Waste to Energy

[All Seeing Eye]

Another thread about future sources of fuel for electricity and rising prices of coal etc got me to thinking about waste to energy incinerators. Whats the major downside of these types of power stations? toxic gases and health damageing pollutants of course but newer plants already syphon out as much health damageing pollutants as they can and on top of this why cant we simply do what has already been proposed for other power stations and simply bury the exhaust emissions etc under the ground or under the North sea in dried up oil fields?
Waste to energy incinerators also kill two birds with one stone, you have a new reliable method of producing electricity and you clean up the countries waste, with enough incinerators running there could be zero waste going to landfill and enough power generation to power a large percentage of the countries requirements.

Anyone else see the genius of this idea? why hasnt it already been proposed? it takes care of two problems and not only that we clean up the atmophere by burying the emissions.

We already have the science and technology people so whats the holdup?

 

[John Picard]

Back in November, I made a side trip to the outskirts of Chicago, while visiting relatives. That side trip involved delivering something related to my car hobby to someone who works at a water treatment facility. So, my son and I received the 50-cent tour, which was absolutely amazing. Anyway, the microbes that the plant uses to "decontaminate" water at one stage, generate a lot of methane gas, which the plant captures and uses to heat the facility during the winter, with the excess burned off. I would think that the houses in the nearby neighborhood would be converted to run their furnaces from this "free fuel", but for whatever reason, they don't. To me, it's a waste that the plant has a huge "maintenance flame" burning off the excess gas. The drawback is that methane isn't that efficient as natural gas, but damn -- IT'S FREE!

 

[Deleted 2]

^ I was under the impression that natural gas was mostly methane?

As for the OP's question, when people are talking about 'biomass', they are essentially talking about burning biodegradeable waste.

As for why other kinds of waste aren't burned for energy, my guess is that it's either because the fumes can be very toxic, or because burning them would take more heat and energy than you can reasonably expect to get out of it.

 

[John Picard]

No. Methane is a "dirty" gas, but it is an "ingredient" of Natural Gas.
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/methane/methane.html

 

[PlixTixiplik]

No. Methane is a "dirty" gas, but it is an "ingredient" of Natural Gas.
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/methane/methane.html

Well, that link says that natural gas is at least 75% methane (and I've seen figures of 70-90% elsewhere), so Arthur's statement that natural gas is "mostly methane" is pretty accurate.

-MEC

 

[farmkid]

I think a better idea is thermal depolymerization. That is a process which essentially recapitulates the process that happens in the earth's crust to convert biomass into oil, except that it happens in hours under controlled conditions. People have experimented with it for decades, but only recently did someone figure out how to do it efficiently. The idea is that organic waste is fed into one end, heat and pressure convert it to oil, and out the other end comes natural gas, light crude oil, water, and minerals. The natural gas is fed back into the process to heat the incoming material and to run the whole operation; the water is clean enough to discard into streams, etc. (if I remember right, it's clean enough to drink); the oil is ready for refining and the minerals can be used as fertilizer. Suitable feedstocks are municipal waste, sewage, industrial waste, medical waste, just about anything you can think of. Other than radioactive waste, any hazardous waste comes out as the same stuff and no longer hazardous. The US generates more than enough waste to all of our current oil requirements. An industrial-sized plant has been built next to a Butterball turkey factory somewhere in the midwest as a full size test and it is working well.

I hope this technology matures and expands to the point where every city has such a plant to take all of its waste and sewage. It would eliminate current problems we have with waste, reduce or eliminate our reliance on oil pumped from the ground, reduce or eliminate addition of more carbon into circulation, and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste. The carbon from burning the natural gas could be sequestered underground, as mentioned, to remove carbon from circulation. We would not need to convert infruastructure to support electric or hydrogen vehicles, and we wouldn't need to be diverting foodstuffs to producing fuel. It's a win all around.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

As for why other kinds of waste aren't burned for energy, my guess is that it's either because the fumes can be very toxic, or because burning them would take more heat and energy than you can reasonably expect to get out of it.

