1. Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste
4/13/2017
March 2012
Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste
A member company of
Georgia Tech’s
Advanced Technology Development Center
Applied Plasma Arc Technologies, LLC
P.O. Box
Atlanta, GA
©2012 APAT v3.0

2. What is PLASMA? “Fourth State” of matter
Ionized gas at high temperature capable of conducting electrical current
Lightning is an example from nature

3. 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

4. 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 P

5. 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

7. Plasma Gasification of MSW
Torch Power 120 kWh
1 ton MSW 75 ft3
Gas Cleaning
Fuel Gas 30,000 ft3
Rock Residue Weight: 400 lb
Volume: 2 ft3
800 kWh
Gravel Aggregate Bricks

8. Plasma Gasification of MSW Notional Heat Balance
Heating Value Output Electricity Heat Input
= 28.6
Coke 0.8 MBtu
Air – 0.56 MBtu
Gas Heat Energy 2.94 MBtu
MSW 1 Ton – MBtu
Product Gas 51,600SCF Heating Value = 8.79MBTU
PLASMA GASIFIER
Losses 0.95 MBtu
Electricity 0.12 MWHr – 0.41 MBtu

9. Net Electricity to Grid (kWh/ton MSW) (2)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – to – Electricity Thermal Process Comparisons
Net Electricity to Grid (kWh/ton MSW) (2)
Plasma Advantage
Process (1)
Plasma Arc Gasification
Conventional Gasification
- Fixed/Fluidized Bed Technologies
Pyrolysis & Gasification
- Thermoselect Technology
Pyrolysis
- Mitsui R21 Technology
Incineration
- Mass Burn Technology
816
685
571
544 -
20%
40%
50%
(1) 300 – 3,600 TPD of MSW
(2) Steam Turbine Power Generation
Reference: EFW Technology Overview, The Regional Municipality of Halton, Submitted by Genivar, URS, Ramboll, Jacques Whitford & Deloitte, Ontario, Canada, May 30, 2007

10. 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.

11. Pounds of CO2 Emissions per MWH of Electricity Produced
Pounds CO2/MWH
MSW
Incineration
Coal
3,000
Plasma
Natural
Gas
2,000
1,000
Oil
2,988 (1)
2,249 (1)
1,672 (1)
1,419 (2)
1,135 (1)
Power Generation Process
(1) EPA Document:
(2) Complete Conversion of Carbon to CO2; MSW Material & Heat Balance, Westinghouse Plasma Corp.

12. MSW Solid Byproducts Air Cooling (Gravel) Water Cooling (Sand)
Molten 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

13. 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)

14. 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.

15. Commercial Project: Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan
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.
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

16. Commercial Project: Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan
The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at Utashinai, Japan converts unprocessed MSW and ASR to electricity, sand-size aggregate, and mixed metal nodules
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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. Capital Costs: Incineration vs. Plasma Gasification Facilities
Incineration-Only and Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facilities

22. 22

23. Plasma Processing at Fossil Fuel Power Plants
Equipment Eliminated
Combustion Chamber
Hot gas
Coal Ash Feed to
Plasma System
MSW
Biomass
Coal
Wastes
Steam Option

24. 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

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 savings
Utilization of waste feedstocks
Reduced pollution control equipment
Coal ash conversion into salable construction materials

26. Landfill Remediation Concept

27. Potential In-Situ Landfill Remediation Equipment (based on an older DOE technology)

28. 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
Kinuura, JP
MSW Ash 50
1995
Kakogawa, JP 30
2003
Shimonoseki, JP 41
Imizu, JP 12
Maizuru, JP 6
Iizuka, JP
Industrial 10
2004
Osaka, JP
PCBs 4
2006
Taipei, TW
Medical & Batteries
2005

29. 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
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
Hawthorne, NV
Munitions
2006
Alpoca, WV
Ammunition
2003
U.S. Navy
Shipboard 7
2004
U.S. Army
Chemical Agents

30. 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