Talk:Incineration/Archive 1

General comments
Most of the sources are broken...86.163.129.106 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article reads more correctly now. I will be tweaking it to be NPOV or manipulated by misleading terms related to other forms of waste facility I have also put strikethroughs on most of the discussion below which dates back from articles that no longer exist or are relevant.--Alex 08:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alex, I think you did an excellent job of blending the two merged articles. The only major comment I have is that the "Outputs from incineration" section should be combined with the "Pollution" section, which I will do in the next hour or so. Once again, great work!! - mbeychok 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comments! --Alex 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has just had the Waste-to-energy plant article merged into it by Alex (see just below). As a result, it now has two displays of the same photo, two "External links" sections, two sections discussing how incinerators and waste-to-energy plants work, two similar discussion about the air pollutants in the combustion flue gases including diooxins and furans, and other such duplicate discussions of various items.


 * The article now needs someone with expertise and real-world experience in this field to blend the two articles together and to remove all of the duplicating information. - mbeychok 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up tag removed
I have removed the clean-up tag because the article has been re-written, re-arranged and largely cleaned during yesterday and today. That is not to say that it is perfect ... it still needs source referencing quite badly and perhaps more Wikifying. But it is a great deal better than it was. - mbeychok 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done quite a bit more Wikifying, adding additional information and references. I think the article is now in fairly good shape. - mbeychok 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of aspects of incineration: incinerator design and technology
This article seems to have plenty about the effect on the environment, but where can people find useful matter about the design and technology of incinerators? Anthony Appleyard 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This would be an ideal expansion of the incineration article. Comparisons between fluidised bed technology and other aspects such as gas clean up would be very useful. I do not have the knowledge to help in this area. --Alex 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluidized bed technology is used in other fields too, creating a seperate aticle to discribe the technology might be best.Walter Hartmann 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See Fluidization and Fluidized bed reactor. They're very general.  This incineration article is the best place to describe fluid bed incineration in particular, and comparison to other incinerator technologies such as multiple-hearth, rotary kiln, travelling grate, etc.BSMet94 04:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in alterations on 12 October 2006
Alterations made on 21 October 2006 (see ) have a pattern of deletions that look like non-NPOV towards modern incinerators and away from old incinerators, including trying to rename the process of incineration. I have put some of this deleted matter back in this editing. Anthony Appleyard 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony I agree. When I was combining the two old articles of incineration and waste-to-energy plant I tried to keep a valid balance between what modern incinerators are and what the old incinerators were like. I also created a new article waste-to-energy for disambiguation as there are other forms of plant to produce energy from waste without incineration.--Alex 10:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Argument against
I already see in the article part of the problem that exists with perceptions of incineration. Arguments against (in the article) include dioxin/furan emissions, heavy metals emissions, etc. You can't just say that as a blanket "argument against". It needs to be stated as follows: "dioxin/furan emissions in incinerators." This failure to attache specific pollutants to specific waste types is what scares people (intentionally sometimes, by certain people) into thinking that all incineration pollutes with all of these scary chemicals, so naturally the uneducated will oppose even the most innocuous municipal sewage sludge incinerator. BSMet94 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another argument against incineration
Another argument which is not listed here, and which in my opinion is of main concern, is the fact that an incineration plant must be working all the time close to full capacity in order to minimize pollution. Which means that when investment is made for an incinerator, local authorities will be bound to feed it with enough waste for the next 20 or 30 years, thus impeding any waste prevention or waste diversion initiative. I dont know whether this point is scientifically valid, but I have heard and read it quite a few times here in France. 193.49.172.146 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This may be so for certain types of incinerators. However, typical fluidized bed incinerators for municipal WWTP sludge may be operated quite successfully on an intermittent basis, e.g. day shift only without any significant loss of efficiency or excessive fuel consumption with restart in the morning.  Once operating, it's true that fluid bed incinerators have low turn-down capability, but the ability to quickly shut down and quickly restart overcomes this.  Once again, not all incinerators and all waste types can be lumped together. BSMet94 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, few modern grate fired incineration plants only consists of a single oven line. This enables the plant to still receive waste during maintenance on one line, and to close down some oven lines during low supply periods. Even with a single oven line, modern flue gas cleaning (and all other parts of the line) is designed to work efficiently and comply with all emission limits at part load. So this rather an economical concern (lost income from closed-down periodes) than an emission problem.

This is currently not the concern i Europe at all though, since incineration capacity does not meet the demand due to 1) lack of incinerators in countries recently committed to incineration and 2) severely increased waste production (at least here in Scandinavia, unfortunately).

--Claush66 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Claus,

I added a relevant WRAP UK government report of comparative waste treatment gate fees in the UK, and journal letsrecyle references, under alternatives

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/W504GateFeesReport_FINAL.714a9dcb.pdf

http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10309

ANel

PM2.5
I just elaborated a bit on the PM2.5 point. I relaxed the claim on infantility caused by incinerator PM2.5. No hard evidence have been cited, and I failed to find any myself - but the suspicion is real and backed by indices in the cited map.

I also (second time) removed the claim that PM2.5 is not monitored in the UK, since the cited BBC article specifically says that it is. Please find some source that contradict this. Again, I failed to find any source for that myself. I retained the statement that some countries does not monitor PM2.5, since this is not unlikely, but a citation is lacking.

The uncited information that IPPC says that stack top bag filters only collect 65-70% of the PM2.5 may be true (source please!), but these tiny bag filters are not to my knowledge relied on by incineration plants anymore (at least not in Europe). Does anyone know about places where such filters (dont confuse them with full size baghouse filters) constitute the only dust removal in incinerator plants?

(oops, forgot to sign - the above is by user:claush66

Somebody added some of the missing references about PM2.5 from incinerators. The English source was inserted as a citation from IPPC, that baghouse filters collect 65-70% PM2.5. It turned out to be the responce to an application for building a new plant, in which the applicant specified these numbers for his specific baghouse filter. The plant in question is certainly a modern incinerator with todays standard of flue gas cleaning equipment, and so is a good source. I changed the wording though, to indicate that this was a particular plant application, not a general IPPC statement/investigation.

The source mentions lower collection numbers for "particles smaller than PM2.5". Since PM2.5 are particles with aerodynamic diameters smaller than 2.5µm, what would "smaller than PM2.5" mean then??? It does not say e.g. PM0.5 instead. I removed this obscure citation, even though it does indeed appear in the source. Any explanations? Does it make sense to you?

