an analysis of the lack of investment and implementation...

Energy and Energy Policy:

An Analysis of the Lack of Investment and Implementation of Plasma Gasification in the United States

Prepared by:

Duncan McGillivary

Emily Yi

Ferdinand Chan

Gabriel Loboguerrero

Kelvin Lee

Kevin Wei

Prepared for:

Dr. George Tolley

Dr. R. Stephen Berry

The University of Chicago

December 4, 2015

Abstract

The technological capacity to use plasma gasification in Waste-to-Energy (WtE) systems

has been available for several decades. From carbon-based parts of waste materials varying from

municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, etc., plasma is used to generate a synthetic gas (syngas)

that can be used in generating electricity, steam, and other fuel sources. Plasma gasification has

many purported benefits, such as eliminating landfill waste, low environmental emissions, low

operational costs, and the highest efficiency of converting waste to energy, among many others.

Internationally, plasma gasification has taken hold as an efficient energy source in countries such

as the United Kingdom, Japan, and many others. However, there are currently no successful

implementations of plasma gasification across the United States among many failed projects.

Using the successes and failures of international and domestic plasma gasification plants as case

studies, we conclude that the economic and political environment is infeasible for plasma

gasification to be an effective renewable energy source in the United States. With the correct

incentives and policies, plasma gasification can provide many unique benefits and be a

successful diversification of energy in the United States.

i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Traditional Plasma Waste Treatment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Factors to Consider in Plasma Waste Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.5 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.6 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 International Case Studies 18

2.1 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.3 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4 Common Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 United States Case Studies 23

3.1 Domestic Plasma Gasification Case Study: Sacramento, California . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.2 Covanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Technological Barriers 28

4.1 Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2 Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3 Fuel Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.4 Selection of the Gasifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.5 Moving Bed Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.6 Fluidized Bed Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ii

4.7 Twin Fluidized Bed Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.8 Plasma Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.9 Operating Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.10 Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.11 Gasifying Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.12 Gasifying Agent-Biomass Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.13 Air-Fuel Ratio and Equivalent Ratio (ER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.14 Reaction Temperature and Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.15 Cleaning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.16 Gas Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 Economic Barriers and Cost-Benefit Analysis 37

6 Implementation and Overcoming Barriers 40

7 Appendix 45

8 References 47

iii

1 Introduction

Persistent population growth both domestically and internationally has served as an

impetus for increasing industrial development. With a recovering global economy that has

showed similarities to the pre-financial crisis economic state, consumer sentiment has risen.

These factors, combined with a myriad of other forces, have led to a substantial increase in our

generation of municipal solid waste (MSW). In 2011, the United States alone generated an

estimated 389 million tons of said waste. Of this number: 22.6% was recycled, 6.3% composted,

7.6% used as fuel in waste-to-energy (WtE) plants, and 63.5% landfilled [1]. In 1989, municipal

solid waste generation totaled an estimate 269 million tons. Thus, waste production has

approximately increased by 44.6% in 21 years, spurring the discussion on how the problem of

increasing waste can be best handled [2].

Figure 1: MSW Generation and Distribution (EPA, 2008)

!1

Issues such as global warming and the detrimental effects to the environment as a result

of increased landfilling has taken center stage, leading society in an effort to counter the effects

of greater MSW generation. Globally, the development of waste-to-energy plants has

proliferated. Currently, the largest number of WtE facilities exist in Europe, totaling an

approximate 520 operational facilities [3]. As of 2014, the United States alone had 87 WtE plants

that handled approximately 30 million tons of waste per year. By converting this waste, the

United States was able to create an estimated 15 billion kWh of energy. Similarly, Asian nations

including Japan, but not limited to, have also taken advantage of environmentally-friendly

energy production activities. In fact, a staggering 70% of Japan’s MSW is processed through

facilities that convert the waste into usable energy. Theoretically speaking, a conversation rate of

70% in the United States would yield over 100 billion kWh of energy [4]. As mentioned

previously, a large driving force behind MWS generation is population growth. Nations like

China, where recent removal of population limiting policies like the One Child Policy, also have

ambitious plans to develop approximately 200 operational WtE facilities by year 2020 [5]. When

considering WtE operations, there are several methods in which one can go about converting

waste to energy: Incineration, capturing landfill gas, gasification, and most importantly, plasma

waste gasification.

Incineration is an oxidizing reaction that is commonly seen within WtE facilities. It is a

process that requires burning mass MSW brought to facilities from cities and landfills. MSW that

will be treated in this fashion either gets combusted as soon as it is transported or pre-treated so

that it is more easily [6]. After being burnt at temperatures ranging from 850°C - 1200°C, gases

are generated that can be used to produce energy via steam. Advantages include rapid volume

!2

reduction and energy recovery, but downsides include high initial costs and public disapproval

[7]. Further, there is no flexibility in the use of its energy product as seen in other reactions.

Capturing landfill gases is a different process in which the natural state of landfills is

utilized. As MSW builds up in landfills, it is anaerobically broken down by bacteria due to the

oxygen-deprived environment in which the MSW sits. A combination of gases is subsequently

emitted from the anaerobic breakdown including CO2 and CH4. The gases are captured and used

in various forms including conversion to renewable energy. Advantages include the ability to

turn MSW into usable energy, but disadvantages include the difficulty of capturing all the gases

as well as the need of significant landfill space [8].

Gasification itself is a process that involves various physical and chemical interactions

that occur at temperatures from 400°C to 900°C. MSW first goes through heating and drying,

which involves mixing liquid water and steam at temperatures of around 160°C [9]. The next

step involves thermal decomposition, in which the MSW is heated at temperatures around 700°C

leading to the release of syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide among a variety of

other gases). The syngas that is produced is much more flexible than the gases that can be

captured from simple incineration or capturing of landfill gases. Advantages also include the fact

that SOx and NOx emissions are less than that of the other WtE processes [10].

The process changes slightly yet improves significantly when we introduce the plasma

arc, leading to plasma waste gasification. Being that it is a process that avoids incineration,

emission byproducts are significantly lower than other WtE processes. The main product is

similar to gasification itself where a synthesis gas is produced as well as an inert vitreous

material commonly known as slag [11]. However, through this external heat source, a majority of

!3

the carbon present is converted to fuel gas. Such technology is the closest society has come to

pure gasification.

1.1 Traditional Plasma Waste Treatment Process

Plasma waste gasification plants primarily consist of the following components seen in

Figure 2. MSW first undergoes waste pre-treatment which can vary depending on the type of

MSW being treated. Waste that has a higher moisture content will undergo a drying process prior

to entering the plasma furnace. For waste that does not require such a drying process, there tends

to be a shredder that reduces MSW size prior to entering the plasma furnace [12].

The plasma furnace is where the heating takes place. Two electrodes – in most instances

made of graphite – which are known as the plasma arcs torches, are inserted into the plasma

furnace. Electric currents are subsequently passed through the electrodes, generating an electric

arc between the tips of the electrodes and the conductive receiver, which is usually a slag at the

bottom of the furnace. This electric arc subsequently heats the furnace to very high temperatures

that break down the MSW in a way that other WtE processes cannot replicate. As this MSW is

broken down, a synthesis gas is formed, later to be converted to energy [13].

The synthesis gas then travels to a gas cleaning system in which hazardous by products

are removed. As detailed in other WtE processes, some of these gases include SOx as well as

other acid gases like HCl and particulates. After the syngas is sufficiently cleaned, it is brought to

the energy recovery system. Such system can revolve around a steam cycle, gas turbine cycle, or

even a gas engine. All are capable of converting syngas to electrical, thermal, or steam energy,

but depending on the nature of the syngas, one method may be preferred over the other [14].

!4

Figure 2: Plasma Waste Gasification Process [15]

1.2 Factors to Consider in Plasma Waste Gasification

As mentioned previously, the composition and physical properties of the MSW being

gasified is a significant factor in the performance of a WtE operation. Prior to carrying out a WtE

process, one must consider the ash content, moisture levels, degree of volatile matter, as well as

variables such as density and the size of the objects. Although most MSW is pre-treated prior to

heading into any sort of process, many plants that carry out plasma waste gasification prefer to

use pre-treated refuse-derived fuel (RDF) rather than using the MSW as is. Certain combinations

of compositions can lead to processes in which there are possible synergies, leading to a

reduction in carbon loss and an increase in energy content [16].

