Master wte_webinar_presentation_52413
4 likes1,301 views
This document summarizes presentations given at an ASME Energy Forum on turning trash into renewable energy. It includes summaries of three presentations: 1. Steve Goff of Covanta Energy discussed gasification of municipal solid waste as a way to convert trash into a synthetic gas that can be used for energy. However, gasifying mixed trash presents technical challenges. 2. