Re: And The Creek Keeps Ris'n

Page 7 of 8  
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:08:22 -0700

i want to relate this to wood somehow
i heard that nuclear power plants are so expensive to build and maintain and dispose of and decommission that we could create at least as much and possibly more energy by burning all the urban tree trimmings to boil water
bushes and leaves too
but in austria they have a device that converts trash into energy via plasma conversion this method leaves zero emissions
for austria it was so successful that they actually began importing trash from finland people have tried to get this done in US but of course all the useful idiots are in all the right places and so landfills keep growing
i see in a quick search there is a plant in florida
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/2015 10:42 AM, Electric Comet wrote:

Same goes for the electric cars. A Toyota Prias was compared to a Hummer as far as total energy consumption to build the vehicles, power the vehicles, and eventually dispose of the vehicles.
all aspects considered, the Hummer was kinder to the environment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But the Hummer doesn't give the owner the warm fuzzy feelings that the Pious does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/2015 8:22 PM, krw wrote:

Oh, I think it does. LOL I think I would much rather be caught dead in the Hummer than the Prius.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But the chances of getting caught dead driving a Pious are better. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/22/2015 8:31 PM, krw wrote:

LOL there is that!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:31:33 -0500

too many variables in such an argument for me to be swayed either way lies damn lies and statistics
anyway the real problem is the false scarcity paradigm under which we all live
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/2015 9:27 PM, Electric Comet wrote:

The big kicker with the Prias is dealing with those nasty batteries and double that if you replace a set during its life span.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Which means that a high-mileage car is worthless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately not. Here in Broward (Florida) we incinerate a significant proportion of the trash (including trees and yard waste); that produces about 66MW of power. By comparision a small steam (coal/gas) plant would be around 300MW, and a typical nuclear plant would be around 2000MW. A big steam plant can be over 5000MW (altho there aren't any that large in the US).
While recovering energy from trash certainly helps (and is carbon neutral), there's not enough of it to replace other energy sources.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:54:57 +0000 (UTC)

not sure what you meant but i found this http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/plasma-turns-garbage-into-gas/
maybe the unfortunately not was referring to something else or is the plant in the link above no longer operational
also incineration is messy and not as efficient as plasma

nuclear is a fancy or stupid way to boil water too

yes better than burying in the ground
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I think I didn't trim correctly when I quoted you, I should have removed that last line.
In any event, the plant referenced in that article was never built. I'm not aware of any plasma facility in Florida. There are a number of incinerators, and also a number of methane-extraction plants at various landfills.

That depends on your definition of "efficient". Plasma doesn't appear to be cost-effective because of the high startup costs, and I doubt it's as energy efficient as incineration because of the energy cost of generating the plasma. It is more efficient at converting the input into simple molecules (i.e. not "messy"). I'd think plasma's future is in hazardous waste treatment, more so than general power production.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:55:25 +0000 (UTC)

i meant reducing the input into heat incineration leaves more residuals and therefore it is less efficient

do you mean the bootstrap phase costs or the cost to create a facility
i understand that plasma needs to be kept running to avoid that bootstrap cost

you mean generating the initial plasma environment i think which i called the bootstrap phase above

seems that the austrians having been doing it for at least 7 years
and a search showed a lot of hits in florida but i have no idea if they are still operational
i know many places where they could mine the trash and i see that as a good thing all around
recall that we used to be cavalier about our hazardous waste and it was buried in dirt and probably in now leaky drums mining landfills for power seems good
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, you prove my point :-)
You're defining efficient as "produce the minimum amount of residual for a given amount of input".
For power plants, a more common definition of efficient is "produce the maximum amount of electricity for a given amount of fuel". Plasma doesn't score all that well by that definition.

In that case I meant the cost to create the facility. I'm not clear on why a plasma plant is a lot more expensive than a simple incinerator, but they are.

Bootstrap is a misnomer, I think. There is a continuous energy requirement to maintain the plasma. As far as I can see, the energy required to create the plasma initially isn't particularly larger compared to the running requirement. In both cases it's fairly large compared to the energy output, altho it appears the bigger the system the better the net output becomes.

For power, or for hazardous waste disposal? As I say, I think that's where this technology shines, and for that purpose it's fine if it's never more than break-even on energy output.

Yes, that's true. Indeed, many landfills already have methane extraction plants, which is burned for power; that's a form of mining.

I think we're pretty much screwed on buried hazardous waste. Once it starts leaking there's no alternative other than digging up and cleaning thousands of tons of dirt, and that's never going to be a net source of energy.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:43:07 +0000 (UTC)

as long as what we are saying is clarified that is good
most posts here meander on and on with so many misunderstandings along the way that the main point left on a tributarity near the start and was never found again

well i wonder because the syngas byproducts may change the efficiency
remains to be seen though
also the recovery of raw materials would have to be calculated into the equation

incinerators burn organic material plasma is at 10,000 F so requires more expense to construct

the other post i linked to an article where they just started a 25ton/day plasma system in oregon
as always it is not a simple comparison to make incinerate vs. plasma
plasma produces some interesting byproducts

i think only trash-to-power

upcycling maybe

i think we have the responsibility to clean up those sites that are ruining beautiful environments via leakage
not sure what happens to dirt when exposed to plasma
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: > most posts here meander on and on with so many misunderstandings

Got that right :-)

Well again, what efficiency are you thinking of? It won't change the efficiency of fuel in -> electricity out. It may change the efficiency of cost to run -> revenue created.

Shouldn't be vastly more, tho. At least, I'm not seeing why it would be.

Yes, I read that. The goal there seems to be hazardous waste disposal, with power generation as a bonus.

What sort of dirt?
Many soils are mostly silica (aka sand), they would turn into glass.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC)

yes already established that i was not thinking of your definition of efficient

well incinerating organics requires much lower heat so i would bet that would require much different containment

no 25tons of household waste out of a total daily of 35 thousand tons of household waste
i would hope that they would install the plasma plants closer to the garbage source so they would not need trains from seattle and trucks from oregon to haul it there
this would also save lots of money and time and energy

what ever kind of dirt that was used to bury hazardous waste in the past
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hmm, this suggests otherwise: "It was always our intent, from the very first patent, to go after the municipal solid waste stream," Surma said. "But customer pull drew us into more lucrative hazardous- and medical-waste treatment."

Well, the approved way is to bury it in clay, which is more or less impermeable. But randomly and/or illegally dumped waste could be in any kind of dirt, I'd think.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:13:18 +0000 (UTC)

i did not make up the numbers for the pilot project 25 tons of household waste out of 35 thousand tons daily
you have to read the article to get past your quote that was just a discussion of what led them into plasma tech plus your quote leads the reader toward the conclusion that they always intended to go for muni waste

as long as it is kept wet and in its expansive state if it dries it is epic in how permeable clay becomes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't disputing the numbers. 25 tons of hazardous waste in 35,000 tons of municipal garbage doesn't sound out of line at all.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.