnegie Institute, used an innovative technology for
> remote sensoriamento. By means of the Aerial Astroroof Carnegie, installed
> in an aircraft, the
> researchers had drawn three-dimensional maps to more than evaluate the
> impact of invading species in an area of 220 a thousand hectares of forest
> in the Hava?. "invading Species of trees frequently present properties
> biochemists, physiological and structural different of the native species.
> We combine these ` fingerprints ' with three-dimensional images to see as
> these trees are modifying the forest ", said Asner. In the Hava?, they
> esteem themselves that half of all the organisms is not native and that
> about 120 species of plants they can be considered as highly invasive. Areas
> of original vegetation in tropical forest in the archipelago generally are
> dominated by the ohia (Metrosideros polymorpha), but this species that grows
> very slowly are losing land for the other news in the place, as the Morella
> faya, originary of the Canaries Islands. In accordance with the researchers,
> trees also introduced can open way for invading from the alteration of the
> fertility of the
> ground. The moluccana Falcataria, for example, considered one of the
> species invading, fixes nitrogen of the atmosphere, concentrating it in the
> ground, what it stimulates the speed of growth of another invasive and
> lesser species, the Psidium cattleianum. The P. cattleianum, in turn, forms
> a dense covering that prevents that most of the solar light reaches the
> ground and promotes the growth of young native plants. The researchers stand
> out that the analyses had been made in reserves protected for the
> government. Or either, the scene still can be worse. "These esp?cias obtain
> to spread for protected areas and without the aid of alterations promoted
> for the activities human beings. This suggests that the traditional
> boardings of conservation are not enough for the survival in the long run of
> the forests ", said Asner. Three-dimensional the Invasive article plants
> transform the structure of rain forests, of Gregory Asner and others, could
> be read in briefing for subscribers
> of the Pnas in www.pnas.org.
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Tarjeta de cr?dito Yahoo! de Banco Supervielle.Solicit? tu nueva Tarjeta
> de cr?dito. De tu PC directo a tu casa.
> Visit? www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:05:13 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <004301c87e19$ed3a6b10$6401a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I think that some clarification should be made.
>
> 1) While many people will agree that GW is a possibility, fewer people
> will agree on it's source, and that is where allot of the disagreement
> happens.
>
> 2) When some scientists say " there is a Consensus that it is due to
> anthropologic sources ", that is where the allot of people disagree and
> start talking about it being a scam.
>
> 3) First of all let's look at the word Consensus:
>
> Merriam-Webster's says:
>
>
> 1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion,
> based on reports.from the border - John Hersey>
> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus
> was to go ahead>
> 2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
>
> What I want to know, is how the heck do they know it's a Consensus?
>
> Did they do some kind of poll among all the scientists of the world?
> If they did, I never heard about it.
>
> How do they know there is a consensus about GW if they didn't?
>
> It's simple, they don't know, they are assuming there is one, and that is
> where another part of the scam issue comes in.
>
> If they are assuming that there is a consensus - they really know that
> they
> are assuming it, so they are lying by saying there is a consensus without
> actually having any proof that there actually is.
>
> If they are going by that so called 'list' of prominent scientists that
> signed their name, there have been a number of scientists that have come
> forward saying that their name was added to that list without their
> knowledge.
>
>
> In a nut shell, there are many things about the "Consensus of scientists"
> that screams scam, and that's why there are allot of skeptical people out
> there.
>
>
> The IPCC, is hardly a very credible group and is as much political lobbing
> group as it is science, and has a record of disregarding, what ever they
> think is minor issue or to hard to model - and as such more than just a
> few
> people take anything they say with a large dose of salt.
>
>
> Now if you really want to get down to details, I will grant that it is the
> consensus of the IPCC scientists that GW is a major problem, and that it's
> anthropologic in nature - but that is all I'll grant.
>
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:51
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order,
> no future.
>
>
> > Dear Kenn
> >
> > I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
> > unprofessional and amateurish manner.
> >
> > "Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
> > real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
> >
> > Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing upon
> > a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam also.
> > You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
> > are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
> > Warming, yet, in the very same breath, you are inferring that Consensus
> > Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
> >
> > (I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
> > Consensus Science employed in the IPCC Report is very much more
> > credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable people..")
> >
> > Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
> > statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that is
> > internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
> > neither polite nor gentlemanly.
> >
> > What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
> >
> > Kenn Johnsen wrote:
> >> Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
> >> scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
> >>
> >>
> >> Den 04/03/2008 kl. 12.28 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>> from Lewis L Smith
> >>>
> >>> The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is
> >>> not about
> >>> demand.
> >>>
> >>> Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak
> >>> is
> >>> coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already
> >>> occurred, as in
> >>> 2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until
> >>> 2032.
