Re: GAS-L: Small Scale Gasifiers Defined

["Jim Wimberly" <jim@organix.org>]

To all subscribers of the gasification list:

 

It seems to me that clarifying terminology is one of the most important functions this group can serve.  As Tom Reed put it this morning, "we are in morass of terminology", although I consider the "we" to be not just the bioenergy folks but society at large.

 

Despite the recent postings on this thread, I think that the term "gasification" needs further clarification, regardless of whether we're talking small-scale or large-scale.  Specifically, I am concerned that close-coupled or two-stage systems not be confused (and lumped together terminology-wise) with systems that produce a syngas that can be conveyed/stored for subsequent use (either for "burning" in a separate "combustion" system, used as fuel in an engine, or as a feedstock for other processes [e.g., fermentation into ethanol, acetic acid, etc]).

 

The need for terminology clarification regarding gasification is increasing almost daily.  Numerous vendors are now using the term -- some apparently based on technical merit, others apparently for marketing purposes.  My concern is that regulators, politicians, and other policy makers are being confused (and sometimes intentionally misled) by this term. 

 

In my opinion, one reason the term "gasification" is increasingly being used is because it is more attractive and gets more attention (and potential support) than the term "combustion" (which is often associated with "incineration", which is unfortunate as the latter has evolved to having substantial negative connotation in our society). 

 

The confusion that results from misuse of this terminology may be advantageous to some people under certain conditions, but works against all of us in the long run.

 

So let's keep this discussion going... I'd like to see a consensus on use of the term gasification among bioenergy folks that can also be used in our communications with the various external audiences and interested parties.

 

Personally, I like the definitions provided by Pat Travis; the followup points from Paul Anderson have merit, but I think use of the term "combustion" to describe the ultimate fate of the syngas under certain conditions is appropriate.

 

Here are a few links that shed some additional light on the term in question (none of which provide truly succinct definitions of the term):

http://www.gasification.org/story/explaine/explaine.html

http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/projects/ia_tech_gas.htm

http://www.woodgas.com/Gasification.htm (with all due respect to Dr. Reed, the term "wood gas" is fine for certain situations, but not applicable to the gasified product from non-woody biomass feedstocks)

 

Jim Wimberly

Foundation for Organic Resources Management

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Pat Travis

To: tombreed@attbi.com ; gasification@crest.org ; Stoves@crest.org ; graeme@powerlink.co.nz

Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:24 PM

Subject: Re: GAS-L: Small Scale Gasifiers Defined

Dear Tom and GAS-L subscribers,

 

When defining or putting a "label" onto a process such as gasification there are two distinct audiences that must be considered from a commercial standpoint. The first is the regulatory and technical community and the second is the general public.

 

EPI uses 3 terms for our energy systems. The first, "Combustion", is very straight forward and covers projects utilizing standard fluidized bed combustors which generate heat for process or power applications.

 

The second, "Gasification",  is used when we produce a low Btu gas (LBG) in an oxygen deficient atmosphere and burn the LBG in a second piece of equipment utilizing a specially designed LBG burner, such as a gas boiler, or by injecting it directly into an existing coal fired boiler as a reburn gas. In either case, the LBG is transferred to a separate piece of equipment for combustion. This is done without cooling the LBG, therefore radiant losses from transporting the LBG between the gasifier and the end use device is the only energy loss. This type of two part process is easy for the public to understand and the one I typically find associated with gasification. The same definition applies to processes where the LBG or MBG is cooled prior to use, such as in an engine or turbine.

 

The third, "Staged Combustion", is used to describe what some people may consider a close coupled gasifier. In this process we combine a fluidized bed gasifier bottom with the upper section from a combustor. We generate LBG in the lower portion of the vessel and when it reaches a specific elevation above the gasifier section, combustion air (including dirty process exhaust gases with a high VOC content) is injected and the LBG is ignited. This provides energy for process applications and/or for power production. Most lay people do not consider this close coupled system a gasifier. Therefore while we could call it "Staged Gasification" or a "Close Coupled Gasifier", we have elected to call it staged combustion.

 

I leave it to those better qualified than myself to set the legal definitions.

 

Patrick Travis     Energy Products of Idaho (EPI)

>>> "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com> 06/26/02 09:26AM >>>
Dear Doug and All:

Doug's opinions below form the basis for an important discussion - "when is
gasification really just combustion".  There is in fact a continuum of
operation between pyrolysis, gasification and combustion at both the
microscopic and macroscopic level. The exact boundary can't be nailed down
exactly, but it is important for all of us to understand the issues. I have
seen drag racers recently with flames coming out their exhaust pipes.
However, I don't think I want to call them "gasifiers".

