Making Waste a Part of the Solution

It's a shame that we bury so much fuel that is available for domestic energy production in the US.

Based on the 90-100 WtE plants now operating and the amount of trash generated each year, the US could build 600 or more new WtE power plants. The power would be produced with far less of an environmental effect than existing coal-fired plants and hundreds of thousands of people could be employed.

Additionally, we wouldn't need any more landfills and can stop polluting the groundwater. Existing landfill sites could be used as sites for WtE plants - the fuel delivery system is already in place and they are close enough to population centers for transmission and the labor source.

WtE plants are cash cows - they get paid to take the fuel, paid for the electricity and steam generated, paid for recycling pre-burn and post-burn materials. All of these also generate tax revenues for local, state and federal governments.

I'm glad someone in the industry is finally waking up to this viable environmental and economic solution!

I totally agree, Paul. This is a really important, economically viable, local resource.

However, it might take a while to get a lot of those new waste-to-energy plants up and running. It takes many years for a site to start generating enough landfill gas to use for energy. Generally, you can get landfill gas in one year, but you probably need 3-5 more to get an amount to harvest.

Therefore, we'll need landfills to keep the energy flowing. It's not going to be trash in, gas out immediately.

With plasma gasification (the last interview), you are getting energy almost immediately, if you compare it with landfill gas. I think as this technology scales up, you're going to see an interesting debate about whether it's "renewable."

As Stephen Lacey said, this is a blast Paul and i congratulate you for such initiave. The world today is being polluted by our own actions and i think it would be great to put out more efforts and investements for such inventions or projects. I myself am from AFrica ( Mali) and it seems like we have more wastes than healthy people, so keep me in mind if you ever consider taking this technology to a different level.

Best of luck, Harouna!

I also think we need to investigate multiple uses for waste streams, just as we need to avoid secure political and economic attachment to single-source energy or transportation fuel.
From typical waste, trash collection, lawn and land use debris, and sewage, better processing [as opposed to consumer-subscribed 'recycling' containers] leads to many streams of materials, recyclable and non. Cellulose, for conversion to ethanol, fatty acids for biodiesel, useful hydrocarbons from plastics, forms of forced gasification, in addition to and simultaneous with methane collection. [Methane is given off by sewage and trash even during processing ]
Gasification offers a faster turn-around for a portion of the waste input than natural decay, and provides energy for the processing of waste. A more active approach, rather than passive collection of methane, makes better use of materials, and is more likely to catch the poisons that would otherwise leach into ground water or emit gaseous toxins.

Landfill and sewage treatment is going to produce methane naturally. It is going to leach into the atmosphere, either by direct diffusion through sandy or loamy soils, or by migration as dissolved gas in water.

Methane has 17X the heat retaining capacity of CO2. And it lasts a long time in the atmosphere. It is not directly recycled out by plants as CO2 is.

If we capture methane from the waste to energy sites----we can mix it directly with natural gas. Biomethane is chemically exactly the same as fossil methane. If we mix it and burn it with fossil methane, we exchange CH4 in the atmosphere for CO2 with much lower heat retaining capacity.

This means, that if we mix as little as 6% biomethane in a fossil methane mixture, the resulting emissions reach an equilibrium---the lessened heat capture effect of burning the methane equals the heat capture effect of the CO2. Anything above a 6% mixture will actually reduce the greenhouse effect of the resulting emissions, even though you are still producing CO2.

If we convert our coal burning power plants to natural gas, we reduce environmental damage caused by coal mining. Coal(for empirical chemical terms, is pure carbon---real world, coal can contain up to 30% pollutants that contribute little or nothing to BTU content, but a LOT to atmospheric pollution). For each ton of coal burned, 3.7 tons of CO2 is produced. With each molecule of natural gas, one atom of carbon is burned, and 4 atoms of hydrogen are burned. You get a lot more energy with a lot less CO2 produced. CO2 produced is more than cut by 50% to produce a similar amount of energy.

Methane is versatile----it can be used to power almost anything we have. From electrical power plants, to vehicles.

This is the only way I know of that we have that can actually reverse the greenhouse effect that is warming our atmosphere.

Gentleman great topic. I am all for the building of new WTE power plants. We are working on a few new plants now here in the U.S. and in South America. The Technology is very similar to the Plasma Gasification, but this is all electric and combustion free. If you want to know more please don't hestitate to ask questions. The reformer reactions are very interesting. CnHm ------>CH4+H2+C, CH4+H2O ------>CO+3H2, C+H2O--->CO+H2, C+CO2------>2 CO This is something that can help in getting projects built here in the U.S.

Michael, I am working with a group that is putting together a proposal for WTE plant in the Caribbean with 1,000 tons/day capacity.
Will like to talk to you to see your technology.
fernado@cercadominicana.com

Hey, REW! I used to download your podcasts and listen to them while doing yardwork and chores. With your new system, though, it's no longer possible to do that.

Result: I listen much less to your podcasts. I try to get away from screens these days and your new format ties me to the screen.

FYI!