Producer Gas Plants

A profile of Producer Gas Plants, their design, development, application and type of contaminants present.
Prepared by Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Queen Victoria House, Redland Hill, Bristol BS6 6US, UK, 0117-933-9262, thomasru@pbworld.com or gasworkshistory@gmail.com. The author is grateful to members of the IGEM, Gas History Panel and the staff of the National Gas Archive for their assistance. Introduction When William Murdock used coal gas to light his house and office in Redruth in 1792 it was the first practical demonstration of how coal gas could be commercially used. Gas has been used ever since for commercial, industrial and domestic applications. Gas was first manufactured from coal and later on from oil until its replacement by natural gas in the mid 1970s. The conventional production of gas from coal is well documented; however, there was also another simpler method of gas production which is less well known, this was called producer gas. Producer gas plants started to become popular in the early 1880s and were in extensive use by 1910. As producer gas plants evolved from the first plant built by Bischof (figure 1) through to their demise in Britain from competing technologies in the mid 20th century, many varied types evolved. Following Bischofs early development of the gas producer the next major development was that of Fredrick Siemens who developed a combined gas producer and regenerative furnace in 1857. This system was gradually improved and introduced to the UK through William Siemens. Producer gas plants provided a great benefit to those industries requiring high and uniform temperatures. This greatly aided those industrial processes which were unable or found it very difficult to use directly fired solid fuel furnaces, it also saved fuel as the gas could be burnt at the exact point required. C

B A
Fig. 1. Bischof Gas Producer. Air is drawn in (A) through the fire bars (B) and fuel, existing via the vent (D), fuel enters the producer via C.

A simple drawing of a gas producer working using just air or air and steam is shown in Figure 2. A represents the fire bars or grate, B is the air inlet, C is the column of fuel, D is a hopper with close-fitting valve through which the fuel is introduced, and E is the gas outlet. E The next major advance in the application of gas producers came in 1878 when Dowson developed the Dowson complete gas plant. This plant could be used both industrially and domestically. Dowson went on to demonstrate the effectiveness of gas engines (developed by Otto circa 1876) when in 1881 he combined one of his producer gas plants with a 3 Horse Power Otto gas engine. Whilst these early gas engines where only a maximum of 20 Horse Power (HP) equivalent to 14.9 kilowatts, gas engines by 1910 had reached 2000 HP, equivalent to 1491 kilowatts. B Circa 1900, suction gas plants and engines were introduced; these plants were able to make more effective use of the lower quality producer gas and became a popular system in their own right.

A Air or Air and steam

Fig. 2 Gas producer working with air or air and steam.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Principals of Producer Gas Producer gas manufacture differed from traditional gas production through the way and conditions the gas was made. A traditional gasworks would manufacture gas by heating coal in an oxygen free retort indirectly through a separate furnace located beneath the retort. In simplistic terms a producer gas plant made gas by forcing or drawing air, with or without the addition of steam or water-vapour, through an incandescent deep bed of fuel in a closed producer vessel. The fuel was gradually consumed during the process and the gas was simply piped to where it was required. An important characteristic of the producer gas process was that no external heat was applied to the producer; the producer was heated by the combustion within the producer itself. Once the burning of the fuel inside the producer had started, the air supplied to the producer was carefully controlled. This allowed continuous combustion in the lower regions of the fuel bed to occur and provide a sufficiently high temperature to decompose the steam and enable other necessary reactions. The skill in effectively operating a producer was to ensure that the fuel bed was neither too shallow or the air supply too great as to allow complete combustion of the fuel to carbon monoxide, as carbon dioxide has no calorific value. The producer gas process focussed on the incomplete combustion of carbon so that carbon monoxide produced was maximised. This was achieved through the reactions shown below. Within a conventional fire carbon in coal would react with oxygen forming carbon dioxide, an exothermic reaction where each Kilogram (kg) of carbon would produce 33 mega joules (MJ) of energy.
Fig 3. Advert for a suction gas producer.