Arguably the most important factor to consider when analyzing WtE processes is the

equivalence ratio. The equivalence ratio measures the oxygen content in the oxidant supply

versus the oxygen content that is required for full stoichiometric combustion. Said ratio strongly

!5

affects the composition of the syngas that is produced from the MSW. Under standard conditions

that gasification procedures undergo, the optimal equivalence ratio falls somewhere from 0.25 to

0.35. At an equivalence ratio within this range, gasification processes can convert most of the

free carbons into fuel, maximizing energy output. Depending on the type of WtE process that a

plant utilizes, a different equivalence ratio may be required [17].

Figure 3: Equivalence Ratio versus Syngas Composition [18]

1.3 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification

WtE technologies have been significantly rising in popularity, due to increasing concerns

about waste accumulation and environmentally-friendly energy alternatives. Plasma gasification

!6

provides a solution to both eliminating landfill waste and diversifying renewable energy options.

Landfill waste is increasing at an alarming rates and with the current effects of our conventional

energy use mainly from natural gas, petroleum, and coal, people are searching for viable long-

term energy sources. With recent technological developments and research, plasma gasification

is purported to have many unique benefits in these areas over current conventional energy

sources. However, the use of plasma gasification in WtE is only very recent and many of these

claims have not been fully examined and proven. The theoretical advantages of plasma

gasification are concentrated in two main areas: environmental benefits and economic feasibility.

Throughout the analysis of plasma gasification’s benefits, comparisons will be made between

conventional WtE technologies, mainly landfill use and incineration. It is important to keep in

mind that the context of these benefits: we are examining the application of plasma gasification

in its current state of advantages and disadvantages. Our goal is to provide an analysis of why

plasma gasification represents another diversified alternative to our current WtE sources, and in

its current state, is not able to operate on a scale of major energy players like petroleum or coal.

1.4 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Environmental

The environmental benefits of plasma gasification are highly attractive, as it confronts

two important issues that are harming our planet: increasing amount of material waste and

emissions. In the following analysis, we shall compare plasma gasification and its environmental

benefits to landfill waste and incineration, two of the conventional methods that use waste as

material requirements.

!7

The most common type of waste generated by manageable sources is municipal solid

waste. The United States population is consistently the largest producer of MSW, with its

individual waste generation of 4.4 pounds per person per day [19]. One of the main methods of

MSW disposal is creating landfill sites. Landfills are the oldest and most common method of

organized waste disposal in the world, and while some energy can be reused from landfill sites,

this disposal method has several costly drawbacks that outweigh its usages. According to the

EPA, the United States has over 3,000 active landfills and over 10,000 old municipal landfills.

These landfills have two major disadvantages: harmful greenhouse gas emissions and a large

potential to leak/contaminate the local habitat. Landfills are notorious for its methane emissions,

and “methane is responsible for 10.6% of global warming damage from human-sources in the

U.S. Of this, 35.8% is from landfill gas. Thus, 3.8% of U.S. global warming damage is from

methane in landfill gas, a significant amount” [20]. In addition to the emissions issue, "...82% of

surveyed landfill cells had leaks while 41% had a leak area of more than 1 square

feet” [21].These leaks present long term threats to local groundwaters and connected surface

waters. With natural resources such as land and water becoming rarer, it’s an important concern

to limit landfill usage.

However, with all of these disadvantages to using landfills, there are little to no signs of

stopping its utilization. Although the number of landfills is decreasing, the pure volume of trash

is simply being consolidated into larger and larger areas. The United States population currently

shows an increasing rate of MSW, one of the main contributors to landfill waste. In 2012,

Americans generated over 270 million tons of MSW and 54% of that waste was discarded in

landfills [22]. This consistent usage of landfills demonstrates the United States lagging behind

!8

other developed countries in terms of waste utilization. In the below graph, figure whatever, a

disproportionate amount of waste is transferred into landfills compared to other international

countries.

Figure 4: Comparison of methods of waste management between United States and other

European countries [23]

In addition, in the figure below, we can see that since 1960, the rate of waste generation

within the United States has tripled; with these kinds of waste disposal rates, using valuable

resources such as land and capital to create landfills with such high risk and low benefit is

unsustainable.

!9

Figure 5: Growth of U.S. MSW Generation [24]

In contrast, plasma gasification presents a strong alternative to landfills, solving the

emissions and contamination issue. It has a large potential for almost infinitely different types of

feedstock, one of the main sources being municipal solid waste among many others such as

agricultural waste, hazardous waste, etc. Westinghouse Plasma, a leader in plasma gasification

technologies, has proven that unlike the typical incineration process, a plasma gasifier can

process almost any feedstock, including a blend; owners can even optimize revenue and other

needs by determining the ideal mix of feedstocks based on energy efficiency and costs [25]. This

flexibility lends itself to an extremely long life-span in comparison to conventional landfills

which are consistently being added across the nation. With plasma gasification using wastes that

would otherwise be put in landfills, it presents a viable solution to the United States’ current

track of increasing improper trash disposal. A growing number of countries have set regulations

!10

to reduce landfill waste by at least 25%, and with its unique advantages in emissions and

eliminating waste, plasma gasification has marketed itself as an asset to achieve this goal.

Plasma gasification is also extremely environmentally friendly in the area of greenhouse

gas emissions. As previously noted, plasma gasification requires the use of wastes (municipal,

agricultural, etc.) as a conversion into syngas, which is then converted to various energy sources.

The material requirements of plasma gasification uses waste that would otherwise be incinerated

or put into a landfill, both of which generate harmful carbon emissions that weakens the state of

Earth’s atmosphere and threaten harmful climate change. Therefore, since the feedstock of

plasma gasification is composed of material that is waste that would otherwise be used in waste

disposal methods that would be increasingly harmful to the atmosphere with emissions, plasma

gasification’s emissions footprint is significantly smaller than most WtE sources.

In fact, analyses of the plasma gasification process has been shown to have a ‘negative’

greenhouse gas footprint in comparison to incineration and landfills, produce virtually zero

emissions and has the highest landfill diversion rate of any available technology [26]. In

comparison, landfills are the largest third source of methane emissions in the United States,

constituting 16% of man-made CH4 emissions [27]. In the figure below, we can see that

compared to regular waste disposal technologies (landfill gas collection and incineration),

plasma gasification has superiority in the area of accumulated carbon emissions.

!11

Figure 6: Plasma Gasification Life Cycle Environmental Effects [28]

In addition, currently installed plasma gasification plants already exceed U.S. EPA

standards for emissions requirements, as shown in the figure below.

!12

Figure 7: Energy Recovery from Waste Comparison [29]

In comparison to conventional incineration standards of emissions and efficiency, plasma

gasification outperforms by a significant amount. Less than 2% of the material introduced into a

Westinghouse Plasma Corp. gasification plant needs to be sent to landfill. In comparison, about

20% to 30% of the waste processed in an incinerator must be sent to landfill [30].

Compared to alternative WtE sources, plasma gasification easily exceeds the

environmental standards put forth by previous technologies. In the areas of both emissions and

waste contamination, it manages to have advantages over landfill usage and incineration. While

the former technologies have been used throughout history to get rid of waste, plasma

!13

gasification uses new techniques and methods that ensures an environmentally friendly and

efficient method of converting waste into energy.

1.5 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Economic

In regards to theoretical economic feasibility, plasma gasification has two main strengths

over its WtE competitors: flexibility and efficiency. The wide variety of inputs and outputs that

plasma gasification can deal with is vastly superior to anything that incineration or landfills can

process. The different waste streams available for plasma gasification processing varies from

refinery wastes. Aside from MSW, there are many different waste streams that are available in

certain locations that have unique benefits such as higher waste tipping values, high fuel value,

and toxic qualities (leading to higher processing values). A few other examples of potential fuels

that can be processed are medical waste, construction debris, industrial waste from petroleum

and chemical plants, telephone poles, etc. Additionally, there are millions of tons of low-grade

waste coal that exist in massive piles throughout the Appalachian region of Pennsylvania and

West Virginia, US, that can be utilized for gasification. This waste feedstock flexibility leads to

long term survival and economically, it ensures that the plant will have consistently low

operation and feedstock costs.

