Re: GAS-L: Gasification terminology

[jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com>]

      Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear Harry, Tom and All:
> 
> Regarding your statement:
> 
> >The above endothermic reaction results in real
> processes 
> >being rather inefficient, usually about 50%.
> 
> How so?? The energy required to fuel this
> endothermic reaction is
> "invested" in a higher btu value product.
     All except the heat and energy going out with the
CO2, 2 atoms that account for most of the atomic
weight of the fuel. I'm guessing that this would be at
least 20%, maybe 40%. Does anyone know how to quantify
this loss?
     And the heat that leaves from the process vessels
walls. While you can slow this down you can't
eliminate it because the  vessel will either burn up,
crack or melt. Probably between 5 and 15%.
     Of course with your organic working fluid uniflow
engine you can recover 1/2 of this waste at more
expense,labor.
> 
> If you check out the values carefully -- there is no
> theoretical loss.
> 
> Now -- please stop and think about this -- how could
> there be??
     I did, see above.
> 
> (Unless you have a micro-black hole laying around)
> 
> The converse of a perpetual motion machine??
> 
> The loss in efficiencies is do to poor process
> design.
> 
> As example -- if you used electric resistance
> heating to fuel the
> conversion -- well over 95% (probably over 99%) of
> the energy in -- will be
> accounted for in the increased btu value of the gas
> product out.
      You have to measure from the original fuel, say
biomass to electricity normanally 35% or less to start
with then times the electric to heat eff to get true
eff.
      I don't dispute a better, higher btu value
product, the eff you state is a might high.
> 

> You can't simply make energy disappear -- or get
> lost.
    No, it just moves around. And every time you
convert it you lose some, even if only a little.

> I can't help but notice the fixation of this list on
> WWII gasifiers and the
> complete ignorance of the new wave gasifiers (yes
> "GASIFIERS") being
> researched and introduced for automotive purposes. 
     I have a neat design of a reformer of gasoline to
H2 to run the engine of a car without pollution from a
1963 Popular Mechanics. It uses the high heat of the
exhaust to crack the gasoline into H2. I'll have to
find it and send it to someone to put up.
> 
> That is the fuel cells cars ----
     So far fuel cell cars using reformers have only
made about 35% eff. I can get that or better out of a
constant speed ICE charging batteries in an EV when
you need over 100 mile range.
     Besides the fuel cell eff losses you have a lot
of pumping losses putting fuel and air into the cells
, heat lost to N from the air, power to run the
reformer, ect. It's not just the fuel cell, it's all
the stuff needed to run it. 
> 
> It is ok to have historical interest -- or
> historical perspective -- but
> this list is about gasification technology.

> 
> Fuel cell technology is well married to reformation
> gasification. Why
> ignore this facet of technology??
      We shouldn't.
> 
> There is no scientific reason that present car fuel
> system technology can
> not be adapted to run on coal or biomass. In a more
> efficient manner --
> more compact -- and producing much more power --
> than WW II partial
> combustion gasifiers.
      They will when gasoline gets too high in about
10 years on ICE engines.
       As for using these with fuel cells verses ICE's
the ICE will tolerate the impurities from these
sources a lot better. Also CO, particulates, ect are
known to poison the reformers molecular filters, and
catalyst. Fuel cells are fragile.


> Also -- you can straight convert excess CO from the
> above to H2 using the
> tin liquid metal bath -- with extremely high
> efficiencies.
      While this sounds good how long has a plant
using this process been running?

> 
> If they can do all this in a car -- certainly they
> can do it in a coal
> fueled power plant??
      While they can be done in a stationary plant
will be hard to cram the fuel cell, reformer,
biomass/coal storage and handling and electric drive
train into a car and have room left to sit.
      Rather than wait for the fuel cells{fool cells}
to come out, a better bet would be to feed the
reformers H2, CO plus into a high compression,
optimized ICE and get the same benefits now at a much
lower cost.  
       I think your uniflow engine with another one
feeding off the first one's exhaust would be more eff
than a fuel cell if it was really optimized.
                 jerry dycus
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Singfield / Belize
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/