(i)

1 kg C + O2 = CO2 + 33 MJ/kg

This reaction also occurred within the fuel pile at the base of the producer. Due to the limited oxygen supply carbon monoxide was also formed in the fuel bed, in the reaction below, which was also exothermic producing 10 mega joules for each kg of carbon. (ii)

1 kg 2C + O2 = 2CO + 10 MJ/kg

As the carbon dioxide formed passed up through the bed of coke it was reduced by further hot carbon higher up the fuel bed forming carbon monoxide through an endothermic reaction where 13 megajoules of energy would be used for each kg of carbon: (iii)

1 kg CO2 + C = 2CO - 13 MJ/kg

This reaction was reversible and the amount of carbon dioxide converted to carbon monoxide was highly dependent on temperature. At 850C the reaction forming carbon dioxide was found to proceed 166 times more rapidly than the reverse reaction. Where moisture was present in the coke or coal, or where steam could be injected into the producer, additional reactions between the carbon or carbon compounds and water would occur, forming hydrogen. When steam interacts with carbon at a high temperature it is decomposed and an equal volume of hydrogen is produced. The oxygen released from the reaction of the steam could,

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

dependent on the conditions combine with carbon to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. This is discussed in the section on Mond Gas. Similarly to coal gas in a retort, complex hydrocarbons within coal would decompose within the producer leading to the generation of gaseous hydrocarbons and other organic compounds within the producer gas. Where coke or anthracite were used very little volatile hydrocarbon would be generated in the gas as these feedstock were largely devoid of such components. Theoretically producer gas would consist of 34.2% carbon monoxide and 65.2% nitrogen, however, these conditions are theoretical and would never actually occur. Ideally a composition of 25% carbon monoxide would have been the target. Producer gas was a mixture in varying proportions of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and a small quantity of gaseous hydrocarbons (predominantly methane). The carbon monoxide, hydrogen, gaseous hydrocarbons were combustible (30-45% of the gas composition), and the calorific value of the gas was dependent on the relative proportions in which they were present. The carbon dioxide and nitrogen were diluents which lowered the flame temperature of the combustible gases when burnt. The nitrogen concentration in producer gas was much higher than in coal gas, this was because the producer was aerated by a restricted supply of air (nitrogen forms 78% of air) and coal gas is not aerated. Component of the gas Coke (% composition) Soft Coal (% composition) Carbon monoxide 25 27 Carbon Dioxide 5 4 Hydrogen 6 10 Methane 1 3 Nitrogen 63 55 Oxygen 0.5 Table 1. Composition of producer gas from coke and American soft coal Gas from producers can be split into two different types hot unpurified gas and cooled and purified gas. For most industrial heating purposes, the gas was used in a hot an unpurified state, this allowed the entrained heat in the gas to be used in addition to the heat generated from burning the gas and any tar which may be present in the gas. This avoided the cost of cooling the gas and minimised the use of regenerators to heat incoming air. There were problems using producer gas in this way, in particular any precipitated tar and dust could block pipes meaning only short pipe runs were suitable. Using coke would minimise tar deposition and bituminous coal would greatly exacerbate the problem.

Fig 4. Two gas engines installed at the former Wandsworth power house. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

