PYROPOWER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 23, 2011
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: March 27, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT 11
~.... . n: 0 +
ACTION
INFO
DATE
INIT L
1
CI
2
DDCI
X
3
EXDIR
X
4
D/ICS
5
DDI
X
6
DDA
7
DDO
8
DDS&T
9
Chm/NIC
10
GC
11
IG
12
Compt
13
D/OLL
14
D/PAO
15
D/PERS
16
VC/NIC
17
D/ALA/DI
x
18
19
ES
x
20
21
22
Remarks
To 5: This is to be factored in to the work
you have set in motion on this subject. _
x rve Secretary
28 Mar 86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
CONFID N1IAL 1
86- 1252
27 March 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
Director, African and Latin American Affairs, DI
Director, Office of Global Issues, DI
FROM: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Pyropower
In connection with Bob Gates' memorandum of 5 March on economic
intelligence and the document entitled, "Proposal for a US Third World
Partnership", I send you a letter from John Fitzpatrick who is in
Washington working with AID and the World Bank to develop and install
fluidized bed boiler plants based on a Finnish process in the Third World
countries. This seems to be capable of substantially transforming the
economies of less developed countries by enabling them to use a wide
variety of indigenous fuels ranging from low grade coal, peat and bagasse.
William J. Casey
Attachment:
Letter from John Fitzpatrick
dated 30 January 1986 w/attachments
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
~ ? utA h@91?tfy
JOHN P. FITZPATRICK
30 January 1986
Mr. William J. Casey
Dear Bill,
I enjoyed talking with you and Sofia last night at the
Moroccan Embassy. I get very excited talking about my
new business, and usually I get excitement from my aud-
ience? I was very pleased that you both understood what
I was talking about, and the tremendous influence is
going to have on the less-developed countries. I am work-
ing very closely with the World Bank and AID, and they
are bringing me many many projects.. Moroccoand Jordan
are the first two in the "oil shale" program. There are
to be 34 more in the "oil shale club". Pakistan will be
the first in the "low-grade coal club". There are many
others in this category. Jamaica will be the first in
the "bagasse club" and there will be 44 more in that cat-
egory. El Salvador will be the first in the "coffee bean
hill club" and we haven't decided yet whether to lump
other or of There are 40
them in with the "r s e hull
countries with one or
The World Bank and AID have a great arrangement. AID has
front end money for feasibility studies, and if the study
is positive, the World Bank arranges the financing. The
biggest problem at the moment is that AID is cutting the
funds rather than beefing them up. Alan Jacobs, Chief of
the Energy Division of AID is doing a terrific job in all
these countries, but without the necessary funds, s ef-
forts forts will have been in vain? The Senate Energy Committee
recently concluded that AID's Energy budget should be in-
creased to $50 million. It is now about $5 million. AID
has so far ignored this recommendation. I have been lobby-
ing all I can to get this word across to Peter McPherson,
the AID Administrator. I hope we are successful, as a.-
little bit of AID money now will place these countries in
a position, where they can expand their economies and not
depend on foreign aid from the U.S. There will no longer
be a need to sneak across our borders to gain the means to
support their families. It is also needed to arrest the
movement to the left in these countries. Our boiler is the
key to success for the Caribbean Basin Program, as well as
the other developing countries.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
Joseph Salgado, Under-Secretary of the Department of
Energy, recently wrote me saying "the Department recog-
nizes that Pyropower is a leader in the area of Circu-
lating fluidized bed boilers". We are working very
closely with DOE as we have the means to resolve the acid
rain problem. We also have the means to resolve the city
waste problem and toxic gases. However, the under-develop-
ed countries have the most urgent need.
If you know Mr. McPherson, or if you know someone who
does, would you put in a word in favor of Alan Jacobs
and AID's Energy Division. A successful prpgram will
be bound to make your Agency's task easier.
If we can be of any service to you, please do not hesi-
tate to call on me. We would love to help. Ann joins
in sending warmest best wishes to Sofia and you.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
A package of brochures on the Pyropower Corporation and
its PYROFLOW technology.
