Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trash-To-Fuel Process Validated By US Military

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the just-need-to-know-who-to-ask dept.

An anonymous reader writes "After going through all kinds of grief, including being shut down by the Washington State Ecology Department, classifying them as an 'incinerator,' it looks like Green Power Inc is finally ready to shine. The Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines, in a joint effort, validated their technology in November, and the results are now being published for the first time. For every 100 tons of municipal solid waste feedstock processed each day, the plant produces 1240 gallons of Naphtha, 3700 gallons of Kerosene, 6900 gallons of Diesel and 3000 gallons of Fuel Oil. And even the ash can be used for cement or asphalt. They generate 1 MW of electricity to sell to the grid 24/7, running three shifts per day to keep the plant going, employing approximately five people per shift. Sticker price is $25 million. ROI, 3.5 years. Maybe with this announcement, the trend of no sales in the US will change, compared to the 72 foreign contracts backed by letters of credit."

10 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Very nice by Jaysyn · · Score: 2

    If this is for real & doesn't have any game-breaking drawbacks down the road, this could go a long, long way to curing our energy dependence on other nations until we get our stuff together with more renewable power sources.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Very nice by ZosX · · Score: 2

      Yeah. It is for real. The tech has been around for at least 5 years that I know of, probably longer. There aren't any real drawbacks except that you are producing more greenhouse gasses in the end. I don't know if we produce enough bio-waste to generate fuel for all of our gas guzzling needs, but it should go a long, long way if utilized to making some of our problems better.

      --
      zosxavius photography
  2. FTFS by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sticker price is $25 million. ROI, 3.5 years.

    Only $25 Million? Dude. If this process really works as well as they are reporting, this is a HUGE deal. Think of the implications of setting up these facilities in multiple parts of the country.

    This won't solve our energy or trash problems, but it could put a sizeable dent in both. Huzzah!

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  3. If it sounds too good. to be true... by tomhath · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... it probably isn't. This guy is a snake oil salesman.

    1. Re:If it sounds too good. to be true... by jweller · · Score: 4, Funny

      and your point is?

      Snake oil is a great source of renewable energy. I've converted my diesel rabbit to run on snake oil.

    2. Re:If it sounds too good. to be true... by ladadadada · · Score: 5, Informative

      I didn't see anything in that link to indicate that he is a snake oil salesman. There were certainly plenty of concerning allegations, but none of them alleged that he has sold them a product that didn't work. Most of them are regarding his failure to pay bills. The article mentioned the same thing, after mentioning that the reporter was a personal friend of the CEO. It all looks to me like he's a genuine guy with a decent product and bad business sense. I think I would have waited to see the results published by the third party before running this on Slashdot. The results linked from the site are actually hosted on its sister site, both of which are funded by Michael Spitzauer and don't look to be published by the US Military at all.

      --
      Sig matters not. Judge me by my sig, do you?
  4. Exactly who in DoD? by gnieboer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like others here, I'm not convinced. DoD is a very big place, and to say that was a 'joint' validation is odd... who was this joint organization who specializes in trash recycling within DoD? Probably one exists someplace (next to the agency researching favorite alien ice cream flavours), but what's telling is that the article doesn't mention who they are.

    And the 'link' referred to doesn't have any mention of DoD in it either. Since the PDF has PES watermarks and was authored by Word 2010 (which the DoD won't be using), it's 99% likely it's not a 3rd party document. I suppose it might be based on a 3rd party report, but why not just include the test report? A government test report like this should be public info.

  5. Re:Amazingly efficient... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It gets worse if you do an energy balance:
    According to the DOE (Table 1), municipal waste contains less than 12e6 BTU/Ton, so your 100 TPD waste stream will contain 1.2 E9 BTU tops.

    Disregarding electrical output:

    Naptha; 1,240 Gal @118700 BTU/Gal = 1.47E8 BTU
    Kerosene: 3400 Gal @134000 BTU/Gal = 4.56E8 BTU
    Diesel: 6900 Gal @129500 BTU/Gal = 8.94E8 BTU
    Fuel Oil: 3000 Gal @145000 BTU/Gal = 4.35E8 BTU
    Total Output: 1.93E9 BTU

    So, either they have some energy input they're not telling us about, or it's a scam.

  6. Re:Amazingly efficient... by Atraxen · · Score: 2, Informative

    If there is an additional energy input, and if that input is highly efficient, I'm ok with the energy balance. If we consider the trash to be thrown away (ah, love what I did there...) then it's energetically lost. That means for an additional energetic input of 8E8 BTU (I rounded up for high-but-not-perfect efficiency), we get fuel worth 19E8 (scaled to matching exponents). There's something to that sort of process - it's like having a huge interest rate savings account.

    And let's remember that converting crude oil into fuel forms requires energy inputs (hydrocarbon cracking, etc.) - but the energetic 'loss' is worth it to us since we get a portable energy source with more energetic value than we spent (ignoring the intrinsic energy from the fuel oil, which =0 to us in terms of utility until after processing.) As long as we break even (or better) in terms of processing energy input vs. energy of the fuel output, we lose nothing we haven't (literally) already thrown away.

    If, of course, their information is otherwise complete and not overstated, and if the energy input is efficient enough to break even or better.

    --
    Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
  7. Return on Investment by glodime · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the article:

    ...the return on investment of this $25 million dollar plant is estimated to be in just over three and a half years...

    Beware of the salesman that quotes a Return on Investment in terms of time.