Garbage gasification

[flaimdancer]

this is for alot of whoever. i posted a video of my 500 dollar homemade stove that beats hands down any thing out there. after it is going, up to temperture. i wood make a wager that it has probably less then half a gram per hour. and that it hammers dioxins, all that malarky out of the flue stream. you can put your hand over the flue opening ten feet up from the stove. I PUT A BRIDGESTONE TIRE FOOT SQUARE, AND TWO AND A HALF DOZEN EGGS IN AND NO SMOKE. PERIOD "flaimdancer" youtube

[AlAnsikk]

roads? where we're going we don't need "roads!"

[heald269]

Your ignorance is amazingly evident. You will continue as a non viable solution using a cumbrsome slow process from a closed minded morons defensive stance. 4 TPD that's it! One truck load per day now that's a slow process. Could have easily had your system processing 250 TPD with only a few changes. What an IDIOT! Your that stupid to be defensive over those comments? Wow! What a Moron. How dumb can you be. I obviously have experience with Pyrolysis, over 25 years. You Loose!

[heald269]

Your ignorance is amazingly evident. You will continue as a non viable solution using a cumbrsome slow process from a closed minded morons defensive stance. What an IDIOT! I tried.

[heald269]

You think your leading edge. I can prove your process is rudementary at best. efficency level on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best. You get a 3 in efficiency. pyrolysis or destructive distillation of MSW must be at about 50% of materials with the waste in a pile. I can show you how to achieve Continual feed and flow 24/7, with a 90% reduction in weight and 70% reduction in volume with the by-product produced gas. 10 minutes you will be convinced your process is rudementary at best.

[JasonThePure]

@heald269 You've got a point, but you're also a tremendous douchebag. There's no need to wave your e-peen in Youtube comments of all things.

[heald269]

System would be far more efficient if it was not batch fed. Efficiency was not taken into consideration when this process was designed. dumping the waste in a pit and heatng the waste using external gasses on a batch by batch basis just about eliminates posssiblity it will ever be self sustaining. Moisture levels in the MSW negatively affects the BTU level BTU levels of the produced gas. System would be far more efficient if waste was dried using waste heat. Impossible using a batch fed design.

[kingkong60608]

I'm involving some thing like your, please use this e-mail to keep for communication with your improvements. Thanks

[boogerhead0]

Oh, as to continuous, some propose a heated jacket screw, which forms its own sealing plug on the cooler, hopper end.

..and then there's several patents on the fluidized bed continuous processes.

[boogerhead0]

In the system you operated, where was the coke and sludge removed?

[Unibomber2u]

The answer lies in not producing these emissions which need to be filtered. This is possible and has been done effectively in a continuous flow, self sustaining, energy producing, low emission rate, all waste material friendly, easily expandable system. Red Bag Hazardous Medical Waste is safely converted as a bonus free of charge to municipalities.who contract to supply 250 TPD of MSW. That's it no bonds, no costs just waste and the ability to suppl y more. Nice Huh? :)

[Unibomber2u]

You mean to tell me I typed all that information and the only question you found to reply on is particulates? That does it move me up the chain of command so I can answer any and all technical questions from qualified persons. No offense but, c'mon "Particulates" Geese!

[Unibomber2u]

The process was stream line continual flow without using off-the-shelf airlocks, it made it's own airlock every time the ram introduced waste into the retort tube. The retort turned on casters gravity moved the material through the converter. Not augers needing airlocks which I would think means batch fed. Not the expert there looked like batch feeding to me. Did NOT clog worked flawlessly and effectivly.

[Unibomber2u]

If the goal was zero particulates yes nuclear. Fortunately zero is not an EPA Standard and would an over kill if it was. The process I am faimiliar with had no filters or scrubbers to clean the emissions prior to being released into the atmosphere. Yet is permitted to operate unrestricted from emissions far below EPA Standards in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The toughest counties in the country if not the world to get permitting in.

