HEC and Startech Enter Strategic Alliance for Hydrogen-Fueled Power Generation
19 March 2008
Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc. (HEC) and Startech Environmental Corp. have entered a strategic alliance to develop commercial projects that combine HEC’s hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine (ICE) generators with Startech’s proprietary Plasma Converter technology for waste destruction, processing and remediation. HEC’s engines will generate power using the hydrogen produced by Startech’s Plasma Converter.
HEC plans to deliver a hydrogen-powered generator system to Startech in May 2008. The combined HEC and Startech waste remediation and power generation package will be made available globally for a wide variety of applications.
HEC started out with a remanufactured 4.9-liter, 6-cylinder unit. In addition to now offering a new block 4.9-liter unit, the company has in development a range of additional engines: a 7.5-liter V-8; a 2.4-liter, 3-cylinder unit; a 1.6-liter, 2-cylinder unit; and a 0.8-liter, 1-cylinder unit.
In November 2007, HEC outlined a four-point strategic plan (earlier post) that included strategic alliances in areas such as hydrogen cogeneration and reuse. The company already has in place an OxxPower genset using hydrogen generated from the manufacturing of chlor-alkaline operational in India.
Startech’s Plasma Converter System contains a plasma field that reaches temperatures up to 30,000º F. The plasma breaks down feedstock materials—such as waste coal, used tires, wood wastes, raw sewage, municipal solid wastes, biomass, discarded roofing shingles, coal waste known as culm, discarded corn stalks, and other agricultural by-products—and produces a synthesis gas called Plasma Converted Gas (PCG), along with molten silicates and metal solids.
PCG can serve as a feedstock for the production of synthetic fuels. Hydrogen, for use and sale, can also be separated and recovered from the Startech PCG synthesis gas mixture.
I've always found startech's technology fascinating. Does anyone have any information that would validate its existence/viability/longevity? It just seems too good to be true.
If these systems are inexpensive enough you could have one in every neighborhood. That would drastically cut down on landfill waste while supplying some power.
Posted by: GreenPlease | 19 March 2008 at 08:38 AM
Another idea would be to have these units throughout areas prone to natural disasters - Florida, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Great Plains States & near flood plains of major rivers. They could get power from their own disaster debris. For example, folks that have been in areas hit by hurricanes know there is an ungodly amount of debris after a CAT IV-V storm - a lot of which winds up in landfills.
Posted by: ejj | 19 March 2008 at 09:53 AM
Another idea would be to have these units throughout areas prone to natural disasters - Florida, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Great Plains States & near flood plains of major rivers. They could get power from their own disaster debris. For example, folks that have been in areas hit by hurricanes know there is an ungodly amount of debris after a CAT IV-V storm - a lot of which winds up in landfills.
Posted by: ejj | 19 March 2008 at 09:56 AM
Its a great idea for garbage but it is not very efficient, at least 30% of the fuel produced must be consumed to power the plasmifier.
Posted by: Ben | 19 March 2008 at 10:18 AM
@Ben
That beats dumping 100% of that potential fuel into a landfill.
Posted by: GreenPlease | 19 March 2008 at 11:10 AM
Coal gasifiers can have efficiencies upwards of 75%, so 70% isn't all that impressive. If the inputs require pretreatement like size reduction, thermochemical processes may be simpler and cheaper.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 19 March 2008 at 11:03 PM
Another advantage is that the transformation of waste to hydrogen is done without input of air. So the waste gasses are very 'rich' in CO2.
if the H2 is separated before combustion, an almost pure CO2 stream is left over (that doesn't need to be concentrated anymore). This makes it much easier for sequestration, algae or other uses.
If relatively dry biomass is used in the process, pure charcoal is left over, together with the minerals of the biomass. This is a very good fertiliser and a very efficient and cheap way of carbon sequestration.
(though less hydrogen production).
Posted by: alain | 20 March 2008 at 02:29 AM
Startech is for real. I introduced these guys to each other. I called Steve Landa at Startech and had him speak with Joe Lewis then VP of sales at HEC. These guys have a good setup together. If anyone wants to see results from the DOE's 3 year use of the Startech facility in Bristol,CT then read these pdf's from the DOE website. I have been to D.C. DOE and spoken with these guys. Startech is a good system.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review06/pdp_10_lynch.pdf
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress06/ii_d_1_lynch.pdf
Andy
Posted by: Andy | 21 March 2008 at 07:51 AM
Nothing about energy requirements in the second paper. I couldn't get the first one to load.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 21 March 2008 at 08:34 AM
This is the office of the DOE that used the 'Startech' machine over a 3 year period. If you type in 'Startech' in the top right search box, you will find a wealth of scientific data.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/
This system can be efficient and very energy positive. The levels of polutants that were measured ranged from at worst 'very low' to 'extremely low' and 'Below Detectable Levels' often. I do not work for Startech. I have just been priviladged to have seen their machine in person at Bristol. I had to leave the space to catch my breath! These guys have put 20+ years into this technology. They have earned my respect. I personally called the DOE office and scheduled a meeting and learned about their program they had together. This one just makes you look at waste and say 'It's NOW Feedstock' to manufacture syngas. This is a really cool technology and it works. Good going Startech.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | 21 March 2008 at 09:06 AM
Converting unwanted waste into useable syngas is something that the world needed yesterday, today and even more for tomorrow.
Is the NET surplus energy from the process very important? Getting rid of various unwanted or potential harmful waste has a real value of $100+ a ton. That should pay for a major portion of the cost.
We may need 10,000 + cogeneration plasma converters to eliminate the many million tons of waste we create every year.
Posted by: Harvey D | 21 March 2008 at 05:21 PM