In addition to flexibility of feedstock inputs, multiple outputs and revenue streams can be

produced from a single facility. Plasma gasification only has two products: synthetic gas and

vitrified slag, both of which have a commercial value [31]. Syngas is an incredibly useful fuel

source, as it can be generate heat, steam, electricity production, and many more fuel sources that

can be sold or combined with ethanol or hydrogen production to maximize resources [32]. Slag

!14

is the solid byproduct of the gasification process and has many unique properties that make it

valuable for profiteering. Slag has high potential for use in construction projects due to its

density and flexibility; government subsidies for slag and similar positive environmental

externalities have been used across the country and can additionally offset the costs of plasma

gasification implementation. Due to the high valuation of its multiple inputs and outputs, plasma

gasification processes generate a diverse and unique combination of revenues that cannot be

compared to any other WtE technology. For example, in the case of an average plant using

100,000 tons of MSW could generate steady revenue streams from multiple sites, with the 5

below being the most common [33]:

• Tipping fees for the waste it receives

• Sale of any recyclables removed

• Electricity generated (sold to the local grid on long-term power purchase agreement)

• Heating or cooling sold to local companies, eg hospitals, offices

• Sale of the glassy by-product, produced by the process and sold as building material

Clearly, the value of the plasma gasification process is significantly amplified due to its

diverse potential, which translates well into diverse streams of revenue, increasing profits for

shareholders and the environment.

The technological advantages of plasma gasification’s efficiency is another major asset to

its economic strength. The extreme heat (3,000+°Fahrenheit) that plasma gasifiers maintain the

trash conversion with is factually the most efficient method of converting the waste into actual

usable energy. Compared to incineration, most of which have low efficiency rates of 19-27%

[34], plasma gasification has virtually a 100% carbon conversion rate ([35], leading to an

!15

efficiency rate of over 80% [36]. When using waste as a feedstock instead of planting it within a

landfill, it’s important to consider opportunity costs and what potential profits are being lost;

with plasma gasification, the technology is the most efficient so that the energy recovery is

maximized. Another result of the higher efficiency is the cost savings associated with

government intervention with respect to certain subsidies or tax credits. For example, most

plasma gasification plants qualify for some kind of landfill tax avoidance and have an added

value of the potentially reusable by-products and the end product, i.e. within a regulatory

context, it is regarded as a recovery, as opposed to a disposal, technology [37]. Finally, the

strongest piece of evidence for plasma gasification’s economic success over any other WtE

comes from Westinghouse Plasma Corporation’s statistic that for similar capital and operating

costs, a plasma gasification plant can generate ~ 50% more energy from the waste in a combined

cycle configuration [38].

1.6 Purported Benefits of Plasma Gasification: Summary

In terms of long-term potential, plasma gasification’s ability to exist and thrive as a

lasting energy source is dependent on how well policies consider and value the environmental

and economic advantages such that the benefit outweighs the cost. Plasma gasification’s extreme

flexibility in converting almost any kind of waste into efficient energy translates into many

strengths that technologies like incineration or landfill usage cannot compete with. The

efficiency and flexibility leads to lower emission standards, less contamination risk, higher

revenue streams, low operation costs, and many other benefits. From the purported benefit

analysis above, it’s clear that plasma gasification offers unique benefits that no other WtE source

!16

can compete with, from minimizing environmental impact to maximizing economic profits. With

these benefits that plasma gasification boasts, some may claim that “’We've finally reached a

point where it's actually going to be cheaper to take garbage to a plasma plant and make energy

than it is to take the garbage and just dump it into a landfill’" [39]. However, it is important to

acknowledge the gravitas of the specific policies that have allowed plasma gasification to

succeed in certain areas. Without any government intervention in the economic and political

sphere, it is unlikely that plasma gasification plants can ever actually be feasible. In the

following sections, we will take a look at how the above theoretical benefits are actually put into

practice, especially in the case studies around the world.

After a broad overview of the technological aspects, potential, and current state of plasma

gasification, we must examine its viability as a feasible alternative energy source. The

technology of utilizing plasma gasification for WtE purposes has been available for decades, and

it has many unique benefits over conventional energy sources. However, it has yet to be proven

as an effective alternative source of energy in the United States. In this paper, we will examine

the specific barriers that prevent plasma gasification implementation in the United States through

a discussion of different case studies. First, an examination of international plasma gasification

plants will provide the specific policy adaptations that different countries have allowed plasma

gasification to be effective. In contrast, the case studies of the United States and its multiple

failed attempts will demonstrate the high technological, economic, and political costs of plasma

gasification implementation. We use Covanta, a leading waste disposal and renewable energy

production company, as the main case study within the United States due to its expertise in Waste

to Energy industries. We will then present an economic analysis of constructing a plasma

!17

gasification plant in the United States, including a cost-benefit analysis, which ultimately

demonstrates that the cost of implementation largely outweighs the benefits. We arrive at the

conclusion that there is a lack of economic, political, and infrastructural incentives that makes

plasma gasification a poor alternative to incarnation or landfill usage. Finally, we will provide

potential policy adaptations, both economic and political, which we believe would aid and propel

the success of plasma gasification in the United States.

2 International Case Studies

Plasma gasification plants around the world have been relatively successful. Plasma

gasification has benefits that can successfully deal with many problems that are currently not

issues in the United States. The often-high fixed cost associated with plasma gasification often

requires that countries have other necessities that plasma gasification can fix. By examining

some of the reasons for plasma gasification in other countries, one can potentially identify

situations in the United States, or a lack thereof, that would effect investment into plasma

gasification.

!18

2.1 China

In 2013, Wuhan Kaida successfully completed a demonstration facility in China. It

currently processes 100 tons of biomass a day and produces syngas [40]. The monumental plant

was constructed as a solution to a much larger issue within central China: removal of industrial

waste.

Central China is known for its industrial output, which can easily meet the amount of

biomass required for full scale industrial projects. One of the benefits of plasma gasification is

that it can process almost any kind of industrial waste [41]. The plant in Wuhan specifically

processes wood waste, a major contributor to air pollution. It has been tremendously successful

largely because there have been no issues with feeding the plant in such an industrial area.

Wuhan Kaida in China has used its success as a stepping stone on their much larger

initiative which has recently added a project in Nanjing, China to process 500 tonnes of waste

daily [42]. Similarly, the plants are able to produce foam insulation after passing technical tests

in China. This gives the plants in China a greater ability to reap the profit of their slag [43]. The

vicinity of the plant, the availability of waste from the nearby industrial towns, and the ability to

sell the slag as insulation means that funding and implementing the plants requires less risk and

can give greater reward. The United States has a similar company focused on plasma

gasification, the Jacoby Group. However, it does not have the same attention from the

government nor the high premium placed on hazardous waste disposal as is available in China.

!19

2.2 Japan

There are three active plasma gasification plants in Japan. There is a 166 ton per day

plant in Yoshi, a 165 ton per day plant in Utashinai City, and a 28 ton per day plant in the twin

cities of Mihama and Mikata. In many ways, Japan has taken itself to the forefront of plasma

gasification.

The plant in Utashinai city, a collaboration between Hitachi Metals and Westinghouse

Plasma Corp., was one of the first plasma gasification facilities worldwide. It was built in 2002

and required 5 years of research and development. It now processes a mixture of auto shredder

residue and municipal solid waste. This facility was not designed primarily for electricity

generation but was instead designed for waste removal [44]. The plants location meant that

originally it had a significant amount of business from auto plants who needed to destroy their

auto-shredder waste. However, during the time that the plant was inactive, many of the auto

plants found other ways to remove their waste. Hitachi Metals ceased the plants operations in

2013 since it was running at only half capacity and losing money.

