Port Fuels and Material Services Inc. sent a reply to Kate Andrus (and another dozen or so recipients) in response to her article, Is Gasification Plant Data just Hot Air? If you have already decided you are dead against the idea, than you will likely write off their reply as, more manipulative lies. But if you are still making up your mind, you will weigh what is being said, do some of your own homework, and draw your own conclusions. Ms. Andrus, A much more accurate title for your article would be “The Changing Face of Hamilton – 21st Century Green and Clean Technology”. This is an opportunity for a breath of fresh air and for Hamilton to become a leader in changing the perception and reality of the past industrial Hamilton. It can be a renaissance for Hamilton. Without new green technology, what will Hamilton do with its waste as it continue to grow and develop Hamilton? Most of it goes to the landfills now. The landfills create methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times worse than CO2 and this project will transform the waste with green technology into useful products. I was sent a copy of your email and I would like to respond to you directly on this as well as to all the others on your distribution list and I have added others as well so this is widely distributed. There are some inaccuracies and misrepresentations that I assume are not intentional on your part. After meeting you at Open House #2 on 13 NOV 14, I understand that you are committed to evaluate the Port Fuels & Material Services, Inc. (PFMSI) proposed project and you have stated that you are not the technical expert and will need others to assist. With that in mind, I will address many of your statements for your benefit and those of others that will read this. I also look forward to future meetings to continue this dialogue with you and your experts. · “PFMSI … is seeking a fast-tracked environmental screening for a plant here in Hamilton…” – The process we are following is in accordance with established MOECC guidelines and with precedence of other companies that have followed this process. In support of this environmental assessment screening process, under Regulation 101/07 for Waste Management Projects, we have several thousand pages of information and have taken extra steps in the assessment of any potential impact on public health. · “…despite their refusal to reveal their environmental data to the public.” - This comment is unfortunately incorrect and misleading. PFMSI has had numerous public and private meetings, including the City Council, Environment Hamilton and the Community Hubs. There have been interviews with the newspaper, TV stations and numerous communications with private individuals and technical experts, and others. A Community Liaison Committee (CLC) was also set up with representatives of the community and local interest groups for continued two-way dialogue and we have established a web site pfmsi. We have always stated we are looking to complete the mandated requirements plus we have included an optional Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) study and will make them all available when complete. At the last Open House, all of these Studies were presented in Summary format on 42 Poster. The ESR (Environmental Screening Report and the supporting technical Studies will be over 3,000 pages. A significant portion of this total is devoted to conveying the results of the HHRA (Health and Human Risk Assessment). The HHRA is a voluntary Study that addresses the local community. The physical copies that will be available locally for review will be about 2,000 pages with a CD of the HHRA results. The Reports are not finalized but they will be soon. Once we finalize and submit the final version of the Environmental Screening Report before the end of this calendar year, 100% of the thousands of pages of specific data will be available publically for review. There will be a 60-day comment period as part of the environmental assessment screening process that we are following. · “Bob Clark, CEO of PFMS, was quoted at a public open house as saying that the data would be released after the Government assessment.” – No, this is incorrect and also very misleading. I have been quoted many times in many public and private meetings that the data would be available at the same time as we submitted the Environmental Screening Report to the MOECC. (Please refer to previous response for additional information.) This is to be concurrently available and not “after a Government assessment”. MOECC will need time to review the documentation and there will be an 60-day open period for public review and comment. · “It took a phone call and emails to the Swindon Environmental Office in the UK, to determine that the reason for the lack of data, might be, that there is none.” – The Swindon facility has extensive test data and over 3,000 hours of operation. For example, several comprehensive test reports on the air emissions from the Gasplasma® process have been referenced in our PFMSI studies. The data that is necessary for the process to be technically accurate and evaluated also needs local Studies that are Site Specific in relation to the technology and this is what we have done for the Hamilton proposed site. PFMSI has even added a voluntary Study, HHRA (Health and Human Risk Assessment), to our data that is very locally specific to Hamilton to our Environmental Screening Report. The Swindon Environmental Office in the UK would not have this information for Hamilton. · “Advanced Power Plasma, also operating as Marston Investments, Progressive Plasma UK and Tetronics UK” – This is incorrect. Please allow me to explain in more detail as I understand these entities. First, Advanced Plasma Power (APP) does not operate as Tetronics International, Marston Investments or Progressive Energy UK. These are separate companies focussed on different applications. As I have noted in prior discussions, there are 3 licensed plasma facilities at South Marston Park, UK, and these are the 3 separate companies. o Tetronics Ltd started in 1965 and it is the world’s leading environmental plasma company. § Tetronics has no ownership in APP. § Tetronics has been operating for 50 years and has successfully supplied 90 commercial operating plasma installations around the globe. § It has focused on several particular areas of application: metallurgical (foundry related), resource recovery and hazardous waste treatment. It is the Direct Plasma single-stage process. § It has a