GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming

["Motie" <motie@paulbunyan.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming


>
> Taking this out of the stove list domain!
>
> For those out there that are serious and can delve through technical
> presentations -- interested in steam reforming??
>
> Start here:
>
> US patent 5,763,716
>
> go to this site:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/
>
> Enter the above number into the search slot.
>
> Have appended some "snips" -- but the "Description" part gives an entire
> history of this "industry" and is extremely detailed. Also to huge to
post.
>
> The basis of high efficiency steam reforming is all about keeping the
> proper ratios of "pure" H2 and CO.
>
> And this is the major cost and problem involved in steam reformation of
> synthesis gas to preferred product.
>
> Come up with a simple way to do this -- and bingo -- no need for the mega
> processing plant.
>
> Again -- this can be accomplished by using a molten tin bath -- not
covered
> in this reference.
>
> I can supply complete info on that process -- but better let brains
rest --
> quite a chew right here.
>

Peter,
Based on your post, I seem to have spent several years reinventing the
wheel. I still can't get it to turn, due to regulatory interference. I will
vouch for the workability of the process you have described. Initially,
Cobalt was planned for use as the catalyst, but proved to be too easily
poisoned, and too expensive to replace. Iron ended up being the catalyst of
choice. Another major hurdle was dealing with Nitrogen from air, which was
first considered for use an a source of Oxygen. An Oxygen Generator was
added, increasing costs further.
 Too make a very long story short, I produced a Feasabilty Study, and
arranged for financing to build the Project to produce FT Diesel fuel from
wood waste.
 Then I discovered that the Engineering and Technical problems were the
minor obstacles to be overcome. Until the time came to apply for the
numerous Permits and conduct required 'approved' Environmental Impact
Studies, we had managed to work unmolested, as our planned Project was
unknown. Once applications were made for Permits to implement the Project,
it was no longer a secret, and opposition surfaced. None of our internal
studies or projections would be accepted. All studies for Air Emissions,
water discharges, etc., would have to be conducted by outside Engineering
Firms, to meet government approval. These would cost $350,000. Arranging
financing was exceedingly difficult! (Understatement!) Once financing was
arranged, it was further required that all the Engineering would also have
to be evaluated by a government-approved Engineering Firm, at a cost of $6M.
I was unable to find financing for this, until an 'undisclosed party' made
an offer to underwrite it. This 'undisclosed party' wants ownership of the
plant and process in return. I could have possibly accepted their ownership
of the plant, but NOT the process. My plan was to replicate this in several
other locations, providing jobs and economic development to the local areas.
All development plans for this process are on hold. I had hoped that our
recent election would provide some hope for change, but I have little hope
for it now. Elected officials are just a figure-head, with the real power
being in the hands of the unelected Bureaucrats and their Corporate owners.
 A decision was made early in the development process, to NOT apply for a
Patent, which would entail publicizing Proprietary information. I believe it
was a wise decision. Corporate Raiders can't block my implementation until
the Patent runs out, then build it themselves, because they don't have
access to the details.
 I am working on a couple of smaller Projects for now, and taking a hiatus
from the stress. I may try to down-size the process, but it will be
difficult to do, because of the economy of scale. Engineering Costs are
nearly the same for a large plant, as for a small one. Roughly speaking, a
50% reduction in capacity would only save 15% of Capitalization Costs. Any
increase in capacity would increase transportation costs of feedstocks. The
size has to be 'just right', based on local 'site specific' conditions.

 I'll close for now, for personal health reasons. I have Post-Traumatic
Stress syndrome caused by putting my heart and soul into development of the
Project. It seems to be too early yet, to properly address this topic.

Respectfully,
Motie


Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

>