Jump to content

Talk:Plasma gasification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A good info source

[edit]

There is good information on Plasma Garbage conversion at this url: Popular Science [1]. User:Jarany 5:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

404 - Mountainninja (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Element recovery contd.

[edit]

Hello, instead of FIRST vitrifying the inorganic byproduct, could metal be first recovered before the vitrification ? For example, ADEQUATE AMOUNT of scrap aluminum is sacrificed by adding to the waste UPSTREAM so elements below aluminum on the reactivity series are reduced to metal when all inorganic materials are vitrified. The metal being denser than slag, can be recovered by centrifugal separation. Obviously, aluminum can reduce silica to produce silicon and the purpose of adding aluminum is to recover some other metals, say copper; so only adequate amount of scrap aluminum is needed. -- Mountainninja (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for thought: Fractional crystallization (chemistry) Betterton-Kroll process Betts electrolytic process Parkes process -- Mountainninja (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Net Energy Production

[edit]

Both the academic papers and respected popular science articles I've come across say that there is usually a gain in net energy production (and any loss seems to really depend on whether a processing plant takes advantage of the energy production or not). Even a simple article such as seen in reference source [7], from "How stuff works", talks about processing plants selling back the extra energy they've produced to the grid; that the process produces more energy than it uses (which fits with the physics - as I understand them anyway). Yet, under the "Disadvantages" section in this Wikipedia article it says: "Little or even negative net energy production" (direct quote). I can't find/access any information to support this, but my research into this topic has not been very deep and there might be something I'm missing. Does anyone know whether this should be kept as it is or changed? (203.122.247.182 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I have evaluated several plasma gasification processes. They usually have a significant consumption of oil, gas and/or puriried oxygen in addition to the main fuel. If you include this in your equation, the net gain is often negative - or very small. In the source [7] case they say that they consume 300 t/day high calorific value waste and produce "4.3 MWh". A rough estimate of heating value of a mixture of shredder residue and MSW could be 15 MJ/kg leading to a waste energy input of 52 MW. If they meant production of 4.3 MWh per day , the net efficiency without even considering any use of oil, gas or oxygen, would be approximately 0.3% net power efficiency. If they ment 4.3 MWh per hour (=4.3 MW), it would be 8.3% net efficiency before considering consumption of oil, gas or oxygen. To me the [7] case confirms the "little or even negative net energy production". My experience is that this is very typical.

I challenge you: Can you find an example where plasma gasification net power efficiency exceeds say 10% when you have subtracted the electricity that any added oil or gas would have produced in a conventional power plant? I have failed to do so for working real life implementations. Ideal desktop studies may be different. Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plasma gasification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reference #4 throws a 404

[edit]

the title says it all :)

This could be Forever: New Design Prolongs the Lifespan of Plasma Torches: frequent maintenance and limited plant availability problems solved?

[edit]

Could the frequent maintenance and limited plant availability problems be solved by a newer, longer-lasting design of the plasma torch: This could be Forever: New Design Prolongs the Lifespan of Plasma Torches Mar 19, 2024 | By ZHAO Weiwei https://english.hf.cas.cn/nr/bth/202403/t20240319_658605.html 2A02:1811:B7B4:E800:D148:BB9A:904B:2484 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_gasification&oldid=1234725381"