Maybe some of the deails on PM2.5 effects would fit better in a dedicated article - or as an addition to e.g. the particulate article?

Can anybody check that I labeled the Italian sources on PM2.5 correctly, and possibly that the contents fits the text?

--Claush66 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I finally took the time to find some real measurements of PM2.5 from incinerators and included the information in the "flue gas cleaning" and "arguments for" sections to counter the claims in the "arguments against" section.

In agreement with my own experience with filtration of fine particles (and the dust collector article btw), fabric filters such as baghouse filters are excellent for the filtration of fine particles due to brownian motions. The numbers cited from an applicant in the IPPC source (see above) really pussles me. It may be a very coarse fabric or a severely underdimensioned filter area. Anyway, I will leave the citation in the "arguments against" section.

--Claus Hindsgaul 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I finally found the reason for the difference between the PM2.5 emissions measured in Europe - and the less-than-impressive collection efficiency of 65-70% cited in "arguments against". It turns out that the latter is the collection efficiency of the fabric itself. The buildup of a filter cake will improve real-world collection efficiencies significantly, especially for small particles. The client is cited for this point in the source. So I just mentioned the omission of the filter cake in the article without elaborating.

--Claus Hindsgaul 05:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just again removed the part about the filtration efficiency of a specific and incomplete filter (without the important filter cake) in the UK. I explained why during the first removal, but the section was simply reinserted by an anonymous user without any explanations. The reinsertion even included an incomplete sentence that was left over after someones rephrasing of the infant mortality topic. Will this person please explain and defend this action, please? I dont want a simple and silent erase/insert war. Lets discuss this instead.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider its important to include Veolia's IPPC filter bag figures in full as this is currently valid. There is little research that quantitatively concludes whether or not filter cake is additionally effective for fine particles PM2.5 and less, and how much filter cake reduces or captures finer particles. This is supposition/ requires a further source or quantification. Indeed no manufacturer research reflect these filters are particularly effective for (with or without filtercake being present) for filtering PM2.2 size fine particles(the max % volume fine particle production peak) of burning MSW at 850 degrees C down to PM1/ultrafine size.

Additionally, there are sources that suggest bag filters develop unmonitored holes and tears after periods of operation, with resultant increased total particle emissions. I consider the valid IPPC figures should stay in full (not hidden/explained away), until filter cake research is quantified. Its my belief current research is being/ is to be undertaken at Sheffield University Incinerator Centre Ref:Swithenbank.

Again, Infant Mortality (peer reviewed ONS ward data) maps (around several EfW/CHP UK facilities) are valid as they have not been challenged scientifically by Defra, Department of Health, Health Protection Agency or Waste company consultants in the UK. If new research proves other factors are at work to invalidify Mike Ryan's (an experienced waste civil engineer 30 years, MICE; health data researcher)work, there is reason to reedit, but until such time, his ONS data research/mapping should be considered valid.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.82.173 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi 92.1.82.173, To start with your last comment, I find it important to mention (and investigate) the infant mortility suspicions for these plants; if a causality can be established, the flue gas cleaning from these plants should certainly be fixed, if this has not already happened. I have not tried to erase any of this, but only deleted a fraction of a sentence left-over from someones (yours?) earlier edit. The case was still extensively described below.

Regarding the filtration efficiency of baghouse filters, the efficiency of the filter cake of course depends on the properties of the particles forming the cake. For combustion products, it is common knowledge that the filter cake is very important for fabric filters (not the membrane types). When little or no filter cake is present (during startup and seconds/minutes after filter cleaning), you see a significant rise in particles after the filter. For real-life measurements, refer to the measurements cited in the Flue Gas Cleaning section. You are right that for baghouse filters, there is a slight decrease in collection efficiency in a size range around 1 micron (may conincide with your PM2.2), but generally only down to ~99% and for lower sizes, it increases again due to brownian motions of the particles.

It is at best misleading to give impressions of plant emissions by describing the collection efficiency of the propably less important part of the filter device. When I saw them, I promptly searched the net for real-life collection efficiencies of baghouse filters on incinerators, and found the measurements now cited under Flue Gas Cleaning. I challenge you to find other real-life examples with results anywhere near the "just the filter bag" figure. Please dont try to mislead the reader here; I think the rest of the article (including arguments for and against) is pretty sober at present.

Sincerely, --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

I no way wishing to mislead or being alarmist. The contentious issue with regards to filter cake; particles are they are 99% efficient in capturing PM10 fine particles, this is without dispute; indeed they are designed for such purpose, and this is where current EU WID levels/particle PM10 monitoring lies, an mainly effective in the PM10-PM4 range. There is little research to suggest optimistic Brownian Motion is a substantive exhaust capture process for the range fine particle range PM2.5 to PM1 levels. I consider much more convincing research needs to be presented as to effective filtering efficiency claims of fine particle capture in the range PM2.5>PM1, indeed at Ultrafine and nanoparticle levels. The research owness should be on the other foot really. There is nothing or little I have found or seen is scientifically or technically substantive to date to annul concerns, in this regard; or to which frequency of filter changes/ wear and tear impacts on efficiency. Italian ESEM research (Dr Stephan Montaneri)of near incinerator populations have scanned non soluble (high combustion)fine particles in organ samples, which reinforeces such pathways.Re Dr A Gatti, (under EU funded programme) his research partner discovered the fine particle pathway/cause of BWS/GWS from DU battlefield PM1s. The only way of knowing is by continual long term PM2.5 monitoring of the post flue gases, and indeed downwind in the envirionment. This to my knowledge hasn't been research real time in EfW facilities. AlControl (they test samples for the Environmental Agency, WID regulator in the Uk)found post flue gas sample testing of bag filtered combustion plants and % volume particle emissions; which found figures in line with the IPPC expectations. ie very effective PM10-5 fine particle capture, but very poor PM2.5-PM1, peak and mean at PM2.2 (not particularly PM1 as suggested, as incinerator temperatures mean less of these are produced, and PM1s are curtailed somewhat); PM2-2.2 peaking is mainly from plastic fraction combustion at 850 degrees C. This important for the reader to know.

