How Plasma Arc could sabotage
Zero Waste in Capannori
Dr Paul Connett
Professore Emerito di Chimica
St Lawrence University, Canton, NY
[email protected]
www.AmericanHealthStudies.org
www.FluorideALERT.org
Capannori, Sept 20, 2009
•Grazie a Rossano Ercolini
(Ambiente e Futuro)
per avere organizzato
la mia # 42 visita in Italia
Rossano Ercolini
[email protected]
338-28-66-215
Paul Connett
ha parlato
in
172 citta’
San Francisco








Popolazione = 850.000
Carenza di spazio
50% raccolta differenziata entro il 2000
63% raccolta differenziata entro il 2004
70% raccolta differenziata entro il 2008
72% raccolta differenziata entro il 2009
75% raccolta differenziata entro il 2010
(obiettivo)
Zero Rifiuti (o molto vicino!) entro il 2020
San Francisco’s Approach for
Easy High Diversion
Recycled
Paper
21%
Food Scraps
20%
Plant Trimmings
5%
Glass and Plastic Bottles
Aluminum and Steel Cans
4%
Compostable Paper
& Fiber 10%
Construction and
Demolition Waste
25%
Other
15%
courtesy of Jack Macy, SF Dept. of Environment
Italia
 Oltre
2000 Comuni in Italia
stanno ottenendo oltre il
50% di conversione dalla
raccolta porta a porta
Porta a Porta
Si risparmia
 Crea lavoro
 E’ piu’ conveniente per I cittadini
 Scompaiano le campane e I
contenitorri dalle strade
 E’ piu’ attraente per il turismo

Italia
 Novara
(popolazione = 100,000)
ha raggiunto il 70% in soli 18
mesi !
Italia
 Nella
provincia di Treviso
(Priula Consorzio) 22 Comuni
hanno raggiunto il 76% di
conversione in 5 anni
RISULTATI QUANTITATIVI
AUMENTO % RACCOLTA DIFFERENZIATA
RISULTATI QUANTITATIVI
AUMENTO % RACCOLTA DIFFERENZIATA
>80%
Italia
Villafranca
d’Asti
(popolazione =
30,000) ha raggiunto l’
85% (Roberto Cavallo)
Italia
 Provincia
di Napoli
San Sebastiano al Vesuvio, Volla,
Meta di Sorrento, Vico Equense e
Sorrento > 70%
 Quartiere Colli Aminei = 73% (in
tre mesi!)

Nel Feb 24, 2007
Capannori (vicino Lucca)
e` diventata la prima
citta` a dichiarare una
strategia rifiuti zero 2020
Rossano Ercolini
[email protected]
338-28-66-215
FRAZIONE RESIDUA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
- Capannori Porta a Porta
Tessili e cuolo
Pannolini
Materiale organico da cucina
Altra plastica: non imballo
Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccopiati
Imballaggi poliaccopiati in plastica
Imballaggi flessibili in plastica
Materiale organico da giardino
Imballaggi rigidi in plastica
(non bottiglie)
Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)
16.52 %
13.95 %
10.56 %
9.98 %
8.05 %
7.45 %
6.81 %
4.64 %
3.23 %
2.54 %
•
FRAZIONE RESIDUA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
– Capannori
16.52 %
Pannolini
13.95 %
Materiale organico da cucina
10.56 %
Altra plastica: non imballo
9.98 %
Questa
e’poliaccopiati
l’analisi del
Imballaggi
cellulosici
8.05 %
Imballaggi
in plastica dopo
17%poliaccopiati
che rimane
7.45la
%
Imballaggiseparazione
flessibili in plastica
dell’6.81 %
Materiale organico da giardino
83% del materiale4.64 %
Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie) 3.23 %
raccolto
porta
a
porta
Giornali (quotidiani e riviste)
2.54 %
Tessili e cuoio
Come gestiamo la frazione
residua: un momento cruciale
della filosofia Rifiuti Zero