If the item being heated was sensitive, such as kilns fired for glass or ceramic ware, then the dust and tar could damage the finished product. In these situation and when used for heating retort/coke ovens or powering gas engines the gas would be purified, removing the dust, ammonia and tarry residues. The gas was cleaned with the use of a scrubber, described later. Producer gas could be obtained from almost any carbonaceous fuel. The type of fuel used depended, not only on the purpose for which the gas is to be used, but on its cost and the ease with which each fuel could be purchased locally. Producer gas was predominantly made from anthracite or coke, especially where the gas use was sensitive. Where the end use of the gas was not sensitive, bituminous or semi-bituminous coal could be used and in some circumstances it was also possible to use brown coal, lignite, peat or charcoal. The composition of the gas and by-product was largely influenced by the nature of the fuel used as a feedstock. Suction Gas Early gas producers operated using the suction of gas through the fuel, however, this was later disregarded in preference to pressurised gas injection. Developments in the 1860s gradually led to the construction of efficient suction gas plants namely G based on the design of Dowson (Figure 5). These were very effectively employed in combination D H E with gas engines optimised for B suction gas producers. The operation C of the system can be explained in F reference to Figure 5, where A was the grate on which the fuel was H B placed; B was the container holding the store of fuel, which entered L through the hopper and valve at the top; C was a circular chamber filled A with broken firebrick; D was a circular pipe which sprayed water into the system; E was the air inlet, and F the gas outlet, G was the chimney; H was the scrubber with water-seal at Fig. 5. A suction gas plant of the the bottom; and I was the gas outlet Dowson design. leading to the expansion box (J) and gas engine (K).

To ignite the fuel in the producer some oily waste and wood were placed on the grate and the producer was filled with anthracite or coke in small pieces. The feeding hopper was closed and the fire then lit. The fan (not shown in Fig. 5) was set in motion, and the exiting gases from the producer were initially allowed to escape through the chimney. Once combustion was effective the water-supply would be turned on and as soon the gas produced was burning effectively it was connected to the gas engine. The engine would be started and the fan stopped. From this time the engine itself would suck the air required into the producer. Before entering the engine the gases passed upwards through the coke filled scrubber, where it ascended through a column of coke continually sprayed by water. The role of the scrubber was to purify the gas, removing fine dust, ammonia and tarry residues in particular. The gases then passed along the pipe main, and into an expansion box, which was in direct communication with the engine cylinder.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mond Gas Mond gas was a variant of producer gas and was in essence a form of complete gasification where by coal would be converted all the way to ash, rather than coke as would happen in a retort. The Mond gas process was designed to enable the simultaneous conversion of bituminous small coal (slack) into flammable gas, largely composed of hydrogen and at the same time recover ammonium sulphate. Although Sir George Bielby and William Young (of oil shale fame) did a lot of early work on both the complete gasification process and the steaming of the char subsequently produced. Much of the recognition for the Mond gas process goes to its namesake Dr. Ludwig Mond, who commercially developed the process. Mond realised by greatly restricting the air supply and saturating that air with steam, the fuel bed could be kept dark red in colour, providing a low working temperature. There were two key reasons for the low temperature. Firstly it was below the temperature of dissociation for ammonia which prevented its destruction and maximised the amount of ammonia which could be obtained from the nitrogen entrained in the bituminous coal. Secondly the low temperature also prevented the formation of clinker which would hamper the operation of the process, the ash being easily removed from the water seal around the base of the cone of the producer. The first Mond gas plant was put into operation at the Brunner, Mond & Co.'s Works at Northwich, Cheshire. These plants required a massive capital outlay in order for them to be profitable, as only very large plants were economically viable. They had to use over 182 tonnes of coal per week for the ammonia recovery to be profitable. The efficiency of the Mond plant was as high as 80 per cent, but in order to achieve this, a large excess of steam was required so that the small proportion of steam which was decomposed (about one third) was sufficient to absorb the heat evolved in the formation of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from air and carbon. For each tonne of coal, two tonnes of steam would be required for the process. This amount was reduced to one tonne of steam if ammonia was not being recovered by the plant. Coal would be fed by coal elevators, as can be seen on the left side of the building in Figure 6, up to hoppers which would feed the small pieces of bituminous coal down into the Mond producers. The Mond producer operated at about 600oC and was fed with hot moist air (250oC) from the superheater.

