This document discusses how solid recovered fuels (SRFs) can be produced from non-recycled waste materials like plastics and used to replace coal. It notes that over 50% of US waste ends up in landfills and that SRFs could reduce this by 10% by turning waste into a fuel. The document outlines a study where SRF pellets made from materials that cannot be recycled were burned in a cement kiln, replacing some coal. The results showed SRFs have potential to displace fossil fuels but some hurdles remain.
KKKH4284 URBAN PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
TASK 6 : GLOBAL WARMING
LECTURERS :
PROF. IR. DR. RIZA ATIQ ABDULLAH O.K RAHMAT
DR. NAZRI BORHAN
DR. NORLIZA MOHD AKHIR
KKKH4284 URBAN PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
TASK 6 : GLOBAL WARMING
LECTURERS :
PROF. IR. DR. RIZA ATIQ ABDULLAH O.K RAHMAT
DR. NAZRI BORHAN
DR. NORLIZA MOHD AKHIR
Green fuel, also known as biofuel, is a type of fuel distilled from plants and animal materials, believed by some to be more environmentally friendly than the widely-used fossil fuels that power most of the world. In the desperate search for alternative energy sources, green fuel has evolved as a possible fueling option as the world drains its fossil fuel resources.
Analysis on municipal solid waste pellets makingJossie Xiong
The calorific value of raw MSW is around 1000 kcal/kg while that of fuel pellets is 4000 kcal/kg. On an average, about 15–20 tons of fuel pellets can be produced after treatment of 100 tons of raw garbage.
Composting,
vermicomposting, biogas production, thermal treatment, incineration,
pyrolysis, gasification, biological treatment, Sanitary land filling, land fill leachate and gas management Latest Advances and Rules related to SWM, Hazardous Waste,
Plastic Waste and E-Waste Management
Point-CounterpointTo Incinerate or Not to IncinerateRich.docxLeilaniPoolsy
Point-Counterpoint
To Incinerate or Not to Incinerate
Richard Gilbert and Mark Winfield debate the burning issue.
Richard Gilbert opens
WASTE IS WHAT we have used and have no further usefor. Incinerating waste, I believe, is a better environ-
mental solution than landfilling.
Only a limited amount of waste occurs in nature. Animals
produce waste in the form of faeces, which, in turn, provide
nutrients for other parts of the ecosystem. In contrast, we
humans appropriate and discard major material flows beyond
what is required for our metabolism and beyond what our local
ecosystems can handle.
The first objective of a waste management system should be
to reduce material flows and thus potential waste. This reduc-
tion, in turn, can lower the likelihood of risks to human health
and environmental problems.When the cost of managing waste
is high, which is often the case with incineration, it encourages
a reduction in the flow of material.
The second objective should be material reuse, which
includes recycling. Because it is more costly, incineration can
facilitate recycling. It also results in reuse when ferrous materi-
als are readily extracted from ash.
Data back up the compatibility of incineration and recy-
cling. If you look at tbe wealth of information in "The State of
Garbage in America," an article published in the January 2004
issue of Biocycle, you can readily figure out that the median
recycling rate in US states where there was some incineration
was much higher than in states with no incineration (29 versus
10 per cent).
In many places, combustion of materials with energy recov-
ery is regarded as reuse, leaving what is sent to landfill as the
"High costs for incineration and landfill
can be a good thing if they reduce
material flows, and encourage or even
subsidize recycling."
- R.C.
only true waste. European Union directives require the avoid-
ance of landfill for all but non-combustible waste. Denmark is
closest to this ideal. In 2003, according to the European linvi-
ronment Agency, Danes incinerated 60 per cent of their house-
hold waste, reused or recycled 31 per cent and landfiUed six per
cent.
Reasons to avoid landfilling include its high environmental
cost and impact on human health. A 1999 Ontario government
study suggested that the cancer risk from living near a landfill
was about 100 times that of living near an incinerator. Differ-
ences for other health risks were less dramatic, but were still
higher for landfill than for incineration. A 2005 study in New
York City had similar findings, noting that the longer trucking
distances associated with landfill present additional health
risks.
Landfills also produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As
a result, a landfill's contribution to global warming is between
45 and 115 times greater than incineration on a per-tonne-of-
waste basis, depending on the extent of methane collection in
the landfill.
But the strongest criticisms levelled against incineration
Altern.
