Outline of the waste streams available that could be used for energy production - ideally bio-methane. However, plastics are today's "pollutants" to the viability of waste streams to energy. The plastic need a different method of treatment. Overall, we wish to avoid the less efficient {and problematic emissions} of incineration technologies.
WORK IN PROGRESS:
TYPES OF WASTE STREAMS
Homogeneous Organic Wastes, typically farming wastes
These typically farm based bio-digesters, can create good volumes of bio-methane [with some CO2 and other contaminants - which can be removed] from a wide variety of soft organic wastes - from cattle slurry to oil-rich seeds. We have a database of the energy values of most farm wastes to be able to estimate economic viabilities in terms of exporting to the gas grid, generating electricity and exporting to the electric grid or even as transport fuels {compressed natural gas} CNG.
Palm Oil Wastes and other industrial processes
In regions where Palm Oil production is prevalent, the waste lagoons associated with Palm Oil production, with the husks etc can be utilitise as rich source of bio-methane. The waste from these processes can be problematic in environmental terms - so bio-digestion is an ideal transformation into a commercial fuel or used in energy and heat production as a feed back into the industrial process itself.
Mixed Wastes and Rubbish Tips
There are a great many pre-existing waste tips of varying sizes and "conditions" globally - [Some tips can be on-fire or explosive with the methane generation]. Comprehensive treatment and separation of the leachate and methane can produce vast quantities of bio-methane [again with CO2, H2S etc - all of which can be separated]. The Leachate is also rich in Ammonia and other compounds. Experience in the UK shows that a waste tip can produce methane [and other smaller impurities] for up to 30 years. The London Brick Works in Bedfordshire used bio-methane from the waste tip on their clay pits {as supplied from London}, to fire their brick kilns for decades.
Plastic Waste "Pollution"
The vastly increased usage of plastics over the last decades, has changed the composition of waste globally. Plastic themselves are difficult {not impossible} to break down and thus make bio-digestion more difficult. In practice the separation of Plastic {and metals, builders rubble etc} needs to be carried out before digestion. Other technologies to deal with plastics {see below} like Cold Plasma Pyrolysis can yield methane and Hydrogen.
Anaerobic digestion can be used to generate energy from organic waste like food and animal products. In an oxygen-free tank, this material is broken down to biogas and fertiliser.
It’s an approach with big potential. If we treated 5.5 million tonnes of food waste this way, we’d generate enough energy to serve around 164,000 households while saving between 0.22 and 0.35 million tonnes of CO2, in comparison to composting.
Extracting the biogas produced by biodegrading materials on landfill sites is another way of getting useful energy from waste. Although it’s an approach that’s in decline due to the reduction of the amount of organic matter going to landfill, it’s making a notable contribution to UK energy supply: the source 3.04TWh of green electricity in the last year, in fact.
Tackling the plastic problem
Plastic waste has risen to significant levels of public consciousness in recent years, for its negative impact on habitats and species. In response, the UK Government’s 25-year Environment Plan pledges to eliminate all ‘avoidable’ plastic waste by the end of 2042 – and it’s not alone in making such political commitments. Can waste-to-energy step in here?
Converting plastic waste to energy certain makes sense from a chemical perspective, given plastics come from the same origin as fossil fuels. We’ve already looked at the two main techniques involved: pyrolysis, where plastic is heated in the absence of oxygen, and gasification, where air or steam heats the waste, creating gases that either produce petrol or diesel, or are burned to generate electricity.
New techniques such as cold plasma pyrolysis, provide the potential to create fuels such as hydrogen and methane, as well as useful chemicals for industry.
But there are barriers in the way of wider uptake of plastic-to-energy techniques. Gasification of plastics requires significant investment, including advanced controls and pre-treatment facilities. Also, developing plastic-recycling plants presents a risk of limiting those facilities, when decision-makers may instinctively opt for waste strategies where general waste is processed together, rather than separating out different elements.
Novel approaches to waste management in the UK will surely rise in the coming years. Recycling rates seem to be plateauing, with minor increases only seen. While generating energy from waste has a lot of promise, we need to focus on making products last longer, and when they really can’t be fixed, finding ways to recycle and reuse them. Only when those options are exhausted should we turn to waste-to-energy.
the prospect of using rubbish for fuel isn’t too far from reality. Plastics, in particular, contain mainly carbon and hydrogen, with similar energy content to conventional fuels such as diesel.
