# Garn WHS3200 & Wood Gun E500 [Part 2]



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

Garn, continued:

As the burns progressed it became apparent that coals and ash gradually were building up in the Garn, even though I was following as best as I could Garn loading recommendations. Perhaps this was related to the quality of the fire wood, although the wood essentially was of the same mix, size, and quality as that used with the WG. Regardless, it would have been very difficult to impossible to load at a higher rate than 100 lbs per hour on a continuous basis. By the last load at 7:30 am at the end of the test burn period, and after 19 hours of continuous burn, the bed of coals and ash was above the level of the refractory lining in the bottom of the Garn firebox, and the Garn had to be allowed to burn the coals out and have ashes emptied before it could continue to be used. Other than coals and ash buildup, the Garn is a breeze to operate; just load, lock, and fire. Also a very nice boiler.

Once again, plans and real world did not match. The forecasted low outside temperatures of -5F to +15F did not materialize. Actual temperatures were 19-20F during the first six hours of burn, then gradual falling temperature to a low of 10F at 6:30 am. I really wanted outside temperature at least down to 0F, like it was for the Wood Gun, to get a side-by-side comparison. It was not to happen. 

Interesting results. First the easy and not too technical results; then more detail.

A. Burn Rate. Garn BTUh input during the test burn is estimated at 600,500. As mentioned above, I don't think I could have maintained a continuous burn rate higher than 600,500 BTUh due to coals and ash build-up, and therefore, I doubt that the advertised 925,000 BTUh burn rate can be maintained other than over a fairly short period of time, after which the coals will need to be allowed to burn down and ash emptied. My 19 hour continuous burn was about the limit for the Garn. Therefor, if the need is for continuous output, like Deep Portage requires, a boiler 1) will have to be substantially over-sized and with sufficient storage to carry the load until the boiler burns down, ash emptied, and the boiler re-fired; 2) a supplemental heat source will be needed during the down time; or, 3) the boiler needs to be of a design that allows long term, continuous operation. Yet, I believe every wood boiler at particular times will need to be shut down for cleaning and/or ash emptying; the questions will be how frequently this needs to be done and what will handle the heat load during the down time.

B. Garn Temperature. The Garn analog temperature gauge on the front started at 130F at 12:30 pm (outside temp of 19F), rose to 153F by 9:30 pm (outside temp of 15F), held at 153F until 12:30 am (outside temp of 12F), and then rose and essentially held at 156F, with one downward bounce to 152F, until 7:30 am (outside temp of 11F). It appears that at the 100 lb - 600,500 BTUh burn rate, the Garn had maxed out its ability to provide BTU's to the Deep Portage system based on the demand during this period and outside temperature of about 10-11F. (I wish the WG burn had concluded successfully, because variables affecting the results would have been very close to those prevailing during the Garn burn, although temperature dropped to 0F for the WF, and a side-by-side comparison could have been made.)

C. BTU Input. Beginning at 12:30 pm on February 20 and ending with the last load at 6:30 am February 21, the Garn burned 1,858 lbs of wood, which at 6,050 BTU/lb amounts to 11,240,900 BTU input. Starting tank temperature was 130F, ending tank temperature was 156F, for a 26F temperature rise. I will account for this when calculating BTU output.

D. BTU Output. I had Dallas 1-wire DS18b20 sensors on the Garn supply to the heat exchanger and Garn return from the heat exchanger. This data showing delta-T along with calculated flow rate, and adjusted for the increase in tank temperature, will show BTU output. Similar sensors were on the heat exchanger supply to the system and system return. That information is not directly relevant to Garn performance. Suffice it to say that the heat exchanger is generously sized and has an approach temperature of about 5F (example: Garn supply to HX = 150F, HX supply to system = 145F). The chart  which follows shows Garn supply to HX and HX return to Garn. *See error correction a couple of posts down* From the data underlying this chart, I averaged delta-T, which was 9.72F degrees. Flow rate is calculated at 75 gpm. BTUh = 9.72 x 500 x 8.34 = 364,500. Total hours = 19. For the 19 hour period, total BTU output was 6,925,500.

E. Efficiency. Based on BTU input of 11,240,900, BTU output of 6,925,500, and BTUâ€™s stored in the rise in tank temp from 130 to 156F of 693,888, efficiency can be calculated by BTU Output / BTU Input, which is (6,925,500 + 693,888) / 11,240,900 = 67.8%. *Efficiency is 86%; see error correction a couple of posts down.* A further adjustment, which I doubt is material, is to account for low coals at the beginning of the burn period and low burn, high coals at the end of the burn. Regardless, I donâ€™t think the leftover coals should be accounted for because little if any useful heat was being provided and the Garn had to be allowed to burn out to allow for ash removal.

