Hi Paul,Rolf and Colleagues,
This is to clarify Paul's questions. I hope the separations do not
confuse too much.
>Pyrolytic gas can be quite wet so precise temperatures are risky to
quote.
Yes. There is no scrubbing or drying or other preparation of the
pyrolytic gas. In the TLUD world, the gases are usually created in
the 500 C to 650 C range. And the raw biomass fuel might enter with
as much as 15% to 20 % Moisture Content (MC).
If the MC of the raw fuel was lower (such as 5% MC), would that help
raise the temperature?
The short answer is yes, we don't need steam to displace gas volume.
Hypothetical question: Part A. if the pyrolytic gases were cooled
to below 100 C, water could be removed by condensation, and we would
have lots of wood vinegar. However, there would also be massive
amounts of tars and "gunk" being deposited also. However, the final,
non-condensed gases just might have the desired temperature when
combusted. Those gases would be H2, CO, methane-and-related-gases,
and what else?
Cooling the gas is a waste of the heat that it contains. Any condensed
tars, hydrocarbons, or vinegars may have applications, but also add to
the technical difficulties for their collection. Their removal, other
than moisture best removed by drying the wood, reduces the calorific
energy of the pyrolysis gas. Difficult to calculate, but also adding to
the gas heating value will be carbon particles. Normally we would seek
to minimize these by using a cyclone, but ceramics need reducing
atmospheres, or read that as carbon rich heated atmospheres, so carbon
dust is great.
Part B. Alternatively, after the removal of the wood vinegar, perhaps
the remaining gases plus the reheated tars, etc. could be reheated to
become a dry, quality gas for higher burning temperatures. All of
this would be with losses of thermal energy during condensation and
then the need to add thermal energy. Could this have benefits that
could justify the expense?
I think the previous answer covered this, but I see no benefit at all to
this suggestion. At a later date after there is a system working, you
will then have opportunity to extract condensates. Our experience tells
us that as toxic black liquor, the less you have the healthier the
working site. No exaggerating, it's a health and safety hazard.
What I can tell you from experience, is that it always burns hotter
than clean producer gas, upwards of 1,050C,
If that is the maximum, will this be sufficient for Rolf and his
friend to use? There is no way to turn 1000 C into 1300 C, correct?
Not well explained, sorry. Clean tar free gas will not burn over 1,050C,
but if the system design produces pyrolysis gas which has all it's
hydrocarbons, then the temperatures will be upwards and over 1,050C, a
basic tar test for cleaner specification gas,
But your next words I do not understand.
13-1500C is a rough rule of thumb for gas exiting the combustion
chamber.
If you combust pyolysis gas full of hydrocarbons, then the flame
temperature will be 1,300-1,500C. One of the most difficult areas of
combustion is that thermo-couples start going crazy over 1,300C.
Expensive ceramic ones damage too easily, so once the TC melts, you know
the higher temperatures are present, possible over 1,500C.
>I am not understanding what that means. The combustion chamber is
the "burner" of the pyrolytic gases?
The short answer is yes if we were just creating heat. Ceramics like
Rolf is seeking to fire, are done in a tunnel kiln, and the tunnel
becomes the combustion chamber. The geometry is important to create the
combustion phenomena, but to design this we first need a tunnel kiln to use.
>>It has a very high radiation factor useful for refractory
application, but the price for this is that you will get a high ash
content in the kiln and flue dust emissions.
>Something in the above sentence is not clear to me. The "kiln" is
part of the gasifier or is it where the materials are being heated?
And the pyrolytic gases of TLUDs do not >have ash in them. And I am
not understanding the source of any flue dust emissions.
The gasifier is close coupled to the kiln, and the burner is mounted in
this case, on the end of the tunnel kiln which forms it's own combustion
chamber containing the ceramics. The spent gas has to exit the tunnel at
some point, above the condensation temperature. May be the ash from the
carbon dust will settle in the tunnel depending on combustion gas
velocity. Usually, a correctly sized flue stack is required to assist
with removing the exhaust gas, and this is where ash dust can become an
emission. It would be good to put aside TLUD understanding, as they work
on a totally different principle not relevant to this project need.
Are your comments somehow referring to the FULL gasification processes
in downdraft gasifiers (pyrolysis AND char-gasification are both
occuring)?
No, Downdraft gasifiers more often than not make pyrolysis gas and need
char extraction to work. Full gasification as you say, need minimum bed
disturbance and between 1-4% of the fuel drops out as char. Rolf only
has a downdraft engine gasifier for his first trials, and we should get
plenty of pyrolysis gas out of that, at least for the first tests to
fire the ceramics. Maybe we will have to extract char as well, but all
that is still a long way off at this point.
The actual combustion is complex, but achievable in a non regulated
situation, emissions being the issue, both dust and toxic gas CO,CH4,
and Dioxins. Combustion of these gases have been our focus for some
6-7 years, and current work at CalForest in California, is to use
this gas to dry the incoming fuel to the charmaker.
The above sentences seem to indicate that your explanation is about
FULL gasification and not about only the pyrolysis process with
resultant charcoal creation.
We take raw producer gas from the Shasta gasifier, meaning hot cycloned
hydrocarbon free downdraft gas for the boiler green house application.
This has high carbon dust content which burns to ash. This is a problem
for the boiler, but just needs more cleaning cycles than anticipated.
The Charmaker is an updraft system and burns to waste the very dirty
pyrolysis gas. The gas flare vertically from high stacks making them
safer, as we have no space to work with them on the ground. The radiant
heat cooks you from about 3-4ft, so the chances are, unless you have
stood by an oil rig flare, many researchers just haven't acquired this
type of experience from pyrolysis gas flares.
You might like to look again at the Fluidyne Archive last update showing
the charmaker and gas flares in action. The bigger flares at higher
output are not shown mainly due to us too busy keeping up with the input
fuel flow. Earlier updates show the Cyclomix burners and combustion
chamber hooked to a heat exchanger, so there is plenty of info to brush
up on as we developed these larger gas making system components. When
operational, we collect data from those points important to both the
gasifier and process, including continuous gas analysis, which cannot be
used for pyrolysis gas. (to dirty)
http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/
Doug Williams.
_______________________________________________
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/