> >>>
> >>> If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of
> >>> demand ] for any
> >>> reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction
> >>> of crude
> >>> oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not
> >>> going to
> >>> eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive
> >>> someday
> >>> within somebody's planning horizon.
> >>>
> >>> Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> >>> World's
> >>> economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to
> >>> people who
> >>> have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> >>> exploration
> >>> and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
> >>>
> >>> At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
> >>>
> >>> Cordially ###
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> **************
> >>> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> >>> Finance.
> >>> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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: 13
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:38:56 -0800
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <012b01c87e1e$9f495100$dddbf300$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Rolf,
>
> I can't tell you anything because it is proprietary but I can point to
> where
> they are used.
>
> Your note reminds me that one of the basic references for rice husks is
> still Eldon Beagle's Rice Husk conversion to energy, FAO Agricultural
> services Bulleting 31, Rome, 1978.
>
> http://www4.fao.org/cgi-bin/faobib.exe?rec_id=210525&database=faobib&search_
> type=link&table=mona&back_path=/faobib/mona&lang=eng&format_name=EFMON
>
> Eldon wrote his book at the time that the staged gasifiers that became PRM
> Energy http://www.prmenergy.com/ were developed in Stuttgart Arkansas.
>
> Rob Williams or others at UC Davis may know of a more recent compendium on
> rice husk conversion to energy. JR Goss, BM Jenkins, VM Tiangco, and KS
> Creamer at UCD did a lot of work on small scale rice husk gasification
> from
> 1983-1989. Those papers were presented at meetings of the American Society
> of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, now ASABE). Zhang Baozhao's study using
> the
> UCD gasifier is on the FAO site
> http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e0i.htm An AK Jain and JR Goss study
> (Biomass and Bioenergy 2000) is available on Science Direct
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00083-5 Some of the work was
> summarized and updated in 1996 by Velupillai et. al. in "A Study of the
> Market for Rice Husk-to-Energy systems and Equipment." (Louisiana State
> University Agricultural Center, 1997). Of course there are many references
> to rice husk gasification in these discussion archives all accessible from
> the web.
>
> The suspension burners are scroll type register burners, like those made
> by
> Coen http://www.coen.com/ ,but designed for low peak temperature. They
> were
> developed and used at the 10 MWe Agrilectric Power Corporation
> http://agrilectricresearch.com/ facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana in
> 1984.
> Cristobalite appeared when the same principles were used but the burners
> were modified by Zurn-NBEPCO at the 25 MW Wadham Energy (now Enpower
> http://www.enpowercorp.com/index.cfm?page=wadham )plant in Williams,
> California in 1989. See also http://www.industcards.com/biomass-usa-ca.htm
>
> More recently McBurney Energy http://www.mcburney.com , who supplied
> boiler
> equipment for the Lake Charles plant, has refined the burner technology
> and
> applied it to the AT BioPower Pitchit, 20 MWe power plant in Thailand in
> 2005 http://www.energy.poyry.com/projects/TH2025_ATB.pdf .
>
> That doesn't tell you anything about the burner technology but identifies
> where the burners are used and the scale of their application. The design
> of
> the boiler system is as important to the success of these plants as the
> burner design because of the erosive nature of the husks.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-
> > bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Rolf
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:30 AM
> > To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> >
> > Hallo Tom,
> > can you tell us (me ) more about these suspension burners for husks ?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Rolf
> >
> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> > [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] Im Auftrag von Tom
> > Miles
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. M?rz 2008 01:24
> > An: 'Ferruccio Pittaluga'; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
> > gasification'
> > Betreff: Re: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> >
> > Ferruccio,
> >
> > I haven't heard of cristobalite being a problem with rice husk
> > gasifiers. It
> > may be in the ash and not measured.
> >
> > It was my understanding that peak temperatures are the primarily case
> > of
> > cristobalite formation. You can see the temperature range for
> > cristobalite
> > on a silica phase diagram. Cristobalite appeared as a problem
> > initially
> > when milled rice husks were burned in suspension in California. It was
> > collected as a fine particulate that was a health hazard when handled.
> > The
> > burners had been supplied by a licensee that ignored the low
> > temperature
> > design of the originators in Louisiana. Peak temperatures in the
> > burners
> > were subsequently lowered to reduce the amount of cristobalite. Current
> > burners supplied for suspension burning husks, in Thailand for example,
> > limit cristobalite formation through temperature control.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-
> > > bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Ferruccio Pittaluga
> > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:49 PM
> > > To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > > Subject: [Gasification] Subject: Rice Husk as Gasifier Fuel
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > > it seems to me that a main issue is overlooked when discussing
> > > gasification of rice husk. The problem is the possible, maybe even
> > > likely, production of cristobalite (Silicon Dioxide,
> > > http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/cristoba/cristoba.htm), a
> > > polymorph of quartz, but highly carcinogenic. I really do not know if
> > > significant amounts of this material are produced in gasification
> > > processes, but I know for sure that they are emitted at stack if you
> > > burn rice husk mixed with woodchips on moving grid hearth. Has anyone
> > > got additional information on this topic?
