Clean Energy From Garbage

Clean engergy from garbage, without a catch?:eyebrow:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

What's tha' catch.

That thing is solid.
wow

“That obsidian-like slag contains toxic heavy metals and breaks down when exposed to water,” claims Brad Van Guilder, a scientist at the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which advocates for clean air and water. “Dump it in a landfill, and it could one day contaminate local groundwater.” Others wonder about the cleanliness of the syngas. “In the cool-down phases, the components in the syngas could re-form into toxins,” warns Monica Wilson, the international coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, in Berkeley, California.

There's your possible catch. funny how he was talking about using the obsidian waste as bathroom tiles earlier.

The system breaks down materials into basic forms, so I have a difficult time believing that the only byproducts are "an obsidian-like glass" and "a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide". Any materials containing toxic elements, like chlorine and heavy metals, are going to break down to, well, chlorine and heavy metals. That has to go somewhere. Dump old computer components into this and you're going to release lots of lead.

Pretty cool. It's not completely clean, of course. When the fuels are burned to make electricity, there is some pollution.

They've been talking about this for years. It's time for some cities to implement it.

I posted about another company's similar process a few years ago.

You trap the gasses and use them.

rkzenrage;333173 wrote:

You trap the gasses and use them.

Sorry. I only read the first page.

They still come out ahead energy-wise when they trap the gases?

Maybe I'm dumb. Explain to me why the plasma doesn't also vaporize the stainless steel chamber it's inside?

Because the chamber is not in contact with the plasma. I have welded with plasma. It is very hot, but you have to be in contact with the arc.

Consumables. Besides compressed air or nitrogen, there can be as few as two consumables needed for plasma arc cutting. These are the tip and the cutting electrode. If either the tip or the electrode become worn or damaged, the quality of the cut will be affected. The consumables will wear with each cut, but factors like moisture in the air supply, cutting excessively thick materials or poor operator technique will increase the deterioration of the consumables. You will want to have consumables available when you need them, so the ability to order and receive them in a timely fashion is important. Best practice is to replace the tip and the electrode together for optimal quality cuts. It is especially convenient if the cutting machine has a storage compartment for these consumables to save on downtime.

Clodfobble, what happens inside the stainless steel chamber is that the electrodes provide the two points that the plasma "touches". In between, it's that glowing superhotness. But it's not touching the containment vessel.

Imagine an incandescent light bulb. Where the filament glows, that's where the plasma is. Where the filament is supported and receives it's electricity supply, those are the electrodes (in a plasma cutter, as in the example quoted above, they're made of carbon). The glass bulb is analogous to the stainless steel chamber. The filament is very very hot, but the glass is safe, since it's not touching the filament.

The plasma is very very very very hot but the stainless steel chamber is "safe" because it's not touching / in the path of the plasma. The electrodes, however, are, and are indeed consumed. I reckon for the Jetson's garbage disposal, there's some regular maintenance schedule for replacing the electrodes inside the stainless steel chamber.

Back to the opening post's question...

I believe there's a catch too. Leave out for now the garbage processing angle. Even leave out the possibility of water soluble toxic waste. The whole "get more than put in" angle does not compute for me.

Why, oh why in the world wouldn't we just build this thing for the net plus in electrical generation? We could feed it water, or dirt or the cheapest, cleanest, nearest fuel, (no chlorine in, no chlorine out.). And then, what? Just watch the electricity pour out? Something's not right there. This was the promise of a fusion reactor. I've read (beginner level) documentation of these, and I can see "how the math works" to get more energy out than you put in. But I have not seen the same support for this technology. I would think that Al Gore would be all over it, neh? So. Your question stands, rkz. What's the catch?

BigV;333193 wrote:

The whole "get more than put in" angle does not compute for me.

I thought they were essentially burning trash without flame to generate electricity. They have to provide fuel, gasification takes place, and the resulting products are burned to further the process. This isn't free energy.

But why would we need this when we will see free energy later this year, anyway? ;)

Riiiight. They're a little late.

Technical Specifications

Detailed technical specifications will be made available at the end of Quarter 1, 2007.

I remain respectfully skeptical.

So, seriously, my question still stands. I like your clarification, that they're burning fuel and liberating energy in the process. Fine.

So why isn't this the freakin Next Big Thing? What's the catch? Assuming no pollutants are produced or emitted based on what goes in, and that anything can be used as fuel, why are dirty coal and remote expensive dangerous oil still tops of the pops?

I'm not deliberately being obtuse (it's a character flaw, you'll just have to endure it), I just feel that it doesn't all pencil out, based on my limited understanding of the inputs.

BigV;333228 wrote:

I remain respectfully skeptical.

But it's magnetic*! How could it fail?

*that's the only bit of technicalish info on the site.

BigV;333230 wrote:

So, seriously, my question still stands. I like your clarification, that they're burning fuel and liberating energy in the process. Fine.

So why isn't this the freakin Next Big Thing?

If it's real, then it is the Next Big Thing. The article just came out in March, and they had only recently finished their working prototype, so it still could be. If it's real.

Kitsune;333227 wrote:

I thought they were essentially burning trash without flame to generate electricity. They have to provide fuel, gasification takes place, and the resulting products are burned to further the process. This isn't free energy.

