Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Waste Gasification Plant In a Truck

Posted by kdawson on from the back-it-up dept.

waderoush writes "There are plenty of waste-to-energy plants around the US, but most of them simply burn the waste, dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Gasification technology, by contrast, converts nearly all of the waste into gases like hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be used to run generators and furnaces. The problem is that most gasification facilities are factory-sized. Now a startup outside Boston has built a combination shredder-dryer-pelletizer-gasifier that fits into 30-by-8-by-8-foot shipping container. The so-called 'Green Energy Machine' can be backed up to a loading dock by truck, processing 3 tons of solid waste per day and putting out enough synthetic gas to run a 120-kilowatt generator or a 240-kilowatt-equivalent furnace. The makers say the machine can eliminate 540 tons of carbon emissions per year, in large part by reducing the amount of waste that goes to methane-generating landfills."

22 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Apples by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    IGasify. Portable usb gasification plant.

    Power your IPod with your own excrements! As only pop stars can do right now.

    1. Re:Apples by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's spelled poop stars now. And I'm damn glad smellovision wasn't invented yet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. I have that beat: by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Informative

    You obviously never went on a high school trip with teenagers in a van eating pumpkin seeds. That was the highest efficiency matter to gas conversion I've ever seen.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  3. Thinking Creativly About Energy by WiiVault · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I lived in Iowa briefly I was amazed at some of the cool ideas people have come up with to use waste to create energy. As I'm sure many of you know, Iowa is big farm country, lots of cattle. So somebody devised a way to burn cow feces and use it to create power. Some small towns are using this as a means to cut back on buying energy, while at the same time finding a use for stuff that would otherwise just help contaminate the drinking water. Our energy problems are big, but the key to getting stuff done is creativity.

    1. Re:Thinking Creativly About Energy by ani23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      rural folks in india have been doing that since forever. http://www.vatanappally.com/images/yp_cow.jpg

    2. Re:Thinking Creativly About Energy by Snowblindeye · · Score: 3, Informative

      rural folks in india have been doing that since forever.

      Yeah, there are definitly gasifiers that are smaller than the 'factory size' that the summary claims. Germany, for example, had many cars running gasifiers during world war 2, since they were short on oil.

      There are also DIY projects that have build cars like that:
      A Honda Accord that runs on Trash
      A converted pickup truck

    3. Re:Thinking Creativly About Energy by umghhh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I suppose there is no one single way of dealing with shortage of fossil fuels so we will need many methods if one of them deals with big part of our garbage that is only good.
      Plants that process manure are maybe not a common thing but their use is getting more and more popular. The advantage is there also that the processed thing can be used as fertilizer and it does not stink as terrible as the original thing. Why the method is not more popular I do not know. Seems to be no brainer.

  4. The solution is a distributed architecture by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a nice idea. In fact I think all solutions which work by localizing energy distribution is the way to go. Minimizing needless transportation of energy and waste is a huge improvement over the current situation.

    I don't think there will ever be a single "silver bullet" tech to solve our energy and environment issues. The solution is lots and lots of small local (even house-level) improvements.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:The solution is a distributed architecture by u38cg · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you know that the gains from distributing your capabilities will offset the increased inefficiencies of larger numbers of smaller operations, not to mention the set-up costs? Economies of scale isn't just a fancy word....

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:The solution is a distributed architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think women are the problem. I would be happy to have an energy efficient house made of concrete that is built like a bunker and partially subterranean. My wife however insists on having a pretty house with lots of windows facing all the wrong directions.

    3. Re:The solution is a distributed architecture by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Economies of scale isn't just a fancy word
      No, it's three words.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  5. Always something to forget about... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not sure about the emission standards of Massachusetts, but I know that California was a stickler for oxides of nitrogen emissions.

    It sounds like the temperatures involved here are high enough to form oxides of nitrogen (the cylinder of an automobile can be) and these are precisely the gases that are responsible for "Acid Rain".

    Trading one problem for another?

  6. Carbon Monoxide? by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    CO to me usually means toxic and dangerous, not fuel source. I'm willing to believe it could be used to produce power, but I'd want to be quite sure it was well contained. It doesn't take much concentration of that stuff to kill a person, and the toxicity means you often lose consciousness before you know you're suffocating (and end up on the floor, where the air quality will be worst).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    1. Re:Carbon Monoxide? by berzerke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CO burns to CO2 with enough O2. It can be used as fuel, albeit a dangerous one. However, there are ways to deal with that. Gasoline, for instance, isn't a health drink, but we still use it everyday.

