Zapping Trash With Plasma Produces Clean Energy and Fuel
by Justin Thomas, Virginia on 02.23.07
Popular Science reports that companies like Startech are blasting trash with plasma and producing clean fuels like hydrogen as a byproduct. Basically, you put tons of trash in one end of a plasma converter, and a superheated plasma arc obliterates the trash into its molecular components. The process is called "plasma gasification". There are two byproducts: one is a "syngas" composed mostly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which can be converted into fuel. The other is molten glass that can be sold for use in household tiles or road asphalt. Amazingly, plasma converters produce enough energy to power themselves, and actually produce an excess of energy that can be sold to the grid. Still, some environmental scientists have warned that the residual substances may contain toxic heavy metals.
The solution is seductive to many cities though, since a $250 million converter can handle 2000 tons of trash per day. People are starting to take notice. The company U.S. Energy (a partnership between three ex-trash executives) is in the process of buying 6 of Startech's converters to create in a gasification plant in Long Island. Michael Nuzzi (one of the partners) explains how to turn trash into cash, "New York City is already paying an astronomical $90 a ton to get rid of its trash. According to Startech, a few 2,000-ton-per-day plasma-gasification plants could do it for $36. Sell the syngas and surplus electricity, and you’d actually net $15 a ton. “Gasification is not just environmentally friendly,” Nuzzi says. “It’s a good business decision.”
See also this previous post on Startech. :: Via Popular Science (thanks to Jacob for the tip).
TreeHugger Radio: Twelve Steps to Low Carbon Living, The Politics of the Climate Crisis, and Wal-Mart’s Big (Greener) Footprint
|
Will NASCAR Go Ethanol?
|
Seems almost too good to be true, anyone have more detail on what the cons are of the system?
the cons are of the system?
Accidentally losing an unrecoverable arm to the glassification process?
From what I've read in other places the solid waste can be full of toxic metals, though it will eliminate all VOCs. I've also head people question the destruction of processed materials since there is always the possability of mining landfils for scrap metal and plastics.
There will be plenty of opportunity to sort the trash before it gets zapped. Just get a big centrifuge. The plastic bags fly out the top, the batteries fall out the bottom. The paper absorbs moisture so that's in the middle. If there is a big enough value on energy, a way will be found to get the human power.
I'm curious about something....
Assuming this plasma can break the molecular bonds of various materials, returning them to their unique elements, what happens to these elements? For instance, how about a ton of iron nails and rods? You can't tell me it will turn into hydrogen and this "glass" they speak of. It's not some trash-hydrogen alcemy machine. Iron is iron, not glass or hydrogen. Elements cannot be turned into other elements ("matter can neither be created nor destroyed").
This article, although interesting, reads as if plasma gasification is some sort of panacea for our waste woes and it leaves out a lot of important questions such as, what to do with the materials left behind (I don't want kitchen tiles made from plasma-fied mercury metal, do you?).
Huh, I thought this sounded kinda familiar:
From the Wikipedia entry for "Flux capacitor"
2015 is just around the corner. Y'all think we could be powering our DeLoreans with these by then?
I have a lot of hope for this-- popsci.com did a long piece on this indicating that the process can be used to destroy toxics like dioxin, pcbs, etc.,. The plasma is so hot it breaks the molecular bonds of... basically... everything.
It seems theoretically possible that heavy metals could be separated from the slag. But the popsci.com article also had a quotation from a woman that suggested as the syngas cooled it could form or reform toxic emissions.
Wikipedia indicates that they tried this in Japan and had trouble with doxin emissions when chlorine was present in the trash.... but reportedly the process is now hot enough that such emissions are no longer a concern.
It seems that any toxic materials should be easier to handle if they are coming from this equipment than if they are spread out all over a landfill. Containment of those toxic materials can more easily be monitored, regulated and dealt with.
Not only can garbage directly from consumers be used, but material already in the landfills. The mining of the landfills for recyclable scrap can be done as a preliminary step before the material is loaded into the machine.
If this equipment does work, it could literally change everything.
"Amazingly, plasma converters produce enough energy to power themselves, and actually produce an excess of energy that can be sold to the grid."
What happened to the first law of thermodynamics?
These devices aren't new, clean garbage incinerators have been around since late 80s. They aren't popular because people are simply scared of them. (without any justification.)