Green fuel, also known as biofuel, is a type of fuel distilled from plants and animal materials, believed by some to be more environmentally friendly than the widely-used fossil fuels that power most of the world. In the desperate search for alternative energy sources, green fuel has evolved as a possible fueling option as the world drains its fossil fuel resources.
Analysis on municipal solid waste pellets makingJossie Xiong
The calorific value of raw MSW is around 1000 kcal/kg while that of fuel pellets is 4000 kcal/kg. On an average, about 15–20 tons of fuel pellets can be produced after treatment of 100 tons of raw garbage.
Composting,
vermicomposting, biogas production, thermal treatment, incineration,
pyrolysis, gasification, biological treatment, Sanitary land filling, land fill leachate and gas management Latest Advances and Rules related to SWM, Hazardous Waste,
Plastic Waste and E-Waste Management
Point-CounterpointTo Incinerate or Not to IncinerateRich.docxLeilaniPoolsy
Point-Counterpoint
To Incinerate or Not to Incinerate
Richard Gilbert and Mark Winfield debate the burning issue.
Richard Gilbert opens
WASTE IS WHAT we have used and have no further usefor. Incinerating waste, I believe, is a better environ-
mental solution than landfilling.
Only a limited amount of waste occurs in nature. Animals
produce waste in the form of faeces, which, in turn, provide
nutrients for other parts of the ecosystem. In contrast, we
humans appropriate and discard major material flows beyond
what is required for our metabolism and beyond what our local
ecosystems can handle.
The first objective of a waste management system should be
to reduce material flows and thus potential waste. This reduc-
tion, in turn, can lower the likelihood of risks to human health
and environmental problems.When the cost of managing waste
is high, which is often the case with incineration, it encourages
a reduction in the flow of material.
The second objective should be material reuse, which
includes recycling. Because it is more costly, incineration can
facilitate recycling. It also results in reuse when ferrous materi-
als are readily extracted from ash.
Data back up the compatibility of incineration and recy-
cling. If you look at tbe wealth of information in "The State of
Garbage in America," an article published in the January 2004
issue of Biocycle, you can readily figure out that the median
recycling rate in US states where there was some incineration
was much higher than in states with no incineration (29 versus
10 per cent).
In many places, combustion of materials with energy recov-
ery is regarded as reuse, leaving what is sent to landfill as the
"High costs for incineration and landfill
can be a good thing if they reduce
material flows, and encourage or even
subsidize recycling."
- R.C.
only true waste. European Union directives require the avoid-
ance of landfill for all but non-combustible waste. Denmark is
closest to this ideal. In 2003, according to the European linvi-
ronment Agency, Danes incinerated 60 per cent of their house-
hold waste, reused or recycled 31 per cent and landfiUed six per
cent.
Reasons to avoid landfilling include its high environmental
cost and impact on human health. A 1999 Ontario government
study suggested that the cancer risk from living near a landfill
was about 100 times that of living near an incinerator. Differ-
ences for other health risks were less dramatic, but were still
higher for landfill than for incineration. A 2005 study in New
York City had similar findings, noting that the longer trucking
distances associated with landfill present additional health
risks.
Landfills also produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As
a result, a landfill's contribution to global warming is between
45 and 115 times greater than incineration on a per-tonne-of-
waste basis, depending on the extent of methane collection in
the landfill.
But the strongest criticisms levelled against incineration
Altern.
Global warming is the theory that we as humans are
increasing greenhouse gases through industrialization causing more gases and the increasing the amount of sunlight that gets caught and heats the earth.
Global warming is the theory that we as humans are
increasing greenhouse gases through industrialization causing more gases and the increasing the amount of sunlight that gets caught and heats the earth.
"Recycling our waste, be it on a small scale in the home or office or on a large scale like the nation’s landfills will potentially cut millions of dollars a year – millions of dollars that can be put into other important programs. Is recycling cost-effective? It saves tax money and has potential to pay you for your old electronics and junk. From analysis, it would seem so.