A study on the savings that will be made possible by
switching from imported oils to indigenous fuels in
electric power generation in the under-developed countries.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
SUBSTANTIAL FOREIGN EXCHANGE SAVINGS WOULD BE MADE POSSIBLE BY
SWITCHING CHEAP INDIGENOUS FUELS FOR EXPENSIVE IMPORTED FUELS IN
ELECTRIC PO'WE2 PLANTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
The great majority of developing countries are now using diesel
and/or fuel oil for part of their electric power generation. If
these countries would switcto a cheaper, non-petroleum pro-
duct as a fuel, substantia',)savings could be achieved, if the
country were a net importer, or substantial amounts of foreign
exchange could be generated, if the country were a net exporter.
To accomplish these savings a switch or modification of the ex-
isting boilers would be required. If the boilers were switched
to a new advanced technology, called PYROFLOW, these new circu-
lating fluidized bed boilers would burn everything and anything
that was burnable and practically any burnable resource can be
used efficiently as a fuel, such as peat, wood, sawdust, .;!sav-
ings, coal, coal fines, cuLm, lignite, sugar cane, straw, a?ri-
cultural manure, coffee beans, rice hulls, city waste and garbage,
tires, tar sands, oil shales and many many more. If it is burn-
able it can be used efficiently as a fuel in PYR0FL0'4. ; is
hig' unlikely that any developing country would not have at least
one possible fuel resource, that is not being used as such a` the
present time.
Following is a list of all the developing countries, with
best available information on the amount of generating ca acity
that might be converted to an indigenous non-petroleum f'.;el, and
it also shows the huge amounts of foreign exchange that mi=ht be.
saved or generated. Tt is based on a World Bank publicatin
"1981 ?o:,er/Ererg-
i Data for 100 Developing Countries". _t night
not be up to date, but it will still serve our purpose here, and
that is to demonstrate the validity of the general principle. '+e-
gotiations are already under-Nay in varying degrees, and with
World Bank help, in India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Jamaica, "!exico. El Salvador, Guaterna_a, Morocco and Jordan.
will try to reach all of the nations in time. If substitution
programs were enacted in the 78 nations listed, the total savings
and generations of foreign exchange would amount to over $10
billion annually.
COUNTRY
TOTAL
MILLION TONS OF
MILLIONS
$ MILLIONS THAT
MEGAWATTS
OIL EQUIVALENT
OF BBLS.
CAN BE SAVED
Angola
65
0.088
0.64
16
Argentina
777
2.31
16.86
421.6
Bangladesh
190
0.158
1.15
29
Barbados
37
0.087
0.64
16
Belize
21
0.021
0.146
3.65
Bolivia
46
0.047
0.343
8.6
Brazil
?
0.368
2.69
67
Burma
86
0.102
0.75
18.6
Cameroon
85
0.027
0.207
5.2
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
Chad 38
Chile ?
China ?
Colombia ?
Congo P.R. 30
Costa Rica 150
Cyprus ?
Djibouti 35
Dominican Republic ?
Ecuador ?
Egypt ?
El Salvador ?
Ethiopia 51
Fiji 85
Gabon 102
Gambia 8
Ghana 84
Guatemala 140
Guinea 85
Guinea-Bissau 20
Guyana 100
Haiti 88
Honduras 99
India ?
Ivory Coast ?
Jamaica ?
Jordan ?
Kampuchea 52
(All
Kenya 162
Liberia 60
'.'adagascar 70
Malaysia 437
Mauritania 84
Mauritius 62
Mexico ?
Morocco ?
Mozambique 170
Nepal 12
Nicaragua 300
Niger 26
Nigeria ?
Pakistan (all data
Panama ?
Peru ?
Philippines ?
Portugal ?
Senegal ?
