Transcript TCE Contamination of Groundwater

March 2012
Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste
Applied Plasma Arc Technologies, LLC
P.O. Box 950211
Atlanta, GA 30377-0211
A member company of
Georgia Tech’s
Advanced Technology Development Center
www.plasmatech.us
©2012 APAT v3.0
What is PLASMA?
 “Fourth State” of matter
 Ionized gas at high
temperature capable of
conducting electrical
current
 Lightning is an example
from nature
2
Characteristics of Plasma Arc Technology
• Temperatures 4,000°C to over 7,000°C
• Torch power levels from 100 kW to 200 MW produce
high energy densities (up to 100 MW/m3)
• Torch operates with most gases
• Air most common
• A gasification and/or a vitrification (melting) process
• Not an incineration process
• Permits in-situ operation in subterranean boreholes
3
Plasma arc technology is ideally suited
for waste treatment
• Organic compounds (MSW, hazardous, toxic)
broken down to elemental constituents by high
temperatures
• Gasified
• Converted to fuel gases (H2 & CO)
• Acid gases readily neutralized
• Inorganic materials (glass, metals, soils, etc.)
melted and immobilized in a rock-like vitrified
mass which is highly resistant to leaching
4
Plasma Arc Technology
Remediation Facts
• No other remediation technology can achieve the
sustained temperature levels (> 7000°C) or energy
densities (up to 100 MW/m3)
• All known contaminants can be effectively treated
or remediated
• Contaminated soil, rock, and landfill deposits can
be readily converted to an inert rock-like material
suitable for construction
5
6
Plasma Gasification of MSW
Torch Power
120 kWh
Gas
Cleaning
Fuel Gas
30,000 ft3
1 ton MSW
75 ft3
7
800 kWh
Gravel
Aggregate
Bricks
Rock Residue
Weight: 400 lb
Volume: 2 ft3
Plasma Gasification of MSW
Notional Heat Balance
Heating Value Output
Electricity Heat Input
Coke 0.8 MBtu
Air – 0.56 MBtu
= 28.6
Gas Heat Energy
2.94 MBtu
MSW
1 Ton – 11.31 MBtu
Electricity
8
PLASMA
GASIFIER
0.12 MWHr – 0.41 MBtu
Product Gas
51,600SCF
Heating Value =
8.79MBTU
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – to – Electricity
Thermal Process Comparisons
Process (1)
Net Electricity to Grid
(kWh/ton MSW) (2)
• Plasma Arc Gasification
• Conventional Gasification
816
685
Plasma
Advantage
20%
- Fixed/Fluidized Bed
Technologies
• Pyrolysis & Gasification
685
20%
571
40%
544
50%
- Thermoselect Technology
• Pyrolysis
- Mitsui R21 Technology
• Incineration
- Mass Burn Technology
(1) 300 – 3,600 TPD of MSW
(2) Steam Turbine Power Generation
9
Reference: EFW Technology Overview, The Regional
Municipality of Halton, Submitted by Genivar, URS,
Ramboll, Jacques Whitford & Deloitte, Ontario,
Canada, May 30, 2007
Plasma WTE Emission Control Systems
• Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) System: Removes fly ash and heavy metals
• Fabric Filter (FF) System:
• Removes ~95% of particulate matter (PM)
• Removes heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc.)
• Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) System:
• Removes ~99.99% of mercury
• Reduces ~98% of dioxins
• Spray Dryer (SD) System:
• Lime and water injection to remove acid gases
• Removes most remaining mercury
• Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) System:
• Ammonia (NH3) injection to convert NOx into nitrogen and water
10
Plasma WTE plant emissions will be cleaner than natural gas emissions
from domestic household gas stoves.
Pounds of CO2 Emissions per MWH of
Electricity Produced
2,988
Pounds
CO2/MWH
3,000
(1)
2,249
(1)
2,000
1,672
(1)
1,419
(2)
1,135
(1)
1,000
MSW
Incineration
Coal
Oil
MSW
Plasma
Natural
Gas
Power Generation Process
11
(1) EPA Document: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/emissions.htm
(2) Complete Conversion of Carbon to CO2; MSW Material &
Heat Balance, Westinghouse Plasma Corp.
MSW Solid Byproducts
Molten Stream
Processing
(Product)
Salable Product Uses
Air Cooling
Coarse Aggregate (roads,
concrete, asphalt)
(Gravel)
Water Cooling
(Sand)
Water Cooling
(Metal Nodules)
Recyclable metals
Air Blown
Insulation, sound proofing,
agriculture
(“Plasma Wool”)
12
Fine Aggregate (concrete,
asphalt, concrete products)
Plasma WTE Processing -An Ultimate MSW Disposal System ?
• Accept all solid and liquid wastes
• No preprocessing
• Can include hazardous/toxic materials, medical
wastes, asbestos, tires, etc.
• Closed loop system
• No direct gaseous emissions to the atmosphere
• No landfill requirements
• Total waste reclamation
• Recover fuel value of wastes
• Produce salable residues (e.g., metals and
aggregates)
13
US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Studies: Conclusions
• WTE power plants produce electricity with less environmental
impact than almost any other source of electricity
• MSW is the only important WTE materials stream, up to 4% of
the nation’s electrical energy demand
• Significant greenhouse gas emissions savings. For each ton of
waste processed in WTE units, more than 1 ton of CO2
equivalent emissions are avoided (from landfills and
combustion of fossil fuels).
• WTE is preferred over landfilling waste.
14
Commercial Project:
Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan
 Commissioned in 2002 at
Mihama-Mikata, Japan by
Hitachi Metals, LTD
 Gasifies 24 TPD of MSW &
4 TPD of sewage sludge
 Produces steam and hot
water for local industries
The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at
Mihama-Mikata, Japan converts unprocessed
MSW and WWTP Sludge to fuel gas, sand-size
aggregate, and mixed metal nodules.
