I can say yes under some conditions.

I was involved few years ago in a study of a plasma gassification system for waste treatment in a mountain town. The problem of the plasma was the high requirement in energy that made the process of difficult economic yield also after the use of gassification products. We overcame the problem with the innovation to introduce a small hydroelectric plant that was using the river close to the site. In this case the small hydroelectric plant feeded the plasma plant and so the energy of the electric plant was stored in the gases and heat developed by the plasma plant that so became economic as the gases had an high energy level.  I think that the currents in your sea might be used for an electric generation through suited impellers. I saw some innovative impellers in my country that can be oriented and can extract energy from sea currents. Hoping I gave you some ideas have a good evening 

Thanks for your response.  There are a lot of concerns about the environmental risk associated with plasma gassification.

No problems at all Carl because you can clean the gas from sulfur and nitrogen and then burn it in gas turbines or use in fuel cells if enough rich in hydrogen and make a good quantity of energy. About the solid residue it is something like glass without any loss of pollutants so it can be used to enlarge the surface of the island as I think are doing chinese with south china islands and as did Singapore.

Are there any any academic studies or technical reports on plasma gassification?

Waste is a valuable asset if you sort and separate it in categories: waste paper, plastic, batteries, carton, organic waste, metals, electronic waste. The best approach is then to collect waste selectively at the curbside and recycle each category separately. The result of this methodology is reduced waste volumes and you need less landfill area. This method increases employment of personal and increases your sustainability score.

Dr. Robinson, why not consider another alternative converting this waste into an source of revenue.  Attached are two papers on the Manged Ecosystem Fermentation process.  For an island economy, this technology would provide both high protein animal feed, fertilizer, and a source of either biodiesel or foreign currency.  Please let me know your thoughts.

Zero waste initiatives are certainly environmentally more safer & less restrictive on the small island.

Waste to energy is a good choice as Bermuda is doing (see "A guidebook for sustainable waste management in Latin America and the Caribbean" publication made by EEC, Columbia University NY). Of course zero waste is best solution except the wastes that cannot be reused or recycled, or composted. You can also see my publications in researchgate and Prof. Thelmelis as well.

Some articles I used about it.

http://www.westinghouse-plasma.com/waste_to_energy/

http://www.gasification.org/what-is-gasification/how-does-it-work/plasma-gasification/

http://www.wired.com/2012/01/ff_trashblaster/

http://www.phoenixenergy.com.au/plasma-gasification/

Best

These articles are great

A small island has limited resources to meet the need of population and at the same time has a limited space to trow the waste. Optimizing all available resources (biomass) to power plant should be the best way to avoid wasting resources, and environmental pollution. A plasma gassification waste to energy plant is one of good choice amongst the available methods of recycling organic resources into energy. In addition, in many cases, the main small island resources is ocean resources. Marine based energy should be considered as another possible way of meeting the energy demand.

Thanks.  There seems to be a high degree of fear on the island that such a plant poses a major environmental hazard.  What are your views on the environmental risks? 

All available, secured supply, technically acceptable, economically feasible and socially viable technologies always brings an environmental consequences. It is our responsibility to design mitigation measures of such environmental hazard by locating it properly, manage possible impacts totally, and so. Thanks

As I understand, gasification and pyrolysys technologies have been developing for some time but yet not mature. In most places, it requires some sort of incentive. One of the issues I kept hearing about gasification was that the formation of nitrous oxides needed to be counteracted with the addition of ammonia. In my opinion, unless you plan to collect the resulting fuel to be used elsewhere (for which you will need storage and logistics), incineration perhaps would give you a more straightforward solution. Incineration is a mature technology and despite the negative perception, state of the art incineration plants are comparable to gasification and pyrolysis in terms of emissions as they all abide by the same protocol (at least in Europe). It can generate electricity and heat surplus. The latter can increase the efficiency of recovery considerably. On the other hand, gasification, and, even more so pyrolysis, would allow you to collect fuel which can be transported, to power pretty much everything that nowadays run with petroleum derivatives. If this exercise is to produce a renewable source of energy, I would look to the ocean, as there is a constant source of energy beating the shore. However, if the priority is to deal with organic waste, then, if composting or anaerobic digestion is not an option (because the waste mix is not appropriate), thermal treatment is unavoidable. If that is so, I would pay due consideration to the maturity of the technology to be implemented, possibility of increasing throughput, versatility accepting waste of different composition,...and economic viability.

As I understand, gasification and pyrolysys technologies have been developing for some time but yet not mature. In most places, it requires some sort of incentive. One of the issues I kept hearing about gasification was that the formation of nitrous oxides needed to be counteracted with the addition of ammonia. In my opinion, unless you plan to collect the resulting fuel to be used elsewhere (for which you will need storage and logistics), incineration perhaps would give you a more straightforward solution. Incineration is a mature technology and despite the negative perception, state of the art incineration plants are comparable to gasification and pyrolysis in terms of emissions as they all abide by the same protocol (at least in Europe). It can generate electricity and heat surplus. The latter can increase the efficiency of recovery considerably. On the other hand, gasification, and, even more so pyrolysis, would allow you to collect fuel which can be transported, to power pretty much everything that nowadays run with petroleum derivatives. If this exercise is to produce a renewable source of energy, I would look to the ocean, as there is a constant source of energy beating the shore. However, if the priority is to deal with organic waste, then, if composting or anaerobic digestion is not an option (because the waste mix is not appropriate), thermal treatment is unavoidable. If that is so, I would pay due consideration to the maturity of the technology to be implemented, possibility of increasing throughput, versatility accepting waste of different composition,...and economic viability.

As I understand, gasification and pyrolysys technologies have been developing for some time but yet not mature. In most places, it requires some sort of incentive. One of the issues I kept hearing about gasification was that the formation of nitrous oxides needed to be counteracted with the addition of ammonia. In my opinion, unless you plan to collect the resulting fuel to be used elsewhere (for which you will need storage and logistics), incineration perhaps would give you a more straightforward solution. Incineration is a mature technology and despite the negative perception, state of the art incineration plants are comparable to gasification and pyrolysis in terms of emissions as they all abide by the same protocol (at least in Europe). It can generate electricity and heat surplus. The latter can increase the efficiency of recovery considerably. On the other hand, gasification, and, even more so pyrolysis, would allow you to collect fuel which can be transported, to power pretty much everything that nowadays run with petroleum derivatives. If this exercise is to produce a renewable source of energy, I would look to the ocean, as there is a constant source of energy beating the shore. However, if the priority is to deal with organic waste, then, if composting or anaerobic digestion is not an option (because the waste mix is not appropriate), thermal treatment is unavoidable. If that is so, I would pay due consideration to the maturity of the technology to be implemented, possibility of increasing throughput, versatility accepting waste of different composition,...and economic viability.

With any thermal treatment, there is a possibility of digging out the waste buried so far in the landfills, and clear the island of uncontrolled landfilled waste. The perception that a plant like this poses an environmental hazard is right but overstated. The real problem is brewing underground contaminating the groundwater.

Thanks fro your responses.  I think the main goal is to deal with organic waste.

As correctly pointed out by Cebrian, gasification and pyrolysis technologies are not mature as of yet and many cities are facing problems with those technologies. Integrated waste management seems to be the most appropriate technique moving towards zero waste. Incineration with energy recovery (cogeneration) seems to be a good option, however it should design carefully to match with local conditions. Organic waste which has high moisture content should not use in incinerators as it reduces energy recovery potential. Therefore, organic waste should be separated as source and can be used to produce energy using anaerobic digestion technology or can be used as a feeding materials at animal farms (if available) .