Fig. 6. The Mond gas plant at the South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company plant, Tipton. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

The gas leaves the Mond producer via a piece of plant referred to as either a superheater or a regenerator (labelled as 2 on Figure 7). The purpose of this plant was two fold. The heat of the gas and steam leaving the producer is transferred to incoming blast of air and steam from the air saturation tower (heated to 250C). The reverse of this is that the gas and steam leaving the producer is cooled by this process equally. From the superheater the gas enters a mechanical washer (labelled as 3 on Figure 7), this was a rectangular iron chamber, where the gas was thoroughly washed with a fine spray of water generated by rotating dashers. This acts to cool the gas further (to 100oC), whilst removing dust or heavy tarry residues.
1. Mond Producer 2. Superheater 3. mechanical washer 4. Acid tower 5. Settling tank 6. Acid pump 7. Gas cooling tower 8. Settling tank 9. Water pump 10. Air saturation tower 11. Blower 12. Settling tank 13. Water pump
Acid

4 7

10

Water

Gas Acid
Air

Air Water

Gas to works

Gas

9 13 12

11

Fig 7. The Mond system of gas production and ammonia recovery. Based on historical process drawings.

Following the mechanical washer the gas was subjected to treatment in the acid tower (labelled as 4 on Figure 7), which was designed to remove ammonia. The gas passed upwards through the tower against a counter current flow of weak sulphuric acid sprayed down the brick and tile filled tower, forming ammonium sulphate. The weak sulphuric acid solution would be recirculated until a concentration of between 36 and 38% ammonium sulphate was reached. At this point the solution would be removed and replaced by fresh weak sulphuric acid. The ammonium sulphate solution would be removed and evaporated yielding the ammonium sulphate. The acid tower was lead lined (steel would have been corroded by the acid), as lead was resistant to corrosion and had been commonly used in processes involving acids (e.g. lead chamber process). The acid tower was therefore a source of potential lead contamination on these former Mond gas plants. With the ammonium removed the gas was then passed through the gas cooling tower (labelled as 7 on Figure 7), where the up flow of gas was met with a downward spray of cold water, cooling the gas. Following this treatment the gas could then be used for its intended purpose. The water from the gas cooling tower, emerged hot and any suspended tar within water was removed in the settling tank labelled as 8 on Figure 7). This hot water was then pumped up to the top of the air saturation tower where it was used to heat (to 85C) the hot moist incoming blast air being blown into the Mond producer. The Mond gas process would produce between 19kg and 40kg of ammonium sulphate and between 3,960m3 and 4,530m3 of gas per tonne of coal. The amount of ammonia produced was dependent on the nitrogen content of the coal being used, the coal preferably had a nitrogen content over 1.5%. The predominant reaction in the Mond gas process is a reaction between carbon and water forming carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The water gas process which predominates at higher temperatures forms carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Both reactions are shown below. Predominant reaction in Mond Gas Process: C + 2H2O = CO2 + 2H2 Predominant reaction in Water Gas Process: C + H2O = CO + 2H2 The gas manufactured was hydrogen rich and carbon monoxide poor (water gas has a much higher carbon monoxide content). It was of limited use for heating or lighting, but it could be used for some