Eye Candy
Following are several pictures which show the Deep Portage boiler room/wood staging area, along with a picture of one very tired boiler operator after an all-nighter. 

Comments, reflections, observations are appreciated.

Continues in Part 3
See also Part 1


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

Garn Chart:


----------



## in hot water (Feb 23, 2011)

Wow, that's a lot of data and collection work.  What about a derate factor considering one boiler had a glycol solution, and the other with plain water?  Should that factor in the wood to fluid efficiency?  Also the Garn has a efficiency penalty with an external HX and the transfer losses.

hr


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

Correction in efficiency calculation: I apologize for this error. Efficiency is 86%, not 67.8%.



> D. BTU Output. I had Dallas 1-wire DS18b20 sensors .... From the data underlying this chart, I averaged delta-T, which was *12.6F* degrees. Flow rate is calculated at 75 gpm. BTUh = *12.6* x 500 x *75* = *472,500*. Total hours = 19. For the 19 hour period, total BTU output was *8,977,500.*
> 
> E. Efficiency. Based on BTU input of 11,240,900, BTU output of *8,977,500*, and BTUâ€™s stored in the rise in tank temp from 130 to 156F of 693,888, efficiency can be calculated by BTU Output / BTU Input, which is *(8,977,500 + 693,888) / 11,240,900 = 86%.*


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

> What about a derate factor considering one boiler had a glycol solution, and the other with plain water?  Should that factor in the wood to fluid efficiency?  Also the Garn has a efficiency penalty with an external HX and the transfer losses.



There is no gylcol in the Garn. The glycol is on the system side of the HX, not the Garn side. There also is no efficiency penalty. The calculations all are on the delta-T of Side A (Garn side) of the HX.

Keep looking for things I might have missed!


----------



## Willman (Feb 23, 2011)

Nothing to do with either unit. I was wondering about the outdoor above ground piping scheme. What is the delta on those? Any way to check temps from the beginning to the first use? How long of a run till first use? What type of insulation are pipes packed with? Must be some large dia. pex for those kinda btu's flowing.Not certain which method of heat distribution is used.

Great research with super data. Kinda like something consumers reports might do.

Will


----------



## Como (Feb 23, 2011)

I doubt that many Garns are filled hourly. There was one other case, the Prison that did it that has been mentioned here. However you are losing part of the Garns selling point when firebox size is more important than storage.

Just wondering how long did it take for the coals to burn down?

There are certainly wood boilers out there with automatic ash removal, but no doubt a different price point. Does sound that a single wood chip boiler would have been a more effective answer.

So the peak load is more than the two wood boilers can provide, which makes sense in this environment, probably not logical to go over 80%.


----------



## Como (Feb 23, 2011)

Just a thought but 2 tons a day, where is their wood stack?


----------



## PassionForFire&Water (Feb 23, 2011)

Very nice to see real world testing done !

Some of my taughts:

A) The *deltaT's are small*, what can result in big calculation differences if these temperatures are not accurately measured.
I assume you averaged a bunch of temp read-outs (thermopile) because you use temperatures with 2 decimals; like 9.72F
If you are off here only 0.5F your end result will change more then 5%

B) Then there is of course the *BTU/Lb value for the fuel*.
You took 6050 BTU/Lb. I assume this is after correction for your 20% MC
If you would take the EPA OWH Higher Heating value of 8550 BTU/Lb with 20% MC, this would result in 6,840 BTU/Lb or 13% more.
Calculating with this value, would change the end result with a 13% decrease

But what really opened my eyes was that manual wood boilers like this, need a boiler operator!
This boiler operator needs to be payed and this does need to be figured in into the overall "payoff" calculation.
So, in real world conditions this means that for a commercial/industrial operation a manual fed boiler could never compete with the automatic fed boilers when you take all factors into account.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

> Will: I was wondering about the outdoor above ground piping scheme. What is the delta on those? Any way to check temps from the beginning to the first use? How long of a run till first use? What type of insulation are pipes packed with?



