I typically shy away from a lot of stuff published in Popular Science, but this article really struck me as very cool.

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

Basically a large trash compactor with a plasma beam in the middle. Feed the trash in, plasma utterly annihilates it. The only byproducts are excess electricity, a jar of hydrogen, and some sort of black rock.

Quote :

"The radiant energy of the plasma arc is so powerful, it disintegrates trash into its constituent elements by tearing apart molecular bonds. The system is capable of breaking down pretty much anything except nuclear waste, the isotopes of which are indestructible. The only by-products are an obsidian-like glass used as a raw material for numerous applications, including bathroom tiles and high-strength asphalt, and a synthesis gas, or “syngas”—a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be converted into a variety of marketable fuels, including ethanol, natural gas and hydrogen. 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. ... A Startech machine that costs roughly $250 million could handle 2,000 tons of waste daily, approximately what a city of a million people amasses in that time span. Large municipalities typically haul their trash to landfills, where the operator charges a “tipping fee” to dump the waste. The national average is $35 a ton, although the cost can be more than twice that in the Northeast (where land is scarce, tipping fees are higher). And the tipping fee a city pays doesn’t include the price of trucking the garbage often hundreds of miles to a landfill or the cost of capturing leaky methane—a greenhouse gas—from the decomposing waste. In a city with an average tipping fee, a $250-million converter could pay for itself in about 10 years, and that’s without factoring in the money made from selling the excess electricity and syngas. After that break-even point, it’s pure profit. ... 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."

http://www.startech.net/

Seems like a pretty cool idea. I've always wondered why this type of thing was never invented. It seems like a pretty logical way to generate electricity. Same thing with regular old factories and trash incinerators: why can't they just stick a turbine in their exhaust columns and try to extract some of that energy back into usable forms. Now this machine comes along and burns regular trash to create electricity as well as majorly reduce the load on local landfills.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2007 1:00:45 AM

Similar processors have been invented over the last 10 years, all promising to use waste as an energy source. The concept is sound, but the economics never seem to work out for these companies.

The problem comes when they realize that they have to pay for the waste in some form or another. Everybody assumes that trash is free, but they don't factor in the handling fees, etc. Maybe one of these things could work with government subsidies, but I wouldn't bank on it and I wouldn't expect other taxpayers to, either.

Syngas isn't exactly the cleanest or easiest fuel source, either. You can produce syngas a lot cheaper from coal than you can from trash, I bet.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 3:39 AM. Reason : 2]

2/27/2007 3:38:21 AM

2/27/2007 7:17:04 AM

there is one operating somewhere in the Netherlands, but from what I remember the process results in some very nasty exhaust fumes. tehn again, I think they were using a basic incinerator and not an arc furnace.

2/27/2007 12:42:12 PM

2/27/2007 12:59:42 PM

it would be a good facility idea for those already operating dumps and such.... they already charge to get the trash, this way they can make more money with something they have already been paid to take...

2/27/2007 1:02:34 PM

after looking up some information on wikipedia, it looks like these newer plants have higher emissions than natural gas plants, but less than coal. the old plants were bad about pumping out dioxin and furan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration#Pollution


[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM. Reason : fly ash pits are fucking disgusting too.]

2/27/2007 1:24:17 PM

That entire wikipedia article is talking about incineration, not plasma. Yes, I realize that plasma is incinerating, but that is not the subject matter of the wiki.

Did you not see this line

Quote :

"The end product ash must still be safely disposed of. SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) countries agree that incineration as well as unproven technologies such as Plasma, should not be considered as an option for the treatment of their municipal solid wastes for low calorific value and environmental pollution potential"

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 1:32 PM. Reason : a]

2/27/2007 1:32:27 PM

Awful article. I'm in the landfill building business, and here's a real breakdown: Economically, this doesn't even come close to being cheap compared to landfills.

Quote :

"Large municipalities typically haul their trash to landfills, where the operator charges a “tipping fee” to dump the waste. The national average is $35 a ton, although the cost can be more than twice that in the Northeast (where land is scarce, tipping fees are higher). "

This article also assumes that these large municipalities are taking their trash to a private landfill. Most large municipalities actually run their own landfill. And CHARGE other people that $35 a ton.

BOTTOM LINE: What they really need to compare is the cost of building a landfill vs. the cost of the Startech machine. Tranportation is the same for both, so don't factor that in (unlike the article claims). Also, the cost of capturing leaky methane is already part of typical modern landfill design, so don't factor that in as well.