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

industrial purposes and power generation. The tar produced would have been brown in colour and typical of a low temperature coal tar, being high in paraffinoid components and tar acids. It would have bee removed and processed elsewhere. The Mond gas process was further developed by the Power Gas Corporation as the Lymn system. This process was found on some larger gasworks and was more popular than the earlier Mond gas system. The system was similar to the Mond Gas system but used much weaker sulphuric acid and a different configuration of washers, Lymn washers can often be found recorded on plans of larger former gasworks. Gas Producers, Gasworks and Coking Works Gas and coking works were major users of gas producers, not for producing gas to distribute (although it was sometimes used to dilute town gas) but to produce a cheap low grade carbon monoxide gas for the heating of the retorts. Early gasworks used horizontal retorts which were heated directly by a shallow fuel bed of coke lit beneath the bench of retorts. The direct radiant heat from the fuel bed in the furnace and the hot waste gases heated the retort. This approach was not very efficient and was only able to heat the retort to temperatures of about 600C. As a result the amount of gas produced was relatively low by comparison to later methods and the decomposition of the organic compounds in the gas and resulting tar was limited. The heating of the retorts developed from these early directly fired settings described, through semigaseous fired settings (allowed some secondary combustion of gases), to gaseous producer fired settings. The gaseous fired setting used a gas producer to provide gas to heat the retorts. This system was used on all the different retort designs from horizontal to vertical retorts. The gas producer did not need to be adjacent to the retorts (as shown in Fig. 8), although if it was the heat loss was minimised. The producer could be located remotely on the gasworks supplying multiple benches of retorts. The fuel bed in a producer would be about 1.5m to 1.8m deep and the primary air supply was very carefully controlled to enable the correct composition of the producer gas. The producer gas was channelled to a combustion chamber directly adjacent to the retorts, where it was mixed with a secondary supply of air and burned. The subsequent hot exhaust gas was routed through flues around the retort, heating the coal in the retort. The gas producer was the most efficient method of heating retorts. Fuel consumption was improved further in gaseous fired settings if benefit was made of the waste heat in the gas after heating the retorts. If the hot waste gas was used to heat incoming air via a heat exchanger then this was called a recuperative or regenerative gaseous fired setting. If the hot waste gas just passed out the chimney directly or via a waste heat boiler then it was termed a non-recuperative gaseous fired setting. These developments helped to make the gas making process more cost effective and much more efficient.

Retorts

Combustion Chamber

Secondary Air
Producer Gas

Producer

Secondary Air Primary Air

Secondary Air

Fig 8. Cross section of a horizontal retort, showing the gas producer. Based on historical drawings.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Figure 9. The Trefois producers built by Drakes at the Partington Gasworks, which supplied producer gas to the retorts. The ancillary washers and scrubbers can be seen outside the building. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive. For large gasworks such as those at Partington and Garston the producers were housed in buildings external from the retorts (Fig. 9) and the gas was purified through washers and scrubbers before being piped to the retorts. Like most other producers this plant was generally found above ground and therefore little evidence is found on former gasworks sites where the plant had previously existed. Later gasworks such as the gasworks at East Greenwich in South London used larger more advanced gas producers such as the Marishka type gas producer shown in Figure 10. This type of gas producer was separate from the gas making plant which at the East Greenwich works included both retorts and coking works. The producer gas was used for heating coke ovens as well as retorts. It was common practice at coke works to use producer gas to heat the ovens. As value of the coke oven gas has dropped (it cannot easily be sold for domestic or industrial use) and the value of the coke increased, most coking works use coke oven gas to heat the coke ovens, rather than producer gas. The more advanced gas producers such as the Marishka producer, used steam injection into the air blast. The purpose of the steam was to control the endothermic water gas reaction, the temperature of the zone of combustion, the degree of the fusion of the ash and the temperature of both the grate and exiting producer gas. The formation of water gas raised the calorific value of the gas above that of producer gas.

Steam out

Water

Gas Outlet

Air

Fig 10. Cross section of a Marishka type gas producer. Based on a historical drawing.

Producer gas production was a highly efficient process, it had low capital costs and became one of the most widely used industrial gas production methods in Britain, as it could be used without cooling or gas treatment. As natural gas, liquid petroleum gas and oil based town gases became available and coke became costly and scarce, the popularity of gas producers diminished and are now largely obsolete.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Contaminants Associated with Producer Gas Plants

In general terms producer gas plants were not as contaminating as traditional coal gas production methods which used retorts to produce gas. This was primarily because the feedstock fuel used within a producer was predominantly either coke or anthracite (a high rank coal with a low concentration of volatile hydrocarbons). In some circumstances however, other feedstocks, such as coal were used which would produce much greater concentrations of oily and tarry components when heated. The Mond Gas producer and other later developments such as the Power Gas Corporations Lymn System, did produce tar, typically of a low temperature. The Mond gas process used an acid washing process to produce ammonium sulphate which required a lead lined acid tower.