Sychelles 19
Sierra Leone 98
Soloman Is. 8
Somalia . '90
Sri Lanka 130
0.02
o.656
15.3
1.17
0.019
0.04
0.032
0.0275
0.8
0.652
2.565
0.03
0.034
0.059
0.035
0.01
0.014
0.331
0.105
0.008
0.113
0.029
0.072
0.6
0.5
data mixed
0.35
0. 44
o .o84
0.307
0.083
2
0.032
0.067
10.65
0.75
0.113
0.011
0.167
0.32
o.6
mixed toge
0.511
0.479
2.5
2.125
0.192
0.013
0.067
0.005
0.028
0.09
0.146
4.8
112
8.5
0.138
0.292
0.234
0.2
5.9
4.76
18.72
0.22
0.248
0.43
0.25
0.073
0.102
2.4
0.77
0.058
0.825
0.212
0.526
4.2
3.65
but savings
2.56
0.32
0.61
3.65
120
2,800
213
3.45
7.3
5.85
5
150
120
470
5.4
6.2
11
6.25
1.8
2.5
6o
19.2
1.45
20.6
5.3
13.2
105
91.3
be large)
64
8
15.5
6 '6
15
365
5.85
12.5
2.64
o.6
14.6
0.234
0.5
78
5-5
0.825
0.08
1.22
0.234
4.38
ther, but savings
3.73
18.25
15.9
1.
0.095
0.5
0.365
0.204
0.66
1950
137.5
20.6
2
30.5
5.85
109
could be large)
93
4565
400
32.4
12.5
?91
5.1
16.5
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
Sudan
150
0.109
0.8
20
Suriname
204
0.192
1.4
35
Swaziland
50
0-037
0.27
6-75
Tanzania
62
0.041
0.3
7.5
Thailand
800
2.66
19.5
487.5
Togo
48
0.021
0.153
3.8
Tunisia
900
0.75
5.5
138.8
Turkey
?
1.6
11.7
300
Uruguay
?
0.26
1.9
47.5
Vietnam
?
0.825
6
150
Yemen A.R.
?
0.525
0.38
9.5
Yemen PDR
?
0.043
0.313
8
Yugoslavia
?
1.573
11.5
288
Zaire
67
0.025
0.183
4.6
Zambia
24
0.025
0.183
4.6
The following countries were not listed as their consumption
was too small to justify inclusion, o4 for which no informat-
ion was availablee
Afghanistan
Algeria
Benin
Botswana
Burundi
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Comoros
Dominica
Equatorial Guinea
Laos
Lesotho
Malawi
Mali
Paraguay
Romania
Korea
Rwanda
Sao Tome & Principe
Syria
Uganda
Upper Volta
Zimbabwe
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
PYROFLOA? UNITS IN OPERATION
Gulf Oil Exploration Co.
1983
100% coal &
2500 psig; 670?F
Enhanced Oil
Bakersfield, CA, USA
limestone
50,000 lb/hr
80% quality
Recovery
Once thru Design
Zellstoff and Papierfabrik
1983
100% bark
1250 psig; 968?F
Frantschach AG
Frantschach, Austria
100% oil
67% brown coal
154,000 lb/hr
Ah1strom
885 psig; 895?F
Varkaus, Finland
55,000 lb/hr
Neste Lampo Oy
1983
100% coal-water
230 psig; 248?F
Heating-Firetube
Mantsala, Finland
mixture
100% coal
hot water; 10 MM Btu/hr
Design
Oriental Chemical Co.
1984
100% petroleum
1580 psig; 970?F
Cogeneration
Inchon, Korea
coke
100% coal
264,000 lb/hr
Ostersunds Fjarrvarme AB
Ostersund, Sweden
1985
100% peat
100% wood chips
100% coal
160 psig; 355?F
hot water; 85 MM Btu/hr
District Heating
Municipal Electricity Works
Kerava, Finland
1985
100% coal &
limestone
145 psig; 355?F
hot water; 102 MM Btu/hr
District Heating
California Portland
1985
100% coal &
650 psig; 825?F
Cement Co.