Your typical landfill might average 1.5 million tons of storage. @ 2,000 tons a day, that's a lifespan of 2.5 years. Cost? Even if it was 25 million...that means you can build 10 of them in place of one of these machines. And your average landfill costs nowhere near 25 million.

But what about those gases and energy you can resell from the machine? Most modern landfills include gas recovery systems...and many of the modern ones turn that gas into electricity or sell the gas outright.

It's a very neat technology, but we have plenty of space in america...so landfills are dirt cheap to build and operate. Until that economic advantage changes, or we decide to pay, technologies like this have no chance.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2007 2:21:29 PM

I don't believe it. Someone in the landfill business that isn't in favor of this machine. Shocking.

You didn't really articulate how this statement is...wrong? or a lie or whatever.

Quote :

"Nuzzi tells me. 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. “"

Even if Startech is padding their figures little, $72 a ton (double what they quote) is still cheaper than $90.

2/27/2007 2:35:51 PM

Universal Assemblers FTW.

2/27/2007 2:39:08 PM

I don't believe it. Someone in the landfill business that isn't in favor of this machine. Shocking.

2/27/2007 2:49:45 PM

^^^ I'm not in the landfill business. I'm in the solid waste business...so I do design them. Big difference....basically no bias.

We do feasibility studies for alternatives all the time for major municipalities, including Wake County.

Quote :

"You didn't really articulate how this statement is...wrong? or a lie or whatever. "

It assumes that every municipality is doing what NYC is doing...paying $90 a ton to a private landfill to take it's trash. Whereas most municipalities actually handle their own trash, or are at least partners in an authority, which is much cheaper.

The $250 million capital costs is so high that it only compares to the largest of landfills really. And those could last quite a long time.

To make it super simple: This cost comparison is only valid for a few giant metrolpolises, who must pay someone else to take their trash. It does not compare to building and running your own landfill.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2007 2:51:05 PM

Quote :

"That entire wikipedia article is talking about incineration, not plasma. Yes, I realize that plasma is incinerating, but that is not the subject matter of the wiki."

plasma isn't going to eliminate the fly ash production, so my point is the same.

2/27/2007 3:02:54 PM

Quote :

"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. “""

I bet Startech isn't basing their figures off of inflated trash contracts brought about by organized crime syndicates in NY.

2/27/2007 3:05:38 PM

^^^

Quote :

"I'm in the landfill building business"

Quote :

"I'm not in the landfill business. I'm in the solid waste business..."

one cost you're not taking into account is land. sure, its cheap enough to dig a hole and throw the trash in (simplification) but you have to buy the land, and most people don't like to live next to the things. Eventually we will run out of places to put holes in the ground. Could be a while, but eventually...
I don't suppose many people would want to live next to a plasma incinerator, but you would only have to build it in one location, assuming that once the lifespan of the machine is run you can demo it and put a new one in the same spot

2/27/2007 3:10:24 PM

Quote :

"plasma isn't going to eliminate the fly ash production, so my point is the same."

Did you read the article? It's a solid black obsidian looking substance. Yes, there seems to be some debate about how safe this material is. But it isn't "ash".

Quote :

"The $250 million capital costs is so high that it only compares to the largest of landfills really. And those could last quite a long time."

Quote :

"To make it super simple: This cost comparison is only valid for a few giant metrolpolises, who must pay someone else to take their trash. It does not compare to building and running your own landfill."

Wake County is building a 471 acre 25 year facility in Holly Springs as we speak. And if I have it right, they aren't building and running their own landfill. I also think the cost for Wake Country will start out at like $20 per ton. I don't know if that extends for the life of the contract, or how rising fuel costs will impact the total cost. I do know that Holly Springs Major Dick Sears was heavily in favor of a plasma incinerator- not surprising, but the point is, it was a viable alternative.

Additionally, these costs that are quoted at the moment don't take into account the rising cost of gasoline (NYC has to ship to Va and Penn, per the article). You said that the costs of shipping to a location, either landfill or plasma, are equal and that certainly is not the case. You could stick one of these in NYC and your shipping costs go WAY down.

2/27/2007 3:20:27 PM

Quote :

"Did you read the article? It's a solid black obsidian looking substance. Yes, there seems to be some debate about how safe this material is. But it isn't "ash". "

I've been around plenty of fly ash pits at coal plants. it only solidifies after it's been dried out, but it easily turns back into a nasty dust that will coat your lungs and poison you with heavy metals. the particle size is only a few micrometers in diameter. They have to keep the fly ash pits at coal plants wet at all times, even when they are cleaning it out with a bulldozer. the guy running the bulldozer is required to wear a full hazmat suit IIRC.

I think some companies are using it in concrete mixes now.