licensed pilot facility in Swindon for the Direct Plasma system. Tetronics owns and operates one of the world’s leading plasma trials facilities where all manner of feedstock trials on customer materials are performed. The facility is capable of processing a very wide range of materials. § It did the original development of the Gasplasma® process but it did not have a waste-to-energy focus as a core competency. It sold the intellectual property to APP, a separate company with different ownership, and APP developed the commercialization of the Gasplasma® process. o APP is a separate entity as mentioned. § APP has no ownership in any of the other entities. § APP separately owns and operates a Gasplasma® demonstration pilot plant at the site and is co-located with the Tetronics pilot plant. § APP’s Gasplasma® pilot plant was installed in 2007 and has been operating with a gas engine on the back end since 2008. § The facility does not have a Materials Recycling (MRF) front end and they test waste derived fuels in the widest sense from a number of UK waste industry sources. § APP continuously monitors emissions from the plant and has very extensive data sets which have been made available to PFMSI. § In reference to a later note from Christopher Murphy, Environment Agency, UK, the APP Swindon plant is currently undergoing modification and expansion in order to also convert the waste derived syngas produced into grid grade, green, substitute natural gas (SNG) in an EU and UK funded project with National Grid. This plant will require gas compression and storage, something which is not required for the operation of the engine. (Please refer to this later in this note.) o Marston Investments trades as Platinum Recoveries and it is the auto catalyst trading and collection business at South Marston Park. The facility itself is owned by a substantial third party entity. Plasma Processing UK is a subsidiary of Tetronics that is contracted to physically operate the refining process at this location. Tetronics originally supplied the commercial and fully permitted plant in Swindon. § They have no ownership in APP or Tetronics. § This is a fully operational commercial operating plant. It is co-located in the same Industrial Park as the two demonstration pilot plants. § This plant is capable of processing the entire UK end of life auto-catalysts. For example, the single plant processing 2,000 tonnes per year of spent auto-catalyst waste (from around 2 million end of life vehicles – the UK’s annual total) produces around 1% of the global annual platinum (and palladium & rhodium) production demand, including from primary mining and smelting. § Tetronics has supplied a number of these systems to customers all over the world including in Asia, Europe and North America. In reality they process material from all over the world as the market for the collection of the material is fragmented. o Progressive Energy is an internationally recognised clean energy project development company with a particular focus on decarbonisation of the energy sector through carbon capture and storage and renewables. § Their current project, demonstrating the use of waste to produce bio-substitute natural gas (Bio-SNG), is being worked on by partners National Grid, Advanced Plasma Power and Progressive Energy. It uses waste as a feedstock to produce Bio-SNG. § The project is based at the Advanced Plasma Power Gasplasma® facility in Swindon, UK. It is meant to demonstrate the technical feasibility and commercial viability of the waste to Bio-SNG process, with the three partners working together to design, install and test the operation of a demonstration plant. . § The three partners will work together to design, install and test the operation of a demonstration plant. · Christopher Murphy, Environmental Agency, UK – We are contacting him for more specific data to augment the following initial response. We assume he is using open source available information. o “The research scale plant at Swindon run by APP is still a small scale plant and has not been increased in size… the sites operation (is limited) to 50 tonnes per year” – Yes, the pilot plant will remain a pilot plant for testing and development purposes as originally intended and licensed. The current configuration is designed and capable of 800 tonnes per year but it is limited by license to 50 tonnes per year as a demonstration pilot plant. o “…the site asked to install a small gas tank to help manage gas flows to the engine on site.” – As mentioned above in a previous response, the APP Swindon plant is currently undergoing modification and expansion in order to also convert the waste derived syngas produced into grid grade, green, substitute natural gas (SNG) in an EU and UK funded project with the National Grid plc. This plant will require gas compression and storage, something which is not required for the operation of the engine. o “We were notified last year that the site is temporarily shut-down…” – The site is not a full-time commercial plant. It is a pilot demonstration plant and as just mentioned, it is shut down for routine maintenance or modification/upgrade to perform specific tests/programs. o “There is no independent data verified by the UKs Environmental Agency as none is required.” – This is a pilot plant as mentioned and not required for data submittal but it should be noted that it has received permits to operate from the UK Environment Agency who has approved this Gasplasma® process and also issued a Permit for a commercial plant, the Tyseley Urban Resource Centre in the UK. The UK Environment Agency is well aware of the Gasplasma® process as I have noted. The pilot plant has undergone many extensive test programs, conducted by independent testing firms that are accredited in the UK. This independent, high quality data is used to demonstrate the performance of the Gasplasma® system and will be referenced in the PFMSI studies. o “In addition to the information obtained from the Environmental Agency, Swindon Council Building department confirmed that no building permits or requests for alteration to premises have been requested or granted. This appears to contradict company statements that the plant has been upscaled.” – As just mentioned, the UK Environment Agency has approved this Gasplasma® process and issued a commercial Permit for the Tyseley Urban Resource Centre in the UK. The pilot plant will remain a pilot plant. · “ …the conclusion … is that the systems dont make engineering or fiscal sense. – This is