Waste disposal

Turning garbage into gas

Atomising trash eliminates the need to dump it, and generates useful power too

See article

Readers' comments



The idea is sound and has been suggested and tested before.

The real problem over looked however is the large amount of material that ends up in the landfill in the first place or as waste. If efforts were made to reduce the amount of packaging we used ( this requires some effort by government to do its job and regulate ) as well as the types of materials ( banning toxic components and reducing Chlorine and composting organic material like kitchen scraps ) then conventional Imbert down draft gasification could handle residential garbage.

The real problem is not the garbage.
We are because we do not see the rubbish as money.
Every dollar wasted in packaging is a dollar lost.
If we had a program to reuse bottles and plastics without reprocessing then then we would generate less plastics, glass and natural fibre ( wood ) wastes.

All in all the idea of turning perfectly good virgin and recycled materials into packaging and them burning them is kind of like heating your home by burning paper money.
Now if you could buy glass bottles and containers at the local shops and refill them that would be more cost effective.


I have no idea of the merits of this technology; however, the idea that the metal sludge can be used in making brinks and cement is one that has its share of problems. All well and good unless the metals happen to be heavy metals like Mercury and Arsenic. In fact, this sort of thing is already going on and waste containing heavy metals has found its way into cements used in infrastructure. These are degrading leading to the introduction of more of these metals into ground waters and soil. You can't just move the problem of heavy metals from one place to another and pretend they've gone away. These metals are deadly and environmental limits are in the low double digit parts per billion (10 ppb for Arsenic). You need to remove them and properly dispose of them or better yet recycle.

Solar Power

For a country like India, this is a technology which is really needed rather than burning coal and polluting the air.


This is very good news, and in order to be green and stay green, such waste disposal methods have to be profitable for all things (or garbage) considered.

Turing garbage into gas is an old art (composting anyone?) that needs not just the constant updating of new technologies, but also its adaptation to the local economic environment.

For example, it’s probably unrealistic to sport a gleaming new and expensive waste disposal-power plant with big government expenditures in suburban or rural sitting surrounded in the “noise level” of the soiled and polluted ambience.

As such it make sense to continue the old resource saving practices of foraging and scavenging dump sites by the less prosperous population in likewise less developed economies, until their environments were well off above the “noise level”, and if the government was willing to spend the relatively minuscule sum for disease prevention and health care of these people who "live on" dump heaps.


Solar Power wrote: "For a country like India, this is a technology which is really needed rather than burning coal and polluting the air."

Luckily, Indians are smarter than that.


There is a shortage of metals, of all types. Especially rare metals are valuable. Doesn't it make sense that it would be less expensive to separate metals in a molten state, then to mine them from raw ore in remote parts of the earth? Then all the rare dangerous metals can be reused.


Truly awesome technology! The next question now becomes," why have the more technically "advanced" countries not gone to this system already?


One Word: Dioxin.


These facilities can never break down 100,00 % of stuff. The waste they still leave behind is extremely toxic. The exhaust still contains tiny amounts of extremely nasty stuff.

Independent scientists must assess the exhaust problem and publicize the measurements in real operation. Then the public must make the decision whether these tiny amounts of toxic exhaust are acceptable.

It will be extremely expensive still and the politics of this are extremely tricky. We did it here in Germany with "conventional" burning. A single facility can easily run into 2000 million Euros.


This Plasma-torch syngas technology sounds like a great idea in destroying substances that are truly toxic and costly to break down for environmental acceptance. On the other hand, wastes that can be burned using conventional furnaces and well maintained stack scrubbers must be more cost effective and just as environmentally effective as the above technology.
This expensive technology should be used only where it is most effective.



It's ironic that having invented a nearly indestructible and ageless material - plastic, we use it to make things that will be used once. So I'm with ColdRolled on this. It always sounds more appealing to use some space-age plant somewhere to taker care of our problems, because we refuse to do it with day-to-day common sense solutions. Better packaging, recycling, and conservation are the low hanging fruit. Once those are exhausted, start shooting your garbage with plasma arcs.


I am a lot more concerned on the energy efficiency of these plants. Imagine we start producing electricity from plasma torches, where the electricity for the torches comes from? Are they producing enough to power themselves? I don't think so...How many kWh of electricity this technology needs to process one ton of waste?

It is not all about being profitable, we need to reduce CO2 emissions as well. If these plants are installed in the US because you can make good money from them, you will use electricity (most likely produced by a coal power plant), to break down your waste, which you will then burn, emitting more CO2...And this is not carbon neutral because, most likely, the waste that will produce more energy will come from hydrocarbons.

Nevertheless, there is a good point on this technology though. It could be used to level the load, or as an energy storage system. Whenever intermittent renewable energy sources (solar, wind, tide) are producing energy that nobody needs, this energy could be used to break waste into syngas and then store the syngas. Whenever electricity is needed again, you can burn it to produce the power you need. Does anybody knows what is the roundup efficiency of these plants?


Confusion reigns here!
Plasma technology is proven but very expensive to install and operate,so is good for hazardous waste disposal (eg medical and toxic chemical)and for separating complex materials (eg Tetra Paks)that are difficult to recycle in any other way.
Recovering the energy clearly makes sense by improving efficiency and reducing cost.
Neutralising emissions is important to safeguard the environment by containing toxic substances and containing carbon dioxide.
Waste disposal with incinerators that produce heat and power and contain emissions are generally available, cheaper,and minimise landfill. Some recyclable items can also be separated before burning.
Plasma has very narrow applicability but is no magic, high-tech solution to waste handling.


Japan has little land for landfills. The United States has no shortage of such land. The prime movers against landfills now are NIMBY towns that don't want the truck traffic or the association with garbage - property values, don't you know.

The people who live near landfills are not dying in the streets. The closest landfill to me is now capped, and it serves as a public park - and a very nice one, with views of the adjacent Charles river wetlands and city of Boston skyscrapers. Paranoia is not a virtue - learn to love your rubbish.


If the technology could be used to clean up fouled up rivers, that would be a great boon to the world, definitely so for India. It would help solve the drinking water problem, and thus provide a basic necessity for clean healthy living. Trust and hope it will come to pass.



Landfills are quite toxic and environmentally degrading in themselves. They pollute the surrounding land and underground aquifers. Thus, it's not how they 'look' (nice public park), but what effect they have, is what matters. The more we can eliminate, by recycling and recovering, the more we help Planet Earth.


ColdRolled makes a lot of sense to me. For this to be effective I am of the opinion that consumption habits will have to be addressed as well. Employment patterns and economic assesments have all got to change. In other words is society willing to change its attitudes?
I find it most annoying when some one in the dark pops corn at the movies, within hearing distance behind me.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

