Posted on 01/30/2011 6:38:55 AM PST by KeyLargo
the times
Consultant: Trash-to-ethanol tech could be high-risk venture
By Marc Chase marc.chase@nwi.com, (219) 662-5330 | Posted: Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:00 am
A national garbage processing and waste-to-energy consultant said Lake County made the right move removing taxpayer ownership from a trash-to-ethanol plan predicated on commercially unproven technology.
Bob Brickner, vice president and part owner of consulting firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc., said his company has deemed as high risk a key piece of the technology -- known as gasification -- that would be used at the planned Lake County plant to transform carbon-based trash into ethanol fuel.
Brickner's Virginia-based firm advises government agencies and companies across the country on solid waste processing and waste-to-energy projects.
In a recent analysis published in December's edition of WasteAdvantage Magazine, the firm noted that gasification -- which uses heat, steam and oxygen to transform carbon-based waste into a gas -- poses a high business risk because of "limited operating experience" in the private sector and questions surrounding whether it can operate on a large commercial scale.
Current use of gasification for waste-to-energy projects exists only at small pilot plants, Brickner's firm notes in its analysis.
"It sounds like on the part of ownership, you (Lake County) made the right move taking public ownership out," Brickner said.
Under a 2008 contract with Evansville-based Powers Energy of America, the Lake County Solid Waste Management District -- and, thereby, county taxpayers -- were supposed to own the future facility to be built and operated by Powers. But after months of controversy and debate, the waste district board recently removed the public ownership clause amid fears taxpayers would be liable for any plant mishaps.
"A lot of waste-to-energy people are interested in gasification right now," Brickner said. "Our company does not play favorites in terms of the various waste-to-energy technologies out there."
But Brickner said government agencies seeking waste-to-energy projects and partnerships need to weigh all the risks.
Critics of Lake County's trash-to-ethanol project have said the plan is fraught with unanswered questions, including how the planned Schneider facility will process thousands of tons of trash per day when a pilot plan in Arkansas processes a small fraction of that amount.
Brickner said those concerns are valid, as there are no large-scale operations of this sort operating commercially that can be used as models of success or failure.
Powers Energy of America, which has contracted with the Lake County Solid Waste Management District to build and operate the Schneider trash-to-ethanol plant, has said it has a plan to ensure the operation's larger scale will work properly. And waste district officials have said they have no concerns about the difference in size between the pilot plant and the proposed Schneider facility.
Powers plans to use technology from chemical company INEOS, which operates the Arkansas pilot plant and is attempting to build a trash-to-ethanol plant in Florida.
Powers owner Earl Powers did not respond Friday to Times inquiries for comment regarding the analysis of Brickner's firm.
Powers and solid waste district officials also have refused to disclose who -- if anyone -- is financing the project.
More than two years after the contract was signed between Powers and the county, the project has yet to secure any environmental permits or break ground on the planned site.
I’m sure it shifted from taxpayer owned to private venture right about the time the “green energy grants” were drawn down to a zero balance. I’m sure the teachers, cops, administrators, and municipal workers all enjoyed the cushion on their general budget though.
This fellow did not speak correctly or fully about the ‘technology’. There must be more to it. “Gassification” is simply a process where normally unburned combustion gasses are recycled back into the combustion stream to be fully burned... Gassification in and of itself is used around the world in industrial processes and is a well understood technology. Gassification is achieved by an updraft or downdraft design. Just look up MIDGE stove and see how to build a little unit for yourself.
This kind of report is typical - often the official is only half educated on the subject and the reporter is ignorant of any technology and doesn’t ask the right questions.
Creating ethanol from a combustion process certainly seems far fetched as it is most often a fermentation process.
Waste to fuel, not so much for this outfit:
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/biofuelbox-goes-bust-report/
Nope. Wrong definition. Gasification is the transformation of solid fuel material (usually coal) into a fuel gas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). "Usually" that combustible gas stream is fed to a combined-cycle (gas turbine/steam turbine) electrical generating plant, where it is burned directly.
They obviously intend some chemical conversion process to convert that H2/CO stream into ethanol.
Gasification to electricity has been demonstrated on commercial scale, but is not economically competitive with natural gas fired gas turbine/steam turbine generating systems.
pssssssst why are we wasting our time and treasure on these pie in the sky crap doodle schemes again?
psssst.....read my lips OIL
READ AGAIN.......drill baby drill
we need a .....hell bent for leather refinery construction program...2 every 6 months everywhere
....see above....and.....a nuke plant a year......
= the jihadis become as important as yesterday’s dog meat...
While technically correct - your definition is too narrow. The creation of gases for other use is not necessarily the only goal. The MIDGE stove is a good working example of the broader definition.
The temporary capture and recycling of gases directly back into the combustion stream is quite common ... the gases in this process (H2, CO, trace methane, C02, H20 and others) are simply not saved or stored nor used in some other process. The whole point is to get more BTU’s out of the same original fuel - more complete combustion and less gases out the flue into the atmosphere. Such processes are using in industrial boilers, cement manufacturing, waste disposal and other. And wood is often used.
Yes solids are the base for gasification... such as wood (very common) and mixed items like trash in this instance.
Gases from the gasification process from wood was used heavily in WWII in Europe and even in American to power normally gasoline power vehicles... Buses ran all over England with a wood gasification burner strapped on the back. The capture gasses were directly piped into the intake manifold - which aided in pulling the wood gas into the engine... it is estimated that one million vehicles were converted for this use over the duration of the war.
I can see why trying to make ethanol from the gasification process has not worked well... the concentration of the component gases is just not that great. Probably a case of more energy and cost put into the process than one gets out.
To my knowledge, no one has made gasification work economically. I’m skeptical.
Nope. Still wrong. In the world of industry, "gasification" means precisely what I said. A stove is not an industrial process.
Recycling process gas to get more BTU's is very common, but is NOT considered gasification. FYI, I worked for years for one of the US's largest chemical manufacturers, and in all that time, gasification meant what I said. Your supposed terminology was NEVER used in any conversation regarding chemical processes that I ever took part in (of which there were many hundreds). And this was a company which had, at one time, a full-scale coal-gasification electricity and heat co-generation plant up and running.
Perhaps such terminology is used in Europe or elsewhere, but NOT in the United States.
And until there is no more natural gas available, it will never be economical, unless there is some other value available in special cases. I could see how gasification of city solid waste "might" be economical when one considers in the cost of landfilling or other disposal means.
There is good potential of using waste to do some things. It’s not the end product that’s the problem, it’s the gasifier tech itself. I’ve been on roadtrips visiting groups and companies with gasifiers and have heard the dog and pony shows. Their demonstration models work but they can’t scale up. Most can’t handle coal, most can’t handle different fuels with wide ranges in heat values. Many are inconsistent in maintaining output, and none pencil out when you run the numbers. To me it’s a dead technology until someone shows me otherwise.
Well - seems you worked in a very narrow confine. You should visit this group to expand your horizons...
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WoodGas/
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.