Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste

Applied Plasma Arc Technologies, LLCP.O. Box 950211Atlanta, GA 30377-0211

www.plasmatech.us©2012 APAT v3.0

A member company ofGeorgia Tech’s

Advanced Technology Development Center

March 2012

What is PLASMA?

“Fourth State” of matterIonized 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 Power120 kWh

1 ton MSW75 ft3

GasCleaning

Fuel Gas30,000 ft3

Rock ResidueWeight: 400 lbVolume: 2 ft3

800 kWh

GravelAggregate

Bricks

7

Plasma Gasification of MSWNotional Heat Balance

PLASMA GASIFIER

MSW1 Ton – 11.31 MBtu

Coke 0.8 MBtuAir – 0.56 MBtu

Electricity0.12 MWHr – 0.41 MBtu

Product Gas51,600SCF

Heating Value = 8.79MBTU

Losses0.95 M

Btu

Gas Heat Energy2.94 MBtu

Heating Value OutputElectricity Heat Input

= 28.6

8

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – to – Electricity

Thermal Process Comparisons

• Plasma Arc Gasification• Conventional Gasification

- Fixed/Fluidized Bed Technologies

• Pyrolysis & Gasification- Thermoselect Technology

• Pyrolysis- Mitsui R21 Technology

• Incineration- Mass Burn Technology

Process (1)

(1) 300 – 3,600 TPD of MSW

(2) Steam Turbine Power Generation

816685

685

571

544

Net Electricity to Grid (kWh/ton MSW) (2)

-20%

20%

40%

50%

Plasma Advantage

Reference: EFW Technology Overview, The Regional Municipality of Halton, Submitted by Genivar, URS, Ramboll, Jacques Whitford & Deloitte, Ontario, Canada, May 30, 20079

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

Plasma WTE plant emissions will be cleaner than natural gas emissions

from domestic household gas stoves.

10

Pounds of CO2 Emissions per MWH of Electricity Produced

(1) EPA Document: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/emissions.htm

(2) Complete Conversion of Carbon to CO2; MSW Material & Heat Balance, Westinghouse Plasma Corp.

Power Generation Process

MSWIncineration

Coal

3,000

MSWPlasma

NaturalGas

2,000

1,000

Oil

2,988 (1)

2,249 (1)

1,672 (1)

1,419 (2)

1,135 (1)

11

MSW Solid ByproductsMolten Stream

Processing(Product)

Air Cooling(Gravel)

Water Cooling(Sand)

Water Cooling(Metal Nodules)

Air Blown(“Plasma Wool”)

Salable Product Uses

Coarse Aggregate (roads, concrete, asphalt)

Fine Aggregate (concrete, asphalt, concrete products)

Recyclable metals

Insulation, sound proofing, agriculture

12

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

The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at Utashinai, Japan converts unprocessed MSW

and ASR to electricity, sand-size aggregate, and mixed metal nodules

16

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

21

0

100

200

300

0 1000 2000 3000

Capacity (tons/day)

Co

st (

$mill

ion

s)

Incineration-Only

Incineration-WTE

Plasma Stand-Alone WTE

Incineration-Only and Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facilities

22

Plasma Processingat Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Equipment Eliminated

CombustionChamber

Hot gasCoal Ash Feed toPlasma System

MSWBiomassCoalWastes

Steam Option

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• Solid by-product sales

24

25

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 savingsUtilization of waste feedstocksReduced pollution control equipmentCoal ash conversion into salable construction

materials

Landfill Remediation Concept

26

27

Potential In-Situ Landfill Remediation Equipment (based on an older DOE

technology)

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 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

29

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