Clean Energy From Garbage
 

Clean engergy from garbage, without a catch?:eyebrow:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...cbccdrcrd.html

What's tha' catch.

That thing is solid.
wow

There's your possible catch. funny how he was talking about using the obsidian waste as bathroom tiles earlier.

The system breaks down materials into basic forms, so I have a difficult time believing that the only byproducts are "an obsidian-like glass" and "a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide". Any materials containing toxic elements, like chlorine and heavy metals, are going to break down to, well, chlorine and heavy metals. That has to go somewhere. Dump old computer components into this and you're going to release lots of lead.

Pretty cool. It's not completely clean, of course. When the fuels are burned to make electricity, there is some pollution.

They've been talking about this for years. It's time for some cities to implement it.

I posted about another company's similar process a few years ago.

You trap the gasses and use them.

Sorry. I only read the first page.

They still come out ahead energy-wise when they trap the gases?

Maybe I'm dumb. Explain to me why the plasma doesn't also vaporize the stainless steel chamber it's inside?

Because the chamber is not in contact with the plasma. I have welded with plasma. It is very hot, but you have to be in contact with the arc.

Clodfobble, what happens inside the stainless steel chamber is that the electrodes provide the two points that the plasma "touches". In between, it's that glowing superhotness. But it's not touching the containment vessel.

Imagine an incandescent light bulb. Where the filament glows, that's where the plasma is. Where the filament is supported and receives it's electricity supply, those are the electrodes (in a plasma cutter, as in the example quoted above, they're made of carbon). The glass bulb is analogous to the stainless steel chamber. The filament is very very hot, but the glass is safe, since it's not touching the filament.

The plasma is very very very very hot but the stainless steel chamber is "safe" because it's not touching / in the path of the plasma. The electrodes, however, are, and are indeed consumed. I reckon for the Jetson's garbage disposal, there's some regular maintenance schedule for replacing the electrodes inside the stainless steel chamber.

Back to the opening post's question...

I believe there's a catch too. Leave out for now the garbage processing angle. Even leave out the possibility of water soluble toxic waste. The whole "get more than put in" angle does not compute for me.

Why, oh why in the world wouldn't we just build this thing for the net plus in electrical generation? We could feed it water, or dirt or the cheapest, cleanest, nearest fuel, (no chlorine in, no chlorine out.). And then, what? Just watch the electricity pour out? Something's not right there. This was the promise of a fusion reactor. I've read (beginner level) documentation of these, and I can see "how the math works" to get more energy out than you put in. But I have not seen the same support for this technology. I would think that Al Gore would be all over it, neh? So. Your question stands, rkz. What's the catch?

I thought they were essentially burning trash without flame to generate electricity. They have to provide fuel, gasification takes place, and the resulting products are burned to further the process. This isn't free energy.

But why would we need this when we will see free energy later this year, anyway? ;)

Riiiight. They're a little late.

I remain respectfully skeptical.

So, seriously, my question still stands. I like your clarification, that they're burning fuel and liberating energy in the process. Fine.

So why isn't this the freakin Next Big Thing? What's the catch? Assuming no pollutants are produced or emitted based on what goes in, and that anything can be used as fuel, why are dirty coal and remote expensive dangerous oil still tops of the pops?

I'm not deliberately being obtuse (it's a character flaw, you'll just have to endure it), I just feel that it doesn't all pencil out, based on my limited understanding of the inputs.

But it's magnetic*! How could it fail?

*that's the only bit of technicalish info on the site.
If it's real, then it is the Next Big Thing. The article just came out in March, and they had only recently finished their working prototype, so it still could be. If it's real.

This is not only about the energy, but a clean, efficient, way to deal with waste.
My concern is that this would cause some to reduce their recycling efforts if/when put to widespread use.
I do think it is a great idea and should be fully embraced and will have far more uses in the arena of waste than we currently suspect.
If it is nothing more than a self-sustaining waste process that is needed more than most know and would lose sleep if they had an inkling.
To have any power as profit as well as gasses and excess, such as the slag used a tile, etc, would just be wonderful icing.

rkzenrage:

Compare the economies of worldwide waste management to worldwide electricity production and consumption. You'll see that waste management is dwarfed by the energy economy. To me, the big story is the "any fuel - no pollution - energy production", not the novelty of being able to stoke the fires with Slim-Fast, concrete and fiberglass.

Burying the lead that way makes me... curious and a little suspicious. Perhaps that's too strong a word. Skeptical and interested to know more. There's got to be more, don't you agree?

Once the system was under way it would feed the power back into it's own grid.
As I stated in my last post. Even it if only self sustained and got rid of garbage that would have created toxic landfills we should be dancing in the streets.

It doesn't all pencil out because it is a PopSci article and leaves an incredible amount to the imagination. A significant portion of the process is omitted and I feel the tone of the article, "we put trash in and nothing but energy and flowers comes out", is a bit misleading.

Getting from Syngas to ethanol isn't a simple or very efficient process. It is also cheaper, easier, and more efficient to simply pull natural gas (double the energy density of Syngas) from the ground than it is to use Syngas.

Regardless, all of these methods still generate quite a lot of greenhouse gases, so viewing this as a "green fuel" isn't entirely straight. Burning municipal waste to generate electricity is especially difficult and others have tried it:

This process is not perfectly clean nor efficient by any measure.

An interesting note on the high temperatures and the metal containment shell:

Refinement of this process might make it feasible in the future, but even then this comes down to burning waste for fuel. Mercury, lead, and other toxic elements are still going to be byproducts of municipal trash burning unless the input is closely monitored and sorted. Chances are high that requirement makes this far too costly.

Bullseye. And you do have a flair for humor. Very funny.

Here's an update on the Changing World Technologies TDP: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007...s-reality.html

It's a little long. Here's a short excerpt:
There's a lot more.

If you're still interested, there's a follow-up to that article here: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/sear...20Technologies

Cool. So the technology was proven, but it just wasn't as economical as they hoped due to market reasons.

It seems that the technology works, it just wasn't as efficient as they projected (I don't know how they did all the pilot tests without finding that), plus the economics were highly optimistic.

Also, the person in charge is a salesman and not an engineer, and keeps using known-bad data.

I work in this field and see this, unfortunately, too often.