The takeaways from the origins and then halt on operations for the Ecovalley plant could

indicate some of the primary reasons that plasma gasification has not caught on in America. It is

a risky investment since even short malfunctions of the complicated equipment can reduce profit.

Similarly, its high initial cost and the energy required to maintain the plasma torch left the

Ecovalley plant with only enough electricity to dry its slag rather than the expected 1.5MW,

enough to power 30,000 US households [45]. Overall, these issues left the plant unprofitable.

However, there have since been improvements to the design of the plasma gasification

mechanisms which would eliminate many of the risks facing earlier plants. The primary concerns

!20

at Ecovalley were an improperly sized gasifier, a low quality refractor, and excessive particulate

carryover. The new gasifiers have all taken into account these issues and plants without these

problems, such as the Mihama Mikata facility between the twin cities for which it was named

have been successful and still operate to this day. Rather than create electricity the syngas is used

to further. The primary issues for the Ecovalley plant were mechanical failures and customer

retention, which might be a cause of concern for American investors.

2.3 India

In India the primary plasma gasification facility is in Pune, the 8th largest city in India. It

currently produces 1.6MW/day and has a capacity for 72 tonnes. One of the main issues that

faces the Indian states is that they have such a large amount of trash that the dioxide produced

would damage their health. They have already run out of landfills so the question becomes one of

gasification of incineration. There are currently 8000 tonnes of trash produced by Bombay daily,

which is likely to grow with the population of India [46].

The profitability of the plant in Pune is through its ability to process many different types

of waste. The city around it generates 1500-1600 tonnes of waste every day. Twenty-three

different cities in India end up generating over 100 tonnes of waste daily [47]. Therefore there is

a need to get rid of the trash. If they were to solely use incineration then there would be a

tremendous amount of dioxides in the air, which would be detrimental to any positive

environmental change. India’s need for waste removal services, the decreasing availability of

landfills, and the dangerous effects of dioxide from incineration have left India in need a new

!21

disposal system. Currently, there are 6 more new waste to energy plants under construction to fill

this need.

2.4 Common Issues

The issues and reasons for producing plasma gasification in each of these countries are

unique, and not necessarily applicable the United States. The facilities themselves are

tremendously expensive and can cost an exceptional amount to produce electricity. They also

require a solid amount of waste to be economically feasible. In China, the facility was able to

take advantage of significant industry in the area and dispose of hazardous waste. Similarly, in

India there is such a large amount of waste that the plasma gasification process is necessary and

was used by the government to reduce the need for landfills and incinerators.

Some of the major problems in the United States can be gleaned from these plants. The

first issue is a lack of investment. The United States does not have the land issues or waste issues

that other countries do. It is much cheaper and simpler for a county to simply put their trash in a

landfill than to risk millions of dollars building a plasma gasification plant. Similarly, the

reduction in air pollution leaves a cheaper option, incinerators, as a more economically feasible

solution to waste issues. The Hitachi metals plant in Japan reveals even more issues with the risk

of building a plant. Unless it is produced at a location that will have enough consistent waste to

reduce then the returns from the electricity generated and funds from hazardous waste removal

will make the process unprofitable.

!22

3 United States Case Studies

3.1 Domestic Plasma Gasification Case Study: Sacramento, California

The failures of implementing a plasma gasification plant in Sacramento, California by

U.S. Science & Technology, a private company, demonstrates several of the current domestic

barriers in moving forward with this new WtE technology. In particular, the two main barriers

that this case study encountered were economic and political. Sacramento issued a Request for

Qualifications (RFQ) on August 24, 2007 to attract development partners to meet 5 specific

goals: (1) be environmentally friendly and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (2) be economically

viable and cost-neutral to rate-payers; (3) leave little or no residuals requiring treatment or

landfill disposal; (4) continue the City’s existing recycling program; and (5) utilize a proven

technology at a commercial scale [48]. After evaluating eleven different companies that

responded to the RFQ, a committee decided that USST’s plasma gasification proposal held the

most merit.

USST was selected to tackle Sacramento’s growing waste problem as a result of their

unique purported benefits. “In 2007, Sacramento collected an average of 750 tons/day of

municipal solid waste. About 348 tons/day (46%) of this was recycled, leaving 402 tons/day to

be landfilled in the state of Nevada. The city’s commitment would be limited to the diversion of

300 tons of residential municipal solid waste per day that is otherwise exported to Nevada” [49].

The biggest draw for the city of Sacramento toward USST was the fact that USST aimed for a

public/private partnership with the city of Sacramento, where the private company would invest

all capital necessary to build and maintain the facility, and the public city would only contribute

!23

waste. This was an extremely attractive deal to the city council, who, at no cost from the city,

could pioneer a new technology in addition to solving its waste problems. However, this deal

was simply too good to be true.

On November 18th, 2008, several interest groups including La Raza Network,

Environmental council of Sacramento, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, and many

more, banded together, presented their research, and petitioned the Sacramento City Council to

reject the USST plasma gasification contract based on 5 main reasons [50]:

1. Based on previous studies, plasma gasification does not accomplish the needed goals; due

to the fact that 65% of their residential MSW is recyclable, ton for ton recycling and zero

waste programs offer better environmental benefits for less risk.

2. There is limited data that there would not be emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants due

to the lack of widespread plasma facilities around the nation.

3. Under California law there are no credits or incentives that can be given for facilities that

produce renewable energy through combustion of municipal solid waste. The cost and

risk was too high for perceived benefit

4. Several community concerns about the implications of a facility being built. For example,

it would be located nearest to low-income and people of color residents, which would

raise serious environmental justice and racial concerns.

5. After further research, the City Council deemed USST to have made many incorrect and

misleading claims, such as plasma gasification receiving carbon credits (no such thing),

financial viability, and many other string attached.

!24

On January 15, 2009, the Sacramento City Council voted 8-0 to cease working with

USST as a result of analyzing poor economic returns and lack of financial viability. After

consulting with several experts, including economists and energy consulting firm Advanced

Energy Strategies, it was determined that USST’s financial projects had not point of comparison

and seemed purely speculative. The council cited the fact that “there would not be a positive cash

flow until the 11th year of operation … [and] AES’s estimate the facility would operate $70

million in the red” [51].

The failure of plasma gasification in Sacramento is representative of two main domestic

barriers: a discouraging lack of precedent and a lack of financial security. When major players do

not have any domestic plants to compare their plans for plasma gasification, there is no guarantee

of success. This leads to a negative feedback loop; since there is no precedent set in the U.S.,

companies and governments lack the initiative to create their own plasma gasification plant,

leading to further apprehension and lack of presence. Sacramento’s reliance on external

economists and energy consultants is a damning piece of evidence for the information

asymmetry of building a plasma gasification plant. While the lack of precedent is more of a high-

level and long-term barrier, the economic obstacles that plasma gasification is very well

demonstrated by the Sacramento case study. While many other countries allow incentives and

credits for plasma gasification, a lack of political awareness and understanding leads to

underutilization of this efficient waste-to-energy technology. Internationally, plasma gasification

plants are rewarded by ‘recovering’ energy from waste, while in the United States, plasma

gasification is seen in the same unhealthy vein as incineration, which leads to a lack of subsidies

and public disapproval. Constructing a new technological plant that a country has never seen

!25

before is a high undertaking, and without policy support, hypothetical costs will always exceed

benefit, leading to failed implementation everywhere. As we have seen from the city council’s

decision, government intervention in the economic and financial sphere is absolutely essential

and has the potential to make or break the culture of inefficient waste processing.

3.2 Covanta

Next, we turn our attention to Covanta, a leading owner and operator of EfW

infrastructure in both the United States and abroad. Under their portfolio, Covanta owns

approximately 45 EfW facilities with the ability to process approximately 20 million tons of

MSW. Known for their consistent track record of operating performance, Covanta has an

experienced team that consistently achieves boiler availability in excess of 90%. Thus, Covanta

provided the perfect opportunity to highlight the state of plasma waste gasification.