With regards to causality of infant mortality the fine particle pathway [as it is for respiratory inflamations LEV80 measurements, CODPs, reduced Standard Mortality Rates (SRMs) is fairly well estabilshed with regards to extensive research (New England Journal of Medicine)from the likes of air emissions greats Pope and Docherty et al, and the USEPA acknowleging this. This might extend further than combustion expertise into toxicology etc. Added to this are the fact the EU WID regulates at levels above six cities studies ill health threshold on only 20 emissions types, excluding PM2.5s/PM1s/UFPs, nano particles, and most of the below possibles (Jay & Stieglitz).

acetone acetonitrile aliphatic alcohol aliphatic amide aliphatic carbonyl anthraquinone benzaldehyde benzene benzoic acid benzoic acid methyl ester benzoic acid phenyl ester benzonitrile benzophenone benzothiazole benzyl alcohol benzyl alcohol benzylbutylphthalate bibenzyl bromochlorobenzene bromochlorophenol 2-bromo-4-chlorophenol bromodichlorophenol 4-bromo-2,5-dichlorophenol butanoic acid ethyl ester 2-butoxyethanol butyl acetate C10H20 HC C10H22 HC (1) C10H22 HC (2) C11H15O2N aromatic C12H26 HC C12H26O alcohol C13H28 HC C15 acid phthalic ester C4 alkylbenzene C5 alkylbenzene C6H10O2 aliphatic carbonyl C6H12O C8H14O cyclohexanone derivative C8H5BrCl3 aromatic, MW 284 C8H5O2N C9H18O3 aliphatic C9H8O aromatic chlorobenzene chlorobenzoic acid 4-chlorobenzoic acid chloroform 2-chloro-6-methylphenol 4-(chloromethyl)toluene 2-chlorophenol 4-chlorophenol cholesterol. cyclohexane cyclopentasiloxanedecamethyl cyclotetrasiloxaneoctamethyl decane decanecarboxylic acid dibenzothiophene dibutylphthalate 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1,3-dichlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene 2,4-dichloro-6-cresol dichloromethane 2,6-dichloro-4-nitrophenol 2,4-dichlorophenol dichloromethylphenol 1,3-diethylbenzene diisooctylphthalate 2,2′-dimethylbiphenyl 2,3′-dimethylbiphenyl 2,4′-dimethylbiphenyl 3,3′-dimethylbiphenyl 3,4′-dimethylbiphenyl 1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 1,2-dimethylcyclopentane 1,3-dimethylcyclopentane dimethyldioxane dimethyloctane 2,2-dimethyl-3-pentanol dimethylphthalate 2,6-di-t-butyl-p- benzoquinone 2,4-di-t-butylphenol docosane dodecane dodecanecarboxylic acid eicosane ethanol-1-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethyl acetate 4-ethylacetophenone ethyl benzaldehyde ethylbenzene ethylbenzoic acid 2-ethylbiphenyl ethylcyclohexane ethylcyclopentane ethyldimethylbenzene ethylhexanoic acid 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene ethylmethylcyclohexane 2-ethylnaphthalene-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro 1-ethyl-3,5-xylene 2-ethyl-1,4-xylene fluorene fluorenone fluoroanthene formic acid 2-furanecarboxaldehyde heneicosane heptadecane heptadecanecarboxylic acid heptane heptanecarboxylic acid 2-heptanone hexachlorobenzene hexachlorobiphenyl hexadecane hexadecane amide hexadecanoic acid hexadecanoic acid hexadecyl ester 9-hexadecene carboxylic acid hexanecarboxylic acid 2-hexanone hydroxybenzonitrile hydroxychloroacetophenone 2-hydroxy-3,5-dichlorobenzaldehyde hydroxymethoxybenzaldehyde 2-(hydroxymethyl) benzoic acid iodomethane 1(3H)-isobenzofuranone-5-methyl isopropylbenzene methyl acetophenone 2-methylbenzaldehyde 4-methylbenzaldehyde methylbenzoic acid 4-methylbenzyl alcohol 2-methylbiphenyl methylcyclohexane methyldecane 3-methyleneheptane 5-methyl-2-furane carboxaldehyde methylhexadecanoic acid 2-methylhexane 3-methylhexane methyl hexanol 2-methylisopropylbenzene 2-methyloctane 2-methylpentane methylphenanthrene nonedecane 4-methylphenol 1-methyl-2-phenylmethylbenzene 2-methyl-2-propanol 1-methyl-(1-propenyl)benzene 2-methylpropyl acetate 1-methyl-2-propylbenzene 1-methyl-3-propylbenzene methylpropylcyclohexane 12-methyltetradecanecarboxylic acid naphthalene N-bearing aromatic, MW 405 nitrogen compd, MW 269 2-nitrostyrene nonane octadecadienal octadecadienecarboxylic acid octadecane octadecanecarboxylic acid octane octanoic acid paraldehyde pentachlorobenzene pentachlorobiphenyl pentachlorobiphenyl pentachlorophenol pentadecacarboxylic acid pentane pentanecarboxylic acid phenanthrene phenol phthalic ester phthalic ester propylbenzene propylcyclohexane pyrene Si organic compd sulphonic acid m.w. 192 sulphonic acid m.w. 224 2-t-butyl-4-methoxyphenol tetrachlorobenzene 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene tetrachlorobenzofuran tetrachloroethylene 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol tetradecanecarboxylic acid tetradecanoic acid isopropyl ester toluene 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 1,2,5-trichlorobenzene trichloroethene trichlorofluoromethane 3,4,6-trichloro-1-methyl-phenol 2,3,4-trichlorophenol 2,3,5-trichlorophenol 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 3,4,5-trichlorophenol tridecanoic acid 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene trimethylcyclohexane undecane xylene

Hope this inputs for further research requirements/safeguards (EU is looking seriously at PM2.5 air monitoring from 2015, a decade after the americans and USEPA. Firm believe is plasma gasification/gasplasma processes will supercede combustion processes, certainly that of hetergeneous problematic waste such as mided MSW.

Sincerely ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.207 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be a bit more brief:

I do share you concern about fine particles in the environment in general. It even seems plausible to me that fine particles with heavy metals are more harmful than others. The experience I have had in my research and from published real life measurements (e.g. the ones cited in the article) shows that baghouse filters does efficiently remove fine particles including the smallest ones smaller than 0.1 microns when a filter cake is build up. Faulty filters (as you mention) of course does not work, but that is very different from telling that baghouse filters can not efficiently remove fine particles. Luckily a torn filter will also emit larger particles, and so will easily be discovered by normal surveilance.

