[Gasification] indirect gasification schemes (was: Alternative energy in the nursery)

[jim mason]

one other indirect gasification effort i found recently is the MTCI which
uses a pulse combustor internally within the steam blast fluidized bed.
instead of transfering the heat in via sand cross recycle, the system uses
the increased heat transfer potential of pulse combustor to do the transfer
directly across the combustor wall material, placed inside the fluidized
bed.  the inability to get the heat transfer "dense enough" to happen within
the flb is part of what motivated the sand X transfer system like in the
link above.  by externalizing the combustor and sand heating, you can use as
much space as you want.  my undestanding is that a pulse combustor has
around 4x the heat transfer rate across its walls as a constant combustion
regime.  the resonance into the flb likely increases reaction rates inside
the flb too.  sounds great, except for the gigantic noise of a pulse
combustor (think pulse jet).

the pulse combustor indirect gasification system is here:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7162075.  the
patents come up too if you search "pulse combustion indirect gasification".

there is also an interesting summary of contemporary gasification reactors
from a group at UCSD.  i had not seen this.  it is a nice big picture:
http://maecourses.ucsd.edu/mae198/content/gasifier.shtml

maybe the stovers should be considering the potentials of ear deafening
pulse jets for increased heat transfer into the cassava pot . . . ;-)

jim




On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM, jim mason <jimmason at whatiamupto.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.silvagas.com/
> >
>
> i thought the mc neil vermont biomass plant was continuing to run on this
> indirect gasification batelle reactor.  i now see it was only a demo and the
> mc neil plant really runs currently as a straight combustor.  is this
> correct?
>
> note that the gas out of this process is tarry and the usual downstream
> catalyst scenarios were necessary for clean up to turbine adequate.  most of
> the time they seem to just have been using the tarry gas to run the steam
> boilers on the regular combustor plant.  the taylor biomass plant that mark
> posted about a couple weeks ago adds a second steam reforming step after the
> first to reduce the tars. http://www.taylorbiomassenergy.com/
>
> can anyone here summarize the effectiveness and longevity of hte catalysts
> the mc neil reactor used?  the report says they "worked", but such is a
> fungible term.  did they have solution that was acceptable for ongoing
> operation, or still a "lab adequate" solution?  why has the take up been so
> modest?
>
> any other assessments of this process known by those familiar with it
> would be very interesting.
>
> j
>
>
>
> >
> > >WHO KNOWS  FERCO Enterprises LLC, Norcross WEB PAGE ..
> > >OR ANY CONTACT DETAILS ..??
> >
> > >H.SOZEN
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: gasifier experimenters kit (the GEK):
> www.allpowerlabs.org/gasification/gek
> announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com




-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim mason
website: www.whatiamupto.com
current project: gasifier experimenters kit (the GEK):
www.allpowerlabs.org/gasification/gek
announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com