Re: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?

["Goldthorpe" <gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz>]

David,

I agree with the sentiments expressed in your posting about the difficulties
faced in the transition of biomass gasification technologies from the realm
of the enthusiast to widespread commercial reality. As you rightly point
out, without the essential element of NEED, it is an uphill struggle for any
"future product" to find a place in the present market.

Here in New Zealand, we have a strong movement promoting Bioenergy. This is
driven primarily by the need to find an outlet for the by-products of timber
harvesting operations. In our case, the principal products are logs and
their derivatives.  So bark, sawdust and forest arisings are the by-product
resources that need an outlet.  In other countries by-products of harvesting
rice, sugar etc. provide by-product bioenergy resources that find real
applications as energy sources in the commercial market place.

Our current NZ Bioenergy applications are focussed almost exclusively on the
combustion of biomass, because the typical need is for process heat.  This
is often viable where the need is for heat at a wood processing plant.
Similarly, the use of bagasse as an energy source for sugar processing is
well established.

The use of more sophisticated gasification/pyrolysis technologies to convert
biomass into the higher value energy forms of electricty, gas and liquids is
unlikley to occur without the need to displace the fossil-based supplies of
those ubiquitous commodities. Only in specific niche circumstances does
biomass gasification make economic sense.

So what changes are out there that will change the status quo?

The first is Climate Change and the consequent need to limit the rate at
which fossil carbon is released into the global atmosphere as CO2. Through
the Kyoto Protocol, or other mechanisms, the cost of that adverse
environmental effect will be internalised as an economic penalty on the use
of fossil fuels.  This will provide a significant need to displace the use
of fossil resources for the provision of electricty, gas and liquids.

The second change that will increase the need for Bioenergy will be the
depletion of oil and gas resources.  Oil reserves are  already being used up
at a faster rate than they are being discovered and gas will follow suit. As
this inevitable result of the use of unsustainable resources bites, prices
will rise and the economic need to replace these resources will open up
Bioenergy opportunities.

Under this scenario, the plentiful supplies of coal world-wide could become
the natural alternative to oil and gas as the primary energy supply.
However, the imperative to avoid Climate Change should slant the playing
field in favour of Bioenergy as the natural substitute for depleting oil and
gas resources.

So, David, I agree with you that at present it does appear to be doom and
gloom for biomass gasification.  However, not today and probably not
tomorrow, there will be a need for biomass gasification technology to follow
on the heels of biomass combustion as a significant contributor to the
energy supply portfolio.  Until that time, the biomass gasification
community needs to hang on in there solving the technical problems of
feeding, cleaning and scale-up, and seeking those niche opportunities to
demonstrate that bioenergy applications can be economically viable in the
right conditions.

Best regards

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst
PO Box 68, Greenhithe,
Auckland 1330
New Zealand
Phone    09 413 9696
Fax        09 413 9642
Mobile    0274 849764
Email    GLDTHRP@NZNET.GEN.NZ





----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reynolds-Lacey" <d.rl@virgin.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?