My ten cents: Rather than imposing weakly backed claims that filtration does not work, awareness about fine particles should be improved, and filtration be implemented and improved everywhere to avoid the health risks. Regulations should emphasize fine particles, so that filters and processes are further optimised for removing these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claush66 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

My one penny. The most sensible solution would be to admit MSW incineration as a fundimentally flawed C20th technology and scrap/phase it out over the EU. Lets make things simpler, rather than guilding the second rate incinerator lily futher.

Rather than wasting spending extra millions/billions £/E on enforcing further compex regulation/monitoring of countless substances from more chimney stacks with regards to existing MSW incinerators, less efficient CHP incinerator reterofits, with fruitless product protocol research dabbling into ecotoxic IBA and hazardous fly ash outputs, extra % facility expenditure on spiralling expensive emissions controls;--Its better to place a moritorium on CHPincinerator new build, charge an Incinerator Escalator Tax to disincentivise procurement, scrap and phase out existing EU incinerator facilities; and plough the corresponding cash back into Gasplasma/ Plasma Gasification replacements and rollouts and more sustainable/closed looped gas conversion technologies and approaches. Cross train combustion engineers into gasplasma/plasma engineers.IMO.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.207 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, lets not scrap current technology completely before the promising technology of tomorrow is known to work as promised :-). Btw I bet that the plasma gasifiers in reality will need fine particle filtration as much as other combustion (and gasification) processes. I dont think it will be helping this technology to try to convince people here that effective particle filtration is not possible.

Claus

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

I agree there is still a role for combustion technology for CHP Biomass, and that scrapping without a planned or careful phasing out mechanism in place, would not be practical. This does need better technology procurement preferences. Plasma gasification obviously needs gas cleaning and fine particle filtration; but essentially the technology direction should be one where ACPs conversion processes and balance of these(ie plasma treatment) produce less fine particle (PM10-PM1 range) and dioxin/furan output; and less reliance is placed on emissions controls to make it environmentally acceptable, which has been the incinerator story over the last 20 years.

However, if one realises the European Investment Bank effectively subsidies EU incineration schemes to the tune of 68% of its waste investment portfolio; this is not particularly healthy future technology scenario and bring these plasma technologies/ACPs and skilled engineers forward.

http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/fuelling_the_fire.pdf

Discussion. The question the industry must reflect on is this bankrolling effectively keeping other technologies largely out(a BAT barrier),fully proving themselves or scaling up, developing specialist plasma engineering expertise, maintaining incinerator technology continued significance and prevalence? I'll leave this question open....

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.207 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets get back to the point:

Lets try to separate facts from opinions. Even if you think that incineration is old-fashioned, and even if PM2.5 from incinerators are very dangerous, it does not mean that you should tell that filters can not solve or minimize the problem, when the available measurements show that they can. That is not helping Wikipedia nor our enviroment.

Claus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claush66 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, however, the facts and differentiated particulate measurements/monitoring are contested. At PM2.5 levels this is contested, PM1 lesser known; UFP/nanoparticle level, a largely unresearched area.Combustion of plastics in MSW isn't helping the evironment. Covering up with filter spin does not help the fundimentally flawed sustainable claims of MSW stream incinerator technology. This is key to not informing. If one wikipedia readers! If one's research areas are supported financially from waste companies pressing for acceptance of incineration of MSW, Sheffield/Leeds Engineering Depts come to mind, would one expect filter facts/results to be negative and risks downplayed? If one's life's work has been developing incinerators/gasification, one's not likely to scrutinise the technology objectively. Who edits,edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.93.208 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you continue to spread doubt about filtration of ultra fine particles, I just included the real measured emissions of PM1.0 from incinerators with ESP and baghouse filters in the Flue Gas Cleaning section too. Those are the only ones I have been able to find on the net, but I think they talk for themselves. I sincerely hope that you can still be convinced to stick to the facts even in cases where you have strong opinions that can not find support in them.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

I will scrutinise your Danish reference and claims (they may cover this area or may not). Do the methodologies stand up? One would have thought there would be a mountain (weight) of specific net PM1 filter peer reviewed references in every language. Clearly not when health/environment is paramount. Its a very grey area. Filtercake efficiency remains one. Science is about sceptism/ethics and noone a monopoly of facts. Healthy sceptism highlights grey areas. My analysis of technology A over B just consistently does not favour MSW combustion, like many other scientists/consultants. There again I don't financially benefit from PPT promoting or knocking waste incineration for that matter. I will not ask your client/technology affiliation.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.137.74 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely acknowledge that you have made your mind up about MSW combustion. In my world it is not as black-and-white. I just ask you not to let your overall opinion blur your vision and shadow the details. E.g., evidence may show that baghouse filters really work effectively for fine particles, even if such filters are used in incinerators. Accepting this would not mean that you are wrong about other things, and your other points can stay intact. Your balanced approach may even give them more credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claush66 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi ANel. Sticking to the point, I managed to find a more international reference on the Danish fine particle measurements from incinerators, and added it to the article. I hope this will also aid your scrutinisation. See table 3. If you find numbers for particles from incineration in table 4 to be large relative to the other numbers, please dont ignore the comments below the table completely. The authors mentioned (in agreement with your comments above) that initially they lacked numbers for fine particles from Danish incinerators, and had to acquire these measurements themselves.

My interpretation: Since fine particles are not currently regulated, there is no focus on them, and plants dont prioritize optimizing their removal (as mentioned under "Argument against incineration"). But very effective tools (baghouse filters) are readily available and implemented at many plants anyway (as mentioned under "Arguments for incineration"). My POV: even though the fine particle emissions from incinerators currently represents a very small fraction of the total fine particle emissions, it should be regulated so that the best available fine particle filtration is used.

Claus

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider this fair comment/balance; but ongoing. My POV All incinerators currently in operation need the best filtration available on existing incineration; also stringent filter maintenence standards and wider PM2.5/UFP monitoring/ revised WID ammendment for this (like the US, PM2.5 monitoring)with stack and downwind community monitoring. As you mention this has been a problem for researchers. Calibrating monitoring equipment accurately has also been an issue, where minus PM10 reading have been recorded in some UK facilities.