All of what you would like to know I am sure is available, and probably contained in my notes over the last two years. Because of other activities of mine for Deep Portage related to the wood boilers, I don't have extra time right now to gather more background info not directly related to my posting. Deep Portage is aware of a possible issue on heat loss in the outdoor piping, as well as other measures that might be taken to improve overall system performance, all of which are important, and those are on the table for attention.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

> David: However you are losing part of the Garns selling point when firebox size is more important than storage.... Does sound that a single wood chip boiler would have been a more effective answer.



The Garn sales rep energetically sold the WHS3200 to Deep Portage as well suited to the Deep Portage application. I think all wood boilers are more effective with storage, first to buffer the high burn output to prevent overheat or idling, depending on the type of boiler, and second to add storage for heating use between firings. We all know that the higher the temperature of water needed to meet the application, the less effective storage "as storage" becomes, because the boiler needs to be maintained in high burn to achieve continuous output in the higher temperature range (IMO, anything continuously over 140F).

A wood chip boiler may be a solution in the appropriate application. With Deep Portage, it has a ready supply of quality cord wood, pricing is good, and regular staff is on hand to handle most boiler operations, supplemented by part-time help as needed. The local economy is important in this area, and providing jobs to loggers, wood cutters, and staff pays big dividends for our families. Wood chips, unless very dry or can be stored in a heated space, present problems in this cold environment (enjoy a -40F day out to appreciate this fact) due to freezing and difficulty in handling. Cord wood is quite ideal for outdoor seasoning during the summers and ease of handling during the winter.


----------



## Como (Feb 23, 2011)

The computation does change if you have no additional labour costs.

We also hit -40, fortunately only once this winter.

Wood chips would have the same benefit for local economy. If there was a local wood chip facility it would actually give other users an entry due to economies of spreading the cost of processing equipment.

The local school will have a wood chip system, they are chipping on demand and using sliding floor 'dumpster' to deliver to avoid the freezing issue. The school and this install is about the same I would guess. The school does not have staff on duty 24/7 so the economics are different.

I looked at it for my install, the cost of wood chip processing made it impractical. If I could have bought in, could well have been different. We can get bulk delivery of pellets and their is an install locally with a 30 ton silo, but chips are a lot cheaper and the cost more controllable.

I would agree with the need for a buffer, with chips your storage is in the wood.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

> Marc: A) The deltaTâ€™s are small, what can result in big calculation differences if these temperatures are not accurately measured. I assume you averaged a bunch of temp read-outs (thermopile) because you use temperatures with 2 decimals; like 9.72F
> If you are off here only 0.5F your end result will change more then 5%.



I averaged directly from the recorded sensor readings. I had 51,952 data points for each of the two sensors involved, so I summed Garn supply temp for the 51,952 data readings, divided by 51,952, and got the average. Did the same for the Garn return. I think the DS18b20 sensors probably are about as accurate as is reasonably available. Since this is an average, delta-T at any particular time likely is different from the average, but I thought average gives the better overall efficiency. A closer look might show at one temperature range vs another efficiency would be higher or lower.



> Marc: B) Then there is of course the BTU/Lb value for the fuel. You took 6050 BTU/Lb. I assume this is after correction for your 20% MC If you would take the EPA OWH Higher Heating value of 8550 BTU/Lb with 20% MC, this would result in 6,840 BTU/Lb or 13% more. Calculating with this value, would change the end result with a 13% decrease.



No doubt about this. I don't know if the EPA adjusted for stack heat loss. I used Energy in Wood for my assumption of 6,050 BTU/lb. A laboratory test would have done both an accurate MC analysis and adjusted for actual stack temp. I don't have that capability, and for a "real world" application, I hope my methodology was pretty good.



> Marc: But what really opened my eyes was that manual wood boilers like this, need a boiler operator! This boiler operator needs to be payed and this does need to be figured in into the overall â€œpayoffâ€ calculation. So, in real world conditions this means that for a commercial/industrial operation a manual fed boiler could never compete with the automatic fed boilers when you take all factors into account.



An arguable point, but this highlights one dilemma we face in our economy and social structure. We strive for the lowest out-pocket-cost looking only at the purchaser end of the equation; we often disregard jobs, families and disruption in local social fabric when jobs are lost to machines; and we disregard externalities of the cost equation. Deep Portage pursues a mission which includes environmental and social responsibility. It is possible its immediate out-of-pocket cost is higher than with a more mechanized boiler system, but at the same time the total social cost of its current choice involving more use of labor may be less than the social cost of the mechanized route. I don't have an answer to that. Deep Portage believes paying for the extra labor is good for local families and the local economy.


