Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Converting Garbage into Fuel

Waste Management, a large waste company, gives technology for gasifying trash a boost.

By Kevin Bullis

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Waste gasification, a process for converting garbage into fuel and electricity without incinerating it, may be a step closer to large-scale commercialization. Last week, Houston's Waste Management, a major garbage-collection and -disposal company, announced a joint venture with InEnTec, a startup based in Richland, WA, to commercialize InEnTec's plasma-gasification technology.

Garbage disposal: This demonstration plant can process 25 tons of waste a day using technology developed by the startup InEnTec.
Credit: InEnTec

Waste Management will fund the new venture, which will be called S4 Energy Solutions, as well as provide infrastructure and expertise from its waste-collecting and -processing businesses to make the technology economical. The company, which will operate and market plasma-gasification technologies, will be announcing specific projects to build facilities later this year. The involvement of Waste Management could signal that the technology, which has been more expensive than other waste-disposal options, is finally reaching a stage at which it can be practical. "Up until late last year, it was under the radar," says James Childress, the executive director of the Gasification Technologies Council. "Now the big players are finally getting involved in this."

InEnTec's technology, originally developed at MIT and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, in Richland, WA, uses a multiple high-temperature processes--including subjecting garbage to plasma arcs--to break down organic materials into syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Syngas can either be directly burned in gas turbines to produce electricity, or it can be converted into other fuels, including gasoline and ethanol. Metals and other inorganic materials in garbage can be isolated and recycled. The combination of high temperatures and an oxygen-poor environment that prevents the garbage from catching fire eliminates the production of dioxins and furans, two toxic chemicals produced during incineration.

That core technology has been proved, says Joseph Vaillancourt, managing director at Waste Management and the senior vice president of the new joint venture. What's kept it from being commercialized, he says, is the need to develop the processes for economically collecting and feeding waste into the system, and on the "back end" pairing the syngas produced with gas turbines for generating electricity, or other chemical processes for converting it into fuels. Vaillancourt says that Waste Management has already developed infrastructure for collecting and processing waste and for using heat from incinerators for generating electricity, and it will employ its "knowledge and wherewithal" to develop an "integrated system" using InEnTec's technology.

Story continues below

S4 Energy Solutions plans to market the first gasification units in specialized markets such as those concerned with the disposal of automobile shredder residue or medical waste, for which landfills often aren't an option, hence companies are willing to pay more to dispose of waste. Eventually, they could be used more generally for municipal solid waste, especially in rural towns and small cities that do not produce enough waste for cheaper incinerator technologies to be practical. The technology has the benefit of allowing customers to generate some of their own electricity, which could make it more affordable.

There may still be hurdles to commercial success. Childress notes that waste gasification may still face problems with local regulations. And companies using similar technologies have failed in the past. Nevertheless, some waste-gasification companies are reporting initial success. For example, Enerkem, based in Edmonton, Alberta, has opened a commercial facility to convert used utility poles into methanol and ethanol. It has signed an agreement with the city of Edmonton to process 100,000 tons of municipal solid waste a year for 25 years, although that's still a relatively small amount compared with other options for disposing of waste.

Comments

  • hooray for garbage!
    this seems like a very viable solution to waste management... our society produces so much waste without even thinking about the potential damage it is causing. many people don't recycle properly because they jut don't care, have the time to, or are just plain ignorant about how important it is to recycle. even just processing commercial wast would have a significant impact on the amount of pollutants we dump into landfills.

    the only real issue i have is one of money... yes i said it, money, that's what it all comes down to. good ideas only survive if they can be made cheap enough to accept. but how much is too much?
    should we really put a price on greener living?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    moochismoose
    05/27/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • High Temperatures?
    One wonders at the energy needed to "create" energy, and if, unlike the ethanol boondoggle, the tradeoff will be worth it, or if it's just another way to suck the US Treasury dry to fatten corporate pockets.

    I do hope this is viable and sustainable on its own. We need a better way to manage waste, though making less of it may hold out more hope than processing more of it.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bj
    05/27/2009
    Posts:38
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • yet more greenhouse pollution
    When you take carbon out of landfill and put it into the atmosphere, you've created a new source of greenhouse pollution and global warming. Just what we need.

    (Capturing landfill methane, however, is a good thing, as methane has 25x the global warming potential of the CO2 that is produced when it is burned.)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    killian
    05/27/2009
    Posts:70
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
      That depends on what exactly is being processed.  If it's paper, then the carbon was sourced from trees which got it from the atmosphere originally; so it's being returned to the atmosphere in that case.  If it's plastics, then it likely was sourced from fossil fuel, in which case it's being returned to the atmosphere a few million years later.