This is from an article that appeared on All Green Website: http://www.allgreenrecycling.com/blog/is-recycling-cost-effective/"
مقاله علمی فیزیک از دکـترحـمیدرضــاجلالیان به مرکزتحقیقات علوم یونسکو مقاله ع...Dr.Hamidreza Jalalian
مقاله علمی فیزیک از دکـترحـمیدرضــاجلالیان به مرکزتحقیقات علوم یونسکو مقاله علمی فیزیک از دکـترحـمیدرضــاجلالیان به مرکزتحقیقات علوم یونسکو
-------------------------------------------------
BY:Dr.HAMIDREZA JALALIAN,*
1Editor In Chief, Electronic Physician, Mashhad, Iran
2Infectious and Topical Diseases Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences
Nuclear Fuel Plants
نیروگاه هسته ای- تیپ یک – دکـترحـمیدرضا جلالیان
از مهمترین منابع استفاده صلح آمیز از انرژی اتمی ، ساخت راکتورهای هستهای جهت تولید برق میباشد. راکتور هستهای وسیلهای است که در آن فرآیند شکافت هستهای بصورت کنترل شده انجام میگیرد. در طی این فرآیند انرژی زیاد آزاد میگردد به نحوی که مثلا در اثر شکافت نیم کیلوگرم اورانیوم انرژی معادل بیش از ۱۵۰۰ تن زغال سنگ بدست میآید
راکتورهای هسته ای.دکترحمیدرضاجلالیان...dr.Hamidreza Jalalian
از مهمترین منابع استفاده صلح آمیزازانرژی اتمی ، ساخت راکتورهای هستهای جهت تولید برق میباشد. راکتور هستهای وسیلهای است که در آن فرآیند شکافت هستهای بصورت کنترل شده انجام میگیرد. در طی این فرآیند انرژی زیاد آزاد میگردد به نحوی که مثلا در اثر شکافت نیم کیلوگرم اورانیوم انرژی معادل بیش از ۱۵۰۰ تن زغال سنگ بدست میآید.
Second type turbo jet engines by dr.Hamidreza Jalalian
( Jet Engin)
موتور جت:دکترحمیدرضاجلالیان
موتور جت نوعی موتور است که از شتاب دادن و تخلیه شاره برای ایجاد رانش برپایه قانون سوم نیوتن استفاده میکند.
Dr.Hamidreza Jalalian Born July 25, 1339 in Tehran, graduated from the University of Berkeley in 1982 and graduated from Stanford University in 1983, a Ph.D. in Energy Conversion and Quantum Mechanics, a Ph.D. in Plasma, a Ph.D. in Mechanical Science, a Ph.D. in Harvard University Space Science Quantum Mechanisms, Royal College of English, Researchers at UNESCO, a researcher at Berkeley University, a Stanford University researcher at Harvard University
Dr.Hamidreza Jalalian Born July 25, 1339 in Tehran, graduated from the University of Berkeley in 1982 and graduated from Stanford University in 1983, a Ph.D. in Energy Conversion and Quantum Mechanics, a Ph.D. in Plasma, a Ph.D. in Mechanical Science, a Ph.D. in Harvard University Space Science Quantum Mechanisms, Royal College of English, Researchers at UNESCO, a researcher at Berkeley University, a Stanford University researcher at Harvard University
Dr.Hamidreza Jalalian Born July 25, 1339 in Tehran, graduated from the University of Berkeley in 1982 and graduated from Stanford University in 1983, a Ph.D. in Energy Conversion and Quantum Mechanics, a Ph.D. in Plasma, a Ph.D. in Mechanical Science, a Ph.D. in Harvard University Space Science Quantum Mechanisms, Royal College of English, Researchers at UNESCO, a researcher at Berkeley University, a Stanford University researcher at Harvard University
Immunizing Image Classifiers Against Localized Adversary Attacksgerogepatton
This paper addresses the vulnerability of deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks
(CNN)s, to adversarial attacks and presents a proactive training technique designed to counter them. We
introduce a novel volumization algorithm, which transforms 2D images into 3D volumetric representations.
When combined with 3D convolution and deep curriculum learning optimization (CLO), itsignificantly improves
the immunity of models against localized universal attacks by up to 40%. We evaluate our proposed approach
using contemporary CNN architectures and the modified Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR-10
and CIFAR-100) and ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC12) datasets, showcasing
accuracy improvements over previous techniques. The results indicate that the combination of the volumetric
input and curriculum learning holds significant promise for mitigating adversarial attacks without necessitating
adversary training.
Harnessing WebAssembly for Real-time Stateless Streaming PipelinesChristina Lin
Traditionally, dealing with real-time data pipelines has involved significant overhead, even for straightforward tasks like data transformation or masking. However, in this talk, we’ll venture into the dynamic realm of WebAssembly (WASM) and discover how it can revolutionize the creation of stateless streaming pipelines within a Kafka (Redpanda) broker. These pipelines are adept at managing low-latency, high-data-volume scenarios.