> > > Ferruccio Pittaluga
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > DIMSET/SCL - Savona Combustion Lab
> > > pittalug at unige.it
> > > http://proxy.sv.inge.unige.it/SCL/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gasification mailing list
> > > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > >
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.or
> > > g
> > > 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.or
> > g
> > 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.or
> > g
> > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:51:20 -1000
> From: David Rezachek <rezachekd001 at hawaii.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <47CD8C18.2070607 at hawaii.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> See my responses below.
>
> David Rezachek
>
>
>
> Greg and April wrote:
>
> >I think that some clarification should be made.
> >
> >1) While many people will agree that GW is a possibility, fewer people
> >will agree on it's source, and that is where allot of the disagreement
> >happens.
> >
> >
>
> Many? Fewer? Pretty imprecise terms. Please define. You take the time to
> define consensus, but are perfectly content to throw out even more
> imprecise measurements with no apparent concern.
>
> >2) When some scientists say " there is a Consensus that it is due to
> >anthropologic sources ", that is where the allot of people disagree and
> >start talking about it being a scam.
> >
> >
>
> Some? Allot? (sp?)
>
> What % of people believe it to be a scam? Do some research. Please let
> us know your findings.
>
>
> >3) First of all let's look at the word Consensus:
> >
> >Merriam-Webster's says:
> >
> >
> >1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion,
> >based on reports.from the border - John Hersey>
> > b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the
> consensus
> >was to go ahead>
> >2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
> >
> >What I want to know, is how the heck do they know it's a Consensus?
> >
> >Did they do some kind of poll among all the scientists of the world?
> >If they did, I never heard about it.
> >
> >How do they know there is a consensus about GW if they didn't?
> >
> >
>
> Did you make any attempt to find out if there was a consensus? And, if
> so, how the "consensus" was determined? If not, aren't you assuming that
> there is none. Do some research. Please let us know your findings.
>
> >It's simple, they don't know, they are assuming there is one, and that is
> >where another part of the scam issue comes in.
> >
> >If they are assuming that there is a consensus - they really know that
> they
> >are assuming it, so they are lying by saying there is a consensus without
> >actually having any proof that there actually is.
> >
> >
>
> Spurious reasoning, at best.
>
> >If they are going by that so called 'list' of prominent scientists that
> >signed their name, there have been a number of scientists that have come
> >forward saying that their name was added to that list without their
> >knowledge.
> >
> >
>
> Name one, or two, who have come forward and I will contact them to
> confirm this. Do your research. Please let us know your findings.
>
> >
> >In a nut shell, there are many things about the "Consensus of scientists"
> >that screams scam, and that's why there are allot of skeptical people out
> >there.
> >
> >
> >The IPCC, is hardly a very credible group and is as much political
> lobbing
> >group as it is science, and has a record of disregarding, what ever they
> >think is minor issue or to hard to model - and as such more than just a
> few
> >people take anything they say with a large dose of salt.
> >
> >
>
> On what basis do you make this claim? What would establish their
> credibility - agreeing with you?
>
> >
> >Now if you really want to get down to details, I will grant that it is
> the
> >consensus of the IPCC scientists that GW is a major problem, and that
> it's
> >anthropologic in nature - but that is all I'll grant.
> >
> >
> >Greg H.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> >To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> ><gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:51
> >Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order,
> >no future.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Dear Kenn
> >>
> >>I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
> >>unprofessional and amateurish manner.
> >>
> >>"Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
> >>real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
> >>
> >>Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing upon
> >>a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam also.
> >>You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
> >>are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
> >>Warming, yet, in the very same breath, you are inferring that Consensus
> >>Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
> >>
> >>(I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
> >>Consensus Science employed in the IPCC Report is very much more
> >>credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable people..")
> >>
> >>Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
> >>statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that is
> >>internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
> >>neither polite nor gentlemanly.
> >>
> >>What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
> >>
> >>Kevin Chisholm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Kenn Johnsen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
> >>>scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Den 04/03/2008 kl. 12.28 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> from Lewis L Smith
> >>>>
> >>>>The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is
> >>>>not about
> >>>>demand.
> >>>>
> >>>>Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak
> >>>>is
> >>>>coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already
> >>>>occurred, as in
> >>>>2004. Others [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until
> >>>>2032.
> >>>>
> >>>>If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of
> >>>>demand ] for any
> >>>>reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction
> >>>>of crude
> >>>>oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not
> >>>>going to
> >>>>eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive
> >>>>someday
> >>>>within somebody's planning horizon.