L’incenerimento cerca di far sparire la
frazione residua
Rifiuti Zero 2020 ha bisogno di
rendere i residui MOLTO VISIBILI,
perché…
Frazione Residua = cattiva
progettazione industriale e
Cattive decisioni d’acquisto








Plasma arc plants are part of family of technologies
competing with mass burn incinerators (gasification,
pyrolysis and plasma arc/torch) with very little proven
commercial track record
All claim NOT to be incinerators, but all involve two stages:
1) the conversion of solid waste into a gas,
2) the burning of the gas, producing many of the same
problems as a regular incinerator
So the more appropriate names would be:
Gasifying incinerator
Pyrolyzing incinerator
Plasma arc incinerator
PLASMA ARC TECHNOLOGY
For every 3-4 tons of trash you get about one ton of ash
ELECTRICITY
TURBINE
CHUTE
WET SCRUBBER
SECONDARY STEAM
CHAMBER
TEMP
BOILER < 200oC
FABRIC
FILTER
DE-NOX
SEMIDRY
SCRUBBER
Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION
GRATES
TRASH
BOTTOM ASH
ACTIVATED
CHARCOAL
AMMONIA
INJECTION
FLY ASH
Paragone tra Torcia al plasma con
l’incenerimento di massa



Incenerimento di massa
NON SOSTENIBILE
Perche’ distrugge risorse di
materiali limitate



Torcia al plasma
NON SOSTENIBILE
Perche’ distrugge risorse di
materiali limitate
Incenerimento con Torcia al plasma problemi pratici
 Il
problema con tutte le tecnologie
di gassificazione aumentano se si
passa da progetti pilota su piccola
scala a progetti industriali su scala
commerciale.
Incenerimento con Torcia al plasma chimici constraints




Non c’e’ magia che annulli la chimica di base.
Quello che entra = quello che esce
Abbiamo bisogno di attenti studi di bilanci di massa per vedere
dove finiscono il mmercurio, l’arsenico, il cadmio, il piombo, il
cloro, il fluoro, e il bromo :nei fanghi, nei prodotti metallici,
nelle ceneri leggere o nell’aria.
Il problema finale riguarda la tematica delle nanoparticles. Al
momento queste non vengono ne’ regolamentate, ne
monitorate ma hanno delle conseguenze sulla salute molto
gravi..
Ogni 3-4 ton di rifiuti ottieni circa 1 ton di ceneri
ELECTRICITY
TURBINE
CHUTE
WET SCRUBBER
SECONDARY STEAM
CHAMBER
TEMP
BOILER < 200oC
FABRIC
FILTER
DE-NOX
SEMIDRY
SCRUBBER
Ca(OH) 2 SUSPENSION
GRATES
TRASH
BOTTOM ASH
ACTIVATED
CHARCOAL
AMMONIA
INJECTION
FLY ASH
PLASCO


Has built a 100 ton per day pilot plant
in Ottawa, Canada
Is aggressively marketing technology
all over Canada, US and some other
countries
PLASCO CEO Rod Bryden
says:






1) Filter ash goes back into furnace.
2) System produces no dioxin because
no oxygen available.
3) System destroys nanoparticles.
4) Slag to be used in asphalt &
concrete.
5) Salt to be used on roads.
6) Sulfur to be used in agriculture
PLASCO plant in Ottawa a
fiasco!