2/27/2007 3:26:19 PM

[QUOTE]"I'm in the landfill building business"

Quote :
"I'm not in the landfill business. I'm in the solid waste business..."
[/QUOTE]

Are you implying that these two quotes of mine are the same windhound?

Quote :

"Wake County is building a 471 acre 25 year facility in Holly Springs as we speak. And if I have it right, they aren't building and running their own landfill."

Right. And the South Wake Landfill is basically in conjunction with a private firm. Basically, they went the even cheaper route. I don't know who was considering the plasma incinerator, but i could definitely argue that it wasn't an economically viable alternative.

Quote :

"Additionally, these costs that are quoted at the moment don't take into account the rising cost of gasoline (NYC has to ship to Va and Penn, per the article). You said that the costs of shipping to a location, either landfill or plasma, are equal and that certainly is not the case. You could stick one of these in NYC and your shipping costs go WAY down."

For the specific example of NYC, you could cut transportation costs some. For most major municipalities...transportation costs are a non-factor, as you still have to gather the waste to one spot somewhere out in the country.

Look, its a neato technology, and I wish we could all use it. But I'm saying the economics of anyone other than a few rare cases just don't work at this point, and this article bases it's assumptions on cases like NYC.

2/27/2007 3:30:55 PM

What part of "it's not ash" don't you understand?

Quote :

" I’ve watched him operate the converter for nearly an hour, and I’m still stunned to see no smoke, no flames, no ash, no pollution of any kind—all that’s left is syngas, the fuel source, and the molten obsidian-like material."

Quote :

"But I'm saying the economics of anyone other than a few rare cases just don't work at this point, and this article bases it's assumptions on cases like NYC."

I asked you to show this. You haven't really produced any numbers yet.

2/27/2007 3:40:03 PM

i think recycling is the key, if you start with this plasma gizmo we'll end up turning our resources into weird chemicals which will haunt us in the future,

the plain fact of the matter is that nothing is free, and when we use materials and we produce waste the cost of dealing with the waste is time, time to decompose and go back into the circle of life





all ideas are copyright of lafta industries 2007

2/27/2007 3:42:34 PM

Quote :

"The steep increase in energy prices over the past two years is what has made this technology viable,” says Hilburn Hillestad, president of Geoplasma. His company, which touts the slogan “waste destruction at the speed of lightning with energy to share,” is negotiating a deal with St. Lucie County, Florida, to erect a $425-million plasma gasification system near a local landfill. The plant in St. Lucie County will be large enough to devour all 2,000 tons of daily trash generated by the county and polish off an additional 1,000 tons a day from the old landfill. "

Quote :

"None of this seems to worry St. Lucie County’s solid-waste director, Leo Cordeiro. “We’ll get all our garbage to disappear, and our landfill will be gone in 20 years,” he tells me. The best part: Geoplasma is footing the entire bill. “We’ll generate 160 megawatts a day from the garbage,” Hillestad says, “but we’ll consume only 40 megawatts to run the plant. We’ll sell the net energy to the local power grid.” Sales from excess electricity might allow Geoplasma to break even in 20 years."

Might is a pretty tenuous word to use. But at the very least, there are enough people across the country that think this technology is at least worth trying.

2/27/2007 3:43:43 PM

does this count as renewable energy, since we keep making trash all the time?

2/27/2007 4:07:13 PM

our society is just too wasteful and too impatient, were are headed to doom,
instead of trying to invent technology to aid us in our wastefullness and recklessness why not make advancements in how we live, that is the real source of our problems

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 4:13 PM. Reason : All ideas are copyright by Lafta industries 2007]

2/27/2007 4:12:29 PM

^^^ It's worth trying. I'd love to find something that gets rid of the use of landfills. But the economics simply aren't there.

In your example, with St. Lucie, GeoPlasma had to pay for the whole deal. Isn't that telling?

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ^^^]

2/27/2007 4:12:31 PM

Quote :

"The system is capable of breaking down pretty much anything except nuclear waste, the isotopes of which are indestructible. "

Indestructible? Someone should build something out of nuclear waste, that'd be sweet.

“those shills stole my patents”

"Today, Longo is meeting with investors from U.S. Energy, a trio of veteran waste-disposal executives who recently formed a partnership to build the first plasma-gasification plant on Long Island, New York. They own a transfer station (where garbage goes for sorting en route to landfills) and are in the process of buying six Startech converters to handle 3,000 tons of construction debris a day trucked from sites around the state. "

“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.”

2/27/2007 4:16:59 PM

Which is total crap because modern landfills have no chance to contaminate groundwater, in theory.