Well Waste to energy incinerators are easily capable of generating plenty of power from waste and waste is in a way a renewable energy source because there's plenty of it made . As for the fumes being toxic as I explained newer plants are capable of cleaning the fumes before release and I gave the idea of burying it all like has been proposed for other power stations.
Waste to Energy is the way to go IMHO. Heck a day could come where we IMPORT other countries waste so we can burn it for energy.

 

[Deleted 2]

Well Waste to energy incinerators are easily capable of generating plenty of power from waste

Why do you think this?

If I give you an aluminium can (not the hardest substance to burn), how would you burn it? What waste products would you have left?

 

[Meredith]

I think a better idea is thermal depolymerization. That is a process which essentially recapitulates the process that happens in the earth's crust to convert biomass into oil, except that it happens in hours under controlled conditions. People have experimented with it for decades, but only recently did someone figure out how to do it efficiently. The idea is that organic waste is fed into one end, heat and pressure convert it to oil, and out the other end comes natural gas, light crude oil, water, and minerals. The natural gas is fed back into the process to heat the incoming material and to run the whole operation; the water is clean enough to discard into streams, etc. (if I remember right, it's clean enough to drink); the oil is ready for refining and the minerals can be used as fertilizer. Suitable feedstocks are municipal waste, sewage, industrial waste, medical waste, just about anything you can think of. Other than radioactive waste, any hazardous waste comes out as the same stuff and no longer hazardous. The US generates more than enough waste to all of our current oil requirements. An industrial-sized plant has been built next to a Butterball turkey factory somewhere in the midwest as a full size test and it is working well.

I hope this technology matures and expands to the point where every city has such a plant to take all of its waste and sewage. It would eliminate current problems we have with waste, reduce or eliminate our reliance on oil pumped from the ground, reduce or eliminate addition of more carbon into circulation, and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste. The carbon from burning the natural gas could be sequestered underground, as mentioned, to remove carbon from circulation. We would not need to convert infruastructure to support electric or hydrogen vehicles, and we wouldn't need to be diverting foodstuffs to producing fuel. It's a win all around.

How about liqufying the waste and pump it down to hot mantle like some geothermal plants do and use the earth's Natural pressure and heat to convert it to oil for us, Kinda like a hybrid between geothermal and oil production....

 

[LaxScrutiny]

We've had a huge argument around here about a possible waste to energy incinerator.

Some of the cons are out of date. Modern incinerators use extremely high heat and there are fewer byproducts, and those byproducts are carefully scrubed.

There is a strong NIMBY element. Most people wouldn't care if there was an incinerator 50 miles away sending electricity into their homes, but they don't want one closer. Disinformation or not, an incinerator would reduce local property values, people would have a hard time selling their homes for the 3/4 of a million dollars they want to ask for. Politicians know better than to fuck with people's property values.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Well Waste to energy incinerators are easily capable of generating plenty of power from waste

Why do you think this?

If I give you an aluminium can (not the hardest substance to burn), how would you burn it? What waste products would you have left?

Lets use a bit of common sense please, I wasn't talking about aluminium cans. Waste in the UK is collected in separate bins and boxes for tins, bottles, plastic and cardboard etc, the majority of waste goes through recycling centres to be sorted even further where whatever cannot be recycled goes to landfill. By as early as the bins being filled by citizens waste is already split into burnable and none burnable material, all it will take is for the burnable material to be sent directly to the incinerator where it can be burnt for electricity and the rest to be sent for recycling. Its straight forward, easy, reduces waste, gives us a new source of power and if pumped into the North sea oil fields will be clean except for the ash left behind of course which can be easily disposed of.

 

[Meredith]

Well Waste to energy incinerators are easily capable of generating plenty of power from waste

Why do you think this?

If I give you an aluminium can (not the hardest substance to burn), how would you burn it? What waste products would you have left?

