Waste to Energy

Add a Comment

Comment by James Tracy on October 27, 2009 at 12:59pm

Comment by James Tracy on October 27, 2009 at 12:59pm

This is in russian, but you will see what they are doing if you watch it all the way through. When Tesla died he was working on a plasma disintigration beam weapon.

Comment by Dee Miller on October 24, 2009 at 11:54am

Very Good! James, Thank you very much. I had been to Wikipedia and read about gasification but had not gotten to the info about existing and planned facilities or concerns. Very enlightening. Now, to find out more about yours . . . I'm headed to your page right now.

Comment by James Tracy on October 24, 2009 at 10:28am

Thanks Lou. I am making some progress. I am moving Pure Power to Virginia.

Dee, Hitachi Metals has been running a Plasma plant since 1999.
Look at this link for alot of other info

Comment by Lou De Frog on October 23, 2009 at 7:23pm

Plasco Energy Systems is operating a plant in Canada, makes garbage disappear and produces electricity. -but does not use the more efficient technology promised by Pure Power.. As I understand it, James can create plasma using much less energy with microwave, so his setup would be a smaller more efficient unit that could be employed economically for many other uses.

Comment by Dee Miller on October 23, 2009 at 9:39am

That's my question - where IS plasma being used and why can't we find out unless . . . it's not being used at all and there is nothing to report. Although, there is one PAG plant supposedly in operation at the manufacturer's site in use for more than just demonstration purposes. Robert West advised of a company, Plasmagenesis. I checked into them and they have a unit installed on a Carnival Cruise liner. Robert Craig told me of a "small" one in Maryland, but I have not been able to locate it yet.
There is quite a detail- less story about carbon storage today on NPR's morning edition. I'm going to leave a note to them to contact someone in PAG field for their input for some interesting information. Gotta help get the word out there enough to generate some real informational dialogue going.

Comment by Robert Schultz on October 23, 2009 at 9:07am

Burn or Bury?
These two waste-to-energy plants dispose of garbage and produce power – efficiently and with low emissions.
by Nancy Spring, Senior Editor, Power Engineering
Florida and Minnesota, United States [Renewable Energy World North America Magazine]- October 22, 2009

One plant is brand new, the other just celebrated its 20th anniversary. One's located in Florida while the other's in Minnesota. The Lee County (Fla.) Waste-to-Energy Expansion Project is fueled by municipal solid waste, while Great River Energy's Elk River Station burns refuse-derived fuel (RDF), but both waste-to-energy (WTE) plants do well what they were designed to do: efficiently dispose of garbage.

“The thing about WTE is that it is primarily a method of waste disposal,” said Don Castro, P.E., HDR Engineering, and project manager on the Lee County project. Its main purpose in life is to make provisions for safe and sustainable waste disposal practices. “The energy that comes along with it is secondary,” he said.

WTE has relatively low CO2 emissions–comparable to those of natural gas used for electricity generation–and offsets the fossil fuels that would be used to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. Less municipal waste is sent to landfills so less methane is produced–a gas with a global warming potential 21 times that of CO2.

“Elk River has converted almost 6 million tons of garbage into renewable electric generation over the last 20 years,” said Tim Steinbeck, plant manager at the Minnesota facility. “We recycled an older facility through many years of change and coupled with the RDF processing plant, we keep 100 people in green jobs.”

Lee County refuse trucks take the garbage collected curbside to the plant complex for combustion. The facility uses reclaimed water for all process water needs, including boiler makeup water, and captures ferrous and non-ferrous metals from the post-combustion process for sale into the metals marketplace.

By contrast, Elk River Station has been through several iterations since it began commercial operations in 1950, including a short stint as a nuclear power plant.

At first, Elk River burned coal and oil. Construction of the nuclear reactor began in 1958 and it started producing electricity in 1963. By 1968, the reactor was decommissioned and Elk River once again burned coal and oil. In 1989, Great River undertook a $33 million conversion project to create the RDF plant. Now, Elk River Station’s three generators produce 35 to 42 MW, using approximately 300,000 tons of RDF annually.

Waste is collected from five Minnesota counties and shipped to the RDF processing facility, where recyclable and non-combustible materials are removed. What’s left is shredded. Out of 1,500 tons of municipal waste sent to the processing facility each day, about 1,250 tons of fuel stock is produced.


