Thermolysis and activated carbon. (fwd)

[slester@essential.org]

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 10:20:55 UT
From: Emmanuel de Broux <EMM_DE_BROUX@msn.com>
To: Zeb234@aol.com
Cc: slester@Essential.ORG
Subject: Thermolysis and activated carbon.

On Wed. 31 Jan 1996, Debbie Lambert wrote :

There are numerous problems with the use of activated carbon. I am presently 
fighting a carbon regeneration facility in Pennsylvania.
1.Metals are not all trapped by activated carbon.
2. Please advise as to exactly what method is being proposed in the carbon 
process.
3. Activated carbon being used in cement kilns is an accident waiting to 
happen.
4. Carbon regeneration is as close to incineration as you can get. It also 
creates even more waste. There is motive water, scrubber water, fly ash, and 
scrubber sludge. I would only add that if carbon regeneration is being 
utilized, you will be creating more waste than you probably started with.

My comments:
1. Activated carbon does trap at least mercury. This is why cokefied lignite 
is used in MSW incinerators. That cokefied lignite has another use : trapping 
dioxins. However, European incinerator constructors 'forget' to process the 
'dirty' lignite powder afterwards.
2. Themolysis is not meant here to regenerate activated carbon. It sort of 
distillates organic wastes coming out of a waste separation process.
3. Burning activated carbon is done since ages. Charcoal used in a barbecue is 
activated carbon. Burning it in a cement kiln should not present any 
difficulty.
4. See 2.

Here in Belgium, MSW contains about 45% of food waste, 30% of paper and 
cardboard and 8% of various plastics (by weight). That adds up to 83% of 
organic waste. These figures are different in the States, I know. A ton of 
organic waste produces about 250 kg of activated carbon, some cinder and 
combustible gas.

Now, again, I try to collect valid data about MSW separation + thermolysis. I 
am not pushing the process. It just looks like a very interesting alternative 
to MSW incineration.