Colton, CA, USA
limestone
190,000 lb/hr
Papyrus Kopparfors AB
1985
100% bark
857 psig; 887?F
Fors, Sweden
100% peat
100% coal
159,000 lb/hr
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
PYROFLOW UNITS IN OPERATION
Start-Up
Fuels
Application
Suomen Kuitulevy Oy
1979
100% peat
1230 psig; 970?F
Cogeneration-Retrofit
Pihlava, Finland
100% woodwaste
45,000 lb/hr
Savon Voima Oy
1979
100% peat
160 psig; 250?F
District Heating
Suonenjoki, Finland
100% oil
hot water; 22 MM Btu/hr
Kemira Oy
Oulu, Finland
Ahlstrom
1981
100% peat
1235 psig; 930?F
Sludge Incineration
Cogeneration
Kauttua, Finland
100% coal
200.000 lb/hr
Hyvinkaan Lampovoima Oy
1981
100% coal
160 psig; 355?F
District Heating
Hyvinkaa, Finland
Skelleftea Kraft AB
1981
80% oil
80% peat
100% peat
hot water: 85 MM Btu/hr
160 psig; 355?F
District Heating
Skelleftea, Sweden
100% oil
hot water; 22 MM Btu/hr
Ruzomberok,
Czechoslovakia
Hylte Bruks AB
1982
100% peat
960 psig; 840?F
Sludge Incineration
Cogeneration
Hyltebruk, Sweden
80% coal
143,000 lb/hr
Oy Alko Ab
1983
100% peat
610 psig; 840?F
Process Steam
Koskenkorva, Finland
100% oil
55,000 lb/hr
Kemira Oy
1983
100% peat
1305 psig; 960?F
Cogeneration
Oulu, Finland
80% coal
155,000 lb/hr
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
PYROFLOt&F UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
500 psig: 470?F
125.000 lb/hr
Metsaliiton Teollisuus Oy
1985
90?,% woodwaste
1215 psig: 896?F
Aanekoski, Finland
90% peat
100% coal
70% oil
220.000 lb/hr
Central Soya
190 psig: 384?F
88.000 lb/hr
General Motors
1986
1001/ coal 8
1460 psig: 955?F
Pontiac, MI. USA
limestone
plant wastes
300.000 lb/hr
Espoon Sahko
Espoo, Finland
145 psig; 355?F
hot water; 273 MM Btu/hr
District Heating
Colorado-Ute Electric Assoc.
1987
100% coal &
1510 psig: 1005?F
Electric Power
Nucla Station, CO, USA
limestone
925.000 lb/hr
Leykam Muerztaler AG
1755 psig: 968?F
Cogeneration
Gratkorn, Austria
364,000 lb/hr
Kemira Oy
1987
100% coal
1218 psig; 977?F
Pori, Finland
90% peat
222,000 lb/hr
Chemiefaser Lenzing AG
1987
100% brown coal
1130 psig; 932?F
Lenzing, Austria
100% coal
265.000 lb/hr
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
Forbes
The Up & Comers
With U.S. nuclear power dead for the mo-
ment and acid rain a growing concern,
little Pyropower's new way of burning coal
seems an intriguing answer.
Starting over
E RIC OAKES, a 44-year-old for-
mer nuclear physicist, went
through a rough time as a di-
rector for new business development
at General Atomic, an
ambitious nuclear ven-
ture by Gulf Oil and Roy-
al Dutch/Shell's Scallop
nuclear subsidiary. When
the nuclear reactor busi-
ness collapsed in the late
Seventies, Oakes began
looking for other com-
mercial applications for
the company's existing
technologies. (General
Atomic, now known as
GA Technologies Inc., re-
cently was absorbed by
Chevron Corp., along
with Gulf itself.)
Oakes became the
president of a GA Tech-
nologies venture to make
high-tech boilers. The
project, spun out in 1980
as a separate company
called Pyropower Corp.,
in San Diego, began ex-
ploiting an energy source
every bit as clean as nu-
clear but without its po-
litical problems.
What excited Oakes
was a technology called
fluidized bed combustion
(FBC), a process for bum-
ing pulverized coal and
limestone on a cushion of
upthrusting air to make
Eric Oakes of Pyropower Corp.
"UtWtiea don't need those big blocks of power anymore."
steam or generate power. The particu-
lar virtue of this process is that the
pollutants produced by the combus-
tion process-sulfur, nitrogen, you
name it-are harmless. Sulfur, for ex-
ample, combines with the limestone
to produce calcium sulfate.