When speaking with Covanta’s Director of Strategy Richmond Young, he was able to

provide us with his perspective on the state of plasma gasification with in the United States, his

firm, and internationally. Advised to focus on two specific plants, our team – with the assistance

of Richmond Young – compared and contrasted a facility located in Florida at Pinellas County

and a facility located in Canada referred to as Durham-York. These two facilities provide us with

a clear perspective into the state of plasma gasification.

Pinellas County EfW facility is a gasification facility that Covanta was selected to operate

for the next ten years starting in December of 2014 via a lease. This contract entails a joint

venture of sorts, in which Covanta will complete a number of projects, primarily funded by their

!26

client, in order to improve the operating performance of the facility. Covanta serves a partner that

is essentially leasing the facility with minimal downside.

The Durham-York EfW facility, however, is a facility that Covanta began constructing

from scratch starting in 2011. It is a municipally-owned 480 metric ton-per-day EfW facility.

Such a facility will be able to generate a substantial amount of electricity and will in fact qualify

for preferential pricing under Canada’s renewable feed-in tariff.

Understanding the processes used in the development of both of these facilities very

clearly highlights the issue at hand regarding not only plasma gasification, but EfW facilities in

general. In the United States, there is a lack of substantive policy that allows for EfW to be a

preferable option for firms like Covanta. As a result, many of Covanta’s investments

domestically are like that of the facility in Pinellas County, joint ventures in which they often

lease facilities instead of constructing them. There is little incentive for Covanta to explore new

technologies within the United States. On the other hand, Covanta is putting a substantial equity

investment in their facility in Durham-York because international countries tend to have more

favorable policies that would justify an equity investment in a new EfW facility.

Speaking with Richmond Young, it appears that Covanta has no plans to implement

plasma waste gasification within the United States in the near term. Reasons include a lack of a

favorable environment due to low power prices, a waste market that is dominated by two

companies, and lack of subsidies from the government. As a result, it is important for society and

our government to consider these factors moving forward, granted that the United States will

continue to lose significant EfW investment.

!27

4 Technological Barriers

4.1 Biomass

Gasification plants are fed through biomass, which is a heterogeneous mixture of organic

matter, and to a lesser extent, inorganic matter, including several solid and liquid phases with

different contents. Biomass fuels are not all the same and can be produced from agricultural

wastes, energy crops, forestry wastes, industrials wastes, etc. The diversity of the biomass fuels

is critical to the design and type of the power plant that will convert the fuel into electricity. Such

decisions of type and design of the gasification power plant should be made after the type of fuel

used to create energy has been determined. More research is required on the type of biomass

fuels that most effectively work to provide consistent and reliable syngas [52]. For example,

plasma gasification can be utilized with several types of municipal solid waste or organic waste.

There are algorithms that can simulate the gasification process for 80 different types of biomass

(On a methodology for selecting biomass materials for gasification purposes, 2015). This allows

for a better and more precise decision on the suitable type of biomass that should be chosen for

creating syngas with a particular set of characteristics.

4.2 Preparation

After the consideration of which biofuel to use, the preparation of the biomass needs to

occur. The process of preparation or pre-processing phases have a major impact on the

gasification outcomes. The most important factor to take into account is the size of the biomass.

Several experiments have been done to see the effects on biomass size and the effects on product

!28

gas composition. These experiments and results are not based on solely on plasma gasification

but on several types of gasification methods for producing syngas, which we can apply the

findings to plasma gasification.

An experimented conducted with a downdraft reactor using pine bark as biomass fuel,

demonstrated that with different biomass sizes the reaction of the biomass was different based on

its size. The conclusion drawn from that specific experiment was that the optimal biomass

particle size should be between 2 and 6 mm [53]. An increase in particle size led to lower

consumption rates, fuel/air equivalent ratios, maximum process temperatures, and lower flame

front velocities.

For entrained bed gasifiers, pyrolyzing biomass at temperatures of 400°C is shown to be

a viable option because of the effect it has on the process. Pyrolysis acts to remove the

oxygenated components from the biomass. As a result, the resulting biomass has an increased

energy density. There are other forms of pyrolysis including and under-researched technique

called torrefaction. Torrefaction is pyrolysis at a temperature of 200-300°C in an inert

atmosphere [54].

A study conducted utilizing the fluidized bed gasification treatment of untreated and pre-

treated olive residue and pre-treated olive residue mixed with reed, pine pellets, and Douglas fir

wood chips demonstrates the importance of the pre-processing phase [55]. The pre-processing

treatment used in this case was leaching. Leaching targeted metals such as K and Na in addition

to chlorine to reduce and even eliminate the problems caused by ash during the gasification

process. As was expected, the lower total tar yield of the producer gas resulting from the leached

olive residue compared to that of the untreated olive residue was the best fuel/mixture tested.

!29

The syngas produced from pelletized biomass in downdraft reactors has good

composition - H2 17.2%, N2 46.0%, CH4 2.5%, CO 21.2%, CO212.6% and C2H4 0.4%. In

addition, more syngas can be produced per kilo of biomass at 2.2–2.4 N m3/kg with a high cold

efficiency of 67.7–70.0% [56]. Pelletized biomass has been proposed as a supplement to other

types of fuels in order to improve the energy content as well as reduce the average moisture

effects. Pelletized biomass is a possible solution to the issue of variability in biomass in untreated

biomass a destabilizing source in gasifiers.

4.3 Fuel Moisture Content

A key element that needs to be looked at when conducting the gasification process is the

moisture content found in the fuel. An increase in the moisture content in the biofuel results in an

increase in energy required for water evaporation and steam gasification reactions. Thus, it

lowers the gasifiers operating temperature. Though bed temperatures tend to be stable with

moisture contents at or below 15%, the moisture level is dependent on the gasifier: an updraft

type reactor requirements can be as high as 50% moisture content [57].

One of the major sources of instability in the gasification process is the fluctuations of

biomass moisture content because it leads to variations in bed temperature. As a result, these

variations alter the composition of the syngas being produced. Syngas composition is linked to

biomass content. When looking at dry and moist fuels, the CO composition increases for dry

fuels, while the CO2 increases for the moisture fuels. Consequently, this increase in composition

reduces the calorific power of the syngas and the process efficiency, when looking at

experiments conducted with updraft fixed bed gasifiers with air [58].

!30

4.4 Selection of the Gasifier

The main component to a gasification plant is the gasifier. A gasifier is the piece that

converts the feedstock or biofuel in an energy plant into syngas. The gasifier functions as a

stabilizer for the syngas production. In the gasifier, the biomass fuel and gasifying agents along

with other inert materials, catalysts or additives are mixed to create the reaction. This section of

the paper will focus on the type gasifiers that include the following: moving bed reactors,

fluidized bed reactors, entrained bed reactors, plasma gasification.

4.5 Moving Bed Reactors

Moving bed reactors contain two types: updraft or countercurrent and downdraft or co-

current. In short, a moving bed reactor has the biomass flow through the reactor. An updraft

reactor hast fuel fed from the top of the reactor. A gasifying agent is then added (usually air,

oxygen, steam or a mixture of both). The agent then mixes with descending biomass and ash.

The area above the gasification is where the pyrolysis of the biomass takes place. The heat

transferred to the biomass from the gas updraft causes it dry up resulting in a mixture of products

due to pyrolysis and gasification.

Like the updraft reactor, the downdraft reactor has the fuel fed in from the top, but the

gasifying agent is injected from the side of the reactor, and combines with the products of

pyrolysis. The gas produced during gasification and pyrolysis in a downdraft reactor can be

burned during the process to provide the heat energy required for drying, pyrolysis, and

gasification. This is known as “pyrolytic flame” [59]. Because gas is fed from the bottom of the

!31

reactor, the hot gas passed downward through the hot char, which means a reduction in tar

production, but also a reduction in the caloric power.

4.6 Fluidized Bed Reactors

Fluidized bed reactors have the fuel fed in quickly from the top of the reactor and the

gasifying agent, as the name would suggest, is inserted in the form of fluidized gas fed in from

the bottom. Solid particles of fuel are brought into contact with a hot bed of solids, which rapidly

rises the temperature of solid particles causing pyrolysis to occur, producing char and gases.