[Unibomber2u]

There is a better solution than any on YouTube I have been involved with the technology for 25 years. All these systems have one thing in common that prevents them from processing any and all wastes including hazardous and toxic. They have air locks which means batch and moved through the converter with augers. Cumbersome and Ineffective. All have a stationary retort using a auger to move the material. Switch the design Rotate the Retort and inject the waste using a hydraulic ram.

[Unibomber2u]

Oh! I do stand corrected it is not Oxygen free and Oxygen starved is correct in pyrolysis. I will have to also look up the meaning of one of the words offered in your response. Good One! I deserved it!

[Unibomber2u]

Please Read this from the bottom box up. sarcastic than your response. If you allow me to explain roughly how this is achieved I think we can earn some respect for each others knowlege and work from a offensive not defensive stand point. I will leave you with a few clues so you don't think I just like to type letters like this while guessing at the technology here to fore. Ha! Ok, Conveyor Belts, Rotating Retort Tubes and Hydraulic Rams. I can be contacted at spklrs4u@hotmail.com Thanks Greg

[Unibomber2u]

You may sense a little arrogance in my explanation sorry, it is derrived from so much confidence I can improve your process and you will agree.I had hoped for a different response than what I received but, I can understand your concern when someone who possibly doesn't know anything about the conversion steps in and gives advice on how to improve what you have spent many months if not years of your dedication toward. I understand completely your frustration I would have been pobably more...

[Unibomber2u]

in amazement but, not much they could do. I am sure you can relate to these types of issues with your system. Anyway, there are only 2 people left who know how this was truly achieved myself and my brother who has lost interest. I am determined not to let the patends and the technology be lost and/or forgotten forever. This is far too important to the environment as you are aware it may be long time until similiar process is found from what I have seen. Again no offense your doing a fine job!

[Unibomber2u]

Cancer causing agents would then be a risk such as Dioxins and Furans from burning platic and rubber products. They saw a flame and we were nothing but an incincerator to them. We even compressed the char into briquettes a little charcoal lighter fluid and we had a B.B.Q. burgers and hot dogs of which we had no problem eating. Then there was the Landfills not full no rush crowd who won't do anythng until it is an emergency. Tough crowd these people. We did however have many of them leave .....

[Unibomber2u]

to back a process as controversial as MSW conversion in any method where a flame is involved the NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard will take a long time to convince it is not an incincerator if they don't believe the test results. Then of course if it fails they will be known as the one who backed it and there career is over. Then there was the Too Good to be True Crowd who would't believe who didn't believe there would not be a flame when the fuel was used properly, flame meant burning of waste,

[Unibomber2u]

I will answer the obvious question I have heard hundreds of times now. If this is such a superior process why is it not in operation?" It's a difficult question I have only a educated guess since none of us were present when the project was declined. We were so close we had are suit cases packed in 1989 headed for the Virgin Islands. Islands Then nothing no word from the Officials on the Islands. Politicians are very concerned with there reputation which is understandable. They can't afford . .

[Unibomber2u]

in respect to Air Quality. San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. We supassed all EPA Emission Standards as does yours easily. There was no smoke or noxious odors in or around the facility, the stack was 10 ft. above the cieling. No filters or scrubbers were used, the results were from from emissions after the methane or produced gas was flared in the stack. The process produced 85% more fuel than needed to sustain the process and heat a steam boiler. Remainder was flared out the stack, wasted.

[Unibomber2u]

and my brother lost interest. The patends are active but, the company has disolved. To answer your question. If it so superior why isn't it in use? I can't tell you for certain only the comments I witnessed at demonstrations ranged from total amazement to total disbelief, even as far as to be called liars and scammers. I think it was too good to be believed and we didn't have a plant in operation only a demonstration facility located in the most difficult county in the Nation .... cont.