Hybrid optimization of pumped hydro system and solar- Engr. Abdul-Azeez.pdffxintegritypublishin
Advancements in technology unveil a myriad of electrical and electronic breakthroughs geared towards efficiently harnessing limited resources to meet human energy demands. The optimization of hybrid solar PV panels and pumped hydro energy supply systems plays a pivotal role in utilizing natural resources effectively. This initiative not only benefits humanity but also fosters environmental sustainability. The study investigated the design optimization of these hybrid systems, focusing on understanding solar radiation patterns, identifying geographical influences on solar radiation, formulating a mathematical model for system optimization, and determining the optimal configuration of PV panels and pumped hydro storage. Through a comparative analysis approach and eight weeks of data collection, the study addressed key research questions related to solar radiation patterns and optimal system design. The findings highlighted regions with heightened solar radiation levels, showcasing substantial potential for power generation and emphasizing the system's efficiency. Optimizing system design significantly boosted power generation, promoted renewable energy utilization, and enhanced energy storage capacity. The study underscored the benefits of optimizing hybrid solar PV panels and pumped hydro energy supply systems for sustainable energy usage. Optimizing the design of solar PV panels and pumped hydro energy supply systems as examined across diverse climatic conditions in a developing country, not only enhances power generation but also improves the integration of renewable energy sources and boosts energy storage capacities, particularly beneficial for less economically prosperous regions. Additionally, the study provides valuable insights for advancing energy research in economically viable areas. Recommendations included conducting site-specific assessments, utilizing advanced modeling tools, implementing regular maintenance protocols, and enhancing communication among system components.
Final project report on grocery store management system..pdfKamal Acharya
In today’s fast-changing business environment, it’s extremely important to be able to respond to client needs in the most effective and timely manner. If your customers wish to see your business online and have instant access to your products or services.
Online Grocery Store is an e-commerce website, which retails various grocery products. This project allows viewing various products available enables registered users to purchase desired products instantly using Paytm, UPI payment processor (Instant Pay) and also can place order by using Cash on Delivery (Pay Later) option. This project provides an easy access to Administrators and Managers to view orders placed using Pay Later and Instant Pay options.
In order to develop an e-commerce website, a number of Technologies must be studied and understood. These include multi-tiered architecture, server and client-side scripting techniques, implementation technologies, programming language (such as PHP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript) and MySQL relational databases. This is a project with the objective to develop a basic website where a consumer is provided with a shopping cart website and also to know about the technologies used to develop such a website.
This document will discuss each of the underlying technologies to create and implement an e- commerce website.
CW RADAR, FMCW RADAR, FMCW ALTIMETER, AND THEIR PARAMETERSveerababupersonal22
It consists of cw radar and fmcw radar ,range measurement,if amplifier and fmcw altimeterThe CW radar operates using continuous wave transmission, while the FMCW radar employs frequency-modulated continuous wave technology. Range measurement is a crucial aspect of radar systems, providing information about the distance to a target. The IF amplifier plays a key role in signal processing, amplifying intermediate frequency signals for further analysis. The FMCW altimeter utilizes frequency-modulated continuous wave technology to accurately measure altitude above a reference point.
Sachpazis:Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Estimation in simple terms with Calculati...Dr.Costas Sachpazis
Terzaghi's soil bearing capacity theory, developed by Karl Terzaghi, is a fundamental principle in geotechnical engineering used to determine the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. This theory provides a method to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of soil, which is the maximum load per unit area that the soil can support without undergoing shear failure. The Calculation HTML Code included.
We have compiled the most important slides from each speaker's presentation. This year’s compilation, available for free, captures the key insights and contributions shared during the DfMAy 2024 conference.
Water billing management system project report.pdfKamal Acharya
Our project entitled “Water Billing Management System” aims is to generate Water bill with all the charges and penalty. Manual system that is employed is extremely laborious and quite inadequate. It only makes the process more difficult and hard.
The aim of our project is to develop a system that is meant to partially computerize the work performed in the Water Board like generating monthly Water bill, record of consuming unit of water, store record of the customer and previous unpaid record.
We used HTML/PHP as front end and MYSQL as back end for developing our project. HTML is primarily a visual design environment. We can create a android application by designing the form and that make up the user interface. Adding android application code to the form and the objects such as buttons and text boxes on them and adding any required support code in additional modular.
MySQL is free open source database that facilitates the effective management of the databases by connecting them to the software. It is a stable ,reliable and the powerful solution with the advanced features and advantages which are as follows: Data Security.MySQL is free open source database that facilitates the effective management of the databases by connecting them to the software.
Water billing management system project report.pdf
Garbage treasure
1.
2. Garbage Treasure: Turning Non-Recycled
Waste into Low-Carbon Fuel
By.Dr.Hamidreza Jalalian
Americans produce more than four pounds of trash per person per day, amounting to 20
percent of the world’s waste. Although recycling rates have increased over the past few
decades — out of the 4.4 pounds of trash (per capita) that we produce in the U.S. each day,
we compost or recycle about 1.5 pounds and incinerate another 0.5 pounds — more than 50
percent of our waste still ends up buried in landfills. Now, through the use of a novel energy
recovery technique, we could reduce the amount that is sent to landfills by about 10 percent
and produce a fuel that is relatively clean and more energy dense than coal. Materials that
were considered garbage for generations are now being recognized for what they still offer
after their useful life — valuable energy resources capable of solving multiple problems at
once. Trash can become treasure.
Producing energy from trash is known as a “waste-to-energy” option. Several such options
have existed for many years and are in extensive use throughout Europe and limited use in
the United States. One of the more exciting options that has been proposed within the last
decade is to convert waste into solid recovered fuels, or SRFs. SRFs are engineered blends of
nonrecycled waste condensed into fuel pellets or cubes.
This opportunity is particularly appealing for plastics that are hard to recycle, decompose
slowly in landfills, and have higher energy density than coal — baby diapers, for example.
Although diapers serve an important purpose during the normal product cycle, once they have
been used they are too complex to economically recycle, and as a consequence they are
typically discarded, where they remain for what we expect will be thousands of years.
Although they are almost certain to be an interesting archaeological find many centuries from
now, today they could make a great fuel. That invites the broader question of how many other
nonrecycled plastics could be turned into fuels instead of wasted in landfills.
It’s a question our team at the University of Texas at Austin decided to examine. Wanting to
see the real-world capabilities of SRFs, we worked with partners in the plastics, recycling,
pelletizing and cement industries to conduct an experiment in which nonrecycled waste was
processed into SRF pellets. This SRF was then burned in a cement kiln, a process that
normally uses a lot of coal and other fossil fuels; the SRFs replaced a fraction of these fuels.
The experiment’s results demonstrate the potential for SRFs to displace fossil fuels for
energy, but they also reveal some initial hurdles that must be overcome before SRFs can
become a large-scale reality.
The Hierarchy of Trash
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has created a waste management hierarchy to
highlight the ideal method of dealing with solid waste. The old adage of “reduce, reuse,
3. recycle” still holds true as the most preferred path to manage our waste, but not all
recyclables are clean enough or well-enough separated to be economically recovered.
For example, many regions in the U.S. have started switching to single-stream recycling
where all recyclable materials are mixed in a single bin at home. This trend made it easier for
homeowners and businesses to recycle their waste. The commingled recyclables are taken to
a materials recovery facility where the commodities are separated and sold to recycling
facilities or sent to landfills. Although single-stream recycling has contributed to the increase
in overall recycling rates in the U.S., it unfortunately makes it easier for paper or plastics to
become contaminated by other materials like food and liquids in the recycling stream, making
them unfit for sale to recyclers.
Because of contamination and imperfect sorting, between 5 and 25 percent of a materials
recovery facility’s incoming recyclables are discarded and sent to landfills. The waste, called
“residue” in the waste management business, is a valuable mixture of paper and plastics that
is currently lost to the ground. And this is where SRFs come in, taking advantage of an
energy-dense waste stream that can be recovered to provide economic, environmental and
resource conservation benefits.
Our Waste-to-Energy Options
Currently, there are several viable waste-to-energy options, ranging from low-tech to modern.
Mass incineration — the simple process of burning trash to make heat or electricity — has
been used for decades. Furthermore, this technology has made progress recently to alleviate
many of the environmental concerns over the emissions from burning trash. Unfortunately,
incineration is not always complementary to recycling because they sometimes draw on some
of the same materials. It is also very expensive to build new highly specialized incinerators
with the necessary advanced emissions control systems required by environmental
regulations. Therefore its prospects for expanded operation are hard to predict.
Another potential solution for recovering energy from waste is pyrolysis, in which plastics
are thermally processed to molecularly break them down into the building blocks of fuels that
can then be processed into gases, oils or even high-quality liquid fuels that could be used in
place of gasoline. There is a strong desire for alternative energy sources to displace petroleum
in liquid fuels markets, making pyrolysis an appealing option. Several companies in the U.S.
and Europe have recently commercialized pyrolysis techniques, and many more are in the
initial testing phases. However, the incoming material typically must be high-quality
homogeneous streams of plastics, making it an unlikely solution (with today’s technology)
for the mixed residue stream coming from materials recovery and recycling facilities.
Because of these challenges, SRFs — which integrate the energy recovery piece of the puzzle
with the reuse and recycle pieces and enable us to alleviate environmental problems while
still recovering the recyclable materials — look to be like a pretty good bet. Producing SRFs
from waste is not entirely new: Several American and European companies are already
producing quality pelletized fuel from trash. The novel idea that we pursued was to use the
materials from materials recovery facilities that cannot be economically recycled as a
feedstock to produce SRFs.
4. The Fuel
SRFs can be created by selectively mixing and shredding a blend of plastic and paper
materials and then densifying that blend into a solid form. The blending proportions and
densification process are engineered to produce SRFs with consistent and predictable
combustion and handling characteristics. The SRFs can be tailored to specific consumers or
produced on a mass scale as a fuel for many end-uses. In general, the fuels end up having
relatively high energy densities: Depending on the raw materials used, the energy content of
SRFs can be significantly higher than most types of coal. Consequently, SRFs can potentially
be integrated into processes that consume large amounts of coal, such as cement
manufacturing, or can be co-fired at current coal-fired power plants without distorting the
overall energy balances.
What makes residue-derived SRFs such adaptable and promising fuels is largely that the
paper and plastic content have relatively high energy densities and are abundant in the waste
stream. And for the most part, combustion of plastics is cleaner than many people think. Most
plastics produced in the U.S. are created by tying together building blocks of hydrocarbon
polymers, which are composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms, much like the fossil fuels from
which they are derived. Most plastics found in consumer products, ranging from deli
wrappers to diapers, can burn as clean as, and sometimes cleaner than, natural gas.
Of course, not all plastics are well suited to combustion. Some additives used in the
production of plastic or mixed in the final product (such as chlorine) can be harmful to the
environment if improperly combusted or emitted without scrubbing. Thus, attention must be
paid to ensure that the incoming materials used to produce SRFs are of suitable quality,
which in most cases means nothing more than sorting out problematic materials before the
production process begins.
Could it Replace Coal?
Coal is SRFs’ closest fossil fuel analog in terms of fuel content and handling characteristics.
U.S. consumers use nearly a billion tons of this nonrenewable fossil fuel every year for power
production, resulting in 2-plus billion megawatt-hours of power — and 2-plus billion metric
tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Another large end-user is the cement industry,
which consumes 10 million tons of coal annually and creates more than 80 million tons of
carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels and the chemical reactions used to make
cement. At the same time, the U.S. generates 250 million tons of municipal solid waste
annually, 102 million tons of which are nonrecycled plastics and paper products.
America’s appetite for energy and SRFs’ ability to displace coal create a synergistic solution.
SRFs derived from the residue of materials recovery facilities can conserve finite fossil fuel
resources by creating a domestic alternative to coal, all the while diverting more waste from
landfills and reducing greenhouse gas production. Meanwhile, using SRFs instead of coal
would also eliminate some of the other undesirable byproducts of coal production and
consumption, including indirect emissions from transporting the fuel across the country
(waste streams are usually transported much shorter distances), water risks caused by runoff
from mines, and land disturbances caused by surface mining.
SRFs in the Real World
5. To test the real-world capabilities of residue-derived SRFs, our research team at the
University of Texas (together with partners in the waste and cement sectors) conducted a
large-scale test burn and analysis of SRFs co-fired with fossil fuels in a cement kiln.
Seventy-five tons of residue from a materials recovery facility in Virginia were gathered and
combined with post-industrial waste products such as scrap plastics from a manufacturing
plant. The final product, a blend of residue and post-industrial waste in a 60:40 ratio,
contained mostly plastics and paper products. A fuel processing facility in Arkansas used this
waste to create 130 tons of SRFs in the form of pellets, which we then burned in the
precalciner portion of a cement kiln in Texas. The precalciner is a special combustion
chamber of a cement kiln that serves to pre-heat and de-carbonate raw materials before
entering the main kiln.
Our experimental results showed that the SRFs had a predictable energy content of about
12,500 British thermal units per pound (25 million Btu per ton). Bituminous coal, the type
normally used at this particular cement kiln, has almost exactly the same energy density,
leading to a nearly one-to-one displacement opportunity. The SRFs produced for our
experiment were also 40 percent more energy dense than sub-bituminous coals and 80
percent more so than lignite.
When the whole production, transportation and combustion life cycle of the SRFs is
considered, large fossil fuel energy savings can be realized. Our experiment lasted a few
days. Extrapolating the fossil fuel displacement rate of one ton per hour that we used in our
experimental demonstration over an entire year, SRFs would reduce total fossil fuel energy
use by 6 percent annually in the cement kiln. This reduction equates to about 9,000 tons of
coal, enough to provide electricity to 1,500 average U.S. homes for a year. Likewise, under
this scenario, carbon dioxide reductions of 14,000 tons per year are possible, largely from
reduced landfill gas production. This decrease is comparable to removing 2,800 cars from the
road. And that’s just one cement kiln.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 85 million tons of waste flows
through U.S. materials recovery facilities each day. When the magnitude of the resultant
residue stream is considered, the potential for energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions
is immense. The amount of SRF production that could be realized is enough to power nearly
a million homes and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5 million tons, equivalent to
removing 1.3 million cars from the road.
The Long Road Ahead
As successful as our experiment was at demonstrating the benefit of SRFs, it also revealed
how much remains to be done before the full potential of residue-derived SRFs can be
achieved.
First, new procedures must be established to thoroughly examine residue streams prior to use.
Residue from materials recovery facilities is a heterogeneous and relatively unpredictable
mixture of waste. Although most materials that end up in the residue stream are suitable for
combustion, others can compromise the quality of the SRFs by reducing the handling
characteristics, decreasing energy density, or producing undesired emissions when
combusted.
6. Second, more large-scale and long-term tests need to be conducted to develop a full
understanding of the challenges and cost-benefit comparison of producing SRFs from
materials recovery facility residue. For example, regional and seasonal variation in materials
recovery facility residue composition and availability can impact the economics and
technology used to produce SRFs, so they need to be well understood before bringing this
technology to market. In addition, higher feed rates should be tested to determine the
technical limits and further assess the potential for fossil fuel displacement.
Third, some regulatory policies should be reconsidered before SRFs become big business.
Currently there is no consensus on how to handle SRFs in the regulatory realm. In a policy
context, the term “waste-to-energy” is used as a catchall for many such technologies,
including SRFs. And across the U.S., waste-to-energy techniques have mixed support among
states. Some states support the technologies as a means of renewable energy generation,
whereas others reject them and most do not address them at all. Illinois, for example,
specifically rejects any solid waste-derived resource whereas others such as Montana, New
Mexico and Virginia have general incentive policies in place to promote municipal solid
waste as a renewable resource. Only Wisconsin currently addresses densified fuel pellets — a
term that encompasses SRFs and other less refined waste-derived fuel pellets — directly in
the state’s renewable portfolio standard.
This heterogeneous policy landscape hampers interstate business and can be a road-block to
investors trying to seize on new waste-to-energy opportunities. The lack of policies
specifically addressing emerging technologies such as SRFs and plastics-to-fuels suggests an
information gap between technology developers and policymakers. Fortunately, trends in
updating renewable portfolio standards to include waste-to-energy facilities and alternative
conversion processes as renewable technologies will lead to a better business environment for
companies pursuing energy recovery from solid waste.
Despite technical, social, political and economic hurdles, harnessing the energy content of
nonrecycled plastics and papers derived from materials recovery facility residue provides
many benefits while complementing regional recycling efforts. Displaced fossil fuels, landfill
avoidance, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions are just some of the advantages offered by
SRF production. As recycling rates continue to increase and SRF production techniques are
further refined, residue-derived SRFs will be an important resource to consider as one
solution to concerns about America’s long-term energy usage, resource conservation and
waste management. Now, the materials that even the recycling industry once considered trash
are quickly becoming a national treasure.
HamidrezaJalalian