Various manufacturers had been
dabbling in FBC for years-for steam,
cogeneration or electric power pro-
duction-but they had been interest-
ed mainly in a different technology.
This other method, which used a so-
called bubbling bed, ran into prob-
lems scaling up to commercial sizes.
General Atomic, however, took note
of a variant technology being devel-
oped in Europe-circulating fluidized
bed combustion (CFBC).
A $700 million-a-year Finnish pulp,
paper and engineering firm, A. Ahl-
strom OY of Helsinki, had developed
a CFBC technology and had even got
its first plant into successful oper-
ation. Ahlstrom had so much of a
head start that in 1980 GA and Ahl-
strom decided to pool their strengths
in a 50-50 CFBC venture called Pyro-
power Corp., which Ahlstrom finally
took over entirely last year.
With U.S. nuclear power dead for
the moment and acid rain a matter of
rising concern, FBC now
mentally superior alter-
coal plants for generating
electricity. TVA is cur-
rently building a 160,000-
kilowatt demonstration
facility at Paducah, Ky.,
using the conventional
bubbling FBC process.
Foster Wheeler is retrofit-
ting a 125,000-kilowatt
Northern States Power
plant also using FBC
technology. And Pyro-
power is retrofitting an
old coal plant for the
Colorado-Ute Electric
Association with a
100,000-kilowatt CFBC
unit for early 1987 oper-
ation. What Oakes hopes,
of course, is that the
Colorado-Ute project will
open the big U.S. utility
market to the Pyropower
process. It may already
have done so. In May Dia-
mond West Energy Corp.
and Sagamore Corp.
worked out a deal with
Boston Edison to build an
80,000-kilowatt CFBC
plant using Pyropower
boilers.
There's a great deal of
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
The Up & Comers
high-powered competition out there:
big companies like Lurgi overseas;
Combustion Engineering, Babcock &
Wilcox and Keeler/Dory-Oliver.in the
U.S. Even so, Pyropower picked up 3
of the 15 units contracted for in the
U.S. last year, and Oakes argues that
Ahlstrom's experience gives it a con-
siderable edge over its competition.
Worldwide there are 17 Ahlstrom
plants in operation, with 12 more un-
der construction. Pyropower itself has
already built 2 in the U.S.-a CFBC
system for Gulf Oil at Bakersfield,
Calif. for secondary oil recovery, and a
second one, going into operation this
month, for California Portland Ce-
ment, to produce both steam and elec-
tricity. It has contracts, as well, with
B.F. Goodrich, Central Soya and Gen-
eral Motors.
For utility applications, Pyropower
units can be built in 100,000-to
200,000-kilowatt modules, for the
same $1,200-to-$1,500-a-kilowatt
cost a new coal-fired 600,000-kilo-
watt unit with pollution controls
commands. These smaller Pyropower
units, Oakes points out, are more
adaptable to the current patterns of
power consumption than the larger
conventional plants. They can be add-
ed in 150,000-kilowatt modules, for
example, as demand requires, and
built in three years instead of the five
or six years the larger units require.
"The utilities don't need those big
blocks of power anymore," Oakes
says. "They can absorb 150 mega-
watts more rationally in their plan-
ning. And the cash flow is much bet-
ter with four 150-megawatt units,
say, than it is with one 600-megawatt
unit. With the big unit, you're going
to be in the hole five or six years
before it starts to generate revenue.
We can put a 150-megawatt unit on
line in about three years." Oakes is so
confident of Pyropower's ability to do
the job that he's prepared to offer
fixed-price contracts with guaranteed
performance.
Pyropower's sales are beginning to
take off: from $3 million in 1981 to
$7.5 million in 1982, $22 million in
1983, $44 million last year, and $75
million in prospect for 1985 and $200
million by 1990. "Our goal is to break
even this year," Oakes says. "I'm not
sure we'll make it. But next year for
sure. But it will be ten years before we
really start to generate good earnings.