[Unibomber2u]

Don't be so quick to correct me on the basics between oxygen free and oxygen starved. If you knew what I know your process would be considered archaic and inpractical at best. No Offense, Yours is the closest yet I have found very good work. I am impressed, your on the right track it just needs to be looked at from my perspective and you will be easily convinced this is a far more effective configuration. There are only 2 people left on the planet that know how this was achieved. cont.

[Unibomber2u]

Your process is the closest I have found yet that even comes close to matching the process I have 10 years experience operating, maintaining and engineering with. I can convert your process from a slow Batch Type configuration to a more efficient Continual Feed Process. There are only 2 people left on the planet who knows how this is done and I have yet to see anything come close as far as how the material is processed and have yet to see the same method of introduction to the converter.

[Unibomber2u]

If I rememeber correctly there was a 75% reduction in weight and 90% in volume. The resude was a black char which would turn to ash if oxygen was introduced into the char bin before material cooled. Yes, we produced far more methane than we could utilize, 15% was used to sustain the process 20% went to a steam boiler and 65% had to be flared out the stack as unusable. Hell of a waste. The char has commercial value as a filtering material far cry from incineration where ash is hazardous waste.

[Unibomber2u]

Problem. Your video mentioned the ash remaining is inert. If the gassification is done in a oxigen free environment there would be no ash which does leach and must be treated as a hazardous waste. If it truly was oxigen free the end product would be Char which is not hazardous and does not leach. Smells like incinceration to me. Especially at the start of every batch. Those emissions would be the ones environmentalists will be concerned with. 

[romedeiros70]

@Unibomber2u Oxygen starved, not oxygen free. You can control the stoichiometry to produce more gas or more char in such a process. They want to get rid of waste, so they are probably going for full gasification, which leaves little carbon behind.

[sidestep530]

how old is this video?

[Agentoxedo07]

Holy-Terrorist:>*=* Is a petrochemical !

[Logan8393]

wtf what about co2 and other gases?

[bcg7752]

Which waste to energy process is the cheapest and most efficient today? Please respond.

[theMacvarish]

@bcg7752 Depends on how you define cost. If we burned all household waste,excluding recyclable material you would get heat,electricity and save on landfill and transportation costs. Sheffield,(UK),has had this system running the city centre for 20 years. The larger the population, the more you save. Pelleted or brickett systems give the most efficient burn.

[Unibomber2u]

@theMacvarish Another4 incinerator Nice! Just what the world needs more pollutants in the air. You can't actually believe your filtering is effective and fool proof.

[theMacvarish]

@Unibomber2u : No, the filtering used on large systems is not foolproof and does require consistant maintenance, to remain effective.Ideally city dwellers would produce no waste and consume no energy but until then we require lots of electricity. No other system, that I am aware of, will produce the required output without some particle release, with the exception of nuclear fission.

[Unibomber2u]

@theMacvarish Nuclear fission has it's own dangers other than particulates as the U.S. Russia and Japan can attest. The system I was involved with filtering was the least of our concern. No system can produce no particulates without any dangers. The key is to fall in at an acceptable level in accordance with existing emission standards. We had no filtering devices at all on a very small 8 TPD converter and EPA approval to operate in the strictest air polution counties in the world.

[Unibomber2u]

@theMacvarish You would get heat electricity from burning garbage? Technically you can produce steam same end result as nuclear fission. Incineration has many other inherent problems that are produced from burning rubber, styro-foam, plastics all found in MSW (which should be classified as hazardous) not easily removed from the waste stream. Incineration produces Dioxins, Furans and a host of other undesired carcinigens compounded with the ash being treated as hazardous. This is a solution?

[Unibomber2u]

Yes but, the ash must now be treated as hazardous since it is known to leach carcinagens into ground water which will far surpass the savings from landfills and both must still be transported so this is a wash. Not an acceptable solution in terms of environmental damage and cost savings are just not possible. If you can get one approved the cost of permitting after all legal and political challenges would be enormous not to mention the demonstrations against the facility from the NIMBY groups.

