New York MSW

[Jim Hawkins]

Does anyone know what New York plans to do with its MSW when the present
landfill site
is closed in 2002 ?

Jim Hawkins <jhaw...@enterprise.net>

[Gerald "Brick" Brickwood]

The New York City government is still wrestling with the problem. Current
planning seems aimed at waste transfer although the "too where" question is
largley unanswered. In my area of the Mid-Hudson Valley there is a proposal
for a barge - rail transfer operation in the City of Newburgh.

The trade magazines indicate that Virginia and several other states are
considering limiting waste "imports" to restrict the flow from NYC. Never
thought I'd see the day when garbage was a commodity, never could figure out
why people think that New York City garbage is any different (worse) than
Chicago's or Duluth's, but "they" seem to.

Personally I hope NYC decides to go for RECYCLING in a big way to reduce
volume and WTE as a major component with transfer of ash to good state -
of - art landfills. In fact NYC will probably have to invest in UPSTATE NY
property to develop their own landfills! Won't NYS Dept. of Environmental
Conservation love that and just wait for the siting fights.
NYMBY and NIMTOO will take on a whooole new meaning! *GRIN*

No matter what NYC government proposes, there is going to be one helluva
fight!

Jim Hawkins wrote in message ...

[Jim Hawkins]

Is there any possibility of them using plasma-torch or plasma-arc pyrolysis
for
what's left over from recycling ?
This seems to be the technology of choice when landfilling finally becomes
uneconomic.

Jim Hawkins

Gerald "Brick" Brickwood wrote in message
<62AQ2.1957$b73.105178@paloalto-snr1>...

[Gerald "Brick" Brickwood]

I've seen several refernces to "plasma" in this NG. Unfortunately I don't
know anything about it. I know that "pyrolysis" has not been very succesful
and have heard of only some "pilot plants" or demonstration projects in the
US. What is the current status.

Personaly I think NYC would be foolish to go for an experimental technology.

Jim Hawkins wrote in message <48qR2.22$Uh5....@news.enterprise.net>...

[Jim Hawkins]

In an ideal situation, waste would be separated into compostables,
recyclables and untreatables, with the untreatables being disposed of by one
of the new technologies which will soon replace mass-burn incineration and
CHP (combined heat & power incinerators).
In practice, it is often difficult to do much separation, and where that
applies the entire waste stream can be treated by the new technologies, with
the plant producing over twice as much electricity as needed to run it when
fed with typical MSW.
In my opinion, the best of the new technologies are plasma-torch and
plasma-arc pyrolysis. These produce NO dioxins, furans, NOx, SOx or
particulates, and NO residual ash. Moreover they can treat ANYany type of
waste. Look at www.rcl-plasma.com to get some idea of what they can do.
The difficulty is that local authorities feel obliged to follow the advice
of so-called consultants, who for a variety of reasons will not risk
advising new technology, preferring to play safe and protect their
reputations by only recommending whatever has been the current fashion for
the last few years (and therefore already obsolescent!).
In addition, there is BIG money involved, and pressures can be brought to
bear and inducements offered.
The flagship CHP in the UK is the SELCHP (South-East London CHP). Its
performance record is appaling - on over 100 occasions between Jan 1995 and
Sept 1997 the specified emissions limits were exceeded.

Hope this helps.

Jim Hawkins

Gerald "Brick" Brickwood wrote in message ...

[Gerald "Brick" Brickwood]

I took a look at the site you provided. Thanks for the reference. The
information about the company is OK, but I still don't understand the
process. What other information might be available?

Also I'm a little confused with your separation criteria. If you pull out
the organics as compostable (you might or might not include some paper here)
and the recyclables (glass, metals, plastics?) there isn't a lot left with
any heat value to run into the plasma furnace. Also since one of the basic
rules of physics is that matter can niether be created nor destroyed, there
has to be some sort of ash or slag remaining, even if it is totally inert.

Thanks again.

[Jim Hawkins]

The pyrolysis takes place without added air, so the gaseous volumes involved
are only about 20% of that with conventional incineration.
At the very high temeratures generated by the plasma, the organics are
reduced to simple fuel gases, a small amount of lime being added to react
the chlorine.
The inorganics form a molten glassy slag which is a useful, leach-proof
byproduct.
The fuel gases are burned to generate the electricity, so the final gaseous
effluent is almost entirely water and CO2. No stack is normally necessary as
the volume is so small.
The gas and the slag are the only residuals.
You only get that amount of surplus electricity when the feed is typical MSW
(nothing pulled out).
But with so much surplus electricity you can afford to mix in other sorts of
waste and still have a self-sufficient plant. The temperature is high enough
to deal with stuff like building rubble and even asbestos. It is also so
high that the conditions for producing dioxins and other nasties do not
exist.
About the only thing you might want to pre-sort is aluminium. If it goes in
it comes out as oxide in the slag.
Plasma-arc type plants use a furnace design which is basically similar to
steel making furnaces, and are made by (among others) Plasma Waste
Conversion Corp. of Monkton MD

[T. Dennis]

...they're currently exporting trash to other states--shameful. Vote
Giuliani out.
Jim Hawkins <jhaw...@enterprise.net> wrote in message
news:ZjvQ2.54$Nm4....@news.enterprise.net...