Lets use a bit of common sense please, I wasn't talking about aluminium cans. Waste in the UK is collected in separate bins and boxes for tins, bottles, plastic and cardboard etc, the majority of waste goes through recycling centres to be sorted even further where whatever cannot be recycled goes to landfill. By as early as the bins being filled by citizens waste is already split into burnable and none burnable material, all it will take is for the burnable material to be sent directly to the incinerator where it can be burnt for electricity and the rest to be sent for recycling. Its straight forward, easy, reduces waste, gives us a new source of power and if pumped into the North sea oil fields will be clean except for the ash left behind of course which can be easily disposed of.

Just build the waste incinerator near an old coal or salt mine and put the tail pipe so it blows the ash underground.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

There is a strong NIMBY element. Most people wouldn't care if there was an incinerator 50 miles away sending electricity into their homes, but they don't want one closer. Disinformation or not, an incinerator would reduce local property values, people would have a hard time selling their homes for the 3/4 of a million dollars they want to ask for. Politicians know better than to fuck with people's property values.

Then just build the incinerator away from civilisation (but not too far) and have a rail line to it from the waste collection centre. There's an answer to all problems.

Just build the waste incinerator near an old coal or salt mine and put the tail pipe so it blows the ash underground.

Not a bad idea, plans are coming along nicely.

 

[Deleted 2]

Lets use a bit of common sense please, I wasn't talking about aluminium cans. Waste in the UK is collected in separate bins and boxes for tins, bottles, plastic and cardboard etc, the majority of waste goes through recycling centres to be sorted even further where whatever cannot be recycled goes to landfill.

Yes, as I said several posts earlier, the waste that's easily 'burnable' is already used for energy. Look for the word 'biomass' in the advertising material of your local power company. There remains, however, a class of waste that cannot be burnt because it's non-homogenous, doesn't burn at a feasible temperature, or leaves more than 'just ash' as residue.

It doesn't make sense to use it for energy production, which is why we still have landfill.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

There remains, however, a class of waste that cannot be burnt because it's non-homogenous, doesn't burn at a feasible temperature, or leaves more than 'just ash' as residue.

What waste do people create that is nonhomogeneous, doesn't burn at a feasible temperature and leaves more than 'just ash' as residue? whatever it is you keep it out during the sorting process same as you keep out tins and bottles.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

There is a strong NIMBY element. Most people wouldn't care if there was an incinerator 50 miles away sending electricity into their homes, but they don't want one closer. Disinformation or not, an incinerator would reduce local property values, people would have a hard time selling their homes for the 3/4 of a million dollars they want to ask for. Politicians know better than to fuck with people's property values.

Then just build the incinerator away from civilisation (but not too far) and have a rail line to it from the waste collection centre. There's an answer to all problems.

That's a lovely idea, they tried something like that here in Toronto. Not incineration, but shipping garbage by rail to an abandoned mine in Kirkland Lake. There was still a huge outcry from environmentalists and the idea got nixed at a political level, not really because of any sound logic. We ended up shipping by truck to Michigan, which was worse environmentally anyway.

I'm all for the environment, and I self-identify as a Lefty Progressive Activist, but too often these things are decided by slogans, not science.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

There was still a huge outcry from environmentalists

There's always an outcry by enviros, they complain about dirty coal/oil/gas power stations and yet when we start building wind farms they then complain that they're unsightly and birds will fly into them, when we start building hydroelectric dams they complain local wildlife will be effected.
How is anyone ever expected to win? in the end enviros should always be ignored because they bitch and moan about anything and everything even when its good for the environment. I'm very liberal when it comes to wildlife and the environment but complaining everytime something positive is trying to be accomplished is just being retarded.

Btw, on another note did you know that:

Municipal solid waste contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so incineration of one tonne of MSW produce approximately 1 tonne ofCO2. In the event that the waste was landfilled, one tonne of MSW would produce approximately 62 m³ methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. This amount of methane has more than twice the global warming potential than the one tonne of CO2, which would have been produced by incineration. In some countries, large amounts of landfill gas are collected, but still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere in the US in 1999 was approximately 32 % higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted by incineration.

A positive for incineration.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Looks like i'm not the only genius in the UK afterall:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7391631.stm