One, justifiable, reason why opponents of this method are scared is when garbage incinerators in the early 80s were build, they weren't very clean. People were worried about dioxin levels produced by the devices from early 80s. However, as better technology developed, dioxin levels decreased, but people are still scared, and will still cite numbers from long time ago. Ironically, the level of harmful emmisions from these devices are smaller than those from landfills, also you don't have the problems of unmanageable waste accumulated over the years. As well, as someone has pointed out, waste that is known to contain highly toxic/volitile chemicals can be assembled together and stored differently.
And yes, these devices are actually power generators. And no, this is not one of these free energy nonsense. Any power generation works pretty much by doing some process to create heat (either burning fuel as in coal plants or gas/diesel generators, or by nuclear fission) to heat up water, convert it into steam and turn the generators. In the case of incinerators, you >>CLEARLY
What worries people is the negative aspects of such systems. By large, there aren't any. Filtration/separation/conversion technologies have come a long way since 80s. In general, not sure about this particular system, incinerators produce two types of residue - heavy and light ash. You can use light ash as a fertilizer and the heavy ash as fillers in asphalt to make roads, the heavier you can bury, the volume of which was reduced 100-1000 times. Thus you :
Saved landfill space (making average landfill smaller, landfills still have to be distributed over the entire country for logistical reasons)
Reduced the number of truck trips needed to transport the garbage by about a factor of 100; consequently reducing emissions.
Decreased dessimination of toxic waste by packaging (if needed) and applying different storage techniques for different type of waste incinerated.
Produced electricity locally.
Eliminated bad odors surrounding landfills (bad odor is mostly created by bacteria involved in the rotting process when stuff is just lying there in the landfills) overall making the neighboring areas nicer, consequently
Increased value of nearby real estate.
And many other benefits.
Hopefully my post fills in some void and addressed some concerns people may be having.
Best regards,
omitsura
Yes, it's still better to sort waste at the source but since most people don't do that, realistic solutions require systems that can handle unsorted waste (like this or TDP). In addition, this can handle things that havn't recycled well in the past like type 3 and higher plastics and wet food and medical waste. TDP (Thermal DePolymerization - a related system) has been used on sewage as well with great results.
As for mercury, tiny ammounts are used in fluorescent bulbs but huge ammounts are released by coal power plants and is a significant complication in the refining of crude oil. So a system that reduces coal and crude use is a good thing.
Obviously, the elements are not destroyed only the molecules so larger molecules are reduced to their basic forms. If you throw in a ton of soup and soda cans, your slag will come out more like a brick but if it was more glass it would be more slag like. I wonder how much thought he's put into selling the slag to a metal refinery.
All in all, I put this company on my watch list and may buy the stock.
"Amazingly, plasma converters produce enough energy to power themselves, and actually produce an excess of energy that can be sold to the grid."
This is commonly referred to as perpetual motion. Most people realize there is no such thing.
According to a National Geographic documentary I watched, this process was originally invented in Brazil to recycle Tetra Pak milk cartons, which contains layers of paper, plastics, and aluminium.
Paper could be recovered by dissolving used cartons in water, but the leftover plastics and aluminium were impossible to separate until a Brazilian scientist came up with the idea of zapping them with plasma. The resulting products are gas, which later turns into wax, and liquid aluminium.
I found this Tetra Pak link containing more detail: http://www.tetrapak.com/content/businessstories.asp?navid=119&show=37
I just had to reply to the "perpetual motion" complaint.
THERE IS A FUEL COMING INTO THE MACHINE. The trash is the fuel. Just as a coal plant turns coal into energy, this thing turns trash into energy. No violation of thermodynamic, no perpetual motion machine. Please excuse my capitals.
in agreement with omitsura, this technology has exited for many years.
the main problem has not anything to do with the mechanics or principles of the machine, but the consequences to society and civilization. this is the main reason you are reading this right now, on your terminal with a newsubscription-based, services economy (the kind that is replacing our currently obsolete consumer/manufacture-based economy).
energy issues are actually very benign, but the buzz helps (cover) usher in a new economic model. the chaos of the hoi-polloi with new economic paradigm shifts seems at times unbearable and inefficient.
enjoy the future!
#26
Right. Perpetual motion machines would (if they were possible) use ONLY the energy they produce as the energy they need to run. It would need to be a closed system, and as such, perfectly efficient (which is why its impossible). This machine is not a closed system. One must continually supply new trash, which is then converted into energy, some of which is used to power the machine.
