A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
High‐temperature technology survey and comparison among incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification systems for water resource recovery facilities
Solids from wastewater treatment undergo processing to reduce mass, minimize pathogens, and condition the products for specific end uses. However, costs and contaminant concerns (e.g., per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]) challenge traditional landfill and land application practices. Incineration can overcome these issues but has become complicated due to evolving emissions regulations, and it suffers from poor public perception. These circumstances are driving the re‐emergence of pyrolysis and gasification technologies. A survey of suppliers was conducted to document differences with technologies. Both offer advantages over incineration with tailored production of a carbon‐rich solid, currently less stringent air emission requirements, and lower flue gas flows requiring treatment. However, incineration more simply combines drying and thermal processing into one reactor. Equipment costs provided favor pyrolysis and gasification at lower capacities but converge with incineration at higher capacities. Long‐term operational experience will confirm technology competitiveness and elucidate whether pyrolysis and gasification warrant widespread adoption. Pyrolysis and gasification systems are gaining traction in the wastewater industry with several full‐scale installations operating, in construction, or design Several advantages, but some disadvantages, are considered in comparison with incineration Organic contaminants, including PFAS, will undergo transformation and potentially complete mineralization through each process
High‐temperature technology survey and comparison among incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification systems for water resource recovery facilities
Solids from wastewater treatment undergo processing to reduce mass, minimize pathogens, and condition the products for specific end uses. However, costs and contaminant concerns (e.g., per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]) challenge traditional landfill and land application practices. Incineration can overcome these issues but has become complicated due to evolving emissions regulations, and it suffers from poor public perception. These circumstances are driving the re‐emergence of pyrolysis and gasification technologies. A survey of suppliers was conducted to document differences with technologies. Both offer advantages over incineration with tailored production of a carbon‐rich solid, currently less stringent air emission requirements, and lower flue gas flows requiring treatment. However, incineration more simply combines drying and thermal processing into one reactor. Equipment costs provided favor pyrolysis and gasification at lower capacities but converge with incineration at higher capacities. Long‐term operational experience will confirm technology competitiveness and elucidate whether pyrolysis and gasification warrant widespread adoption. Pyrolysis and gasification systems are gaining traction in the wastewater industry with several full‐scale installations operating, in construction, or design Several advantages, but some disadvantages, are considered in comparison with incineration Organic contaminants, including PFAS, will undergo transformation and potentially complete mineralization through each process
High‐temperature technology survey and comparison among incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification systems for water resource recovery facilities
Winchell, Lloyd J. (author) / Ross, John J. (author) / Brose, Dominic A. (author) / Pluth, Thaís B. (author) / Fonoll, Xavier (author) / Norton, John W. Jr. (author) / Bell, Katherine Y. (author)
2022-04-01
18 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
air emissions , energy , gasification , incineration , permitting , PFAS , pyrolysis , residuals , wastewater
A Survey of Medical Waste Pyrolysis and Incineration Treatment
| British Library Online Contents | 2010
| European Patent Office | 2020