Trash to Gas...

[Redbarn]

Saw this article and thought it is a must for this forum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/b...s-efficiently-an-army-test-may-tell.html?_r=0

 

[begreen]

Interesting. What the article doesn't talk about is the cost of manufacturing the inputs like oxygen, nor the energy consumed by the furnace. I expect these are site generated? Otherwise the attractiveness for the military would be less.

King County (WA) is capturing methane for fuel at its large landfill. This is much better. King county generates over 2000 tons of solid waste daily.

 

[peakbagger]

I worked with a gasification developer that got a lot of press several years ago, it made "Modern Marvels" and other media hype shows. They had an impressive R&D facility and knew how to wine and dine politicians. Unfortunately like many other attempts the cost to make a via gas stream that didn't have issues with tars and condensables was still there. If the trash stream is properly recycled, the left over waste is mostly rubber and plastics, they can give off gas but the dioxins and furans are quite nasty and difficult to remove.

Conventional mass burn plants with current emission controls are well developed and in use all over the rest of the world. Unfortunately the US had a generation of older units that didn't have proper emission controls that caused a lot of public health impacts and that derailed the industry.

 

[Adios Pantalones]

I worked with a gasification developer that got a lot of press several years ago, it made "Modern Marvels" and other media hype shows. They had an impressive R&D facility and know how to wine and dine politicians. Unfortunately like many other attempts the cost to make a via gas stream that didn't have issues with tars and condensables was still there. If the trash stream is properly recycled, the left over waste is mostly rubber and plastics, they can give of gas but the dioxins and furans are quite nasty and difficult to remove.

Conventional mass burn plants with current emission controls are well developed and in use all over the rest of the world. Unfortunately the US had a generation of older units that didn't have proper emission controls that caused a lot of public health impacts and that derailed the industry.

If the fuel will ultimately be combusted, then burning trash efficiently is the way to go. Inefficient trash burning (old incinerators, and back-yard burners) give it a bad name. They do release a lot of poisons.

Remember the device that turned plastic into liquid fuel that people were all over. There was a lot of denial when I pointed out the energy input in the conversion. Just burn the plastic (in a 5-9's burner)

 

[EatenByLimestone]

SUNY Cobleskill is also working on this. The gasifier has to fit into 2 tractor trailer containers for easy transport.

 

[peakbagger]

There was and still is lots of federal bucks available to fund gasifier research. Unfortunately the technology hasn't really advanced significantly since the early seventies. If someone is interested in the details, Tom Reed may still be offering a reprint of the Biomass Thermal Conversion Encyclopedia. I haven't looked lately but the Biomass Energy Foundation was where you could get it from. Forming the syn gas is proven technique, contrary to popular opinion, the gas is rarely high hydrogen content, the major constituent is Carbon Monoxide. Using various gas shift reactions generally tied to Fischer Tropsch, the gases can be converted in all sort of useful products. Unfortunately mixed in the useful gases, is a minute amount of toxins that can form very toxic compounds that are very difficult to remove.

 

[blades]

All This above and then local utilities complaining the supplied power isn't clean enough, Ya Right, there is so much garbage on the power lines around here its hard to even find the sine wave.