----------



## Como (Feb 23, 2011)

I had a look at their web site:

The campus includes a 50,000+ square foot Resources Heritage Center with two great halls, a giant climbing wall, library, classrooms, theater, food service, and overnight accommodations for up to 175.

They must measure their heat loads in millions of btu's. At which point wood chip boilers become very competitive. Presumably they use Propane as well. Just had a delivery, 2.15 a gallon and going up.
I sympathise with their ethos, just seems more logical to process during the day and automatic feed rather than having somebody up all night.


----------



## PassionForFire&Water (Feb 23, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > An arguable point, but this highlights one dilemma we face in our economy and social structure. We strive for the lowest out-pocket-cost looking only at the purchaser end of the equation; we often disregard jobs, families and disruption in local social fabric when jobs are lost to machines; and we disregard externalities of the cost equation. Deep Portage pursues a mission which includes environmental and social responsibility. It is possible its immediate out-of-pocket cost is higher than with a more mechanized boiler system, but at the same time the total social cost of its current choice involving more use of labor may be less than the social cost of the mechanized route. I don't have an answer to that. Deep Portage believes paying for the extra labor is good for local families and the local economy.




I actually 100% share their (and your?) vision, but it is definitely not the easy way to go.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2011)

> Como: Presumably they use Propane as well.



A specific objective two years ago of moving to wood boilers vs the installed multi-stage propane boilers was to reduce propane usage by at least 75%. I believe that goal has been met or exceeded and propane for space heating has just about been eliminated, but some propane still is being used for DHW.

It appears to be, or at least in the past was, common practice to over-size fossil fuel boilers. If my memory is correct, Deep Portage's LP boilers are rated at 2.4 million BTUh. And as the Garn test burn demonstrated, at 86% efficiency the Garn was providing 472,500 BTUh, which was adequate to meet the demand under the circumstances down to +10F.

Incidentally, the 86% calculated efficiency needs to be limited to the specific boiler, system demand at the time of the test burn, and method of operation. This was continuous burn, one start up and then one shut down 19 hours later. Typical operation would involve multiple firings rather than continuous. Each firing/shutdown sequence involves inefficiencies, and it wouldn't surprise me to find a lower efficiency number on a more typical homeowner boiler operation. It may be that in some sense this test burn was a "best case scenario." Regardless, the Garn performed well and Deep Portage now understands better how to maximize the benefits it obtains from using the Garn.


----------



## Como (Feb 23, 2011)

The building must be very well insulated, that is less than 10 btu's a sq ft. Just wondering what their design temp and load was? Presumably something close to the LP Boiler output?

I anticipate 80% efficiency I will be burning during the day and hopefully coasting on storage overnight.


----------



## TCaldwell (Feb 24, 2011)

Jim, i can think of alot worse ways to spend a cold winter night. what products were used to insulate that garn, how successful is it.
  thanks  tom


----------



## heaterman (Feb 24, 2011)

A couple things........

600* flue temp in a garn is pretty high. I would suspect a little fouling or ash buildup in the flue tubes. One might expect a nominal peak temp of about 500 but not 6.

As others have mentioned, I too am REALLY scratching my head in regards to the elevated lines. Bizarre to say the least IMHO. Are they on solid rock there or what?


----------



## jebatty (Feb 24, 2011)

> TCaldwell: what products were used to insulate that garn, how successful is it.



I'll get more specifics later, if possible. As to the insulation being successful, with the WG shut down and only the Garn firing, the boiler room is warm but not uncomfortable to be in. With the Garn shut down and only the WG firing, the boiler room is uncomfortably warm to be in for any length of time. Ditto+ when both boilers are firing. A thermostatically controlled vent to the outside is in the boiler room to admit cold outside air when the boiler room gets too hot.



> heaterman: 600* flue temp in a garn is pretty high. I would suspect a little fouling or ash buildup in the flue tubes. One might expect a nominal peak temp of about 500 but not 6.... REALLY scratching my head in regards to the elevated lines.



Will forward the info on flue temp Deep Portage. Reasons for the elevated lines - make your guesses which would relate to a design-build contract, but I doubt that bedrock would be a correct one.