However, the char produced from a fluidized bed reactor does not achieve full conversion

because of the continuous mixing of solids. These particles of partially gasified char can cause

losses in the gasifier. In addition, fluidized bed gasifiers have low level dissemination of oxygen

from bubbles to the emulsion phase. Consequently, the resulting combustion reactions takes

place in a fluidized state, decreasing the efficiency of the reaction. Advantages to fluidized bed

reactors lie in their ability to process fuels with high ash contents because of their operating

temperatures of 800-1000°C [60]. Fluidized bed reactors also work with many types of biomass

fuels due to its high thermal inertia and vigorous mixing, useful for large-scale biomass

gasification plants such as plasma plants.

4.7 Twin Fluidized Bed Reactors

On top of a single fluidized bed reactor, there are twin fluidized bed reactors that are used

to produce gas with greater calorific power. The two reactors each serve to have a single

function. The first reactor acts as a pyrolyzing reactor that is heated from sand or other material

!32

from the second reactor. The second reactors uses the heat produced by the burning of char from

the first reactor [61].

4.8 Plasma Gasification

The plasma gasification process is currently being used in conjunction with fluidized bed

gasifiers and plasma process arranged in series [62]. The biofuel used for this process mainly

involves organic MSW (municipal solid waste), and other wastes such as paper, plastics, glass,

metals, textiles, wood, rubber, etc. The formation of plasma occurs when an electric arc is

generated by running an electric current through a gas. The resulting temperatures in the plasma

current cause molecules within the current to break its bonds, thus generating syngas. Unlike

other gasification process, the gasifiers used during plasma gasification must be able to work at

significantly higher temperatures of 2,000 to 30,000°C.

More specifically a paper written by M. Materazzi et al suggest that the inherent flaws of

a single stage fluidized bed- plasma process can be corrected by using a two-stage fluidized bed

plasma process using RDF as the biofuel. RDF is refused derived fuel. It is produced from

combustible components of MSW, which is the most common feedstock used for plasma

gasification. The single-stage FBG process has higher deficiencies because it produces a higher

quantity of tars in the syngas, which reduces the gas yield of the steam and the carbon conversion

efficiency when compared to the results from the two-stage FBG [63]. However, more research

is needed to be done to see what the effects would be on a commercial plant.

!33

4.9 Operating Parameters

When considering gasification as a source of energy production there are several

operating parameters that must be taken into account. The gasification process goes beyond the

simple process of combustion. The operating parameters of the gasification process are the

following: residence time, gasifying agents, gasifying agent-biomass ratio, air-fuel ratio, and

equivalent ratio (ER), reaction temperature, and pressure [64]. The control of these parameters

allows for a consistent and quality operation performance without issues that can cause unwanted

stoppages of the process.

4.10 Residence Time

The residence time of a solid or gas particle is the average period for which the particle

remains within the boundaries of the reactor [65]. The residence time should be long enough for

the reaction taking place in the gasifier to produce the expected syngas. Each gasifier should

have the optimal residence time chosen according to its type. For example, fixed bed gasifiers

have longer residence times than those of entrained bed gasifiers. The residence time of gasifier

ranges from 1-2 seconds for entrained bed gasifiers [66].

4.11 Gasifying Agents

There are several types of gasifying agents that are used with the most common of the

being air since it is the most economical. The other types are steam, oxygen, CO2, and a mixture

of all four can be used as well. In ranking order of calorific power of the syngas produced, air

produces the least calorific power. Steam produces moderate calorific power with its cost

!34

between that of air and oxygen. Oxygen produces the highest calorific power, but is also the

most expensive one [67].

4.12 Gasifying Agent-Biomass Ratio

The gasifying agent ratio is the ratio between the gasifying agent and biomass feedstock

utilized during the reaction. The optimization of this ratio, depending on the type of reactor,

produces syngas with different chemical contents. For example an interconnected fluidized bed

gasifier where gasification and combustion are conducted separately, the steam to biomass ratio

can alter the amount of tar produced and the amount of CO, H2, CO2, and CH4 produced in the

process [68].

4.13 Air-Fuel Ratio and Equivalent Ratio (ER)

The air-fuel ratio is the ratio between the air and fuel used. This ratio can be calculated

through the default values: rair-fuel = mol of air/mol of fuel. The equivalent ratio is between the

air- fuel ratio for the current process and the air-fuel ratio for complete combustion, express as:

ER = rair-fuel (actual)/ rair-fuel (complete combustion) [69]. When considering the calorific power of the syngas

generated, the air-fuel ratio has the greatest impact. The equivalent-ratio enables the controlling

of tar and char generation.

!35

4.14 Reaction Temperature and Pressure

The reaction temperature is considered to be one of the most important parameters.

Depending on the type of fuel, the reaction temperature affects problems caused by ash build-up

and sintering. There is a decrease or increase in process efficiency that can happen by either

raising or lowering temperature that can lead to higher concentrations of tars and lower char

conversion e.g. raising the temperature causes an increase in CO and H2, but it reduces the CO2,

CH4, and H2O in the syngas [70]. Meanwhile, there are two types of pressure that can be used

during the gasification process, atmospheric pressure or pressurized (at higher pressures). The

consideration of costs must also be taken into account as pressurized is more efficient but also

implies a higher cost. An increase in operating pressure of the gasifier results in a reduction in

the amount of char and tar in the syngas generated [71].

4.15 Cleaning System

The gasification process causes the creation of tars in the syngas which are caused by

several factors: temperature, gasifying agent, equivalent ratio, residence time, and catalyst

additives. Controlling or treatment for the tar can be done during the primary process (inside the

gasifier) and during the secondary process (the hot cleaning of the gases generated).

Economically the more important of the two is the primary process [72]. The configuration of the

gasifier and the correct combination of catalysts used as well as the type of gasifier will directly

influence the reduction in tars generated.

!36

4.16 Gas Cleaning

In addition for the need to reduce tar during gasification, many more unwanted

substances are generated. Just as the need for the right combination of gasifier and additives/

catalysts to reduce the amount of particles created. There are two was of cleaning the gases

generated and that is both cold and hot cleaning systems with the latter increasing the efficiency

of gasification by 3-4% because the syngas will carry a greater amount of energy than when it is

cooled [73]. The main components of the gas systems are the following: cyclones, ceramic,

textile, bag filters, rotating particle separators, wet electrostatic precipitators, and water

scrubbers. The gas systems function to remove or capture the tars in the syngas. Consequently,

the capture or removal of the tars discards the energy they contain.

5 Economic Barriers and Cost-Benefit Analysis

In consideration of recent climate changes and environmental solutions to increase both

awareness and efficiency in the way corporations producing and utilizing fuels understand the

usage of energies, plasma gasification was introduced as a way to productively eliminate climate

collateral damage. Through examination of economical barriers, there is clear analysis of the cost

benefit scale that acknowledges both sides of the argument of maintaining and producing a

plasma gasification plant. Although extremely costly to begin with, there are ways to eliminate

costs into the future, and each plant should at least break even within five years.

Looking at the specifically economic side of a plasma gasification plant, we have to

understand the way costs play into the development of both the technology and implementation.

!37

According to a Columbia University study, analysis demonstrates that “capital costs of plasma-

assisted WtE are higher than the traditional WtE plant, especially due to the cost of the plasma

torches. The base plasma scenario conducted yielded a capital charge of $76.8 per ton of MSW

processed, higher than the estimated capital charge of $60/ton for a grate combustion WtE plant.

The detailed costs of each process were higher than the base case: $81/ton for Alter NRG, $86/

ton for Europlasma. The capital costs of the Plasco process was estimated at $86/ton, on the basis

of data from their pilot plant.” Given the costs provided, the energy/ton produced by the

technology of plasma gasification combustion is not justified by the costs it takes to create and

implement the technology – simply put, for most costs, given the current technological

conditions, the economic benefits derived do not outweigh the lost of capital for the short term.

Although there is a standard cost analysis of the way we interpret the energy utilized in

order to conduct plasma gasification, there is substantial evidence that the actual implication of

our understanding of plasma gasification actually lies in the already existence pool of waste

generation accumulated over the years. Instead of introducing the plasma gasification technology

as a brand new mechanism with no establishment of tools, we should instead look at MSW as an

“energy feedstock.” Currently, just in the United States alone, there is a 54% increase in waste

production in the past 17 years (See Figure 8).

Although there are current technologies for handling waste accumulation, none of which

is as effect or productive for the environment as plasma gasification. Instead of seeing waste as

trash, we should see it as an energy source. The currently reuse of waste and recycling only

reaches about 30% of all US households. We believe that the more effective way of creative a

cost benefit analysis is by taking into account the waste that already exists and using that as an

!38

asset to expedite the time period in which a plasma gasification plant becomes profitable. Any

type of feedstock (excluding nuclear waste), especially if already in existence, can be directly

processed. An important calculation to note is that although plasma gasification utilizes a lot of

electricity to power, the scales can still be easily tipped financially if the capital and operating

costs remain at a low once the technology becomes automated. We have accounted for all the

variables in our cost benefit analysis (See Figure 9). The analysis should demonstrate that given

the technological and economic barriers and limitations, there are still advantages to be played

into the benefits. We have accounted for the benefits and projected all financial forecasts beyond

two calendar years to demonstrate that there will be an acceleration of increased benefits after

the plant is set up. Including all mergers and acquisition costs and synergies as well, we believe

that generally, after two years, the plant should be able to produce more benefits than its cost

(including environmental concerns, not necessarily pure financials).

Currently the base plant costs are divided into $600 per ton of capacity, which ultimately

adds up to $220,000 per ton. Given the calculations, a typical 300 tpd plant is about $86.5

million dollars. The capital costs for an annual calculation capacity of 28 tons will generation a

payment of 10% per year, with an investment of $27 million to begin with. These costs added up

(also taken into account for our cost benefit analysis) will demonstrate that although the costs are

incredibly high when the plant first gets installed and built – the capital will be generated back.

However, the main economic barrier to be addresses is in fact that the plant is extremely costly.

At least for the first few years the plant is open, the cost will largely outweigh the benefits. This

investment is a long-term plan that both private and public investors (mainly the government)

need to able to be on board with.

!39

6 Implementation and Overcoming Barriers

The main political barrier for plasma gasification to gain widespread acceptance is the

lack of information and public support. Government intervention is impossible when both the

public and officials are misinformed or have no idea what the benefits/costs of plasma

gasification implementation are. As we have seen from the case studies in the U.S., there are

many false ideas that people have about plasma gasification. A few examples from the case

studies include how people think plasma gasification and incineration are synonymous, the

unjustified fear-mongering of high toxic emissions in St. Lucie, Florida (whereas plasma

gasification actually has a negative carbon footprint), among many more misconceptions. In a

political system where policies are enacted based on the amount of support an idea has, it is

extremely difficult for any plasma gasification implementation to occur with favorable policies

when the public has no informed opinion of what it actually is.

In order to overcome this lack of information, there should be two main efforts: private

and public. We have already demonstrated that certain policies and economic incentives are

absolutely necessary for successful implementation. However, without any public support, these

policies cannot be put into practice. Private companies have a major a role in educating its

consumers about plasma gasification’s benefits such that it is clear how it is simply the best WtE

technology that the world currently has. This can be achieved through several methods, such as

lobbying government officials, creating marketing campaigns, starting grassroots efforts,

promoting infrastructure/company synergies, etc. all of which require capital that energy

companies have at their disposal. It is extremely important that private companies acknowledge

!40

how large of a factor public support can be in forming and enacting policies that can assist in

changing the way the U.S. processes waste.

Public effort refers to government support. Besides providing policies that contribute

economic incentives, the government should have a role in legitimizing plasma gasification as

the best WtE alternative. With the technology to potentially supply 5% of U.S. total energy usage

while decreasing landfill waste and being economically feasible, plasma gasification represents a

strong case for being given a regulatory body [74]. Once a standardized organization is formed

within all types of government, (municipal, state, and federal), these task forces can consolidate

resources and gather public support that no private company has the ethos to do so. By having a

type of committee at the government level, similar to the EPA, the knowledge of plasma

gasification can be effectively spread with little distortion, due to the credibility and backing of a

legal force. This centralization of resources can have ripples throughout the scientific community

and general public, as the technical community will finally have a channel to convey the benefits

of plasma gasification to the average person. In the same manner that the U.S. EPA can provide

unbiased and strong research about the environment, the government has a large potential in

helping pave the way for information symmetry for plasma gasification implementation.

In order for most plasma gasification plants to overcome the economic barriers explained

previously, there must be a lot of measurements and actions taken by the government to provide

economic subsidies to compensate for the increase cost needed to maintain a plant annually.

There needs to be enough political push to find another way of reducing waste in an

environmentally efficient way. If there is not federal fiscal policies enacted to reduce the cost of

maintaining a plasma gasification plant, there might be complications in terms of keeping the

!41

plant sustainable. If we choose to not look at the government for financial subsidies, then

perhaps internal management at the plants must seek private investors looking for long term

return and are okay with there not being an immediate financial return. According to our

discounted cash flow analysis, it would take about a decade for the plant to able to pay off

dividends, so most likely private investors are the best way to overcome any economic barriers in

the way. Additionally, although very short term, it would also be extremely helpful in

overcoming plasma gasification plants’ biggest economic barrier if the plants can somehow cut

costs significantly to maintain the plant’s functions. However, this is another internal question

raised, though it is an effective way to reduce costs and knock down economic barriers.

A comparison between international and domestic case studies clearly demonstrates the

fact that there is an inopportune economic and political environment for plasma gasification

implementation in the United States. Plasma gasification offers many unique opportunities as a

new WtE technology, from reducing landfill waste and having lower emission footprints, all

while being economically efficient and flexible. From the international case studies, we see that

each country has had their own unique policy adaptations. In Japan, the government has the

initiative to invest capital and policies into new plasma gasification technologies. In China, as a

result of the policy cities taking responsibility of their own waste generation, plasma gasification

was the best WtE choice. In India, the penalties for air pollution had pushed Pune toward

implementing plasma gasification due to its clean emission and large flexibility for trash.

However, when looking at the United States, we see that there are simply no policies that provide

enough economic and political incentives to offset the high initial capital cost of plasma

gasification. In San Francisco, the economic projections were simply infeasible. In St. Lucie, the

!42

political atmosphere and unjustified fear-mongering contributed to the failures of plasma

gasification. As a result of our analyses of cases around the world, we have formulated a few

high-level strategies and policies that would greatly assist.

First, it is necessary for a standard organization or committee to be established such that

it can lead efforts for the technical community, government communication, and developing

standards. This committee would ideally be composed of government officials, plasma

gasification technology experts, community leaders, and representatives from relevant

corporations. The versatility and composition of this group allows this consolidation of talents to

take responsibility for several different challenges in many areas necessary for successful plasma

gasification implementation. This organization and its relevant subcommittees would play a

major role in legitimizing plasma gasification’s viability and existence as the best WtE

technology. After this organization is formed, it must take immediate steps to standardize plasma

gasifying plants and the inputs/outputs that it processes. This organization must have a

representative in the government at a level similar to the EPA that can regulate the design,

installation, and operation of plasma gasification. By providing the nation with information, this

will significantly lower the barriers to entry and provide incentives for plasma gasification

implementation. As we have seen before, the high initial costs are one of the largest barriers that

plasma gasification encounters because of the lack of precedent; this is very well demonstrated in

the case studies of California and Florida. It is absolutely essential that the organization has a

role in persuading the government to positively intervene for plasma gasification’s role in the

WtE sphere.

!43

Here are a few policy suggestions that the committee can implement as a result of its

collaboration with the technical community, private corporations, and government officials.

• Subsidy improvement for WtE technologies, especially differentiating incineration and

plasma gasification so that public opinion is swayed and plasma gasification rightly receives

more credits and incentives to its cleaner operation.