When officials from Los Angeles visited
the plant it wasn’t working
Operators tried to start plant three
times without success
L.A. dropped plant from its plan –
because it hasn’t operated for 1000
hours in a one year period
Other communities in California and
British Columbia have cancelled
project
PLASCO
Solid
converted
to gas
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Solid
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Solid
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
Vitrified slag
External
energy
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Solid
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
Vitrified slag
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Gas
Cooling
&
Cleaning
Internal
Combustion
engine
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
When combustion engines
not working
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Gas
Cooling
&
Cleaning
F
L
A
R
E
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
?
Gas
Solid
converted
to gas
Gas
Cooling
&
Cleaning
Internal
Combustion
engine
At about
600 -700 deg. C
PLASCO
GAS Cooling & Cleaning
Heat
Recovery
unit
Heat
NaOH
solution
Heat
Recovery
unit
Heat
Wet
Scrubber
NaCl
NaF
NaBr
NaCN ?
“Salt” + water
Activated
Carbon
NaOH
solution
Heat
Recovery
unit
Heat
Wet
Scrubber
NaCl
NaF
NaBr
NaCN ?
Carbon
+ mercury
+ dioxins
etc
“Salt” + water
Activated
Carbon
NaOH
solution
Heat
Recovery
unit
Heat
Carbon
Filter
Plus
bacteria
Wet
Scrubber
NaCl
NaF
NaBr
NaCN ?
Carbon
+ mercury
+ dioxins
etc
“Salt” + water
Sulfur
Activated
Carbon
NaOH
solution
Heat
Recovery
unit
Heat
Carbon
Filter
Plus
bacteria
Wet
Scrubber
NaCl
NaF
NaBr
NaCN ?
Carbon
+ mercury
+ dioxins
etc
“Salt” + water
Sulfur
PLASCO CEO Rod Bryden
says:






1) Filter ash goes back into furnace.
2) System produces no dioxin because
no oxygen available.
3) System destroys nanoparticles.
4) Slag to be used in asphalt &
concrete.
5) Salt to be used on roads.
6) Sulfur to be used in agriculture
Recycling fly ash




Modern incinerators use activated carbon filters to
remove mercury
This carbon is part of the fly ash, and this should
then be a SINK for the mercury (and sent to special
facilities for recovery or containment)
However if you put the fly ash back into the furnace
then you will release ALL the mercury again
There is only place left for the mercury to go (and
other volatile metals) and that is into the AIR.
No dioxin because no air
 There
is plenty of air in incoming
waste!
 Dioxin emitted in other plasma arc
facilities
Yang & Kim (2004). Characteristics of dioxins and
metals emission from radwaste plasma arc melter
system. Chemosphere 57: 421-428



When PVC was fed into the high-temperature melter,
a significant quantity of PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead
was emitted.
Wet scrubbing with rapid quenching, as well as a
low temperature two-step fine filtration, or both of
them together cannot effectively control the volatile
metal species and gas-phase PCDD/Fs.
The removal of PVC from the feed waste stream
must also be effective to reduce the emissions of the
PCDD/Fs, cadmium and lead species.
Using salt on roads

“Salt” will not be pure salt (NaCl) could be problems with other salts
which are very toxic , e.g. sodium
fluoride
Using sulfur

Using sulfur in agriculture could be
problem if it is contaminated with
mercury etc.
The difference between
PR hype and Reality


The following slides are taken from
www.GREENACTION.org
They document the dismal track
record of various gasification, pyrolysis
and plasma arc/torch facilities
INDUSTRIAL CLAIMS
THERMOSELECT FACILITY IN KARLSRUHE
BRIGHTSTAR’S WOOLONGONG FACILITY
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
One of PEAT’s claims is
very disturbing
 They
also claim that they will
have no fly ash because they
are going to recycle it back
into the process.
GASIFICATION, PYROLYSIS
etc



Engineering consultants’ view:
“Many of the perceived benefits of gasification and
pyrolysis over combustion technology proved to be
unfounded. These perceptions have arisen mainly
from inconsistent comparisons in the absence of
quality information.”
Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd, Stockport,
Cheshire, March, 2004
Lurgi letter




“…a decision has been taken within Lurgi to discontinue
marketing gasification and pyrolysis technologies for
waste conversion applications.
This decision has come after rigorous analysis of market
requirements, technical feasibility and economic
sensitivities of gasification and pyrolysis of waste, as
applied by Lurgi and our competitors.
We recognize there is a positive bias towards
gasification/pyrolysis amongst politicians and
environmentalists. However, we are in no doubt that in
the short to medium term neither technology will be
developed and commercially proven to the point where it
can compete.”
Letter (08-09-2003) to Fichter Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cheshire, UK