But yeah, I am concerned about that "mysterious" obsidian glass.

2/27/2007 4:23:28 PM

^There is something in the article that talks about getting diseases (hepatitis A & B) from landfills contaminating something, possibly groundwater in noob countries.

Quote :

" Meanwhile, Victor Sziky, the president of Sicmar International, an investment firm based in Panama, is working with the Panamanian government to set up at least 10 Startech systems there. “The garbage problem here is exploding in conjunction with growth,” says Sziky, who lives in Panama City. “We have obsolete incinerators, and landfills that are polluting groundwater and drinking water. We’ve had outbreaks of cholera and hepatitis A and B directly attributed to the waste in landfills. There are a lot of people in a small country, and there’s no infrastructure to deal with it.” "

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : lol internet]

2/27/2007 4:30:28 PM

Quote :

"“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.”"

fly ash has to be treaded as hazardous material and stored at special hazmat landfills. but don't tell that to state409c, he's still convinced the mystery black stuff is hard pumice that doesn't break down into ash upon contact with water.

2/27/2007 4:34:51 PM

Quote :

"In your example, with St. Lucie, GeoPlasma had to pay for the whole deal. Isn't that telling?"

Honestly? What this tells me is they don't want to (probably can't) pony up $400 million for the project. And GeoPlasma is so confident in it that they are footing the entire bill and expect to eventually make profit on it.

If you're cynical, you could say the execs know that it is a sham, and will get paid off and run with the money long before it is discovered the system doesn't work as advertised. But based on the sheer number of communities that seem to be rushing to install these things, I gotta think the plasma folks are doing something right.

Quote :

"fly ash has to be treaded as hazardous material and stored at special hazmat landfills. but don't tell that to state409c, he's still convinced the mystery black stuff is hard pumice that doesn't break down into ash upon contact with water."

I already posted in the thread there seems to be some contention on how dangerous this material is. I find it interesting they are using it in asphalt, yet it somehow breaks down when exposed to water.

You're the king of researching topics and then coming back to threads like you know everything there ever was to know about it, why don't you go figure out what the real deal with this substance really is.


Fuck it, I'll do it for you.


I don't know how valid this is, but it is what it is

Quote :

"Ash The PGV Reactor produces no ash. It converts all inorganic material in the feedstock into an inert solid vitreous slag. Unlike a combustion system, the very high plasma temperatures break all fixed carbon bonds. The remaining inorganic materials are melted under high plasma temperatures into molten slag, which is tapped and cooled outside the reactor into a non-leachable and inert vitreous product. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union (EU) classify the plasma slag as inert. Thus, it can be employed as a construction material. The US EPA has approved plasma slag for such many uses including as construction aggregate for concrete or roadbed, construction fill material, brick making, architectural tile or shingle manufacturing. Hazardous heavy metals are captured and immobilized in the vitreous matrix, so the slag easily passes Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests. This means that the material, even if it is not employed for construction, can be land filled in non-secure landfills. In all Solena projects, there is no cost for the disposal of slag. This is a cost that must be incurred by the operators of conventional coal burners or incinerators for ash disposal in secure landfills."

http://www.solenagroup.com/html/images/fuelflexible.pdf

UN OWN YOURSELF IF POSSIBLE ELEUSIS

2/27/2007 4:46:31 PM

Quote :

"US EPA has approved plasma slag for such many uses including as construction aggregate for concrete or roadbed, construction fill material, brick making, architectural tile or shingle manufacturing. Hazardous heavy metals are captured and immobilized in the vitreous matrix, so the slag easily passes Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests."

fly ash is already approved for those uses too.

2/27/2007 4:55:17 PM

Quote :

" ^There is something in the article that talks about getting diseases (hepatitis A & B) from landfills contaminating something, possibly groundwater in noob countries. Quote : " Meanwhile, Victor Sziky, the president of Sicmar International, an investment firm based in Panama, is working with the Panamanian government to set up at least 10 Startech systems there. “The garbage problem here is exploding in conjunction with growth,” says Sziky, who lives in Panama City. “We have obsolete incinerators, and landfills that are polluting groundwater and drinking water. We’ve had outbreaks of cholera and hepatitis A and B directly attributed to the waste in landfills. There are a lot of people in a small country, and there’s no infrastructure to deal with it.” " "

Hence "modern" landfills.

Quote :

"Honestly? What this tells me is they don't want to (probably can't) pony up $400 million for the project. And GeoPlasma is so confident in it that they are footing the entire bill and expect to eventually make profit on it. "

It tells me that the only way GeoPlasma can get this city to go along with the facility is to foot the bill. Probably because it costs $450 million, which is likely ~50 times the annual solid waste budget of that city.

2/27/2007 4:56:25 PM

Quote :

"~50 times the annual solid waste budget of that city"

Or 2 times the solid waste budget over 25 years before rising fuel costs, inflation, and increased trash are taken into account.

2/27/2007 4:58:43 PM

Geoplasma ponying up the money for the plant probably means that they are somehow qualifying for federal green power grant money. are they going to be majority-shareholders of the plant afterwards? wind farm builders have being doing just that for years.

2/27/2007 5:05:44 PM

Quote :

"fly ash is already approved for those uses too."

Links?

2/27/2007 5:09:04 PM

so that's what ~50 years before its just about pure profit just based on landfill costs alone? (not to mention the electricity produced)

2/27/2007 5:14:30 PM

http://www.acaa-usa.org/PDF/2004_CCP_Survey(9-9-05).pdf

Quote :

"CCP Use By Application**** Fly Ash Bottom Ash FGD Gypsum FGD Material Wet Scrubbers Boiler Slag FGD Material Dry Scrubbers FGD Other FBC Ash 1. Concrete/Concrete Products /Grout 14,121,868 789,071 291,439 0 0 37,343 0 0 2. Cement/ Raw Feed for Clinker 2,345,754 615,192 449,063 39,378 33,505 0 0 0 3. Flowable Fill 179,735 0 0 0 0 11,274 0 0 4. Structural Fills/Embankments 4,685,091 3,064,773 0 266,651 7,268 0 0 61,985 5. Road Base/Sub-base/Pavement 488,214 1,092,006 0 0 7,070 0 0 0 6. Soil Modification/Stabilization 500,630 21,117 0 0 0 0 0 190,426 7. Mineral Filler in Asphalt 90,033 0 0 0 39,942 0 0 0 8. Snow and Ice Control 5,563 830,329 0 0 87,711 0 0 0 9. Blasting Grit/Roofing Granules 0 70,312 0 0 1,747,238 0 0 0 10. Mining Applications 1,113,361 39,682 0 282,033 0 122,589 0 134,648 11. Wallboard 0 0 8,148,078 0 0 0 0 0 12. Waste Stabilization/Solidification 2,441,513 257,375 0 338 4,615 0 0 70,722 13. Agriculture 52,314 19,272 131,058 10,593 0 2,775 0 0 14. Aggregate 7,995 409,362 0 0 38,000 3,499 0 0 15. Miscellaneous/Other 2,036,899 943,978 25,317 596,884 8,036 0 3,291 15,610 CCP Category Use Totals 28,068,970 8,152,469 9,044,955 1,195,877 1,973,385 177,480 3,291 473,391 Application Use To Production Rate 39.65% 47.40% 75.69% 6.83% 89.61% 9.70% 2.85% 54.58%"

2/27/2007 5:15:58 PM

You aren't making sense. Is ash safe or not?

First you said it was a hazardous material

Quote :

"fly ash has to be treaded as hazardous material and stored at special hazmat landfills. but don't tell that to state409c, he's still convinced the mystery black stuff is hard pumice that doesn't break down into ash upon contact with water."

Then you say it is used in construction.

But it seems like you are mixing ash from incinerators and ash from coal plants in the dicussion.

So I am not sure what point you are arguing, especially since the point of contention was with how safe the plasma slag was to begin with.



[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 5:28 PM. Reason : a]

2/27/2007 5:28:01 PM

Hey, remember that processor that promised to produce oil from trash? They had lots of break-even numbers and rosy economic estimates just like this plasma converter.

It didn't work out, primarily because every estimate they generated was based on best-case scenarios, and they forgot to factor in a lot of costs. I would imagine that this Plasma Converter suffers from similar crooked numbers.

2/27/2007 5:41:53 PM

there is a lot of debate about whether ash is safe or not. the only people claiming that ash is safe are coal burning facilities that just want to get rid of the shit, but their lobbying power makes their arguments get heard loudly. for that reason, disposal requirements and approved commercial uses have changed in recent years.

even still, fly ash is kept in concrete pools under wet conditions at all times while it is on the power plant site, and it is supposed to be kept in pools after it is transported to landfills. it is only in the last several years that fly ash has been approved for use in construction purposes.

keep in mind that 25 years ago we didn't even bother to install scrubbers and just let the shit fly out into the atmosphere.

honestly, I don't know how they can claim something to be dangerous one year and then put it in every aspect surrounding new home construction the next.

2/27/2007 5:47:13 PM

Black rock?




Ok I'm going to go read the article now

2/27/2007 11:35:43 PM