Posted on 11/23/2009 2:25:44 PM PST by staffjam
As scientists, Governments and Industry look for viable replacements to our quickly dwindling supply of fossil fuels, attention has again turned to biofuels and the potential they offer. You’ve all no doubt heard of Ethanol, rapeseed and other popular bio-diesel crops, but it is now possible to turn our quickly growing garbage mountains into biofuels.
Scientists have now discovered some amazingly effective, mutually beneficial, symbiotic processes that could single-handedly solve both imminent problems with the creation of “bio-fuels” and “synthetic fuels” derived directly from our trash and garbage.
Full article is: http://www.oilprice.com/article-biofuel-of-the-future-turning-our-garbage-into-energy.html
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
We had this at my Grade School in the early 1970s.
It was called “The Incinerator”.
You’re right of course ... the process has been improved somewhat ... http://www.plasmaenvironmental.com/pdf/GlobeandMail_Sep202005.pdf
I believe the Japanese have been using dumps to make a form of methane since the 80s.
bump
While garbage may, and does, provide a small amount of energy, the only scalable means of producing biofuel in the volume needed requires the use of microorganisms, specifically algae.
And the only viable biofuel that can be produced or used without a massive retooling of our national energy infrastructure is biodiesel, produced by algae. Many of our trucks, trains, and ships, and likewise cars already run on petroleum diesel, and with minor and inexpensive modification can run on biodiesel with little loss in performance. Retooling our auto industry for diesel engines would be far less expensive than any alternative.
In addition, biodiesel production consumes a vast amount of waste CO2 and nitrous oxides (NOx) gases, which are otherwise very expensive to dispose, and strongly increases its rate of growth. So algae biodiesel is profitable even in production. It grows well in recycled gray water, and can be grown in quantity almost year around in much of the United States.
Some species of algae are as much as 50% vegetable oil, by weight. Once this oil is extracted, it is mixed with ethanol and lye, then filtered to produce biodiesel. 1% petroleum diesel is added as a preservative.
While most attention to alternative fuels by the media has been given to speculative start up corporations, the existing oil companies have been investing in algae based biodiesel. This alone indicates that it is the best alternative.
I can remember St. Louis Mo burning trash and heating downtown office buildings with underground steam pipes back in the fifties.
They also had synchronized traffic lights, just by driving at a steady speed you could cruise through town without stopping.
With just the tiniest bit of steam running under our roads we wouldn’t need salt.
So has the US and other countries.
We have many different facilities that circulate a brine through the landfill that helps in the production of methane.
The gas is pretty nasty with a lot of corrosive impurities.
The are several in Texas.
It would take a huge amount of steam.
I have designed Heat Trace systems to keep ice off sidewalks and driveways. It takes a large amount of energy to overcome constant exposure to a frozen environment without insulation. The heat loss is continuous and it takes a lot of energy to maintain the temperature above freezing.
Plus the pleasure and prestige of driving dry safe roads no matter what the weather, it's well worth it.
But don’t they usually flare the landfill gas anyway?
Most do flare it. I only know of a few trash gas facilities.
If we’re flaring it off anyway, it makes sense to use the energy.
http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/
Landfill gas is about 40-60% methane, with the remainder being mostly carbon dioxide (CO2). Landfill gas also contains varying amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, sulfur and a hundreds of other contaminants — most of which are known as “non-methane organic compounds” or NMOCs. Inorganic contaminants like mercury are also known to be present in landfill gas. Sometimes, even radioactive contaminants such as tritium (radioactive hydrogen) have been found in landfill gas.
NMOCs usually make up less than 1% of landfill gas. EPA identifies 94 NMOCs in their 1991 report, “Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines.” Many of these are toxic chemicals like benzene, toluene, chloroform, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1 trichloroethane. At least 41 of these are halogenated compounds. Many others are non-halogenated toxic chemicals. More exhaustive test for contaminants in landfill gas have found hundreds of different NMOC contaminants.
When halogenated chemicals (chemicals containing halogens - typically chlorine, fluorine, or bromine) are combusted in the presence of hydrocarbons, they can recombine into highly toxic compounds such as dioxins and furans, the most toxic chemicals ever studied. Burning at high temperatures doesn't solve the problem as dioxins are formed at low temperatures and can be formed as the gases are cooling down after the combustion process.
- - - - -
Is Landfill Gas Green Energy?
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/lfg/execsum.asp
Municipal solid waste landfills, long reviled by the environmental community as sources of air and water pollution, have in recent years benefited from numerous subsidies associated with alternative fuels and renewable power. Federal and state tax credits and payments are now offered to landfill facilities that collect and utilize landfill gas for heat or electricity generation. Three related concerns have been raised with regard to these incentives. First, some have raised concerns about the health impacts of the exhaust from burning landfill gas. Second, some have pointed to the substantial environmental and public health damage caused by landfills and called into question the sustainability of landfills themselves and thus landfill gas. Finally, some have suggested that these subsidies are just another stone on the scale promoting landfilling over recycling.
I have not seen a facility that collected, cleaned, then consumed the gas for power on site. But they may already exist.
But it takes energy to get the gas to a usable form in order to run a combustion turbine. I have doubts there is enough energy produced to run the full system.
If they would do it without government subsidies, I would be more convinced it was a good idea.
I did some design work on a facility here in Texas. The process is far more complicated than most would imagine.
Obama already telegraphed he intents to make it too expensive to use carbon based fuels.
(as if he even understands science)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.