Ash/Coal Dust Ash was the waste material remaining after the burning of the coal or coke in the producer; it contained heavy metals (e.g. As, Pb, Cu, Cd, Ni, Zn) though generally only at low concentrations. Ashes were often used for raising ground levels or for use on cinder paths. Ammoniacal liquor and ammonium sulphate Ammonia rich liquors were formed in the scrubber of a conventional producer by spraying the gas with water. In the Mond Gas process ammonia rich liquors were formed by spraying the gas with a weak sulphuric acid solution within the acid tower. The action of the water or weak acid dissolved the soluble ammonia and if phenolic compounds were present they would also be dissolved. In conventional producer gas plants the ammoniacal liquor would consist of up to 1% ammonium and a much lower concentration of phenol. Ferrocyanide and thiocyanate may also be present. Within the Mond gas process (and similar subsequent processes) the concentration of ammonium could reach 38% and then solid ammonium sulphate would be produced from the concentrated liquor by evaporation. High concentrations of ammonium may be found in the ground around scrubbers, washers and settling tanks and the pipes connecting the aforementioned. Coal Tars. Significant concentrations of coal tars were generally not produced by producer gas plants, however those plants designed to be operated using bituminous coal (e.g. Mond gas) did produce coal tars. The exact composition of coal tar produced was dependent on many factors the most important being the type of gas producer operated (e.g. conventional or Mond type) and the type of coal or other fuel used. In terms of elemental composition, coal tar is approximately 86% carbon, 6.2% hydrogen, 1.8% nitrogen, 1% sulphur with the remaining 5% being composed of oxygen and ash. In terms of the types of organic compounds present, a composition of a typical crude coal tar carbonised in retort is given below. Saturates 15% Aromatics 37% Resins 42% Asphaltenes 6% The exact proportion are likely to be different in producer gas tars, Producer gas tar was recorded by Young in 1922 to be very viscous and containing large amounts of water which would prove difficult to separate. If producer gas tar was distilled then it would contain no light oils, no paraffins, no high boiling tar acids and a large percentage of pitch. This suggests it was a highly degraded tar, similar to coke oven tar. Mond Gas tar which was produced by a relatively low temperature process, would produce a low temperature tar which would be brown, oily and contain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins), naphthenes, paraffins, phenols and pyridines, while benzene and its homologues and aromatic compounds naphthalene and anthracene would be absent.

01/06/2012

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

The main contaminants of concern within coal tar would be: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), in particular carcinogenic PAH such as Benzo (a) Pyrene; Phenolic compounds (e.g. phenol, cresols, xylenols); Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX); Aromatic and aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons; and Ammonia, styrene, carbazole and dibenzofuran. Lead Lead was used to line the acid towers of the Mond gas plant. Lead may therefore be found associated with the site of the former acid towers on Mond gas plants. Sulphuric Acid Weak sulphuric acid was used within the acid towers in the Mond gas process to remove ammonia from the gas as ammonium sulphate.

Scenarios Where Producer Gas Plants Were Used. Gas producers were employed in Britain in many and varied industrial, commercial and domestic settings from 1880s to the mid-20th Century (they are still used in some other countries). Gas producers were used in the following settings: 1. Gasworks, to heat the retorts and occasionally to produce gas at times of high demand; 2. Coking works, to heat the coke ovens; 3. Steel works; 4. Ore roasting plants; 5. Power stations; 6. Factories and mills; 7. Railway works; 8. Glass works; 9. Potteries and kilns; 10. Muffle furnaces; and 11. Chemical works (e.g. those using the Mond Process). 12. Country houses or estates to power gas engines for electricity generation and to directly drive plant such as saw mills; and 13. Large schools, hospitals or other public institutions to power gas engines for electricity generation and to directly drive plant. Unlike conventional coal gasworks which are often visible on Ordnance survey maps, producer gas plants are not clearly marked. They did not always use large gasholders which would be marked on maps (labelled gasometer) and often if the plant was small it would be housed within a building and therefore not visible to the map surveyors. They may however, be marked on site plans.