It's a real challenge, trying to become
a long-term supplier to the U.S. boiler
business. People think that we're
crazy for taking it on, but in these
times of change, there's room for a
newcomer with a good product and
organization." ^
FokBr Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
1:oos A ol, a7
ti M
Tuesday, November 19, 1985
Firm Markets Clean Coal-Power Technology
Pyropower Vice President William Compas stands next to model of DON BARTLErFI
By GREG JOHNSON. Times Staff Writer
Coal angers environmentalists, frustrates
states with plenty of the cheap but dirty
burning fuel-but brings smiles to the faces
of Pyropower Corp. executives.
That's because San Diego-based Pyropow-
er, a wholly owned subsidiary of Helsinki,
Finland-based A. Ahlstrom Group, is design-
ing industrial and utility boilers that burn
coal and other dirty fuels without damaging
the environment.
Pyropower has six projects under way,
including:
?An industrial boiler outside Chicago that
is funded for $4.3 million by the State of
Illinois: The state anticipates that the boiler ;
which began operating last month, could
signal a turnaround for the state's depressed
coal mining industry.
Making Illinois-mined coal environmen-
tally safe to burn could add $500 million to
the state's economy by creating as many as
4,000 new jobs, according to the state
Department of Energy and Natural Re-
sources.
^ In smog-ridden and coal-poor San Ber-
nardino County, a Pyropower coal-fired
industrial boiler designed for California Port-
land Cement Co. fired up in June and, in the
process, became Southern California's first
new coal-fired boiler in 20 years.
a A 100-megawatt coal-fired unit that was
designed for the Colorado-Ute Electric As-
soc. has attracted cautious attention from the
utility industry. The unit, scheduled to open
in 1987, marks the first use by a U.S. utility of
the Pyropower technology.
The Colorado-Ute unit is one of three
fluidized bed projects under way, Compas
said. The two others will use fluidized bed
combustion systems designed by Combustion
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
COAL: New Technology
Engineering and Foster Wheeler.
U.S. utilities, although interested in the
fluidized bed technology, have been slow to
place orders, according to William Compas,
vice president of Pyropower.
"These (utility] guys were burned badly by
[expensive] nuclear plants," Compas said.
"Although there are some mavericks who
will take a chance, [most are] gun-shy about
any new technology."
Pyropower, however, is not shy about its
"circulating fluidized bed" combustion tech-
nology, which generated $55 million in sales
during 1984. The technology cleanly burns
high-sulfur coals, petroleum coke, anthracite
coal wastes and waste fuels including wood,
Compas said.
As fuel is frd into Pyropower-designed
furnaces, a steady stream of air keeps the fuel
"floating," which provides for a
"cleaner" burn, company officials
said. Fuel that fails to completely
burn is then circulated into the
furnace for complete combustion.
Crushed limestone that is blown
into the furnaces creates a chemi-
cal reaction that eliminates the
sulfur dioxides generally blamed
for creating acid rain.
Pyropower grew out of a part-
nership involving Ahlstrom and La
Jolla-based GA Technologies,
which was considering the tech-
nology for use in nuclear-powered
boiler applications. GA abandoned
its part of the boiler project after
the Three Mile Island radioactivity
leak, the resulting regulatory ex-
plosion,' and skyrocketing con-
struction costs knocked the bottom
out of the nuclear reactor industry.
When GA Technologies with-
drew from the partnership, Ahl-
strom created Pyropower as a
wholly owned subsidiary, with for-
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/23: CIA-RDP88B00443R001904420006-9
mer GA executive Eric Oakes as its
president. Compas, another GA
veteran, joined Pyropower just
over a year ago. The company has
taken advantage of a general in-
dustry slowdown and grabbed
managers from boiler giants such
as Babcox and Wilcox.
Pyropower is chasing utility and
industrial customers that want
both electricity and co-generated
heat or steam that can be used to
slash production costs, Compas
said, adding that the company is
also developing projects in which it
acts as an owner-operator.
Last month, Pyropower and
General Electric signed a market-
ing agreement that will "identify,
screen and develop selected
co-generation projects incorporat-
ing Pyropower's [technology] into
GE's proven power generation sys-
tems," according to a GE executive.
GE has predicted that during the
next five years, the market for solid
fuel-fired co-generation plants
could swell to $5 billion.