Plastics are among the most valuable waste materials – although with the way people discard them, you probably wouldn’t know it. It’s possible to convert all plastics directly into useful forms of energy and chemicals for industry, using a process called “cold plasma pyrolysis”.
Pyrolysis is a method of heating, which decomposes organic materials at temperatures between 400℃ and 650℃, in an environment with limited oxygen. Pyrolysis is normally used to generate energy in the form of heat, electricity or fuels, but it could be even more beneficial if cold plasma was incorporated into the process, to help recover other chemicals and materials.
The case for cold plasma pyrolysis
Cold plasma pyrolysis makes it possible to convert waste plastics into hydrogen, methane and ethylene. Both hydrogen and methane can be used as clean fuels, since they only produce minimal amounts of harmful compounds such as soot, un-burnt hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide (CO₂). And ethylene is the basic building block of most plastics used around the world today.
As it stands, 40% of waste plastic products in the US and 31% in the EU are sent to landfill. Plastic waste also makes up 10% to 13% of municipal solid waste. This wastage has huge detrimental impacts on oceans and other ecosystems.
A discussion regarding electricity production and energy efficiencies {mainly UK, but some USA}. AI is starting to learn - but needs to watch out for "settled-science" {an oxymoron} and the volume of material covering the "conventional wisdom." We have also added some additional commentary to help the {Child} AI as it learns, and to assist it to innovate, if this is possible.
Here are the questions asked of ChatGBT, and its corresponding answers. Some development of its answers have also been explored too. We found it a quite interesting exercise. But please note {with some alarm} AI's concern with "Regulatory Authorities", "Policy" and "Policy Makers" - the modern "evils" of our times!!
Q 1) Given that in winter the UK still needs 60% of electricity demand provided by Natural Gas and Coal, how can we reduce demand to allow renewable's to provide a greater percentage
There are several ways in which we can reduce the demand for natural gas and coal in the UK during the winter months to allow for renewable's to provide a greater percentage of our electricity supply:
Energy efficiency: The most effective way to reduce energy demand is to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances. This can be achieved through better insulation, more efficient heating and cooling systems, and more energy-efficient appliances. By reducing energy waste, we can lower our overall energy consumption and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. {an agenda driven statement indeed - bad AI!}
Demand-side management: This involves shifting energy use to times when renewable energy sources are available, such as during periods of high wind or sunshine. This can be achieved through time-of-use tariffs, which incentivise customers to use energy during off-peak hours when renewable energy is more abundant. {pricing strategies are not an ideal route - old age pensioners could die with this approach, frightened to turn on their boilers} bad, bad, AI
Energy storage: Battery storage technology is rapidly advancing, and large-scale battery storage can help to smooth out the intermittent supply of renewable energy. This allows excess renewable energy to be stored for use when demand is high, reducing the need for natural gas and coal. {Please add alternative "storage solutions, eg. "pumped storage" as at Dinorwig Peak Lopping _ too much battery talk AI!}
Smart grids: Smart grids can help to manage the supply and demand of energy more efficiently. By using advanced sensors and communications technology, smart grids can match energy demand with the available supply of renewable energy.
More renewable energy generation: Of course, the ultimate solution is to increase the amount of renewable energy generation in the UK. This can be achieved through a combination of onshore and offshore wind, solar, and other renewable sources, such as hydro-power and geothermal. With more renewable energy generation, the need for natural gas and coal can be gradually phased out. We threw this statement straight back at AI, as no time scale aspects have been considered - its almost a "slogan" not information - but the "blame" here lies with those promoting this mis-information {generally at State level}
Q 2) "With more renewable energy generation, the need for natural gas and coal can be gradually phased out." Please critique this statement given the timescale involved to achieve these targets
"I hate cooling towers" is my latest Sun Earth Energy Blog.
Cooling Towers! I hate to see Cooling Towers!!
"A Testimony to Waste" {approx 60% wasted Heat Energy to the Atmosphere!!} Just as my {then Children} will testify, in the mid 1990's as we traveled down the A1 at Ferrybridge {Power Station} - [now demolished].
But it could have supplied a 'Heat Network' to the adjacent town of Knottingly - similar to the Battersea Power Station, that supplied Heat to the Pimlico Estate.