----------



## muncybob (Feb 24, 2011)

The boiler room being that warm with the WG running does not surprise me I guess. The biggest "gripe" I have about the WG is that the front and rear is not well insulated. I can touch any of the other sides with no problem, but not the front & rear! I'm guessing that's where most of the heat escape is on that WG.
Works well for us though as a lot of the  heat transfers up to the living area.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 24, 2011)

It didn't show in my pictures, but the boiler building has a wood staging area larger than the boiler room which is separated from the boiler room by a firewall and fire doors. Trailer loads of wood, my guess about 2+ tons at a time, can be brought into the staging area, and the staging area itself stores about 5 additional cords of wood waiting to fuel the boilers. The "waste" heat from the boilers heats the entire structure, staging area included. A LP gas unit heater was put in the staging area to provide any needed heat. I doubt that it ever has been turned on. So the boiler heat is not entirely wasted heat.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 24, 2011)

> heaterman: 600* flue temp in a garn is pretty high. I would suspect a little fouling or ash buildup in the flue tubes. One might expect a nominal peak temp of about 500 but not 6.



Deep Portage reports that the Garn flue temps burned to 600F right out of the box. Also that to clean the Garn you must take bolted covers off and gaskets. Deep Portage ordered the gaskets from Garn 4 months ago and just received them. Two other facilities that use the Garn advise Deep Portage that they clean the units once per year.

Perhaps 600F is characteristic of the WHS3200.


----------



## Rick Stanley (Feb 25, 2011)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > heaterman: 600* flue temp in a garn is pretty high. I would suspect a little fouling or ash buildup in the flue tubes. One might expect a nominal peak temp of about 500 but not 6.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only time I get unusually high stack temps (500-550 with my WHS2000) is when I have very small and very dry wood. Makes for too much surface area I am told. The only other time that would happen ( too much surface area again) is if I got slap-happy about my loading technique. Both things would also cause huffing, which leaves black smut streaks around the loading door.
     I understand you were tired Jim, but holy crap you have them tossed in there crosswise. Talk about surface area.  What's with that? I missed that in my operation manual


----------



## Willman (Feb 25, 2011)

considering the huge quantity of wood needed for full operation, is the wood fully processed prior to delivery? What about seasoning?I wonder how long and to what MC the wood is delivered.
One benefit to cord wood fuel versus chips is the fact that most wood harvesting operations could sell their production. Chip operations require a huge investment in harvesting and hauling equipment, not suited for much else than chips. Resulting in one large operator supplying the fuel versus multiple small operations. 
Also the condition of the woodland after a chipping operation is not as desirable as selective cutting.

Will


----------



## Como (Feb 25, 2011)

I can only speak for the ones I have seen, the logs are brought to a site and instead of being cut and split are chipped. Makes no difference to where they are felled.

I would have thought there was some benefit to letting the logs season, woodchip boilers are much less MC sensitive.


----------



## Willman (Feb 25, 2011)

Here in Maine the logs are skidded to the landing and fed into the chipper into the trailers. Then off to the mill or wherever. Not a chance for the small operator. 

Will


----------



## jebatty (Feb 25, 2011)

A little off-thread, to which I now am contributing.



> Como: woodchip boilers are much less MC sensitive.



Kind of like saying an OWB is much less sensitive to MC because users burn green logs than is a gasification boiler which needs seasoned wood. Per pound 50% MC green wood delivers a little over 1/3 the btu energy than does 20% MC seasoned wood; or to put it another way, per pound seasoned wood delivers almost 3 times the btu energy than does green wood. 

Wood chip boilers burning green wood chips waste a huge amount of energy in boiling off the water of green wood. Does it produce heat? Sure. Does it make any energy efficiency sense? No. It only makes sense because there is no other market for the wood they are burning and they get the wood nearly for free, except for the cost of transportation and handling. Does chipping benefit the forest? Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances. They are other threads on this forum for that discussion.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 25, 2011)

Incredible! If you *oogle "garn boiler", this thread is the 2nd hit, right below the one for garn.com.


----------



## bigburner (Feb 25, 2011)

big wood chip boiler near me. They only buy chips that meet a certain moisture content. They also have there own tub grinder and the utility third party tree trimmers dump their dun age there to be ground for fuel and may be mixed with the drier stuff. They burn a semi load a day.

 A few weird things happen burning wood chips on a tapered grate. They need to pretty dry, but with a huge volume required and almost always out door storage, optimum MC is not always practical. The beauty here is the surface area. The steam will flash out of the chip only costing the smallest possible amount of Latent heat. This is where it gets weirder [this is what I am told] That if it set correctly that  % of the steam can be split threw a thermal/chemical process, into the base units and burned as Oxygen & hydrogen so the net loos to moisture is limited. 