15
Commercial Project:
Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan
 Commissioned in 2002 at
Utashinai, Japan by Hitachi
Metals, LTD
 Original Design – gasification of
170 TPD of Automobile Shredder
Residue (ASR)
 Current Design – Gasification of
approximately 300 TPD of MSW
 Generates up to 7.9 MW of
electricity with ~4.3 MW to grid
16
The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at
Utashinai, Japan converts unprocessed MSW
and ASR to electricity, sand-size aggregate, and
mixed metal nodules
Plasma WTE Project (Florida)
• Geoplasma, LLC
• St. Lucie County, Florida
• Feedstock: 600 TPD MSW
• Energy: 22 MW to the grid
• Capital Cost (est.): $120 Million
• Start Date: 2012 (2 year project)*
* Permitted for construction
17
Plasma WTE Project (Iowa)
• Plasma Power, LLC
• Marion/Cedar Rapids/Linn County, IA
• Feedstock: 250 TPD MSW *
• Energy (est.): 47 MW to grid
• Capital Cost (est.): $100 Million
• Start Date: 2012 (2 year project)
* Syngas is supplemented with natural gas.
18
Plasma WTE Project (Alabama)
• Coskata, Inc.
• Boligee/Green County, AL
• Feedstock: 1,500 TPD Wood Biomass
• Energy: 150,000 gallons/day Ethanol
• Capital Cost (est.): $500 Million*
• Start Date: TBD
* $88 Million USDA Loan Guarantee
19
Plasma WTE Demonstration Plants
• Plasco (Ottawa, Canada)
• 94 TPD MSW to Power (1MWH/ton)
• 30 month demo completed in Jan 2011
• Several commercial projects under consideration
• Europlasma (Bordeaux, France)
• 150 TPD MSW & Biomass (12 MW to the grid)
• Completion in 2012
• Several commercial projects under consideration
20
Capital Costs: Incineration vs.
Plasma Gasification Facilities
Cost ($millions)
300
Incineration-Only and
Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
Facilities
200
Incineration-Only
Incineration-WTE
Plasma Stand-Alone WTE
100
0
0
1000
2000
Capacity (tons/day)
21
3000
22
Plasma Processing
at Fossil Fuel Power Plants
Combustion
Chamber
Coal Ash Feed to
Plasma System
Hot gas
Steam Option
Equipment Eliminated
MSW
Biomass
Coal
Wastes
Collocated Plasma WTE & Fossil Fuel Power Plants:
A “WIN – WIN” Collaboration
Fossil Fuel Power Plant Benefits
• Significant Cost Savings
•
•
•
•
Reduced fossil fuels, emissions, and landfilling
More efficient fossil fuel combustion
Low cost MSW process gas
Reduced pollution control equipment
• Plasma Processing of Contaminated Coal Ash
• Permanent elimination of potentially hazardous conditions (no landfilling)
• Some WTE potential and salable byproducts
MSW Plasma Plant Benefits
• Capital Costs / O&M Costs Reduced >50%
• Plasma WTE becomes a highly profitable enterprise
• Tipping fees
• Energy Production
24
• Solid by-product sales
Zero Waste
 The recycling of all materials back into nature or the
marketplace in a manner that protects human health
and the environment
 Under the goals of Zero Waste, all materials leaving the
coal plants will be recycled, and emissions will meet all
environmental regulations by wide margins
 Significant power plant cost savings
 Utilization of waste feedstocks
 Reduced pollution control equipment
 Coal ash conversion into salable construction materials
25
Landfill Remediation Concept
26
Potential In-Situ Landfill Remediation Equipment
(based on an older DOE technology)
27
Commercial Plasma Waste
Processing Facilities (Asia)
Location
Waste
Capacity (TPD)
Start Date
Mihama-Mikata, JP
MSW/WWTP Sludge
28
2002
Utashinai, JP
MSW/ASR
300
2002
Kinuura, JP
MSW Ash
50
1995
Kakogawa, JP
MSW Ash
30
2003
Shimonoseki, JP
MSW Ash
41
2002
Imizu, JP
MSW Ash
12
2002
Maizuru, JP
MSW Ash
6
2003
Iizuka, JP
Industrial
10
2004
Osaka, JP
PCBs
4
2006
Taipei, TW
Medical & Batteries
4
2005
28
Commercial Plasma Waste Processing
Facilities (Europe & North America)
Location
29
Waste
Capacity (TPD)
Start Date
Bordeaux, FR
MSW ash
10
1998
Morcenx, FR
Asbestos
22
2001
Bergen, NO
Tannery
15
2001
Landskrona, SW
Fly ash
200
1983
Jonquiere, Canada
Aluminum dross
50
1991
Ottawa, Canada
MSW
85
2007 (demonstration)
Anniston, AL
Catalytic converters
24
1985
Honolulu, HI
Medical
1
2001
Hawthorne, NV
Munitions
10
2006
Alpoca, WV
Ammunition
10
2003
U.S. Navy
Shipboard
7
2004
U.S. Army
Chemical Agents
10
2004
Summary and Conclusions
• Plasma processing has unique treatment capabilities
•
•
•
•
unequaled by existing technologies
Plasma processing of MSW has the potential to supply
~5-8% of U.S. electricity needs
It may be more cost-effective to take MSW to a plasma
facility for energy production than to dump it in a landfill
When fully developed, it may become cost-effective to
mine existing landfills for energy production
Plasma processing of MSW in the U.S. could:
• Significantly reduce the MSW disposal problem
• Significantly alleviate the energy crisis
• Reduce or eliminate the need for landfills
30