Doug seems to be saying below that if you pipe the gas created by partial
combustion (in a downdraft or inverted downdraft or fluidized bed or updraft
"gasifier") to a separate device (engine, burner, chemical process) you have
a "true" gasifier; if you burn it immediately in close coupled mode it is
not really a gasifier at all.  While I see some basis for this claim I don't
agree.

In our WoodGas stoves partial combustion gas is generated by flaming
pyrolysis in a zone 2-3 cm thick down inside the bed.  The gas then passes
through a layer of characol which converts more of the gas to CO and H2.
The gas that issues from the charcoal many cm above the flaming pyrolysis
zone is then burned immediately.  However, we could easily add a 6 inch or 6
foot chimney and inject air at the top for very similar combustion.  By
Doug's thinking the first would be a combustor and the 2nd and 3d would be
gasifiers.

In the U.S. the difference between combustion and gasification  has become
formalized in the laws relating to incentive credits for gasifiers that
don't apply to combustion.  I have been involved in helping write the legal
definitions.  Something like.."If you can establish a level BETWEEN the
gasifier zone and the combustion zone at which a gas sample will have an
energy value of more than 2 MJ/scm (50 Btu/scf) it is a close coupled
gasifier/combustor combination".  If not, not.  Since $$$ are involved, this
is obviously an important definition.

The close coupled gasifier/combustor combination has a number of advantages.
Optimal gasification of bone dry wood puts 17.8 MJ/kg into chemical energy,
but still leaves 3.3 MJ/kg in the sensible heat of the ~750 C gas coming off
the charcoal pile.  If this is burned immediately you can approach 100%
efficiency in the gas conversion.  If you have to cool the gas to room
temperature you lose 16% of the energy to coolant.  Furthermore, close
coupled combustion burns all the volatile tar vapors up.  Finally close
coupling saves space and our 1.5 V WoodGas CampStove is only 7 inches tall
and 5 inches in diameter.

So, I will restate that if you have producer gas in a section of the unit,
it is a close coupled gasifier/combustor.

Yours truly,                                TOM REED            BEF GASWORKS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Small Scale Gasifiers


> Dear Gasification Colleagues,
>
> It is easy to understand the confusion that exists about gasification in a
> general sense as the phenomenon can be found anywhere you create fire.
> However, for this interest group to include gasifying stoves is in my
> opinion incorrect, as they should be identified by their correct name of
> double burning or smokeless stoves which commercial manufacturers call
them,
> and as such stay in the stoves forum.
>
> For people researching gasification and interested in using gas to use
> separately for whatever end use, this is the one group who can offer the
> most assistance and information on the subject, particularly if it is for
> engine applications.  Those of us who actually work in this field of
> technology have made a commitment to see gasification fulfill an important
> role as a source of renewable energy and chemical feedstock.  To cross
> pollinate gasification with close coupled combustion, then discuss
adapting
> these stoves for engines is less than helpful to those who seek accurate
> information about gasification.
>
> While it might be important for individuals to buy a small gasifier, it is
> equally important for the manufacturer to find enough individuals to
create
> a market.  Then, instead of saying how much are small gasifiers, ask
> yourself - how much am I prepared to pay for one.  This is a valid
question,
> so state your financial ability to pay for your commitment to renewable
> energy.
>
> Alternatively, decide on a size (discuss it with a manufacturer first),
get
> a quote and order 50.  Then onsell to those who just want one unit.  If
this
> isn't a solution for you specifically, then you have to accept that the
only
> way to own one, is to build it yourself.  Since I posted the design for a
> small gasifier on the Fluidyne Archive last year,nobody on this list has
> written to me saying "I'm ready to go, what's next?"
>
> Last August in Northern Ireland, two French engineering students working
at
> ITI (Innovation Technologies Ireland) built one out of salvaged scrap
steel
> and I shared their excitement of having it flaring gas within 3 minutes of
> ignition.  I'll see if I can find the photographs and ask Graeme to put
them
> up on the Fluidyne Archive - www.fluidynenz.250x.com.  This will take a
> couple of days.
>
> Gasification is very addictive and a lot of fun . . . so let's discuss
> making gas and not heat, unless it's burning gas!
>
> Doug Williams
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> 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://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
>



-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

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://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon