Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
When burning trash for energy, minimal exhaust is sent into the air. It is cycled back into the system instead - which is how it becomes energy instead of exhaust.
When burning wood, some becomes heat, and the rest is all exhaust. If you can cycle the exhaust to become energy, then sure - go for it. If not, then it just adds to the air quality (or lack thereof).
|
As stated in the Title, in both incineration and burning trees, the products of combustion are exhausted to the atmosphere.
The main difference is that in an incinerator the combustion creates an exhaust stream at high temperature. The heat recovery process produces an energy stream that can generate electricity. There are some pollutants that are removed by scrubbers but essentially all of the other combustion products are exhausted to the atmosphere.
Burning trees in a brush pile exhausts all products of combustion to the atmosphere. The combustion process is not complete and smoke and ash can be released. In addition, since combustion is not contained or controlled, there is no way to recover heat that can be converted into electric power.
If the brush pile material was sent to an incinerator, heat could be recovered and used to generate electric power. The economics most probably would not justify the investment in transportation and additional new incineration and power generation facilities.
I would guess that the income from the Incineration is mainly the disposal fee cost per ton of trash burnt with the sale of power a smaller part of the income.
The main economic difference is that open burning of brush at the construction site is permitted. Open burning of trash is not permitted, Trash must be sent to approved disposal sites at a far distance ( I believe in Georgia) since there were no available closer trash disposal facilities.