  If there is an expert here on this phenomenon, would like to hear more!


----------



## jebatty (Feb 25, 2011)

> This is where it gets weirder [this is what I am told] That if it set correctly that % of the steam can be split threw a thermal/chemical process, into the base units and burned as Oxygen & hydrogen so the net loos to moisture is limited.



Too weird for me, maybe snake oil. Think about it. Converting steam (water or H2O) into H2 and O and then burning the H2, and the only by-product of burning H2 is H2O or water. Wow! they turn water into water! Truly amazing.


----------



## DaveBP (Feb 25, 2011)

> The beauty here is the surface area. The steam will flash out of the chip only costing the smallest possible amount of Latent heat. This is where it gets weirder [this is what I am told] That if it set correctly that % of the steam can be split threw a thermal/chemical process, into the base units and burned as Oxygen & hydrogen so the net loos to moisture is limited.
> 
> If there is an expert here on this phenomenon, would like to hear more!



It's called magic.


----------



## bigburner (Feb 25, 2011)

This may not be the exact process I was told about - But it can Work. by the way 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 of oxygen = rocket fuel -------------- not water

Steam reforming

Fossil fuel currently is the main source of hydrogen production.[3] Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas with approximately 80% efficiency, or from other hydrocarbons to a varying degree of efficiency. Specifically, bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas[4] At high temperatures (700â€“1100 Â°C), steam (H2O) reacts with methane (CH4) to yield syngas.

    CH4 + H2O â†’ CO + 3 H2 + 191.7 kJ/mol[5]

Gasification

In a second stage, further hydrogen is generated through the lower-temperature water gas shift reaction, performed at about 130 Â°C:

    CO + H2O â†’ CO2 + H2 - 40.4 kJ/mol

Essentially, the oxygen (O) atom is stripped from the additional water (steam) to oxidize CO to CO2. This oxidation also provides energy to maintain the reaction. Additional heat required to drive the process is generally supplied by burning some portion of the methane.

Steam reforming generates carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the production is concentrated in one facility, it is possible to separate the CO2 and dispose of it properly, for example by injecting it in an oil or gas reservoir (see carbon capture), although this is not currently done in most cases. A carbon dioxide injection project has been started by a Norwegian company StatoilHydro in the North Sea, at the Sleipner field. However, even if the carbon dioxide is not sequestered, overall producing hydrogen from natural gas and using it for a hydrogen vehicle only emits half the carbon dioxide that a gasoline car would.[citation needed] This is disputed in The Hype about Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate, a book by Joseph J. Romm, published in 2004 by Island Press and updated in 2005. Romm says that directly burning fossil fuels generates less CO2 than hydrogen production.[citation needed]

Integrated steam reforming / co-generation - It is possible to combine steam reforming and co-generation of steam and power into a single plant. This can deliver benefits for an oil refinery because it is more efficient than separate hydrogen, steam and power plants. Air Products recently built an integrated steam reforming / co-generation plant in Port Arthur, Texas.[6]
[edit] Partial oxidation

The partial oxidation reaction occurs when a substoichiometric fuel-air mixture is partially combusted in a reformer, creating a hydrogen-rich syngas. A distinction is made between thermal partial oxidation (TPOX) and catalytic partial oxidation (CPOX).

    * General reaction equation: mathrm{C_nH_m + rac{n}{2}  O_2 
ightarrow n  CO + rac{m}{2}  H_2}
    * Possible reaction equation (heating oil): mathrm{C_{12}H_{24} + 6  O_2 
ightarrow 12  CO + 12  H_2}
    * Possible reaction equation (coal): mathrm{C_{24}H_{12} + 12  O_2 
ightarrow 24  CO + 6  H_2}

[edit] Plasma reforming

The KvÃ¦rner-process or Kvaerner carbon black & hydrogen process (CB&H)[3] is a plasma reforming method, developed in the 1980s by a Norwegian company of the same name, for the production of hydrogen and carbon black from liquid hydrocarbons (CnHm). Of the available energy of the feed, approximately 48% is contained in the hydrogen, 40% is contained in activated carbon and 10% in superheated steam.[7] CO2 is not produced in the process.

A variation of this process is presented in 2009 using plasma arc waste disposal technology for the creation of hydrogen, heat and carbon from methane and natural gas in a plasma converter[8]


----------