Read the rest of the article at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/burn-or-bury?cmpid=WNL-Friday-October23-2009

Then ask; Where is the Plasma being used? Where is Methane capture? Biofuels? Syn-gas?

Comment by James Tracy on October 22, 2009 at 3:47pm

This study isnt recent, but the info is DEAD on.
3 million people die from pollution. Sounds like a death lottery.

Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds

Comment by Jay Rosenberg on October 22, 2009 at 11:19am

Karl:
You’ve been a fount of good information. But, are you saying TBP will provide 8,000 turbines worth of wind energy “free”. You raised an Interesting juxtaposition, the tea baggers vs the Depression era big government big projects e.g. TVA. We both agree, TVA was great for our country. But they did call FDR lots of names for these programs. How much of an Arsenal of democracy would we have been without copious and cheap energy? Thought Question: If the US had a plebiscite: a few hundred billion dollar ”Manhattan energy”
project – so every denizen, and business got electricity at $.05/kWh or less, thus saving Joe and Josaphine 6 pack a few thousand dollars a year; saving thousands more on EVs, plug ins, electric public transportation breaking our petroleum addiction…. And of course, cheap green house grown produce, electricity to re-arrange toxic molecules into clean fuels… What do you think, with unemployment over 10% in a lot of areas, our citizens will say, naw, I like 60% inefficient power plants, and paying an extra $2,000 every year to the utilities, $3-5K/year on cars that lasts 5 years or cost a college education. Or, yes, but, government involvement to win an energy war – better leave that to the deregulated market capitalist experts. Or lets ask the erudite folks that are charging us $2.7 Trillion dollars per YEAR, yet we are 17th as a nation regarding deaths due to common ailments. Don’t you think any group of College students, or ROTC graduates could wring out $300 billion from our paper encapsulated, 8% for medical coding of what we are charged, from that $2.7 Trillion torrential cash flow, still under serving swarths of our population? There is a concept called sucking the oxygen from the market. Historically, the Andrew Carnegies were/are saints. But, lesser, yet effective saints started from garages. Do you think Dr. Chu, would ever consider going into the Garages of America to look for answers? Tell me how I can get an AE grant, because I have a overseas request for 400 high efficiency, low cost, methane 25KW Gensets. (to be made in USA). One of the richest counties in the US, Montgomery, MD, has a whopping $400K budget for AE, Et al. Take the Wall street salary reductions and invest that into AE projects. Betcha get results!

Comment by Karl Mayr on October 22, 2009 at 7:32am

Hi Jay Rosenberg,

I get almost all my "wind generation statistics" from EERE.gov or DOE.gov.

I am a retired? civil engineer, and I was impressed when I visited Hoover Dam. So, what is the point?

1. Only the government could afford to build Hoover Dam ($280,000,000+or-). The dam produces 1.2 GW of electricity since 1935 ( don't know if there is a number big enough to measure total KWHR's). Hydroelectric forces are free, clean and natural. The "New Deal" projects have brought enormous benefits.

I would wonder whast the "cost-to-benefit" ratio is? (In engineering, you do a life-cycle, cost-to-benefit analysis before you inest a trillion dollars)

Will 100 GW of wind turbines give us a "good return of investment"?

2. I should give references to all these statistics I am throwing out. Thank you for challenging my infomation sources.

3. I am assuming that Secretary Chu understands why we are pushing for Alternative Energy development (there must be a cost-benefit return). A tiny country like Germany is so far ahead of the world in terms of Alternative Energy development that it makes American Engenuity look sick. (remember the domanance of German technology before WW2?). DOE and the government is giving very sweet grants to encourge private investors to accelerate AE growth.

By the way, the Hoover Dam was financed by the Department of Interior and it was the largest government loan (I said loan) pro]ior to WW2.

Because of facts, I am nearing the end of my lifespan, and I believe TBP is doing (donating) all his positive work,because he knows his lifespan is shorter than mine. He will leave a legcy for America that your grandkids will appreciate.

I promise to give specific reference to any of my future statistcal comments, and I really respect your challenge in this huge audience.

Karl from Tularosa

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last