Plasma pyrolysis and plasma-arc plasma gasification, like incineration, are options for recovering value from waste by thermal treatment. Both pyrolysis and plasma-arc plasma gasification convert feedstocks/wastes into energy by heating the waste under controlled conditions. Whereas incineration converts the input waste into a combusted flue-gas that can then be used to recover thermal energy (usually in the form of steam) and ash, pyrolysis and plasma-arc plasma gasification deliberately limits the conversion so that combustion does not take place directly. Instead, they convert the waste into potentially valuable intermediates that can be further processed for materials recycling or energy recovery. Pyrolysis and plasma-arc plasma gasification offer more scope for recovering products from waste than incineration.

One of the benefits associated with plasma-arc plasma gasification is that plasma-arc plasma gasification reactors do not require moving grates and the smaller volume of gases generated means that the plasma-arc plasma gasification reactors can accommodate the required minimum residence times in a smaller volume. Further, the smaller gas production and reducing environment within plasma-arc plasma gasification reactors does facilitate smaller sized air pollution control systems.

There are a number of perceptions within the marketplace regarding plasma arc treatment and plasma arc gasification processes. Last week, this blog addressed the idea/claim regarding the plasma arc technology’s ability to generate significant useable recyclable end-products and energy with no residual waste.

This week we address some aspects of the environmental footprint associated with plasma arc gasification processes

The high temperatures within plasma arc gasification reactors do facilitate higher thermal destruction with regards to volatizing organic material in the feedstock and breaking them down to simple molecules, however some plasma arc gasification systems require a secondary reactor or cracking stage to accomplish this breakdown indicating that not all reactions occur within the “blackbox.”

With regards to lower emissions claims, specifically dioxins for example, the high temperature within the plasma arc gasification reactors, while important, alone does not ensure little to no dioxin formation, the rapid cooling of the syngas as it leaves the plasma arc gasification reactor is equally important to ensure these complex compounds do not reform.

As discussed in this blog entry:

Plasma Arc Gasification and Wastewater Other Residuals

http://www.peat.com/blog/plasma-arc-gasification-and-wastewater-other-residuals/

other by-products generated during the gas cleaning and conditioning require proper handling. In some plasma arc gasification process configurations, it is feasible to re-inject the by-products collected/generated during this stage into the plasma arc gasification reactor to be vitrified, however this requires planning during the early design stages. If these by-products cannot be re-fed, then secondary treatment would be mandatory.

There are a number of perceptions within the marketplace regarding plasma-arc treatment and plasma-arc gasification processes. Last week, this blog addressed its ability to process a wider range of feedstocks that other thermal treatment technologies.

This week we look to address the claim/perception regarding a smaller physical footprint with regards to plasma-arc gasification waste-to-energy systems.

Plasma-arc gasification reactors do not require moving grates and the smaller volume of gases generated means that the plasma-arc gasification reactors can accommodate the required minimum residence times in a smaller volume. Further, the smaller gas production and reducing environment within the plasma-arc gasification reactor does facilitate smaller sized air pollution control systems. However, due to existing scale of the plasma-arc gasification waste-to-energy technology, large scale application of the plasma-arc gasification process when dealing with municipal solid waste for example could require numerous process trains and thus potentially negate this advantage.