      Methane is released in far greater quantities by natural processes, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over capturing it.  It turns into CO2 in the atmosphere with a few years anyway.  Besides, the earth has been on the order of 15-20 degrees F warmer than it is now in the past, and life did just fine.  The only real "evidence" science has come up with for AGW comes from computer models which are, by the admission of their creators, incomplete because they can't model the effects of cloud formation.

      If the costs can be made reasonable, then this technology is a great tool for reducing the landfill space needed.  In one case in Florida, they even intend to dig up their landfill and feed it to such a plasma converter.  How's that for reclamation?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      kstauff
      05/27/2009
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
        kstauff,
        you make some interesting claims. I'm a novice when it comes to the whole AGW debate. Please tell me where you're getting your info. as for the technology mentioned in the article, it sure seems promising as long as joules-in is less than joules-out.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        rhshah80
        05/27/2009
        Posts:1
        • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
          rhshah80,

          I've gleaned information from various sources, including this website, wikipedia and other science sites.  Perhaps the best I've found is www.wattsupwiththat.com, a site that presents articles liberally backed by data and observations. 
          Rate this comment: 12345

          kstauff
          05/27/2009
          Posts:89
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
      • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
        First, the scale of natural processes for a greenhouse gas do not make anthropogenic sources irrelevant; anthropogenic sources can tip the balance.

        Second, your claims about methane are wrong. Read IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 2. The global warming potential of methane of 100 years is 25x that of the same amount of CO2. The 100 year figure includes the fact that it is 72x CO2 over 20 years, but converts to CO2 over time. Since the conversion is already taken into account by the 100-year period for the 25x, you cannot use its 12-year atmospheric lifetime to argue it is unimportant.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        killian
        06/09/2009
        Posts:70
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
          First, there is little direct evidence that any anthropogenic sources have "tipped the balance".  In fact, the cooling trend of the last 10 years directly contradicts the AGW theory's predictions.  The models, for which the algorithms are withheld and which, as their authors admit, fail to model cloud formation and their effects, are the only source of the purported apocalypse that Gore, Hansen, et al claim.

          I ask you this:  if CO2 levels are so terrible for life, why is it a FACT that they have been 15 times higher while life flourished in the Cambrian Explosion?  Why do AGW alarmists never consider the positive effects of CO2 and instead only purvey in fear?  Why don't they promote the use of nuclear power if they are honestly concerned with CO2?  Why?  Perhaps you could enlighten everyone here with your answers to these questions.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          kstauff
          06/10/2009
          Posts:89
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
    • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
      Killian--not necessarily.  If using the trash to make electricity offsets electricity from coal, you'd come out ahead.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kevin Bullis
      06/01/2009
      Posts:92
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
        Saying something is better than coal is faint praise indeed. The way I look at things is that by 2050 we need to emit 80% less greenhouse pollution (GP), and since the population is growing, that means something like 86% less per capita (one seventh of what we emit today). If we succeed, coal will be gone, as will petroleum. We'll use most of the 14% per capita for things like steel and concrete, until we figure out low-GP methods of making those.

        Our landfills are just another kind of fossil reservoir.

        There's another issue, besides greenhouse gases, the other big greenhouse pollutant is black carbon.  (See Mark Jacobson's publications, for example.)  It would be important to know what the black carbon emissions from this process would be.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        killian
        06/09/2009
        Posts:70
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: yet more greenhouse pollution
      Not so, the landfill methane capturing systems do nothing about the hazardous waiste beneath themselves.  The systemsn are known to leak.  There is even a danger of a massive explosion as a result of the containment of landfill gas.  You will find that many answers to your conserns have to do with vertical faming and potentially algae farming and not just for carbon sequestration.

      John Dereggi
      301-540-6691
      Rate this comment: 12345

      John DeReggi
      06/02/2009
      Posts:1
  • Wrong Direction to go....
    Using waste to produce energy is the right direction to go in.  Using it for electricity is the wrong pathway.  Garbage can be used to produce liquid fuels (transportation).   If 100% of MSW was turned into fuel, it could displace upwards of 13% of our daily fuel consumption.  Liquid fuels have fewer options then electrical generation, with an efficiency of about 70%. 
    As for plastics, that only accounts for about 11% of MSW, so that would yield about 15% fossil carbon compared to 100% for drilled oil.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    tsaidak
    05/28/2009
    Posts:14
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Carbon Pollution
    There is no such thing as Global warming(more specifically man caused Global warming)ditto for carbon pollution.
    Carbon is a requirement for life.
    The earth is not a static experiment it is dynamic.
    Sometimes it ii hot, sometimes it is cold. That is why they call it weather.
    "Global Warming" is an attempt for people to tell others how to live
    Rate this comment: 12345

    CIK
    06/01/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Great Post
    Thanks for the info.

    Here's an article from Techabia
    Rate this comment: 12345

    techabia
    06/03/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.