A colleague Dick van Steenis with a couple of decades experience, highlights the UK experience and the fine particle/ signature metal monitoring regulatory voids, and PM2.5 fine particle impacts at around/above the community/downwind gross 10mg/cumetre levels. Incinerator operators should be aiming at sub 5mg/cu metre fine particle standards. It is of interest the technology Dr van Steenis considers current BAT for MSW. I came to same position, albeit a different direction.

http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis%20-%20Incinerator%20deaths%20and%20morbidity.htm Refs 337

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.137.74 (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why so many people think that fine particles are a problem in filtration. It's not a sieve! The separation mechanisms are well ivestigated and well understood and it is common knownledge that very small particles are captured by diffusion. The biggest problem are particles in the range of roughly 100-1000nm (the so called "filter gap"), where neither diffusion nor inertia is really effective. However, the efficiency of a bag house filter is still very high in that range due to the filter cake. An no, there is no doubt that the filter cake captures fine particles. I attended several filter conferences and talked to a lot of scientist and it was never even thought about that the filter cake could fail in that topic. In addition, I have performed several hundred experiments with a minumum of 100 filtration cycles and after reaching a certain cake thickness (depends on the dust), I could not detect a single particle using an optical particle counter (minimum detectable particle size approx. 300-400 nm). This was not suprising, as it is known for several decades (see Löffler, Dietrich, Flatt: Dust Collection with Bag Filters and Pocket Filters, ISBN 3-527-08933-4, p. 37). I did not use an SMPS system to confirm this result for smaller particles, however the shape of the particles size distribution indicated that the number concentration will drop significantly for smaller particles (in accordance to the theory and mesurements with depth filters). So there was no need for such measurements.
 * As a rough estimation: in my experiments at a VDI 3926 Type 1 filter tester I used a raw gas concentration of 10 g/m³. Approx. 5% of the particles were smaller than 2.5 µm (ok, this is not exactly PM2.5, however good enough for a rough estimation). Even when using rather "cheap" filter media, the PM2.5 clean gas concentration (measured with BGI SCC and analytic filter) dropped to approx. 1 mg/m³ or less after 20-30 filtration cycles. This means a separation efficiency of roughly 99.8% or higher for PM2.5. And this separation efficiency will increase with operating time.
 * Unfortunately, I haven't mentioned the separation efficiency in my publications (as for filter specialists there is no doubt that it is high for all particle sizes) and rather focussed on the possibilities to improve it. However, the 20 year old publication mentioned above already confirms the high efficiency of bag house filter and especially of the filter cake. --JogyB (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments for/against
Many of the criticisms listed in this section are outdated or inaccurate. For instance, in many cases municipalities with incineration WTE facilities have higher recycling rates compared to neighboring areas. Energy recovery is considered an important part of most integrated solid waste management plans. This entire section needs to be revised as it encourages a laundry listing of criticisms without regard to the relative veracity of arguments or reliability of sources. I don't really see the point of an entire section devoted to a list of blanket criticisms. At the very least they should be balanced with accurate information from new and recently upgraded WTE facilities.

Jabramowitz (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jabramowitz, If you browse through the article history, you'll notice that the argurments for/against is a sensitive part of the article. I dont find the separation optimal from an encyclopedic view, but believe that it is necessary to avoid flame wars. Then more or less "religious" people from both sides can add their POVs openly, and only irrelevant and directly unfactual points should be removed. Then it is up to the reader to read both critically.

Regarding your specific point, I agree that in the real world statistics clearly show that countries with much incineration (such as Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France and Netherlands), recycling rates are high, and in countries with low use of incineration (e.g. US and U.K.) recycling rates are low. It may be explained by the fact that the latter countries never really had to handle the waste (except for transportation to a dump), and therefore have not got the incencitive. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that you can have the view (arguments agianst) that incineration is a too convenient solution that you will relax recycling if you have incineration. But currently the same influence turns out to be much stronger if you use dumps. Interestingly the infamous Eunomia report cited under "Arguments against" assume that any solutions with incinerations incorporate zero recycling while every alternative technology is assumed to be implemented along with intensive recycling.

Another very scewed point (in my POV) is stessing that incineration emits some extremely toxic components (heavy metals, dioxine, furans...) when it is well known that the concentrations have now become very low relative to other sources. But the facts are true: incineration emits these compounds and they are very toxic (but so does your fireplace, car, gasifier, dump etc). The same goes for the very elaborate bullet on PM2.5 particles.

But we need to present a balanced view (impossible to agree on, i believe) or present both sets of views.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about keeping folks happy, although I don't think balance is achieved by laundry listing criticisms that have no validity. For instance, take a look at the wording of the last argument listed under "against" - it reads like something taken directly from the Global Anti Incinerator Alliance website. 207.188.223.162 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that recent edits has added some strongly worded but weakly founded claims - especially that some weakly founded fears are shared by "many people" etc. They are likely based on the fearful local UK retoric. Also, several of the described drawbacks for incineration are shared with MBT, gasification etc. (which, as a side comment, at their current state of development will often have more severe problems with e.g. local odour and emission impacts). I have tried to iron out the most obvious of these claims from the section. I do not agree to everything else left in the section, but is is okay with me to cite the percieved fears expressed by some people, as long as it is marked as such.

I also agree with you that the last paragraph was very POV. It was based on a strange and uncommon precondition that waste fractions that could have been reused with a reasonable effort would automatially be fed to the incinerator. I tried to take this precondition out of the bullet, but kept the expressed concern.

I have tried to do these minimal edits in a sober objective way, keeping all fully or somewhat well founded critisism - and (weakly founded) fears, when presented as such. Was this an improvement to you? --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it is accepted modern incinerator are cleaner for emissions like dioxins and furans; it does remain an unsafe conclusion or evaluation that modern incinerators are "safe" or indeed desirable. Much NEJM articles already support the concern that permitted limits such as those allowed by the EU Waste Incinerator Directives; whilst strict on paper, are still too high to avoid heart, lung and birth problems, even mortalities projected by NEJM studies. Relative cytotoxically isn't considered on top of this within permits such under WID.

Additionally, another concern remains over any sustainable end market for Incineration Bottom Ash after the UK Health and Safety Excutive banned IBA from UK Highway Authority use, after concrete exploding (due to hydrogen release in commonly used foam concrete)release in with IBA used. I will reference this:

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ians/pdfs/ian127.pdf

http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/11/11/73386/exploding-concrete-banned.html

These require objectively to be included into the Against Arguments under the IBA-Ash paragraph/bullet point, IMO, to keep the article current.

It is important to be both objective from a precautionary direction as well as not editing out peer reviewed reseach and studies citing concerns; perhaps due to the engineering and technology qualification of the wiki editor for this section,as opposed a health and environmental expertise; perhaps?

