hi wayneagain on the 50KW Gasifier thanks On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Wayne hipkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > we also look n for 50KW > gasifier any info PLS Thanks Wayne > > Do you have a gassifier of > that range 40 - 50 kW gas, not engine kW ? > > ..yes, 2 actually, I have one that needs a new home, it's ready to go > wherever you want it, it's fueled up and ready to run on arrival. > The other one is in parts, stored with the rest of my stuff, books, > tools, furniture and ready to move. > > > > On 12/30/10, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Send Gasification mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> >> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Gasification digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Economy for CHP on Biomass (Robert Kana) >> 2. Re: Economy for CHP on Biomass (Thomas Koch) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:26:21 +0700 >> From: Robert Kana <[email protected]> >> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Dear Tom, >> I guess they built good gasifier but their information work is sloppy. >> When copied 50 mm size from the cell, it automatically goes up 1 number >> in Excel files, this is how they end up with 51 and 52 mm. Instead they >> should copy and paste. >> The high temperature in the metric table, is actually a Fahrenheit not >> Celsius. Is a copy and paste from English table which is 1650-1830 >> Fahrenheit. 900-1000 degrees Celsius= 1650-1830 Fahrenheit >> Regards, >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:27:21 +0100 >> From: "Thomas Koch" <[email protected]> >> To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> Tom >> >> I have been looking for niches for my gasifier technology for 10 years >> without identifying any. >> >> The question that i ask myselves is: Why did I develop this technology? >> >> The only reasonanble answer i can give is that there was a lot of public >> support money available and it was good fun.We all (us that spend public >> money with out thinking about market possibilities) believed that as soon as >> something would be working support structures would be implemented and our >> technologies would be sold at the price level it had. >> Like it happended to the windmills and Stirling now selling electricity at >> 270 EUR/MWh ~ 350 $/MWh. >> >> The relevant discussion to me is to find out how much we are willing to pay >> for energy? >> >> What are the alternatives? How much will it cost to install windmills and >> hydro enegy storages - or cofired coal/biomass waste plants with CCS? >> Will smal scale gasification - waveenergy - 2 gen bioetanol etc ever get a >> chance in the market? >> >> An example: >> A family in Denmark: >> Gross income 100000 EUR pr year - personal income tax 40000 EUR - Left for >> consumption 60.000 EUR pr year >> Energyconsumption: >> 8 MWh ~ price 40 EUR + tax 200 EUR = 320 EUR + tax 1600 EUR >> 2000 liter petrol ~ price ,6 EUR + tax ,7EUR = 1200EUR + tax 1400 EUR >> 1500 m3 nat gas ~ price ,5 EUR + tax ,8 EUR = 750 EUR + tax 1200 EUR >> Total energy bill 2270 EUR -- tax 4200 EUR. >> >> Thus the energy tax is close to 10 % of what this family pays in tax >> >> If this family converts to non taxed energysources - the tax will have to >> come from some where else. >> >> Thus our price target is the net price and not the gross price and if >> technologies will need economic support for the next many years we will end >> in the unavoidable discussion - du you want better schools - hospitals or >> (maybe) green energy? >> >> Best regards >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: [email protected] p? vegne af Tom Miles >> Sendt: to 30-12-2010 20:58 >> Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' >> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass >> >> >> >> Thomas, >> >> >> >> If there is a "niche" for gasifiers in power generation here it is for CHP >> applications at less than 10 MWe. 1 MWe is often too small to pay off the >> balance of plant costs. 2-8 MWe may be a market niche. >> >> >> >> Xylowatt seems to have settled on 300 kWe/600kWth modules. 250-300 kWe- >> seems like the right size for a small sawmill but we don't have one working >> here yet. >> >> >> >> The challenge is delivering a system that is robust but with low enough >> capital and operating costs to be economic. >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas >> Koch >> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:52 AM >> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification >> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> It is the same figures that TK Energi came to 5-7 years ago. >> >> >> >> If a 1 MWe gasifier plant cost 10 M$ and operates 5000 hours pr year for 10 >> years (total 50000 hours) each KWh elecrticity cost 20 cent in depreciation >> + maintenance, fuel and O&M - This can easily add up to 50 cent US/KWh. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: [email protected] p? vegne af Tom Miles >> Sendt: to 30-12-2010 19:26 >> Til: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification' >> Emne: Re: [Gasification] Economy for CHP on Biomass >> >> Correction for 1.32 $/EUR >> >> >> >> 270 EUR/MWH (would be welcome. We can't justify gasification without heat >> recovery with our electricity (100-180 $/MWH, 76-136 EUR/MWH) and heating >> fuel ($10-$22/MMBtu, $7.2-15.8 EUR/GJ) costs. Wood fuel is $40-$60/dry ton >> ($2.50-$3.75/MMBtu, 1.8-2.7 EUR/GJ). >> >> >> >> Real capital costs are somewhere between $5-$10 Million/MWe(3.8M-7.6M >> 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.) >> >> >> >> Thanks to those who do real math. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> V?lund 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] p? 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 Qu?mica >> CT - Centro de Tecnologia / UFRN, Lagoa Nova - Natal/RN >> Campus Universit?rio. 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] >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: winmail.dat >> Type: application/ms-tnef >> Size: 29542 bytes >> Desc: not available >> URL: >> <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101231/2a625cea/attachment.bin> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> >> >> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 4, Issue 34 >> ******************************************* >> >
_______________________________________________ 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/