01/06/2012

10

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Case Studies Small Scale Gas Producer Plants - Canwell Estate Canwell was typical of many country estates; it consisted of a substantial house, containing forty three rooms. The estate also included stables, garages and farms with associated tenanted cottages. As with many such estates, lighting would be very desirable, as would be a readily available source of power. The estate was powered by a conventional coal gasworks until 1905. The gasworks provided light and power to the whole estate. Power came from two gas engines powered by the gasworks which was used for both pumping and powering the farm machinery. Where the tenants used gas it was charged to them at the cost of production.

Fig. 11. Suction Gas Producers at Canwell. From Country House and Its Equipment, L. Weaver, Country Life 1912.

In 1905 an electric plant was installed to replace the gasworks. The plant consisted of two 30 horse power (equivalent to 22.3 kW) gas engines, each with suction-gas producers and two generators. The generators powered an accumulator (battery) capable of maintaining all the lights that were required for 9 hours (overnight). The plant powered a maximum of 720 lights plus two additional 15 horse power (equivalent to 11.1 kW) motors running various pieces of plant such as a saw mill and laundry. The conversion to the producer gas system was approximately 10 to 15% cheaper than the previous energy provided by the gasworks. This conversion to gas producers and electric power generation was common place circa 1900, when many country estates ceased coal gas production. Medium Scale Gas Producer Plants Electrical Generating Stations and Gasworks During the gradual switch to electrical power generation, some power plant used gas producers to power gas engines which in turn powered generators producing electricity. Towns such as Chelmsford and Walthamstow switched to producer gas powered electricity generation. The electricity generating station of the Urban District Council of Walthamstow provided electric power for the electric lighting of the town and also for powering the electric tramway service. In this particular plant the gas engines were built by Westinghouse and the producer gas plant used was a Dowson steam-jet type producer.

Fig. 12. Gas engine powering an electrical generator at a colliery powerhouse, 1914. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive.

These works had an aggregate power of 3000 Horse power (equivalent to 2.2 Mega watts) in 1905.

01/06/2012

11

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

As mentioned previously Gasworks were major uses of producer gas plants. Providing a cheap source of low calorific value gas which could be used to heat retorts and utilise the ready supply of surplus coke generated by the coal gasification process. The photograph shown to the left is a gas producer at the the Garston gasworks located near to Liverpool. This plant operated producers for heating retorts, however it is also known that the producers were used to dilute the town gas supply at time of peak demand. Given that producer gas contained high quantities of nitrogen and carbon monoxide then care would have to be used not to dilute the gas to significantly. The gas from the producers was cleaned using a gas scrubbers, shown on the right of figure 12. These towers would be filled with material with a high surface area such as coke, ceramic or wood and would be continually sprayed with water to remove dust, any residual tar and ammonium.

Fig. 13. Gas producer at the former Garston gasworks, 1947. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive.

Large Scale Gas Producer Plants South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company The largest example of a producer gas plant in the UK was that built at Dudley Port, Tipton. This was a Mond gas producer plant. This plant was built South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company circa 1902 after it had obtained the parliamentary powers to distribute producer gas in South Staffordshire via a gas distribution network. The plant was designed to house 32 producers, capable of gasifying over 600 tonnes of coal per day. To ensure a supply of gas could be maintained the plant was designed in duplicate, this included the producers, ammonia recovery, gas washing and cooling apparatus.

Fig.14. The South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company works. Image courtesy of the National Gas Archive.