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.59.188 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a fronter section in the against arguments on health effects research, adding the latest 150 page report by SEPA (Scottish Environmental Agency) which produces the most thorough review of the literative/epidemiological to date; in by doing so rather shames the HPA "flimsy" review/statement a month before in Sept. 2009. Compare the SEPA report to the HPA report..you will see immediately what I illude to regarding quality.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.231.85 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the report summary section, I have edited the bullet a bit, so that it better reflects the report conclusions. IMHO it its message is really that if there are any health effects from incineration, they are weak enough that they are very hard to differentiate from other factors - and suggest very exhaustive methods in the attempt to evaluate the potential existence of "small but important effects". Not the strongest of the "arguments against", I would say - so I suggest it is moved down the list in this article.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The debate over incineration
This section lays out the key arguments clearly -- but it has two significant Wikipedia policy problems. First, although the section is about controversy, it does not cite or quote reliable sources. Second, the section narrative itself articulates the POV values and opinions. WP policy clearly asks that such POV judgments be put in the voice of verifiable sources. So, I put up templates for the section. Thanks! P.S Where do we read about incineration of hazardous and medical waste? Need some links? HG | Talk 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just added a source for the very real Furan and Dioxin concerns and a BBC article on PM2.5 concerns, but we may also need a more critical source talking about emissions from older plants in the developing countries with more problems. I will try to find some more sources. I also tried to reorder the list to reflect the importance of the different points - at least as seen from European plants. This is of course at the risk of being seen as POV, but I do welcome any discussion on this.

HG: On the incineration of hazardous waste, you may have a look at 94/67/EC Incineration of hazardous waste directive.

--Claush66 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CO2
The section on CO2 requires expansion and improvement along with more reasoning. One major thing that is missed here is that incinerators are hugely inefficient at generating electricity. Compared to other sources of energy they emit large amounts of CO2 per useful kwh of electricity produced. This section should also include mention of the benefits of CHP schemes in incinerators for improving their emissions of carbon. At the moment this section appears to push incineration as a good solution for CO2 emissions. In essence its not by any means, but it is better than uncontrolled, unengineered landfilling of waste.--Alex Marshall (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The following document contains some interesting areas discussing CO2 emissions from landfill and EfW plants. EU Working Group, Instruments Addressing Mixed Household Waste --Alex Marshall (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote the section in question. Its scope was limited to describe the CO2 emissions from incineration in the same manner as the other emissions. Thus it does not try to make cross-technology comparisons. The energy production per tonne of waste is documented elsewhere in the article, and could be used to make such comparisons. But in my opinion this belongs to another article, for example the waste-to-energy article. It is true that the presence of district heating is important for good energy recovery in incinerators, but this is described elsewhere, and does not belong to the emission section OMHO. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex, based on my comments above I suggest that you remove the request for expansion box from the emissions section. But I encourage you to follow up by writing a cross-technology comparison by e.g. building a table in the waste-to-energy article, as the information you request is not at all irrelevant and could be very informative - at a right place. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Claus, as per your request I have removed the tag with some refinement of the wording. I felt that parts of the section were worded with a bias towards using incineration instead of landfilling. The comparison is valid for reference however one should really ensure that other alternatives were also included. I also altered the interwiki from anaerobic digestion to anaerobic decomposition (system versus biological process) for clarity. I agree an article comparing carbon emissions from different processes would be excellent, however I do not have the raw data for such. It is my personal view that carbon emissions per kwh of energy utilised should be one of the key factors in opting for a waste strategy choice. --Alex Marshall (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex. Fine edit. I didn't the notice any significant shift in bias, but if you agree that the text is now sufficiently unbiased, it's perfect with me. In the reviews I have seen, where the energy consumption for the sometimes extensive pretreatment required (especially for MBT and gasification) and production of pure oxygen (for most waste gasification processes) are considered, the carbon emissions per kWh have been significantly larger than for incineration, and it is not unusual to see a negative net energy output from the alternatives. It might be an excellent excercise for you to try to do your own review. It is true what you write in your first post above, that compared to other sources of energy, incineration emits relatively large amount of CO2 (if biogenic origin is not considered), but I dare you to show me a waste processing technology with a better kWh per carbon emission ratio. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to refine my comments above: Technologies exists for treating pure speciality waste streams, of course. E.g. anaerobic digestion of some industrial wastes and composting of well sorted biogenic fractions. What I meant was that you will not find a technology for the unsorted nor residual fractions of municipal solid waste with a higher kWh per carbon emissions than incineration. I think we can agree that the pure and well sorted waste streams may be better treated with such other technologies, if it makes sense economically and energy wise.--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"What I meant was that you will not find a technology for the unsorted nor residual fractions of municipal solid waste with a higher kWh per carbon emissions than incineration."

On Plasma arch gasification
Claus you might need to check this further for 2008 accuracy. Figures I have suggest a WRG 150,000Tpa EfWincinerator provides 10MWhr of electrical power, whilst a Plasco 150,000 plasma gasifier will produce 21MWhr of electrical power. They are talking to UK local authorities currently. I'd assume Gasplasma or Advanced MBT (MBT+AD, Biogas carbon) of MSW are similarly higher kWh per carbonemissions. Even in CHP modes Advanced Conversion Technologies ACTs have net energy efficiencies of 40%+, compared to CHPincinerators at 28%, EfWincinerators at 21-22%. Defra website. Eunomia consulting 2008 research

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.82.173 (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi ANel,

That sounds interesting, but also quite far from other (older) figures I have heard from plasma arch research. Do you have pointers to your figures? How much of this electricity will be needed to drive the plasma arc and the production of pure O2? Does the plant produce a net surplus of electricity, and has this been confirmed in reality? This would indeed be (good) news for plasma arch gasification!

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

I short, yes, both plants, very technology.

Plasco Demo plant based summary is quite useful.

http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/documents/City%20of%20Ottawa%20400%20tonne_%20Factsheet_English_Final_25Jun08.pdf

Heavy metals seem to be captures as recycleable product at 2Kg/Tonne, rather than mainly landing up in fly ash, IBA for lead or fractions into the atmosphere.

Refs Gasplasma

http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/index.php?action=PublicTheOutputDisplay

http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/index.php?action=PublicTheOutputDisplay

The Output. A Gasplasma plant can generate both electricity and heat, making it very efficient. While some of the energy is used to power the plant, over 60% of total power produced can be exported to the grid.