But why would we need this when we will see free energy later this year, anyway? ;)

This is not only about the energy, but a clean, efficient, way to deal with waste.
My concern is that this would cause some to reduce their recycling efforts if/when put to widespread use.
I do think it is a great idea and should be fully embraced and will have far more uses in the arena of waste than we currently suspect.
If it is nothing more than a self-sustaining waste process that is needed more than most know and would lose sleep if they had an inkling.
To have any power as profit as well as gasses and excess, such as the slag used a tile, etc, would just be wonderful icing.

rkzenrage:

Compare the economies of worldwide waste management to worldwide electricity production and consumption. You'll see that waste management is dwarfed by the energy economy. To me, the big story is the "any fuel - no pollution - energy production", not the novelty of being able to stoke the fires with Slim-Fast, concrete and fiberglass.

Burying the lead that way makes me... curious and a little suspicious. Perhaps that's too strong a word. Skeptical and interested to know more. There's got to be more, don't you agree?

Perhaps the most amazing part of the process is that it’s self-sustaining. Just like your toaster, Startech’s Plasma Converter draws its power from the electrical grid to get started. The initial voltage is about equal to the zap from a police stun gun. But once the cycle is under way, the 2,200˚F syngas is fed into a cooling system, generating steam that drives turbines to produce electricity. About two thirds of the power is siphoned off to run the converter; the rest can be used on-site for heating or electricity, or sold back to the utility grid. “Even a blackout would not stop the operation of the facility,” Longo says.

Once the system was under way it would feed the power back into it's own grid.
As I stated in my last post. Even it if only self sustained and got rid of garbage that would have created toxic landfills we should be dancing in the streets.

BigV;333230 wrote:

So why isn't this the freakin Next Big Thing? What's the catch? Assuming no pollutants are produced or emitted based on what goes in, and that anything can be used as fuel, why are dirty coal and remote expensive dangerous oil still tops of the pops?

I'm not deliberately being obtuse (it's a character flaw, you'll just have to endure it), I just feel that it doesn't all pencil out, based on my limited understanding of the inputs.

It doesn't all pencil out because it is a PopSci article and leaves an incredible amount to the imagination. A significant portion of the process is omitted and I feel the tone of the article, "we put trash in and nothing but energy and flowers comes out", is a bit misleading.

Getting from Syngas to ethanol isn't a simple or very efficient process. It is also cheaper, easier, and more efficient to simply pull natural gas (double the energy density of Syngas) from the ground than it is to use Syngas.

Regardless, all of these methods still generate quite a lot of greenhouse gases, so viewing this as a "green fuel" isn't entirely straight. Burning municipal waste to generate electricity is especially difficult and others have tried it:

Two similar facilities run by different companies in Australia and Germany closed after failing to meet emissions standards.

...

Dioxin emissions are possible from plasma arcs when chlorine is present. Process gas cleanup is necessary when gasifying waste streams such as municipal waste streams known to contain heavy metals, chlorine/fluorine, sulfur, etc.

In 2004, the city of Honolulu considered a plasma arc/torch proposal for processing municipal solid waste. The city's Department of Environmental Services evaluated the plasma process and found that using plasma arc/torch technology would significantly boost waste disposal costs (High Electricity inputs) without accurately considering environmental advantages.

This process is not perfectly clean nor efficient by any measure.

An interesting note on the high temperatures and the metal containment shell:

One other issue regarding plasma systems is in the life of their liners. The liner is an important aspect of separating the high interior temperatures of the plasma system from the [metal] shell of the plasma container. Liners are highly susceptible to both chlorine attack and to local variabilities in [high] temperatures - both of which would be found with typical municipal waste systems, and are not likely to last more than a year in service.

Refinement of this process might make it feasible in the future, but even then this comes down to burning waste for fuel. Mercury, lead, and other toxic elements are still going to be byproducts of municipal trash burning unless the input is closely monitored and sorted. Chances are high that requirement makes this far too costly.

Kitsune wrote:

It doesn't all pencil out because it is a PopSci article and leaves an incredible amount to the imagination. A significant portion of the process is omitted and I feel the tone of the article, "we put trash in and nothing but energy and flowers comes out", is a bit misleading.

Bullseye. And you do have a flair for humor. Very funny.

glatt;333170 wrote:

Pretty cool. It's not completely clean, of course. When the fuels are burned to make electricity, there is some pollution.

They've been talking about this for years. It's time for some cities to implement it.

I posted about another company's similar process a few years ago.

Here's an update on the Changing World Technologies TDP: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/04/tdp-when-hype-meets-reality.html

It's a little long. Here's a short excerpt:

The Bloom Comes off the Rose

So, where does the technology stand today? How far off were those $8 or $15/bbl costs estimates? After all they had run the pilot plants. They had "done so much testing in Philadelphia", they "already know the costs." Turns out they didn't:

Reports from 2005 summarized some economic setbacks which the Carthage plant encountered since its planning stages. It was thought that concern over mad cow disease would prevent the use of turkey waste and other animal products as cattle feed, and thus this waste would be free. As it turns out, turkey waste may still be used as feed in the United States, so that the facility must purchase that feed stock at a cost of $30 to $40 per ton, adding $15 to $20 per barrel to the cost of the oil. Final cost, as of January 2005, was $80/barrel ($1.90/gal).

There's a lot more.

If you're still interested, there's a follow-up to that article here: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/search/label/Changing%20World%20Technologies

Cool. So the technology was proven, but it just wasn't as economical as they hoped due to market reasons.

It seems that the technology works, it just wasn't as efficient as they projected (I don't know how they did all the pilot tests without finding that), plus the economics were highly optimistic.

Also, the person in charge is a salesman and not an engineer, and keeps using known-bad data.

I work in this field and see this, unfortunately, too often.