Tom I just looked at the homepage of CPC. That looks very impressive. But a few imformations puzzled me - http://www.gocpc.com/products.html - why does a 25 kw gasifier have a nominal fuel size of 50 mm - a 50 kw of 51 mm and a 75 kw of 52 mm? and how do they obtain the very very high temperatures in the gasification chamber for the 50 and the 75 kw units? Do you know if there is an explanation? Thomas
________________________________ Fra: [email protected] på vegne af Tom Miles Sendt: to 30-12-2010 18:26 Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass Thomas, I looked at the proceedings with a similar view. We do need cost and performance benchmarks. I have not much to add. 270 EUR/MWH would be welcome. We can't justify gasification without heat recovery with our electricity (100-180 $/MWH, 132-228 270 EUR/MWH) and heating fuel ($10-$22/MMBtu, $13-28 EUR/GJ) costs. Wood fuel is $40-$60/dry ton ($2.50-$3.75/MMBtu, 3.1-4.7 EUR/GJ). Real capital costs are somewhere between $5-$10 Million/MWe(6-13M EUR/MWe) for a plant designed with a pro forma capacity factor of 85% (85% x 100% full load capacity x 8760 hours per year). Actual operation is probably more like 50%-60% (4,000-5,000 hours/year) due to heat loads. (You can always design a cheaper plant that is less reliable, or reliable for fewer hours per year.) In most of our recent design studies gasification can be competitive for retrofit or direct heat but power production is marginal except when you can offset high cost electricity and high cost fossil fuel (e.g. propane). CPC advertises 15,000+ hours el/20,000 hours total for their (Dixon Ridge, CA)walnut shell genset in California (http://www.gocpc.com/ <http://www.gocpc.com/index.html> ). The only continuously running recent genset over 100 kWe in North America that I know of has run about 1200 hours. I would be happy to hear of others. Happy New Year. Tom Miles www.gasifiers.bioenergylists.org From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Koch Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:12 AM To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification Subject: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass I just looked through the presentations from the Copenhagen meeting. My aim was to try to find out what the costs for small scale CHP om biomass can be expected to be in the near and the far future It was not easy to draw a conclusion from the presentations. The Skive plant is using fuel at 1200 DKK/tons (162 EUR) and has an availabilty of 50 % now. The pyroforce techmology seems to work but there where no economical numbers in their presentation. The Stirling present investment figures of 1,4 MEUR for a 140 KWel plant and present a payback times of 5,5 years if they can sell the electricity at 270 EUR/MWh and the heat at 45 EUR/MWh and the maintenace cost are defined at 45 kEUR/years. Vølund technology definetely works and produce electricity, heat and taroil but they present no economical data. DONG presented their 85/15 plan which is almost financed by converting taxed fuel (coal) into non taxed fuel (biomass) - but rumours say that the tax issue most be solved first (who is going to pay for the hospitals if the energy tax on fossils are not payed?) For our own 3 stage gasification technology we are expecting a total electricity production cost of 300-400 EUR/MWh with a fuel price of 5 EUR/GJ and no income for heat for a 1 MWel gasifier in generation 3. We base this number on approx 12000 hours operation wtih two 50 kWel gasifier. More details can be given if anyone are interested. Does anybody have data concerning the present and expected future operation economy of small scale CHP on biomass they would like to share? Best regards Thomas Koch www.tke.dk <http://www.tke.dk/> ________________________________ Fra: [email protected] på vegne af Tom Miles Sendt: on 29-12-2010 23:15 Til: [email protected]; 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' Emne: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_ A thumbnail sketch of developments in small scale CHP including gasification, and the development of gasifiers for syngas production can be seen in this year's meetings and workshops of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass Gasification and IEA Task 32 on Biomass Combustion and Cofiring. They held a joint workshop in October 7,2010 in Copenhagen on "State-of-the-art technologies for small biomass co generation". Individual presentations can be seen at: http://www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/index.html The last meeting of the IEA Task 33 on Biomass Gasification was held June 1-3, 2010 in Helsinki. Minutes of that meeting can be found at: http://media.godashboard.com//gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf <http://media.godashboard.com/gti/IEA_Helsinki_Minutes_06-2010.pdf> This meeting lists activities in the principal countries that are developing gasifiers for syngas and producer gas applications. Highlights from other countries that did not present at the 2010 meeting can be found at: http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml <http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/taskminutes.xml> Additional presentations for research and commercial systems can be found in the Programme of "Gasification 2010," the International Seminar on Gasification held 28-29 October, in Gothenburg, Sweden http://www.sgc.se/gasification2010/programme.asp Happy Holidays Tom Miles From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Ludlow Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:37 PM To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_ Hmmm, Ben a lot of "gas" generated on this topic but not much useable energy! Chicken Little would feel right at home! I doubt that many who buy the GEK expect to go into methanol production. Do I smell just a little envy? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pannirselvam P.V Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:22 PM To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification Cc: m...@ry; Rajesh sk Subject: Re: [Gasification] Syngas on Wiki_ Tom ,Jim,Toby We need happy end to the hot debate on syngas 2010 Many list member can agree with me that public or private retrack statements is a correct peaceful end as proposed by Jim as more damage was being done to him and GEK, I can prove that this is not the request of crew of Jim as some one put here , but independent observer .Every member here has their voice heard , independent they are from poor country or rich country , independent of person like me with Phd , working with university or an technical person with elementary school.The new social network make this possible via our lists with equal rights .some are proved expert of the start of art as much as Jim or more , but if one do not explained well here , the experience alone can not make one for other to follow as crew. We all here can not blindly follow with hero workship of few people or expert or so called imaginary Jim crew, even though he has world wide network, disciples.wiki,fotoblog etc,There is no need for him to use the power of his gasification crew against few misunderstanding. If he really use his syngas based hydrogen globalizeded distributed network power as some one supect here , our list can be innudated with emailsand .our list email system could have exploded wiith this syngas based hydrogen explosives emails and bda demage done to GEK and JIM could have disappeared But , as Jim travel and know the biodiversity , really respect all even one who misunderstand too open minded , not too much commercial business minded , but there is always limit to this . Thus I wish especial new near to Jim and Toby , making the debate live and the good side of this very hot debate Jim even though , too much demaged his true image and good motivation , has not asked public apology , but very educated and polite to ask only publick retrack and I hopethat he accept too private retrack ,latter inform about the same Making error is human , I hope the persons misunderstood They can fell and be super human , if they can if not publick retrack openly or at least send private email retrack. I wish Jim accept this private re-track and we will end this big mis understanding in our very big lists As really what we need for this list in the new year is peace , progress, unity in diversity , respect for all list members , including All the energy experts , academics like me , farmers , Small Energy enterprise owners .Our unity in diversity make our list very especial and diferent as we need all, the more divesity much better for the sustainable growth of our list. Yours truely Dr.Panniselvam On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM, jim mason <[email protected]> wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Toby Seiler <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, > > Jim was right, I'm working on a machine that is intended to some degree to > integrate principles of making synthesis gas, so I have a vested interest in > his use of terminology used in marketing his product that, I believe, > contributes to a public misunderstanding. I've asked Jim nice many times in > the past to consider the differences that Doug, Bill Klein, Greg and many > other professionals on this list have explained to Jim and myself years ago. > well toby, there you go again. and now you've also ignored the raw data, in addition to the previous detailed description and logical argument. again, the comedy here is I AM NOT USING THE TERM SYNGAS TO DESCRIBE OR MARKET THE GEK. i posted the raw data relating to the use of the syngas term on the gek site. you glossed over it without impact on your claims. here it is again below. i would like for you to respond to this data. and hopefully retract your statement that i am using this term to market the GEK currently, along with the assertion that i am actively trying to mislead about the nitrogen content in the gek gas (of which there is plenty). that represents the current state of affairs and representation. as for future states of affairs and representations, the more i look into the history of this term, its use internationally, and general movement in use academically, govt, commercially and popularly, i think i am going to start using it actively. the transition is actually much further along than i realized when i was just waving hands around here about it being a better term. but again, the current representation of the gek on our site does not use the term actively. please respond to the data i have presented. show some nuance. if we cannot respond reasonably to data clearly presented, description and argument clearly constructed, how are we every going to make meaningful progress on the problem of biomass thermal conversion? vocabulary might be the least of our problems here . . . here's the gek site term use inventory. you may have to click "show hidden" to see it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- below is an inventory of actual usage of the terms in question on the gek site. i've done this for the 8 most visited pages on the site, in order. i've then pulled out a much lower visited page, but the one where i thought my "sins" would be the most pronounced. this is the one where the details of gasification are explained. it is the 14th most