Total power production from a plant processing Municipal Solid Waste (household black bag waste) looks like this:

10.6 MW per hour gross product (1.6 from steam turbine) with a parasitic load of around 4.5 MW, meaning roughly 6.8 MW is available for export. Generating 51,000 MWh per year the plant could export sufficient power for 10,000 homes.

There's also projected heat exports, from steam and hot water, of 14 MW, producing around 105,000 MWh per year - enough to provide over 700 homes with heat.

The process is thus significantly net energy output positive I believe; certainly Gasplasma is as plasma power is not used in the 850 degrees C previous fluid bed precuror process, and used efficiency in the syngas cleaning process at 1200-2000C, (used like a catalyst converter/turbo in a car, rather than the engine). You will agree with me most CHP gas engines or more efficient in kWh power generation than CHP steam based generation from combustion proceses.

If you wish a tour of a working Gasplasma facility I reccommend a Swindon site visit. Contact Andrew Hamilton, AdvanvedPlasmaPower. This is the feasible working reality of Gasplasma. In fairness add three technologies are fully proven separately. All APP have done is to bolt 3 fully proven technologies together for MSW/RDF to gain near Anaerobic Digestion carbon footprint/ energy efficiencies. The other exciting issues are the Plasmarok component (many product molding possibilites above inert aggregate)- substituting for problematic IBA 20%, IFA (fly ash)4-5% disposal; 1% cleaning residues and much better emissions levels than the latest oscillating furnace CHPincinerator.

Large net surplus electricity generation have been fully confirmed at both Plasco, Ottawa with plasma gasification, and APP Swindon for Gasplasma combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.207 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi anonymous ANel,

Are you affiliated with Gasplasma? :-)

Well, the available documentation on their webpages look pretty much like any other yet-to-be-proven-as-full-system and does not present the crucial full energy balance. Apart from their bold claims you can not see if they get the pure O2 without energy costs or wether the extensive necessary sorting of the waste is included (or even possible for mixed waste) etc. The reviews carfully do not mention energy balances or confirmation of the high purity of the actual gas produced.

I dont say it doesn't work - the site just leaves out enough important information to disable the reader from evaluating the claimed system performance. And that calls for a great deal of suspicion when you are familiar with the history of gasification. But it would certainly be great if they turn out to be an exception!

I beleive gasification may have a great future - at least for easier biomass fuels. We just are not (proven to be) there yet. Hopefully soon!

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claus

I agree, soon, like probably 1-2years tops.

http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/index.php?action=PublicTVFootageDisplay&albumid=1

http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=321&listitemid=9724

Most incinerator companies don't post their technical energy balances on the web. Gas engine manufacturers tested the syngas from Gasplasma and deemed it very clean and suitable to drive their gas engines, other references to syngas quality are mentioned. It obviously does work. I'm an independent researcher with regards to any thermal technology considerations, so my pay cheque doesn't happen to be affiliated to any particular technology or waste company client/s. However, if I where I thermal consultant I'd be seriously considering departing the combustion anquites sector. Provenness = 1 commercial plant/2 years fully operation; Fully proven = 2commercial plants/ 2years. However, even incinerator companies claim bold energyefficiencies/GHG savings, which don't really stand technical or Best Available Technology (BAT)scrutiny (ie Eunomia Consulting reports for Defra, London Assembly). The variable with regards to ACPs (Gasplasma/plasma gas) I'd suggest is predominantly time and capitalisation; not substantially technical as you seem to alude. Gasplasma is strongly predicted in the UK to follow the AD technology CHP success root with 2xROCs qualification. Obviously Germany had mixed fortunes with a rather problematic Thermoselect system, however, the same could be said of WRG's so called state of the art fluid bed temperamental EfW incinerator has been inoperatable for 12 months. In the UK Energos operate a proven gasification facility on the Isle of White, building another commercial at Liverpool; Noveris, Australian company, operate their gasification facility in Rainham. Personally I can only see that any medium-large scale incineration form becoming "overmature" (obsolete) in 10 years time, so making 25-30year marginal profit investments from what threatens to be white elephant builds/payback; would be largely foolhardy. Some UK incinerators in the UK conceived 10-16 years ago have only got some of their foundations in, all of Corry Belvediere http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10271, Grundon Colnbrook and Veolia's ES Newhaven. I'm not sure how I'd define or score this as bankable or deliverable over 16 years of waiting.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.207 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should finish this discussion of plasma arch gasification here. Let me just indicate that I dont share your fascination of the present state of plasma arch gasification; an electric efficiency of 20% and total net efficiency of 67% are weakly detailed predicted numbers and still superseeded by incineration. The fact that you could reach the same emission level with less flue gas cleaning is not a leap. While I think Plasma Powers website looks like a serious application for research funding, it is yet to be implemented in a single pilot plant. It would be very courageous by any operator to buy such a plant without serious subsidies - let alone to base your waste and energy policy on its promises. But I would certainly support further research in other technologies.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on Gasplasma/Plasma gasification. Gasplasma is eligable for both PFI and 2xROCS subsidies if a WDA client procures the technology. I think you have missed the obvious intrinsic inefficiencies of any steam turbine reliant technology. Net efficiencies of CHP waste incinerators are only 27-28%. Defra/Environmental Agency detail these net efficiencies of Veolia's Sheffield and Sita Kirklees CHP facilities. This it why they "might" only quality for single ROC subsidy. At mear EfW electricity only (net efficiency 18-20%), waste incinerators do not quality for any ROCS. The value addition of products in the process is not regarded. IBA (25%) of incinerator product is still fumbling for value addition and "could" be used safely in construction product, because secondary off site treatments are required. If APP manage a 100,000Tpa financial close with a commercial operator by the end of 2008; we shall know, won't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.93.208 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a fact correction: Some CHP incinerators other places in Europe have net total efficiencies exceeding 80-90%.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Claus, read net electrical efficiency. My like for like, comparable head to head comparison is Plasco, Ottawa vs Tiru/Cyclerval UK,NE Lincs oscillating kiln. Both Demonstration stage/status facilities. Both leading edge in their respective MSW technology. So both realities, near proven, no myths. Actually both chatting to our WDA for a 200,000Tpa contract

'''Company    Tpa       Electrical Production     Heat

Plasco   29,000             4MW               (heat not considered)

Cyclerval 56,000            3MW                3MW'''

ie if 2 Plascos treated 56,000Tpa, the electrical output would be 7.7MW (heat not even considered); more that the total CHP extraction 6MW of Cyclevals incinerator, or 2.6x more net electrical efficient.