---"what happens to these elements? For instance, how about a ton of iron nails and rods? You can't tell me it will turn into hydrogen and this "glass" they speak of."
Actually, it's not glass at all. Bad choice of words. The technical term is sludge. Mix those nails with a ton of platice and glass and it all melts together. Just like cake batter can no longer be separated into milk, eggs, and flour--it's just batter.
They say it actually seals in any toxic materials very effectively. The most promising use for sludge is road paving. Worst case scenario it goes into the landfill, but it's now ten times smaller than the original trash and energy was produced along the way.
"What happened to the first law of thermodynamics?'
"This is commonly referred to as perpetual motion. Most people realize there is no such thing."
As Scott Kathrein said, the trash is the fuel. No trick here.
PopSci and StarTech may want to lay off the implication that the system can power itself. Even though they don't explicitly say that, it really does make it sound like it violates thermodynamics which is just gonna make people skeptical for the wrong reasons (which actually may not be a bad strategy in itself... hm.. wow i'm paranoid)
fascinating technology. let's hope there isn't a catch.
if you break bonds between molecules then doesnt that create energy? whats breaking what law?
It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics because it gets the energy from the trash
energy issues are actually very benign, but the buzz helps (cover) usher in a new economic model. the chaos of the hoi-polloi with new economic paradigm shifts seems at times unbearable and inefficient.
"Elements cannot be turned into other elements (...)"
Actually, they can. That's what happens in nuclear reactions (a nucleus sheds or accepts a particle in order to become more stable.) Not saying this happens in these plasma incinerators, though - don't know anything about that.
"matter can neither be created nor destroyed"
No, but it can be converted into energy and vice versa.
Ok, this thing sounds great..but everybody is too scared to really give it a try. Soooo...I suggest we put it in a place that would probably be the best controled test area for such a Machine.
BAGDAD!
If it works like promised..then Bagdad would be getting it's trashed cleaned up, extra power would be added into their electrical grid (which they are poorly needing by the way), syngas fuel could be used for other energy needs, the Black molten glass matterial can be used to resurface their roads and streets..and best of all they can get the US government to foot the bill for the low low price of $250,000.00 to set up (Maybe they will set up many of these thru out the city for it's electrical/ trash needs).
And if it doesn't work...
It's BAGDAD!
I don't think this is the same thing as a clean garbage incinerator. It's actually not incineration at all, because there's no combustion. Instead the plasma torch literally rips electrons off, which converts the waste stream into other base elements. You don't need emissions controls or filters because you are not burning anything, except for the hydrogen you extract from the process, which burns cleanly.
its sad that they trash our universe
if you break bonds between molecules then doesnt that create energy? whats breaking what law?
It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics because it gets the energy from the trash
It doesn't go against the laws of thermodynamics because it gets the energy from the trash
I interviewed with a company that was using a floating bed burner to burn, Diesl fuel soil in Stockdon and asbesto soil in Alaska. The exterme hi temps used and filter system allowed them run this process. Trash to energy is much better than burying the toxic products in land fills.
Thanx
Wonderful article, many thanks
I am a mechanical engineer (PE) with over thirty years in the power/industrial/ waste-to-energy field. I am well aware of the physical, thermal laws of nature and am competent in the areas of equipment design as well as mass-energy balances.
I have been following the developments in this field for a couple of years and have particular interest in the huge proposed plant for St. Lucie, Florida
My concerns and comments:
- Yes, you will get more in the calorific value of the "fuel" from the process than you put in ( but not by very much)
- Westinghouse, and several other parties have been involved in this process for over 25 years.
- The St. Lucie plant design has been "in development" for over two years, with no real product yet. The St. Lucie plant is a huge (150MWe net) full- sized commercial unit. No electric generating demo plant has been built in the USA
- There is only one small demo plant in North America (Canada) that started up a couple of months ago. It used IC engines,
- European nations have been evaluating this process for many years - no commercial sized plant built yet.
Long story made short - these "trash to energy" plants would consume massive amounts of power and generate little. A whole new generation of gas turbines, HRSGs compressors etc would be necessary to make this concept work and be practical.
There is nothing new or evolutionary here..... only a marginal, wishful technology promoted to the hopeful by a new crop of decieving MBas
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=211955&page=1
-MJC
Go to the companies website they are selling these things around the world. I would imagine the companies who are going to lose their jobs over this are pressing very hard to keep it out.