purely a personal opinion and must be based on dated Internet searches of technologies other than Gasplasma®. There is independent third party research that disputes this personal opinion based on years of research and specific Gasplasma® testing: o Fichtner Engineering (Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG, Stuttgart, Germany; Fichtner Pacific Engineers Ltd., Taipei, Taiwan) - § “For many years, developers have been trying to convert waste into a gas that can be used in a gas engine for electricity and heat generation. APP has overcome the major obstacle to the use of waste gasification to power such gas engines.” § “Fichtner have now validated that the commercial scale Gasplasma® plant is viable and that the basic design for the Gasplasma® plant will work for the proposed 170ktpa MSW plant.” o US Army Report funded by the US Department of Defense –Technikon Inc., the operator of the Renewable Energy Testing Center (RETC), located in Sacramento, California. They performed verification and validation testing of Gasplasma® through funding by the US Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the US Army approved it for application. § “An average efficiency of 84.8% was achieved for conversion of chemical energy in the RDF to chemical energy in the syngas.” § “An average efficiency of 99.1% was achieved for conversion of carbon in the RDF to carbon containing species in the syngas.” § “The testing validated that the APP two stage gasification system (fluidized bed gasifier (steam and oxygen blown) followed by a plasma gas reformer) produces a clean, high quality syngas. The results show that the APP produced syngas is well suited for power generation or renewable fuel production.” § “The APP technology is robust, based on the history of both the fluidized bed gasifier and the plasma furnace companies 20+ years of selling the equipment at larger scale. What APP has demonstrated at Swindon is that these two mature technologies can be integrated to produce high quality syngas that produces power and has low air emissions levels.” o GTI – Gas Technology Institute, Chicago, Illinois, USA – Testing was conducted on our synthetic gas (syngas) to ensure that syngas of similar composition to the one produced in Gasplasma® performs the same way as natural gas. Different compositions of representative syngas mixes were burned in a controlled oven atmosphere and results were compared to same heat input coming from natural gas. § Results showed that it was slightly better and stronger flame with syngas. § The heat balance showed that the equivalent amount of heat if given by syngas (higher volume) achieves a more efficient heat balance than natural gas. § Emissions in the two cases were identical and the NOx emissions were slightly less with the syngas. § The results ascertained that the syngas provides assurance to users that can replace 100% of natural gas with no consequences in performance and emissions. o NETE – New Environmental Technology Evaluation – Ontario MOECC - The Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, has just issued PFMSI a Certificate of Technology Assessment. § “Based on a review of the data and the information submitted in support of the technology, the ministry concludes that the Gasplasma® energy from waste process, by Port Fuels & Materials Services, Inc. and Leveraged Green Energy, may be used to convert waste material into a fuel gas suitable to generate power.” § The ministry approval process ensures the applicability of the technology against site-specific performance and environmental requirements.This NETE Certificate, an endorsement of MOECC, will be posted on our PFMSI web site. · “This leaves the question: Does the city that houses Randle Reef and remembers Plasimat want to be ground zero for this technology?” – This is an absolutely great comment and a very positive advertisement for “The Changing Face of Hamilton – 21st Century Green and Clean Technology”. These two references are not even remotely related to Gasplasma®. o Randle Reef is a steel making by-product of decade’s old industrial hazardous and non-hazardous waste by-products being dumped into the water. o Plasimat is the 9 July 1997 reference to a plastics fire in an industrial site releasing dioxin and other toxic chemicals into the air. o Gasplasma® is the transition to safe and reliable green technology for processing of your locally generated waste in your community that otherwise will be going to the local landfill and creating greenhouse methane gas. Gasplasma® is a tool to mitigate part of the Hamilton pollution issues and to create an energy efficient solution and jobs. o PFMSI is already initiating this transformation by planning to locate here and to invest multi-millions of investment next to Hamilton’s very polluted site and transform old school low tech dump solutions in landfills to high tech solutions while bringing this green and clean technology – not like before. We want to be part of Hamilton’s sustainable evolution and growth. o PFMSI is looking forward to be located in this industrial location at HPA to assist in developing the new image of Hamilton helping Hamilton! We will assist Hamilton in not only changing this paradigm but the perception and reality that Hamilton can change and make progress in the areas of waste, green energy, employment and the environment. o This PFMSI proposed project will benefit the local industry in the port catchment area, providing competitive and unsubsidized energy and waste mitigation. It will also provide the basis for a potential industrial cluster around our site at HPA with additional programs of R&D with McMaster University and potential solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) development and/or manufacturing creating additional jobs and attracting other high tech industry. We have had many educational forums to date in the Hamilton area and we will continue to have them in the future. We are currently developing ideas for the beginning of the year. I will be happy to meet with you and others to discuss this in more detail during one of my trips to Hamilton. Best regards, Bob Robert M. Clark RADM US Navy (Ret) Chief Operating Officer Port Fuels & Materials Services, Inc. Chief Operating Officer Leveraged Green Energy 1530 Wilson Blvd., Suite 420 Arlington, VA 22209 +1-571-982-4008 Phone +1-703-664-0736 Fax +1-412-298-3672 GSM Mobile
Posted on: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:32:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015