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
bushes and leaves too
but in austria they have a device that converts trash into energy via plasma
this method leaves zero emissions
for austria it was so successful that they actually began importing trash
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
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.
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
not sure what you meant but i found this
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.