> >>>>
> >>>>Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
> >>>>World's
> >>>>economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to
> >>>>people who
> >>>>have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
> >>>>exploration
> >>>>and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
> >>>>
> >>>>At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
> >>>>
> >>>>Cordially ###
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>**************
> >>>>It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
> >>>>Finance.
> >>>> (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>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: 15
> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:54:19 -0700
> From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order, no future.
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <00a701c87e20$c758adb0$6401a8c0 at GREG>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> I had this very type of conversation on another list about a year ago,
> where
> a pro AGW, member refused to believe that many of us were skeptics,
> because
> the data had not been proven to our satisfaction, yet were sick and tired
> of
> all the gloom and doom talk.
>
> One guy was a scientist that believed the world revolved around AGW, and
> repeatedly called us denialist, despite the fact that we repeatedly showed
> him why we were skeptical. Many time we would ask for proof, and he
> would
> tell us to read some obscure paper that most of the time was only
> available
> to the scientific community or for a $75 membership fee - but once in a
> while we would actually find it on line, and then pick it apart and show
> him
> how the "Proof" was no such thing, because they person that wrote it,
> tried
> to use unscientific principles to support what had to be his predetermined
> theory.
>
> To many of us it looks like people are manipulating the numbers for any
> number of reasons - heck we have already seen it often enough, there is no
> reason to believe that it's being done again. In some cases we would
> run
> across evidence that supported the fact that the so called supporting
> evidence ( in favor of AGW ), was manipulated ( intentionally or
> unintentionally ) thus more likely to give a increasing warming trend.
>
> Does AWG exist? I personally doubt it.
> Does natural GW exist? I think that it's quite likely.
> Can anything we do counter act natural GW? I very much doubt it, and
> throwing money at it would be a complete waste of time ( and money ).
>
>
> Tell me that we should do something because it's the right thing to do,
> and
> I'll might agree with you.
>
>
> Tell me the sky is falling, and try to force me to put it back where you
> think it belongs, and I'll tell you to go back to smoking your joy weed (
> and the colored dreams that come with it ), and leave me alone because I
> have enough problems of my own to take care of.
>
>
> The more you try and force us, the more the rest of us will fight back -
> possibly to the downfall of both.
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Stuart" <bobstuart at sasktel.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:15
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world
> order,
> no future.
>
>
> >
> > I think that people who insist that any uncomfortable predictions are
> > manipulative lies are just revealing their own relationship to
> > truth. Perhaps we should just offer bets and get paid for our
> > efforts to separate wheat from chaff. Anyway, I'd like to share
> > another perspective on the problem, featuring easy-to-see evidence.
> >
> > At 92 pages long, this document from Friends of the Earth is not a
> > quick read, but it sure got my attention. However, a synopsis may be
> > in order:
> >
> > Last fall, there was so much open water in the Arctic ocean that the
> > predictions about global warming are clearly too optimistic. We now
> > have proof that .8 degrees C is enough to progressively melt the
> > polar ice, which leaves a relatively warm, solar-absorbing ocean
> > beside the Greenland ice cap, which has also started to melt
> > quickly. That melting would raise sea levels by many meters, and
> > probably doom the West Antarctic ice sheet, which rests on the sea
> > bottom. And, even if we stopped all burning tomorrow, another .6
> > degree of warming is already in the system. Coastal cities would
> > need massive dikes and, too often, desalinization of their water supply.
> >
> > Clearly, there is already too much carbon dioxide in the air, and
> > some will have to be removed as soon as possible to avoid runaway
> > effects from melting permafrost releasing carbon and other
> > unrecoverable disasters. There has been talk of aiming to wind up
> > with the earth 2 degrees warmer, or maybe 3, but both those figures
> > lead to major disasters and extinctions, and could flip to even
> > warmer conditions. We are already taking chances with the planet far
> > more reckless than those we accept on a public road. Loosing it is
> > Not An Option.
> >
> > The good news is that by putting the economy on an emergency basis,
> > as was done for WW II, we still have time to create a modern,
> > sustainable technology while drawing carbon out of the air. One low-
> > tech method is to produce a stable soil enhancement - terra preta.
> > Business as usual is headed, lemming-like, for a perfect crash.
> > However, determined regulation guided by hard science can easily
> > transform industries without loss of employment or even profit.
> > Waste, however, will have to become prohibitively expensive, before
> > the next generation winds up with most of the bill. Companies are
> > only a product of the laws that form them, so we must change the
> > rules, and with all haste.
> >
> > http://www.carbonequity.info/climatecodered/index.html
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 21, Issue 5
> *******************************************
>
More information about the Gasification
mailing list