HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Page 1/2  >  >>
akwaman
User Rank
Gold
Re: Carbon emissions
akwaman   9/6/2012 10:01:59 AM
NO RATINGS
The carbon emission savings are small, but don't miss the real point.  From what I understand, isn't the real goal of using these unrecyclable materials to keep it out of landfills, and therefore reducing the need for so many landfills?  We do get complacent in this country about landfills, because we do a good job of hiding them.  Problem is that we are running out of places to hide them, and nobody wants a landfill in their back yard.  A good point was made that in Europe, they are more concious of the issue of landfills, because they don't have as many places to hide them, and the problem is more in the public eye.  It seems like a win-win-win situation.  How could you argue with a system that reduces the number of mountains that we have to blow the top off of, reduces the landfill waste, reduces large amounts of SO2 (less scrubbing necessary), and saves a little of Carbon emissions as a bonus.  Without some data, it seems moot to argue about the 700,000 homes/year, so it might be 500,000 or 800,000 who really cares, let's not miss the point, which is not carbon sequestering.

barnaclebill
User Rank
Iron
Carbon emissions
barnaclebill   8/10/2012 2:24:36 PM
NO RATINGS
The carbon emissons are only 1.5 % ?  that is pitiful.   This is probably within experimental error.  why bother with this approach?   Is SO2 that big an issue to scrub?   I suggest it is misleading to take huge landfill numbers and mulitply by some small possible not even real % and claim that recovering energy from SRF s is equal to 700,000 homes /yr.  

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: ready for the masses?
Ann R. Thryft   8/10/2012 12:57:15 PM
NO RATINGS
Nadine, to clarify, these do not use recyclables, but items that can't be recycled. To answer your question, during the reporting for this feature article on fuels from plastic: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=242808 I learned from industry experts that solid recovery fuel (SRF) and/or refuse derived fuel (RDF) processes, which mix paper with plastic, are more common in Europe, but not yet so in North America. I also learned that, in general, because there's much less landfill space--due to much smaller geography and higher population density per square mile--Europe is farther along in R&D and also deployment of turning plastics into fuel, meaning prevalence, not scale of deployment.

NadineJ
User Rank
Platinum
Re: ready for the masses?
NadineJ   8/10/2012 12:42:10 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for the clarification on the different processes Ann.  I was referring to the fact that both use post-consumer trash or recyclables to make fuel.  I should have been clearer. 

How is Europe ahead of North America using this?  I haven't heard of any large-scale use of this type of fuel.

Most new or expanded landfills in the US are placed in extremely poor communities.  I don't think we have the space.  I think it's that marginalized areas are easily manipulated here.  It's hard to focus on protecting the environment when the kids are hungry.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: ready for the masses?
Ann R. Thryft   8/10/2012 12:08:03 PM
Thanks, Nadine. This is a different type of fuel than JBI makes. It's a solid recovered fuel (SRF) that mixes plastic and other waste, mostly paper-based, via compression into pellets that can be burned. As we reported here
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=242808
JBI does something quite different: plastics to fuel (PTF) using pyrolysis (thermochemical, not burning), which creates fuel oil out of plastics via chemical, not mechanical, processes. Regarding commercialization, I don't think anything in particular is keeping these technologies from the market. They've all been in R&D for awhile and are in process of being scaled up. North America is considerably behind Europe in this field, partly because (I've been told) we've had more room for landfills so less motivation.

NadineJ
User Rank
Platinum
ready for the masses?
NadineJ   8/9/2012 6:05:06 PM
NO RATINGS
Nice article.  This sounds similar to what JBI Inc does in Canada.  There's been a lot of research and breakthroughs in this but very little implementation.

What's preventing this from getting out into the market?  Or, at least used/purchased by governments or large corporations who can be innovators.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good for the environment, but what about safety?
Ann R. Thryft   8/9/2012 1:52:05 PM
NO RATINGS
The idea is to use a resource that's being wasted and would otherwise end up producing C02, plus get a cleaner-burning fuel. SRF is more common in Europe and other countries, but less so in the US, as we discuss here
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=242808

Beth Stackpole
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good for the environment, but what about safety?
Beth Stackpole   8/9/2012 1:20:36 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for clarifying Ann. That makes much more sense, and with the comparison to being cleaner than coal burning, sounds like this could have a bright future.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good for the environment, but what about safety?
Ann R. Thryft   8/9/2012 12:02:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Beth, SRF is created by compression, not by burning. The emissions discussed here are from the normal operation of the cement kiln, not from creating the fuel. Cement kiln emissions were lower using this fuel than using coal.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Good for the environment, but what about safety?
Rob Spiegel   8/9/2012 11:53:42 AM
NO RATINGS
Interesting story, Ann. I agree with Beth about not wanting to breathe in plastic residue, but it sounds the emissions are cleaner than coal, which we're already breathing in.

Page 1/2  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
During a teardown of the iPad Air and Microsoft Surface Pro 3 at the Medical Design & Manufacturing Show in Schaumburg, Ill., an engineer showed this "inflammatory" video about the dangers of maliciously mishandling lithium-ion batteries.
The Window Watcher stops the burglar before he does damage or enters the house. House alarm service companies set off alarms and call the service only after the burglar has damaged and entered the house.
If you’re designing a handheld device or industrial machine that will employ a user interface, then you’ll want to check out the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center course, "Engineering Principles Behind Advanced User Interface Technologies.”
Brooke Williams of Texas Instruments explains how TI’s new TDA3x chip will help future vehicles “see” all around themselves.
It's been two years since the Mac Mini's last appearance on iFixit's teardown table, but a newly revised version joins Apple's lineup this week.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
10/7/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
9/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
9/10/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 20 - 24, How to Design & Build an Embedded Web Server: An Embedded TCP/IP Tutorial
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: 10/28-10/30 11:00 AM
Sponsored by Stratasys
Next Class: 10/28-10/30 2:00 PM
Sponsored by Gates Corporation
Next Class: 11/11-11/13 2:00 PM
Sponsored by Littelfuse
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service