Coal, Gas, Oil or even Nuclear - all use Cooling Towers in respect of the steam turbines to drive the electricity generation: But the Carnot Cycle needs to revert the steam back into water
But the notion of "Centralised Power Generation remains - and there is the problem!
A new report from Pike Research of Colorado says the addition of carbon capture systems to power plants will add 50% to 70% to the cost of creating electricity for existing and future plants.
The report, titled “Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Drivers and Barriers, Technology Issues, Key Industry Players, Market Analysis and Forecasts,” adds that such increases in costs will be initially underwritten by governments but gradually passed on to ratepayers.
The report will be a wakeup call to many on the potential of such systems, which are targeted at large-scale projects and coal-fired power plants in particular, the latter accounting for half of the world’s energy-related CO2 emissions.
Pike estimates that the CCS industry will grow to revenue of $221.5 billion by 2030. The margins, however, will be low, hovering “close to zero,” and “even over the longer term, the CCS industry, heavily subsidized and equally heavily regulated, will produce relatively low profits. In addition, margins will vary widely along the vertical chain of CCS, from capture to transport to geological storage.”
However, as the report notes, predicting the future profitability is guesswork, since the price of carbon emissions (i.e, the penalties for emitting too much) “will likely be set initially by government fiat and, over the longer term, market forces that are impossible to predict with confidence.”
The full report is available for purchase by contacting: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
But scientific research is never "settled" as a new group is trying to establish
Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”
The declaration is being promoted by the CLINTEL Group, which plans to give “solicited and unsolicited” advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
I am thinking that most of the advice they will give will be unsolicited. Here is hoping that policy makers, teachers, and everyone else listen to the group’s many points:
Natural causes contribute to climate changes.
Warming has been slower than predicted.
Climate policy is being based on inadequate models.
Carbon dioxide is plant food, and the basis for life on Earth.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Perhaps the last point the CLINTEL Group makes is the most critical: Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
For those of you with a background in the climate sciences, and who would like to sign, information to do so is HERE.
If “Green New Deal” polices are allowed to continue, they will be even more destructive on this nation and the world than the covid policies have been.
This Graphic from the UK Dept of Energy etc, conceals the true state of the inefficiencies of a Centralised power systems (as opposed to Decentralised power systems). If we correctly dismiss Imports and Renewable Energy (as they are non-generated) then inputs to power generation are 44.9 with losses of 29.2 (plus a possible component of the 4.0 units regarding Energy Industry usage and other losses - that we have ignored for the moment).
Thus 29.2/44.9 is 65% of energy losses {mainly heat losses} so 35% fuel efficient. And its probably worse than this.
JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Interestingly enough the usage of Gas by the domestic sector {Heating and Cooking} at 27.4 is within the heat losses of Centralised Energy production! IF ONLY WE COULD..............wait a minute!
Combined Heat and Power - CHP (decentralised power) can do both, at fuel efficiencies in the order of 85% {as the 'waste' heat is distributed to end users via a Heat Network}. Just like in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The Heat Network distributes heat energy in the form of hot water (very hot water at normal or high pressures) via heavily insulated high volume pipes. Then each sub-zone would have a smaller distribution pipe. Finally each property would have a connection and provide a Heat Exchanger {in place of typically a Gas Boiler} plus a large hot water storage tank. The Hot Water Tank is to provide "buffering" between Supply and Demand - typically those working may concentrate demand around their working hours. This factor can cause issues where a "Just In Time" [JIT] system would fail.
If we add in the technology of bio-digestion (from Sewage and Organic wastes) we have a source of bio-methane to run these CHP systems - using the UK's excellent and extensive Gas Grid! Plus there is the use of Compressed Bio-Methane - CNG - as a transport fuel too {with a much lower Fuel Duty}.
Our message - STOP DEMONIZING GAS {Methane} Plus: Bio-Methane should be considered as "Carbon Negative" {as it removes methane escape to the atmosphere} and there are many, many sources of escaping methane to be tapped.
Sun Earth Energy Ltd blog from December 2009 covers research from Pike Research indicating serious iussues with Carbon Capture
Interestingly enough the usage of Gas by the domestic sector {Heating and Cooking} at 27.4 is within the heat losses of Centralised Energy production!