> Dear All,
>
> Another Earth summit and the media is again full
> of "sustainable development" and "aid for
> developing countries" stories, well will THIS
> summit finally make a difference? - You can bet
> that it certainly won't
>
> The posts of late seem to be casting a grim shadow
> over biomass gasification/pyrolosis technology. We
> hear folks saying that nobody making money out of
> biomass, another project that becomes so many
> tonnes of scrap. We hear of fears of difficulty in
> raising grant funding for gasification/pyrolosis
> work, low cost of fossil fuel, high cost of
> transportation of biomass, biomass companies
> making entire workforces redundant and the lack of
> will of governments to upset polluting
> manufacturing industry, etc. etc. Quite frankly,
> there is not yet a real need for sustainable
> energy solutions and it is NEED that drives the
> market, so meanwhile, let's just shut this
> discussion group down and all do something else! -
> No, of course not but you can't really blame any
> group observer for thinking along those lines.
>
> I have been in "future product" orientated
> businesses all of my business life. Here, in the
> UK, then a telecommunications backwater (and still
> is, in comparison to many countries), I fitted
> mobile phones in 1968 and sold hand held (sort of)
> electronic calculators in 1971. I tried to develop
> and sell small business computers in the (pre PC)
> early 70's, I sold Fax machines in 1982 and
> satellite TV in 1983, to mention but a few. I
> think I have a good idea of what it is like to
> survive in a market when there is no need,
> perceived or (sometimes) at all. I had to search
> hard to find and target individuals and
> organisations that really had a need, or even a
> problem that I could solve and I suggest that this
> is what we have to do in the biomass energy
> market.
>
> Large grandiose gasification projects in the
> developed industrialised world are clearly a no-go
> at the moment, cheap fuel and power is too readily
> available, why should a business invest vast sums
> in the infrastructure to use such forms of energy?
> It is true that some such projects do exist but I
> think that many, if not all, are either installed
> by local or national government departments or
> subsidised by them, or some other fund provider.
> It is small, well-targeted systems that will keep
> the ball rolling, there is a need for them now and
> with proper location and planning I am sure they
> can be cost effective without continuous subsidy.
>
> Ready availability of poorly supervised grants
> from governments and some corporations, anxious to
> appear to be doing something "green", often purely
> for political gain, simply creates a grant
> dependent mentality amongst researchers and would
> -be manufacturers. I question whether all of these
> grants are spent wisely and effectively, in a
> proper businesslike manner. Often, it seems that
> more effort and planning is put into obtaining
> grants than is put into system planning of the
> project. It is only a few months ago that an
> entire system with a build cost of, I think, 25M
> tax dollars was up for sale for, I think, less
> than 1M dollars, I believe the reason was a
> failure to secure an agreement obtain a subsidy to
> sell the energy. Therefore, not only was a large
> amount of grant money required in order to build
> the plant, but a large amount of what was
> effectively more grant money was required to run
> it - not good business sense in my book. Yet
> another project failed because they could not feed
> the fuel in, I wonder, did anybody think to carry
> out extensive fuel feeding experiments, before
> building the plant?  15 years work and 50M down
> the pan, doesn't it just make your blood boil?
> What real business would invest 25M of it's OWN
> money in a project without first securing an
> agreement with someone to buy the produce?
> Furthermore, what real business would make the
> same investment knowing that they could only ever
> sell the produce at a loss?  What real business
> would invest 50M of it's OWN money, developing
> (say) a vehicle with an engine for which no
> useable fuel existed?  Spending other people's
> money is the easiest thing in the world to do.
> Until governments step in and impose massive taxes
> on all fossil fuels and then allocate ALL of that
> revenue to STRICTLY controlled and supervised
> grants, large scale biomass energy projects are
> dead in the water, that is, of course, until the
> fossil fuel runs out!
>
> Another thing that will delay rapid advancement is
> the greed that fuels much of the current obsession
> with patents and protection of Intellectual
> Property Rights in this area, this serves only to
> stifle healthy competition and create monopolies.
> Existence of these patents can also cause other,
> probably more idealistic and less profit
> orientated, researchers and would-be manufacturers
> to spend valuable time looking for alternative
> ways of doing the job without infringing someone
> else's patent and having to pay large license
> fees. I certainly believe that any and all
> Intellectual Property Rights arising from any
> grant aided work, paid from Taxpayers money,
> belong to those Taxpayers should be in the public
> domain. The environment is too important a
> commodity to be left in the hands of the few that
> aspire to become the global "clean hands", purely
> license selling, corporations of the future,
> probably with pockets bulging to bursting point
> with politicians. Just look at what some of the
> "Globals" have done to the environment to date.
> Some of the very same corporations, that have made
> fortunes over the years whilst destroying the
> environment, are now putting on their fashionable
> "environmental hats", hoping to make more fortunes
> out of "helping" us to rescue and protect the
> environment.  Of course there is nothing wrong
> with making profit, I would be a hypocrite to
> suggest otherwise but there has got to be a limit
> when it comes to essential services and the
> environment. We have seen what happens when
> essential supplies and services are in the hands
> of a few large, profit driven corporations -
> haven't we learnt anything?
>
> As a slightly cynical aside but perfectly
> demonstrating  what I have been saying about the
> folly of unsupervised and ill-researched grant
> aid, there have been a couple of news stories in
> my local business newspaper that are quite
> topical.  Our somewhat superficial government,
> that has been trumpeting it's success in reducing
> CO2 emissions by closing down UK coal fired power
> stations, has recently been found to have awarded
> export guarantee grants to UK companies to build
> coal fired power stations abroad that produce 3
> times more CO2 than ours did!  Last week it was
> reported that the Swaziland government is to spend
> GBP 150M on an aircraft for their King, their
> reason, was to allow the King to travel the world
> in order to raise - you've guessed it - grant aid!
> Yet I think it was Crispin that only a few weeks
> ago mentioned the grave difficulties faced by the
> impoverished people of Swaziland in even affording
> cheap, 1-dollar fans for their stoves.  On a more
> tongue- in-cheek note, it is also reported today
> that a ceremony in which thousands of women
> present bundles of reeds to the King is just about
> to take place in that same country - could he be
> building a reed gasifier, I wonder?
>
> Now that I have got that out of my system, you may
> ask, if I have a better idea - yes, I think I
> have, which will, if nothing else, demonstrate
> that this post is effectively (and eventually)
> on-topic.  My idea, which is based on small-scale
> renewable biomass gasification, may not be new but
> I believe the proposed method of assisted
> implementation may well be. However this post is
> already a trifle too long and I will put forward
> my ideas, aspirations and proposals in further
> post in the near future.
>
> Herein, I may have made what some may consider as
> being somewhat idealistic and maybe controversial,
> although I hope not offensive, comments. I may
> also have touched nerves but there comes a time
> when one simply just has to say, as politely as
> possible, just what one feels. I therefore invite
> and will accept constructive, polite criticism and
> correction, but most of all, having nailed my
> colours to the mast, I wish to identify any (if
> any) like-minded people amongst you, with whom I
> can have further discussions about my plans and a
> freer exchange of information.
>
> After much pondering, I now, on the advice of the
> "Iron Duke", take this opportunity to "publish and
> be damned!"
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
> David Reynolds-Lacey
>
>
>
> -
> 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