• Establishing criteria and test methods for certification of vitrified materials

• Accountability for specific counties so that areas are compelled to take responsibility for

their waste generation; this can lead to municipalities looking for the best WtE technology, most

likely plasma gasification.

• Community awareness, through the means of campaigns and publicity such that people

can see the true benefit and advantages of plasma gasification

• A demonstration and analysis of historical data such that it proves plasma gasification’s

worth to the country.

• Prioritization of development and implementation

• Further funding of research and literature on the plasma gasification process

• Test plants within Continental United States so that there is a precedent that can be

followed

!44

7 Appendix

Figure 8

!45

$0.00

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$3,000.00

$4,000.00

$5,000.00

$6,000.00

$7,000.00

CurrentYear(CY)(MM)

YearDeprecia<onCost(MM)

OtherSetUp(MM)

PerAnnum(MM)

CY+1 CY+2

TotalCosts(PresentValue)

TotalCosts(FutureValue)

TotalBenefits(PresentValue)

TotalBenefits(FutureValue)

Figure 9

!46

8 References

1. Themelis, Nickolas J., and Charles Mussche. "2014 Energy and Economic Value of

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Including Non-Recycled Plastics (NRP, Currently Landfilled

in the Fifty States." Columbia University, Earth Engineering Center (2014): n. pag. 9 July

2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

2. Ducharme, Caroline. "Technical and Economic Analysis of Plasma-assisted Waste-to-Energy

Processes." N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

3. Gray, Larry. "Plasma Gasification as a Viable Waste-to-Energy Treatment of Municipal Solid

Waste." Solid and Hazardous Waste Prevention and Control Engineering (2014): n. pag. 2

Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.



Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.



Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.



Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.



!47



9. Arena, Umberto. "Process and Technological Aspects of Municipal Solid Waste Gasification.

A Review." Waste Management 32.4 (2012): 625-39. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.



11. Mountouris, A., E. Voutsas, and D. Tassios. "Solid Waste Plasma Gasification: Equilibrium

Model Development and Exergy Analysis." Energy Conversion and Management 47.13-14

(2006): 1723-737. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.



(2006): 1723-737. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.



(2006): 1723-737. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.



(2006): 1723-737. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.



(2006): 1723-737. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.

!48

16. Pinto, Filomena, Helena Lopes, Rui Neto André, I. Gulyurtlu, and I. Cabrita. "Effect of

Catalysts in the Quality of Syngas and By-products Obtained by Co-gasification of Coal and

Wastes. 1. Tars and Nitrogen Compounds Abatement." Fuel 86.14 (2007): 2052-063. Web.





19. "Municipal Solid Waste." United States Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA, 25

June 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

20. Ewall, Mike. Primer on Landfill Gas as Green Energy. Energy Justice Network, 2013. Web.

04 Dec. 2015.

21. Landes, Lynn. Landfills: Hazardous to the Environment. Zero Waste America, n.d. Web. 04

Dec. 2015.

22. "Municipal Solid Waste Facts and Figures." United States Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA, Feb. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

23. Lacey, Stephen. "Look at How Much Waste America Puts Into Landfills Compared to

Europe." GTM. Green Tech Media, 3 June 2013. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

24. MSW Generation Rates. Digital image. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA, 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

25. "Benefits & Advantages." Westinghouse Plasma Corp, 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

26. "What Is Plasma Gasification and What Are the Advantages?" UTAG Green Energy

Technologies, 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

!49

27. "Overview of Greenhouse Gases." United States Environmental Protection Agency. U.S.

EPA, 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

28. "Life Cycle Comparisons." Plasma Gasification vs. Incineration. AlterNRG, June 2010.

Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

29. "Energy Recovery from Waste." Plasma Gasification vs. Incineration. AlterNRG, June 2010.

Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

30. "Environmental Performance." Westinghouse Plasma Corp, 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

31. Lemmens, Bert. Elslander, Helmut. Vanderreydt, Ive. et al. Assessment of plasma

gasification of high caloric waste streams, Waste Management, Volume 27, Issue 11, 2007,

Pages 1562-1569, ISSN 0956-053X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.027.

32. Dodge, Ed. "Plasma Gasification: Clean Renewable Fuel through Vaporization of Waste."

Harvard University, 7 Jan. 2009. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

33. "What Is Plasma Gasification and What Are the Advantages?" UTAG Green Energy

Technologies, 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

34. "Incinerators: Myths vs. Facts about ‘Waste to Energy’." Global Alliance for Incinerator

Alternatives, Feb. 2012. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

35. "Environmental Benefits." Alliance Federated Energy, 2010. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

36. "Why Plasma Gasification." Alliance Federated Energy, 2010. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

37. Gomez, E. Rani, Amutha. Cheeseman, C.R. et al. Thermal plasma technology for the

treatment of wastes: A critical review, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 161, Issues

2–3, 30 January 2009, Pages 614-626, ISSN 0304-3894, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.

2008.04.017.

!50

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.027

38. "Plasma Gasification Summary.” Plasma Gasification vs. Incineration. AlterNRG, June

2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

39. Sims, Bryan. "Proving Out Plasma Gasification." BioMass Magazine, 2015. Web. 04 Dec.

2015.

40. "Plasma Gasification Turning Waste to Fuel in China." Waste Management World. 30 Jan.

2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

41. "Scaling Up to 100MW." SGC International Conference on Gasification. Malmo, Sweden.

16 Oct. 2014. Lecture.

42. "Alter NRG Reports 2014 Activities and Financial Resuls." Alter NRG. 18 Mar. 2015. Web.

4 Dec. 2015. <http://www.alternrg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/March-18-2015-Q4-

Results-Press-Release.pdf>.

43. "Alter NRG to Supply 15 MW Plasma Gasification Waste to Energy Plant in China." Waste

Management World. 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2015. <http://waste-management-world.com/

a/alter-nrg-to-supply-15-mw-plasma-gasification-waste-to-energy-plant-in-china>.

44. Willis, Ken P., Shinichi Osada, and Kevin L. Willerton. "Plasma Gasification: Lessons

Learned at Eco-Valley WtE Facility." 18th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy

Conference. Print.

45. Circeo, Louis, and Robert Martin. "Plasma Power Environmental & Engineering

Applications of Plasma Arc Technology." Georgia Tech Alumni Seminar Briefing. Lecture.

46. Jha, Prem Shakar. "Turning Garbage into Gas." The Hindu. 17 July 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

47. Annepu, Ranjith. "A Billion Reasons for Waste to Energy in India." « Recycling « Waste

Management World. 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

!51

48. Prinzing, David. "Sacramento Waste-to-Energy Facility." Sacramento Press, 05 Dec. 2008.

Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

49. "Sacramento." USST, 2008. Web. 04 Dec. 2015. <http://www.usstcorp.com/

sacramento.html>.

50. “November 18th Public Comment." Sacramento Granicus, Nov. 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

<http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?

view_id=22&clip_id=1652&meta_id=161135>.

51. Veen, Chad. "Plasma Gasification Plan Goes Up in Smoke for Sacramento, Calif." Digital

Communities, 19 Jan. 2009. Web. 04 Dec. 2015.

52. Ruiz, J. A., M. C. Juarez, M. P. Morales, P. Munoz, and M. A. Mendivil. "Biomass

Gasification for Electricity Generation: Review of Current Technology Barriers." Biomass

Gasification for Electricity Generation: Review of Current Technology Barriers.

ELSEVIER, 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.









!52























!53











63. Materazzi, M., P. Lettieri, R. Taylor, and C. Chapman. "Performance Analysis of RDF

Gasification in a Two Stage Fluidized Bed–plasma Process." Performance Analysis of RDF

Gasification in a Two Stage Fluidized Bed–plasma Process. ELSEVIER, 13 July 2015. Web.

30 Nov. 2015.









!54























!55











74. Pourali, M., "Application of Plasma Gasification Technology in Waste to Energy—

Challenges and Opportunities," in Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on , vol.1, no.3,

pp.125-130, Oct. 2010 doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2010.2061242

!56

an analysis of the lack of investment and implementation...

Documents