The UK has 20 waste incinerators 17 EfW (that do not meet the new EU WFD recovery formular) 4 CHP incinerators of which only 1 Veolia ES Sheffield meets (just) the EU WFD energy recovery formula. Thats 19 "disposal" sub formula facilities.

Sheffield treats 225,000Tpa producing 19MW of electricity, 39MW of heat.

Scaled up or modular scale up (another advantage) a -

Plasco facility (or 8x 30,000Tpa gasifier modules) treating the same Sheffield tonnage would product product 31MW of exportable electricity. This is 0.6x more efficient in electrical export efficiency/Tonne of MSW of Veolia ES Sheffield. So Plasma arc gasification is always more net electrically efficient than CHP incinerators (all things been equal), and only large scale CHP incinerators claw back efficiencies. So not 20%, more like 40% net electrical efficiency for plasma gasification.

The point is Gasplasma goes one step further by reducing initial high temperature gasification by using low temperature gasification, using the higher energy intensive plasma process, not to bulk gasify, but to syngas clean. All 3 technologies are fully proven separately in parralel applications; 1) An American EPI fluid bed gasifier (80 global sites), 2) a UK/Global Tetronics plasma converter unit (25+) and 3)Austrian Jenbacher gas engines and conventional heat recovery system (Many globally); its not exactly new technology separately, which gives large credance/logic to their claims.

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.137.74 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Be very careful not to compare plant input in tonnages of waste without considering the very different heating values - with RDF (necessary for plasma gasification) you generally have much higher energy content per tonne.

Directly from GasPlasmas own diagram of energy in- and outputs from the webpage, I read: RDF input 31.1 MW and projected net power export 6.8 MWe. This gives a net electric efficiency of 6.8/31.1=22%. They also specify a projected net total energy efficiency of 67%. Compare this to your numbers for incinerators of 27-28% (24-25% is more realistic) net electric efficiency and >80-90% total net efficiency. Plasma gasification may indeed have many advantages, but energy efficiency is certainly not one of them. When it comes to better energy efficiency, you should rather look in the direction of regular gasification than plasma.

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Gasification is obviously different from Gasplasma. Note Plasco's process input is black bag waste through a larger capacity single plasma process, compared to the double process of Gasplasma and extra parastic 100kTpa MRF requirements.

If one still compares Gasplasma at similar CHPincinerator/Gasification scale

eg Black bag rubbish initial input

Cyclerval CHP NE Lincs 2007 56,000TpaMSW Export Electricity 3MW Export Heat 3MW

APP Gasplasma 100,000Tpa MSW>60,000Tpa RDF Export Electricity 6.8MW Export Heat 14MW

IoW Energos Gasification 2008 60,000Tpa MSW>30,000Tpa RDF input Export Electricity 1.8MW

Avonmouth, Ethos Energy Gasfn/Pyrol 2008 30,000Tpa MSW input Export Electricity 2.4MW export Heat 7.6MW 80% energy efficient

Gasplasma seems to holds its own at this scale, with its added 1% waste advantages.

In comparing CHPincinerator efficiencies I'm not sure Veolia Sheffield CHP is 80-90% energy efficient, as its currently only putting 39MW heat of its 60MW heat potential into Sheffields's district heating; as APP state 14MW of 24.4MW its heat potential.

ANel

An intriguing reference is Europlasma Sun Port Hope plasma gasification proposal where net 40-45% electrical efficiency is stated 136,000Tpa of MSW/TDF producing 20MW electrical export at 0.8Kg of CO2/ kWh; compared to typical incinerator value of 1.7Kg of CO2/ kWh

http://www.sunbayenergy.com/media/plasma.pdf

Moreunx 12MW facility with similar net electricity efficiency.

ANel

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.137.74 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been off-topic for enough time now. I encourage you to put your documentation on the plasma arch gasification article, and - again - advise you not to calculate energy in tonnes and make sure that all paratisitic consumptions are included in the energy balance (pretreatment, O2, plasma arch etc.). In the optimistic scenario somebody will have a complete pilot plant running on MSW in 4-5 years, fixed most problems in small scale in ten, and have a successful full scale plant commisioned in 15. We are not in a hurry for a decision at the national level, but I would certainly want to see subsidised R&D continue. Now, could we stick to incineration on this page, please?

--Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Claus, yes revert back to incinerators; Plasma Gasification v incineration is a worth while discussion section; although I agree transparent research energy balances are required. Something I'm sure others will be able to add further, either way. :)

ANel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.137.74 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Incinerators on ships
Could a knowledgeable editor add a section about incinerators aboard ships? Marine trash disposal is a serious matter and it'd be interesting to find out what sorts of ships have incinerators, and then what is done with the ash. (Prompted by my adding a picture of the operation of an incinerator aboard an aircraft carrier.) Tempshill (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

'''My belief is Carnival Cruiselines are a good case study to follow with proven pryrogenesis plasma gasifiers.

ANel''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.45.242 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a description of the principle of a marine incinerator: http://atlasinc.dk/index.php?id=18

188.178.212.10 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Short tons?
Does the conversion to short tons from Metric tons, in the side box about the incinerator in Sweden really need to be included? Are short tons really a common enough unit to warrant it? The metric tonne (a global standard unit) and the short ton are not even very different in percentage terms, so it's unlikely anyone would be seriously confused by leaving out a reference to an 'outdated' and non-general unit. Cheers, Oliver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.84.225 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any inputs on this from the "imperial Btu/inch/... unit" world? Short and long tons where not known to me before someone added the conversion tags on this page some time ago. I would personally be happy to see them vanish again. I already cleaned out those where the unit had no real consequence. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Short tons are common in the US. Most Americans don't know the difference between the two; the ones who are most likely to know the difference would be engineers, who would be able to identify the difference and convert easily between the two. Just for the sake of information: A tonne (metric) is 1000 kilograms. A ton (short) is 2000 pounds. A kilogram is about 2.2 pounds. Therefore, a tonne is about 1.1 tons, which is a difference of 10%. Qbert203 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations in this article include industry pamphlets
This kind of citation is not reliable, and often wrong or only partially correct. Use peer reviewed journal articles when citing important facts to improve the quality of the article. Avram Primack (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Control room picture
Are they wearing Star Trek (TM) uniforms? 93.219.143.228 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)