The gas was distributed from the plant through the use of compressors at a pressure of 10 PSI equivalent to 68.9 kilopascals. The mains were manufactured as specialised asphalt covered steel mains. The works provided gas to industrial customers via a specialised high pressure gas network which covered a large area of South Staffordshire, competing against other gas companies. This was the first example of such as high pressure gas network in the UK. When the Mond gas plant switched to coke as a feedstock, the resulting gas was of a lower calorific value as volatile and semi volatile hydrocarbon and organic compounds were not present in coke. Gas from the plant therefore had to be mixed with conventional coal gas from a nearby gasworks to enrich its calorific value to make it suitable for use.

01/06/2012

12

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Known Producer Gas Plants The sites listed below are examples of known sites or companies in the UK where producer gas plants were previously installed. This is not an exhaustive list and many other sites were also known to have existed, especially small producer gas plants such as that described at Canwell. It should also be noted that most medium and large scale gas manufacturing plants and many coke ovens also used gas producers to heat the retorts and coke ovens. These gas produces could be integrated or separate from the retort house or coke ovens.

Medium to large sized gasworks. By-product coking works The Castner-Kellner Alkali Co., Ltd., Runcorn. Albright & Wilson, Ltd., Oldbury. Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co., Ltd., Stockton-on-Tees Gloucester Asylum, Coney Hill The Railway and General Eng. Co., Ltd., Nottingham Birmingham Small Arms Factory, Smallheath. The Salt Union, Ltd., Liverpool

The South Staffordshire Mond Gas Co. Brunner, Mond & Co., Ltd., Northwich. Cadbury Bros., Ltd., Birmingham D. & W. Henderson & Co., Ltd., Glasgow The Premier Gas Engine Co., Ltd., Nottingham J. & E. Wright of Millwall The Trafford Power and Light Co., Ltd., Manchester. Walthamstow District Isolation Hospital The Farnley Iron Co., Ltd., Leeds

Selected Bibliography Below is a small selected bibliography of books which may be of interest to the reader Clegg Jnr S., A Treatise on Gas Works and the Practice of Manufacturing and Distributing Coal Gas, 1841 (other later editions), John Weale, London Newbigging, T., and Fewtrell, Wm., three volumes published between 1878-1913 Kings Treatise on the Science & Practice of the Manufacture & Distribution of Gas, Walter King, London Wyer, S.S. A treatise on producer-gas and gas-producers, 1906, New York : McGraw-Hill. Hunt, C., A History of the Introduction of Gas Lighting, 1907, Walter King, London Dowson, J.E, Larter, A.T., Producer Gas, Longmans, Green and Co. 1907 Smith, C.A.M, Suction gas plants, 1909, London, C. Griffin Latta, M.N. American Producer Gas Practice and Industrial Gas Engineering, 1910, New York, D. Van Nostrand company. Meade, A., Modern Gas Works Practice, 1916, 1921, 1934, Benn Brothers, London. Lowry, H.H. - Chemistry of Coal utilisation, Vol 2, Chapter 37, Water Gas, 1945, John Wiley And Sons Inc. King C. Ed - Kings Manual of Gas Manufacture, 1948, Walter King, London. Terrace, J., Terraces Notebook for Gas Engineers & Students, 1948, Ernest Benn, Ltd., London. Chandler, D. and Lacey, A.D. The rise of the gas industry in Britain, 1949, British Gas Council. British Petroleum - Gasmaking, 1959 and 1965, The British Petroleum Company Ltd, London.
Disclaimer:- The purpose of this document is to act as a pointer to the activities carried out on former producer gas plants. Parsons Brinckerhoff will not be responsible for any loss, however arising, from the use of, or reliance on this information. This document ("this publication") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this publication is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. We assume no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions in this publication. Readers are advised to use the information contained herein purely as a guide and to take appropriate professional advice where necessary.

01/06/2012

13

Dr Russell Thomas, Parsons Brinckerhoff