PEAT International Commissions Plasma Thermal Waste to Energy System in China

Medical Waste Treatment, PTDR Systems, Plasma Arcs, Plasma Gasification, TVRC Technology, Waste To Energy, Waste To Resources, Waste Treatment No Comments »

Northbrook, Illinois & Shanghai, China – October 10, 2013 – PEAT International, Inc., (“PEAT”) a leader in plasma-thermal waste destruction systems, announced the successful commissioning of a Plasma Thermal Destruction and Recovery (“PTDR”) system in Shanghai, China. The 60 kg/hr system – designed for medical waste and oil refinery sludge – was installed for Abada Plasma Technology Holdings, Ltd. – an Asian-based renewable energy project developer.

PEAT’s PTDR “single stage” plasma-thermal process transforms hazardous waste through molecular dissociation at 1,500°C (2,732°F) into recoverable, non-toxic end-products, synthetic gas and heat (sources for energy recovery), metals and a vitrified glass matrix. Emissions are below the most stringent environmental standards used anywhere.

“This is end-stage technology and sets the standard for clean hazardous waste remediation. Only with plasma can you achieve temperatures high enough for waste destruction in a single-staged process,” said Joseph Rosin, PEAT International Chairman. “It’s a 21st century solution that addresses three important needs: significant volume reduction, full pollution control and competitive pricing. We are currently preparing for other projects already under contract.”

PTDR systems are in operation in California, Taiwan and China. Go to for a video of operations and acceptance test run data.

About PEAT International

PEAT International, Inc., headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, with offices in China, Taiwan and India, is a waste-to-energy (“WTE”) company with its two proprietary technologies – the Plasma Thermal Destruction and Recovery™ (“PTDR”) technology for the treatment and recycling of industrial, medical and other hazardous waste streams and the Thermal Volume Reduction & Conversion™ (“TVRC”) technology for municipal solid waste. For more information, contact Daniel Ripes,, at 847-559-8567 and visit

Plasma-Arc Gasification And Emissions

Emissions, Medical Waste Treatment, PTDR Systems, Plasma Arcs, Plasma Gasification, Waste To Energy, Waste To Resources, Waste Treatment 1 Comment »

Previously, we discussed and demonstrated how plasma arc plasma gasification nearly eliminates dioxin formation, this entry looks to address semi-volatile heavy metal compounds and other air emissions.

The high temperatures at which the plasma-arc plasma gasification processes operate can result in the generation of volatile inorganic constituents (i.e. metals and metal oxides), sometimes at a higher level than compared to convention thermal treatment processes, particularly if the waste feedstock comes in direct contact with the very hot plasma-arc plasma gasification plume as these compounds may become volatilize and carried downstream with the syngas generated. While many are removed by the gas cleaning and conditioning systems, in plasma-arc plasma gasification processes where the off gases are not cooled (i.e. plasma combustion, which is not utilized by PEAT) these heavy metal compounds could be carried out in the stack gases, increasing the levels of potential contaminants that are emitted.

Downstream of any quench system or syngas cooler, any entrained particulate matter and/or acid gases (H2S, HCl, etc.) are scrubbed with water typically using either a packed-bed tower/Venturi scrubber or through a dry filtration system. Additional equipment in the form of HEPA or baghouse filters may also be utilized.

The results presented in the below reflect emissions from PEAT International plasma-arc plasma gasification waste-to-energy systems where the syngas was not utilized and ultimately processed in a thermal oxidizer or secondary reaction chamber.

Emission /
Waste Stream

methyl pyrazolone,
(High Sulfur (20%),
High Chlorine (14%))
Gujarat, India

Incinerator fly ash
and medical waste
in Tainan, Taiwan

Medical Waste
in Gujarat, India

PM (gr/scf) 0.00817 0.004806 0.01057
CO (ppmv)

(DL: 0.08 ppm)

(DL: 2.8 ppm)


NOx (mg/nm3)




SOx (mg/nm3)





(DL: 0.00671 ppm)

(DL 5.1 ppm)

(DL 1 ppm)

Lead (μg/nm3)



(DL 1.0 μg/m3)



1.94 μg/nm3

19.51 μg/m3



6.4 μg/nm3

(D.L. 1.0 μg/m3)




(D.L. 1mg/m3)

APC system for each system only included wet venturi scrubber and baghouse filter

More on Plasma Gasification

PTDR Systems, Plasma Arcs, Plasma Gasification, Uncategorized, Waste To Energy No Comments »

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.

End-Product Generation

PTDR Systems, Plasma Arcs, Plasma Gasification No Comments »

The composition of the end-products varies with the composition of the waste being processed in a PTDR plasma-arc plasma gasification system. For example, processing medical waste in PEAT’s plasma gasification system, with a relatively high percentage of paper and plastic or pharmaceutical manufacturing waste with high levels of carbon-based constituents would produce meaningful levels of syngas, and a lesser amount of recoverable metal and glass product. Conversely, processing ash from an incinerator via plasma-arc would produce lower amounts of syngas and relatively more vitrified product (containing metal oxides) and potentially recovered metal alloys.

Plasma-Arc and Plasma-Arc Electrodes

Emissions, PTDR Systems, Waste To Energy, Waste Treatment No Comments »

Plasma can be described as an electrically-charged gas where a specific amount of energy is added to separate the molecules into a collection of ions, electrons and charge-neutral gas molecules. Plasma indicates a gas volume with sufficient energy supplied (electromagnetic, electric and/or thermal) so that electrons that normally exist in specific numbers and at distinct energy level orbiting around the nucleus are freed from their orbital bonds. This plasma, with its constituents of individual molecules and electrons acts as a conductor of electricity, the resistance of which converts electrical energy to heat.

Plasma-arc systems have been widely used for destruction of hazardous wastes. This extreme heat from the plasma-arc breaks down wastes, forming synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) and a rock-like solid byproduct called slag. The significant difference between pure plasma-arc plasma gasification systems (like PTDR systems) and other thermal waste processing technologies is that the heat required for waste degradation is generated by the plasma-arc itself and not via combustion of all or part of the waste.

PTDR plasma-gasification systems derive its energy from graphite plasma-arc electrodes thus wastes with little or no calorific value can be effectively and efficiently treated. Graphite plasma-arc electrodes are more effective than plasma-arc torches (typically marketed by other plasma-based companies) in that they reduce capital costs versus plasma-arc torches and have significantly higher electric-to-thermal energy conversion efficiencies (90-95% vs. 65-70%) thereby reducing operational costs when compared to plasma-arc torches

Log in