[Unibomber2u]

There is a four letter word used in most of these processes that raise red flags to communities and will automatically be challenged due to the inherent risks associated with it. This due to this four letter word which is not easy to avoid and certainly should be investigated whe used. "BURN" Not an effective term which connects the process with the most environmentally dangerous disposal method unfortunately still available today. Burn Baby Burn! If your in a communist society it is ok! LIES!

[Unibomber2u]

@bcg7752 This would depend on the type of waste being converted, all responses will be from the persons known processes. Which leaves out the unrealized and undiscovered technologies from there reply as would be the case. Of the processes I reviewed on YouTube ours would win hands down, no contest, unchallenged, undisputed as the most effective highest energy producing and most environmentally safe method available today. no problem.

[Unibomber2u]

Somebody challenge me? My comments should certainly spark a reply that I wouldn't consider shallow or laughable,.they are posted all through these methods on YouTube. C'mon somebody find out what I am referring to before I to am gone. The last surviving person with first hand experience designing, maintaining and operating this process. It would be a tragedy if left to be re-discovered, from the videos I have seen it will be a long time until this happens. Your all stuck on Batch Feeding.

[Unibomber2u]

I am looking for someone with U.S. Patend experience who will recognize this process as I do, with the balls and resources to commit in seeing it commercially available. Wealth will be a by-product I promise! Everybody is dead. The technology is just sitting there idle and I don't have the money or time to commit to it. I will convince you of it's superior design and performance.Ttesting and emissions data published by the U.S. Department of Energy to further prove my claim.

[flaviusicafsz]

please help me with advice to get flamable gas with my project GenCO in my video

[fuzzywigg]

Is anyone an expert in this area?

[stefner100]

I dont see gasification/pyrolysis/inciner­ation as a solution. Last resort maybe, but we need to reduce the problem of waste at its source. Encouraging less packaging materials and packaging that can be recycled easily, choosing packaging and products that have longer lifespans are simple solutions that can help stop the waste being generated in the first place.

[obtree]

Obviously we need to reduce our waste, but the argument that waste-to-energy systems are counter productive to that cause is facetious. Processing waste more cleanly and efficiently doesn't prevent us from reducing our waste.

[cgafa]

And incinerating waste reduces it?

[obtree]

I'm not saying we can be as wasteful as we like as long as we gasify our garbage, I'm saying reduce the amount of waste we produce, then gasify the rest.

[knottderby]

A commonly-accepted principle is the 5-point waste hierarchy, the order of priority being: 1. Prevention, 2. Re-use, 3. Recycle, 4. Energy recovery and finally, 5) Disposal. Thus, there is a place for waste combustion and gasification in the form of energy recovery since however much you prevent, re-use and recycle there will always been some waste left. Both of these technologies do not consume energy but are a net producer of energy (both heat and electricity) if heat recovery is employed.

[WolYou]

Funny. People first extract material, produce goods with a lot of energy and then burn it down by using a lot of energy again. How stupid must one be to think that this process as a sane way to handle the production cycle?

If something can't be reused with no or at least little effort, it shouldn't be produced in the first place. Taking out fire with gasoline. Thats what you do.

[anooseholay]

You make an interesting point but considering the fact that a lot of waste continues to fill landfills every day what is your immediate solution to that problem? Of course, reducing consumption and recycling are all part of it, but until everyone is on the same page with that, what do we do about the landfills that are so rapidly filling?

[toob247]

These would be perfect to heat hospitals and schools. If the heat isnt Used it's wasteful.

[OutaSynch]

The CO2 emissions would be the same or worse in any typical power plant. I would rather see garbage gasified than see coal or oil burned. Besides, we desperately need to find a solution to our waste problem besides burial like this system.

[Riorank]

Forgot the Carbon Dioxide

[Aimeex12]

i hope they are using this method now to clean up the wastes. its really a good idea!!!

KEEP THE EARTH CLEAN!