Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste 4/13/2017 March 2012 Plasma Arc Gasification of Solid Waste A member company of Georgia Tech’s Advanced Technology Development Center Applied Plasma Arc Technologies, LLC P.O. Box 950211 Atlanta, GA 30377-0211 www.plasmatech.us ©2012 APAT v3.0

What is PLASMA? “Fourth State” of matter Ionized gas at high temperature capable of conducting electrical current Lightning is an example from nature

Characteristics of Plasma Arc Technology Temperatures 4,000°C to over 7,000°C Torch power levels from 100 kW to 200 MW produce high energy densities (up to 100 MW/m3) Torch operates with most gases Air most common A gasification and/or a vitrification (melting) process Not an incineration process Permits in-situ operation in subterranean boreholes

Plasma arc technology is ideally suited for waste treatment Organic compounds (MSW, hazardous, toxic) broken down to elemental constituents by high temperatures Gasified Converted to fuel gases (H2 & CO) Acid gases readily neutralized Inorganic materials (glass, metals, soils, etc.) melted and immobilized in a rock-like vitrified mass which is highly resistant to leaching P

Plasma Arc Technology Remediation Facts No other remediation technology can achieve the sustained temperature levels (> 7000°C) or energy densities (up to 100 MW/m3) All known contaminants can be effectively treated or remediated Contaminated soil, rock, and landfill deposits can be readily converted to an inert rock-like material suitable for construction

Plasma Gasification of MSW Torch Power 120 kWh 1 ton MSW 75 ft3 Gas Cleaning Fuel Gas 30,000 ft3 Rock Residue Weight: 400 lb Volume: 2 ft3 800 kWh Gravel Aggregate Bricks

Plasma Gasification of MSW Notional Heat Balance Heating Value Output Electricity Heat Input = 28.6 Coke 0.8 MBtu Air – 0.56 MBtu Gas Heat Energy 2.94 MBtu MSW 1 Ton – 11.31 MBtu Product Gas 51,600SCF Heating Value = 8.79MBTU PLASMA GASIFIER Losses 0.95 MBtu Electricity 0.12 MWHr – 0.41 MBtu

Net Electricity to Grid (kWh/ton MSW) (2) Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – to – Electricity Thermal Process Comparisons Net Electricity to Grid (kWh/ton MSW) (2) Plasma Advantage Process (1) Plasma Arc Gasification Conventional Gasification - Fixed/Fluidized Bed Technologies Pyrolysis & Gasification - Thermoselect Technology Pyrolysis - Mitsui R21 Technology Incineration - Mass Burn Technology 816 685 571 544 - 20% 40% 50% (1) 300 – 3,600 TPD of MSW (2) Steam Turbine Power Generation Reference: EFW Technology Overview, The Regional Municipality of Halton, Submitted by Genivar, URS, Ramboll, Jacques Whitford & Deloitte, Ontario, Canada, May 30, 2007

Plasma WTE Emission Control Systems Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) System: Removes fly ash and heavy metals Fabric Filter (FF) System: Removes ~95% of particulate matter (PM) Removes heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc.) Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) System: Removes ~99.99% of mercury Reduces ~98% of dioxins Spray Dryer (SD) System: Lime and water injection to remove acid gases Removes most remaining mercury Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) System: Ammonia (NH3) injection to convert NOx into nitrogen and water Plasma WTE plant emissions will be cleaner than natural gas emissions from domestic household gas stoves.

Pounds of CO2 Emissions per MWH of Electricity Produced Pounds CO2/MWH MSW Incineration Coal 3,000 Plasma Natural Gas 2,000 1,000 Oil 2,988 (1) 2,249 (1) 1,672 (1) 1,419 (2) 1,135 (1) Power Generation Process (1) EPA Document: www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/emissions.htm (2) Complete Conversion of Carbon to CO2; MSW Material & Heat Balance, Westinghouse Plasma Corp.

MSW Solid Byproducts Air Cooling (Gravel) Water Cooling (Sand) Molten Stream Processing (Product) Air Cooling (Gravel) Water Cooling (Sand) Water Cooling (Metal Nodules) Air Blown (“Plasma Wool”) Salable Product Uses Coarse Aggregate (roads, concrete, asphalt) Fine Aggregate (concrete, asphalt, concrete products) Recyclable metals Insulation, sound proofing, agriculture

Plasma WTE Processing -- An Ultimate MSW Disposal System ? Accept all solid and liquid wastes No preprocessing Can include hazardous/toxic materials, medical wastes, asbestos, tires, etc. Closed loop system No direct gaseous emissions to the atmosphere No landfill requirements Total waste reclamation Recover fuel value of wastes Produce salable residues (e.g., metals and aggregates)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Studies: Conclusions WTE power plants produce electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity MSW is the only important WTE materials stream, up to 4% of the nation’s electrical energy demand Significant greenhouse gas emissions savings. For each ton of waste processed in WTE units, more than 1 ton of CO2 equivalent emissions are avoided (from landfills and combustion of fossil fuels). WTE is preferred over landfilling waste.