visited page. as you will see, there is no sentence of the type "the GEK makes syngas". in actuality, the "syngas" term is barely even used. in the top 8 pages, only 3 occurrances, 1 to note that "syngas" is one of many terms used for the gas, and 2 in passing while talking about mixing systems. in contrast, there are 82 occurrances of the term "gasifier", 28 occurrances of the term "gasification", 9 for "wood gas", 0 for "producer gas", 0 for "suction gas", 0 for "synthesis gas". i'll even eliminate the two passing uses of the term while discussing mixing if that helps quell this nonsensical lexical tempest. more to your point, the selling pages have exactly 0 declarations that "syngas" is the gas being made by the GEK. that's right- zero. the term is in not used anywhere to make a claim about the type of gas the gek makes, nor to promote its sale. not sure if this changes anything, but that's the data. as a man of science, i trust you will recalibrate your conclusions in relation to the real data. here's the detail inventory. it is done over the permanent content on each page. not rss feeds in the left column from elsewhere, which change constantly and not in my control (though i could find zero occurances of the "syngas" term there either). 1. GEK gasifier home page: http://www.gekgasifier.com <http://www.gekgasifier.com/> gasifier (9), gasification (4), syngas (1), wood gas (0), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) the "offending" syngas sentence at the bottom of the page: "The system automatically adjusts syngas/air mixture via a wide band Bosch oxygen sensor, shakes the grate when needed, and removes ash via a mechanical auger.") 2. How to make the GEK page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/wood-gasifier-plans/ gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) 3. Power Pallet info and buy page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-genset-skids/ gasifier (19), gasification (3), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) the two 2 syngas references are again in the context of talking about fuel/air mixing 4. Store front: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/ gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) 5. Wiki page with detail plans and CAD drawings on making and using the GEK: http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/6123754/How-to-Build-and-Run-the-GEK-Gasifier gasifier (8), gasification (3), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) 6. BEK biochar info page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/reactor-options/pyrolysis-biochar/ gasifier (5), gasification (2), syngas (0), wood gas (2), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) 7. Gasification Basics, intro to the tech: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/ gasifier (8), gasification (6), syngas (0), wood gas (0), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) the closest i get to sin here is: "Gasification is the use of heat to tranform solid biomass, or other carbonaceous solids, into a synthetic "natural gas like" flammable fuel.") 8. Gasifier kits info and buy page: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-systems-and-kits/ gasifier (17), gasification (4), syngas (0), wood gas (1), producer gas (0), synthesis gas (0) Here's where i thought my biggest "sins" would be. This is the page with the detailed explanation of how gasification works: http://www.gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/how-it-works/ gasifier (8), gasification (18), syngas (2), wood gas (2), producer gas (1), synthesis gas (0), suction gas (1) there are 2 sentences with syngas. the "offending sentences: "The gas produced by this method goes by a variety of names: "wood gas", "syngas", "producer gas", "suction gas", etc." "This is why an engine run on syngas can have such clean emissions." those appear to be the facts from my neck of the woods. others are invited to review the above pages and point out where they think things are otherwise or should be changed. i'll happily change them, as i don't really have a horse in this race. percentage nitrogen density isn't really the relevant racetrack to work out the real issues with this tech. jim > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > The Gasification list has moved to > [email protected] - please update your email contacts to reflect > the change. > Please visit http://info.bioenergylists.org <http://info.bioenergylists.org/> > for more news on the list move. > Thank you, > Gasification Administrator > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Mason Website: http://www.whatiamupto.com <http://www.whatiamupto.com/> Current Projects: - Gasifier Experimenters Kit (the GEK): http://www.gekgasifier.com <http://www.gekgasifier.com/> - Escape from Berkeley alt fuels vehicle race: www.escapefromberkeley.com <http://www.escapefromberkeley.com/> - ALL Power Labs on Twitter: http://twitter.com/allpowerlabs - Shipyard Announce list: http://lists.spaceship.com/listinfo.cgi/icp-spaceship.com _______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/ -- ************************************************ P.V.PANNIRSELVAM ASSOCIATE . PROF. Research Group ,GPEC, Coordinator Computer aided Cost engineering DEQ - Departamento de Engenharia Química CT - Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova - Natal/RN Campus Universitário. CEP: 59.072-970 North East,Brazil ******************************************* https://sites.google.com/a/biomassa.eq.ufrn.br/sites/ and http://ecosyseng.wetpaint.com/ Fone ;Office 84 3215-3769 , Ramal 210 Home : 84 3217-1557 Mobile :558488145083 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