    2. Re:Carbon Monoxide? by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 4, Informative

      CO to me usually means toxic and dangerous, not fuel source.

      Then you will be pleased to discover that carbon monoxide is not only an ubiquitous industrial chemical used for more things than you are likely to imagine, but that it has been used as automotive fuel in times past, a bit like how compressed natural gas is used in some vehicles today. Yes it is toxic, but then so are most industrial chemicals and commonly used gases. This is actually pretty retro fuel technology, used when petroleum distillates were in short supply since you can produce it from damn near any organic matter (wood waste was a popular source). It says something about educational systems that you do not know that carbon monoxide has a long history as a fuel, since that was its primary application for a long time, usually by converting a carbon rich source into "water gas", a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. We have long since replaced water gas with natural gas and short-chain hydrocarbon gases from mined sources, which is far more cost effective in bulk.

      I am not really directing this at you, but we need to get past the "gosh, it might be toxic!" over-reaction to some really basic chemistry. We have used "water gas" and carbon monoxide systems for a very long time as chemistry goes, and long before anyone really properly characterized its asphyxiating properties. If they could use it in the 19th century without killing everybody, then we can certainly use it in the 21st century without killing everybody. There is more truly nasty chemistry waiting to happen in your average household than any normal person likely imagines, and yet we somehow survive as a society.

      Chemical toxicity is becoming like "nuclear" and "radioactive", bogeymen perceived as ineffable evils that will kill us all. It betrays a deep disconnect with the reality of the situation that, if allowed to drive political decisions, really will kill us all even if indirectly in a carefully designed hypo-allergenic padded cell. Fortunately, biology evolved in environments filled with radioactive, toxic crap, and is pretty good at mitigating the damage except in the most extreme cases that only a human could engineer. Yes, carbon monoxide is toxic, but it is also easily managed with some fairly primitive engineering.

    3. Re:Carbon Monoxide? by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Err, it's pretty obvious that they'd build some kind of safety mechanism. If you're going to point out dangers of various power sources and assume there are no safety measures being taken, here's a bit of airy scary information for you:

      * Nuclear fuel, uranium, is radioactive and will cause cancer or direct radiation poisoning.
      * Coal is full of mercury, and eating it will cause people to call you a mad hatter.
      * Oil is bad because you can drown in it.
      * Solar power is bad because the sun can give you sunburn.
      * Wind power is really nasty because all those spinning blades can chop you up into teeny tiny pieces.

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:Carbon Monoxide? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that long ago that the UK changed from the CO / H mixture (it was called "town gas") to natural gas.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. carbon monoxide is toxic by TimSSG · · Score: 3, Informative
    From Article

    The pellets are dropped into the aforementioned downdraft gasifier, which breaks them down under high heat into a mix of methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Finally, this "syngas" is sucked into a generator or microturbine to make electricity, or piped to a furnace to make heat.

    The summary has the idea that carbon monoxide is NOT an green house gas. While, this might be true the gas is then burned which should result in carbon dioxide. Tim S

  8. Re:won't reduce carbon emmission at all by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i'm not a fan of the carbon is evil mindset, but producing more power while having to burn less instantly reduces emissions, genius.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. Re:"removed"? by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only decepticon reformers turn it into CO2. Autobot reformers are much more responsible with the carbon.

    --
    Start a happiness pandemic
  10. It does redcue greenhouse gases by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative

    The system burns methane that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere. Methane has a much higher greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, because it absorbs more infrared radiation, therefore converting methane to CO2 has a positive effect in reducing global warming, even if the total carbon amount released is the same.

  11. Oh, how true this is... by icebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A concrete subterranean bunker would be an awesome house! I've been dreaming about one of them for years. They have several advantages over traditional wood-frame-and-siding-with -lots-of-windows houses:

    -Better insulation, so less energy leakage and lower electric bills

    -Better disaster resistance (though flooding might be a concern). Your house won't get blown away in a hurricane or tornado, and you don't have to worry about the roof collapsing under heavy snow.

    -Impervious to termites

    -More resistant to burglars and vandals, and easier to defend against home invasions

    -Possibly more fire survivability (structurally, at least). Assuming you get out, you might lose some possessions, but the structure will not contribute to the fire and will still be there after it's over. Done right, you could even seal it and let the fire suffocate itself, assuming that doesn't pose a problem to evacuation.

    Unfortunately, my wife wants a traditional house. Something about appearance being more important than functionality...

    --
    The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.