Commercial Project: Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at Mihama-Mikata, Japan converts unprocessed MSW and WWTP Sludge to fuel gas, sand-size aggregate, and mixed metal nodules. Commissioned in 2002 at Mihama-Mikata, Japan by Hitachi Metals, LTD Gasifies 24 TPD of MSW & 4 TPD of sewage sludge Produces steam and hot water for local industries

Commercial Project: Plasma Gasification of MSW in Japan The Plasma Direct Melting Reactor (PDMR) at Utashinai, Japan converts unprocessed MSW and ASR to electricity, sand-size aggregate, and mixed metal nodules Commissioned in 2002 at Utashinai, Japan by Hitachi Metals, LTD Original Design – gasification of 170 TPD of Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) Current Design – Gasification of approximately 300 TPD of MSW Generates up to 7.9 MW of electricity with ~4.3 MW to grid

Plasma WTE Project (Florida) Geoplasma, LLC St. Lucie County, Florida Feedstock: 600 TPD MSW Energy: 22 MW to the grid Capital Cost (est.): $120 Million Start Date: 2012 (2 year project)* * Permitted for construction

Plasma WTE Project (Iowa) Plasma Power, LLC Marion/Cedar Rapids/Linn County, IA Feedstock: 250 TPD MSW * Energy (est.): 47 MW to grid Capital Cost (est.): $100 Million Start Date: 2012 (2 year project) * Syngas is supplemented with natural gas.

Plasma WTE Project (Alabama) Coskata, Inc. Boligee/Green County, AL Feedstock: 1,500 TPD Wood Biomass Energy: 150,000 gallons/day Ethanol Capital Cost (est.): $500 Million* Start Date: TBD * $88 Million USDA Loan Guarantee

Plasma WTE Demonstration Plants Plasco (Ottawa, Canada) 94 TPD MSW to Power (1MWH/ton) 30 month demo completed in Jan 2011 Several commercial projects under consideration Europlasma (Bordeaux, France) 150 TPD MSW & Biomass (12 MW to the grid) Completion in 2012

Capital Costs: Incineration vs. Plasma Gasification Facilities Incineration-Only and Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facilities

22

Plasma Processing at Fossil Fuel Power Plants Equipment Eliminated Combustion Chamber Hot gas Coal Ash Feed to Plasma System MSW Biomass Coal Wastes Steam Option

Collocated Plasma WTE & Fossil Fuel Power Plants: A “WIN – WIN” Collaboration Fossil Fuel Power Plant Benefits Significant Cost Savings Reduced fossil fuels, emissions, and landfilling More efficient fossil fuel combustion Low cost MSW process gas Reduced pollution control equipment Plasma Processing of Contaminated Coal Ash Permanent elimination of potentially hazardous conditions (no landfilling) Some WTE potential and salable byproducts MSW Plasma Plant Benefits Capital Costs / O&M Costs Reduced >50% Plasma WTE becomes a highly profitable enterprise Tipping fees Energy Production Solid by-product sales

Zero Waste The recycling of all materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment Under the goals of Zero Waste, all materials leaving the coal plants will be recycled, and emissions will meet all environmental regulations by wide margins Significant power plant cost savings Utilization of waste feedstocks Reduced pollution control equipment Coal ash conversion into salable construction materials

Landfill Remediation Concept

Potential In-Situ Landfill Remediation Equipment (based on an older DOE technology)

Commercial Plasma Waste Processing Facilities (Asia) Location Waste Capacity (TPD) Start Date Mihama-Mikata, JP MSW/WWTP Sludge 28 2002 Utashinai, JP MSW/ASR 300 Kinuura, JP MSW Ash 50 1995 Kakogawa, JP 30 2003 Shimonoseki, JP 41 Imizu, JP 12 Maizuru, JP 6 Iizuka, JP Industrial 10 2004 Osaka, JP PCBs 4 2006 Taipei, TW Medical & Batteries 2005

Commercial Plasma Waste Processing Facilities (Europe & North America) Location Waste Capacity (TPD) Start Date Bordeaux, FR MSW ash 10 1998 Morcenx, FR Asbestos 22 2001 Bergen, NO Tannery 15 Landskrona, SW Fly ash 200 1983 Jonquiere, Canada Aluminum dross 50 1991 Ottawa, Canada MSW 85 2007 (demonstration) Anniston, AL Catalytic converters 24 1985 Honolulu, HI Medical 1 Hawthorne, NV Munitions 2006 Alpoca, WV Ammunition 2003 U.S. Navy Shipboard 7 2004 U.S. Army Chemical Agents

Summary and Conclusions Plasma processing has unique treatment capabilities unequaled by existing technologies Plasma processing of MSW has the potential to supply ~5-8% of U.S. electricity needs It may be more cost-effective to take MSW to a plasma facility for energy production than to dump it in a landfill When fully developed, it may become cost-effective to mine existing landfills for energy production Plasma processing of MSW in the U.S. could: Significantly reduce the MSW disposal problem Significantly alleviate the energy crisis Reduce or eliminate the need for landfills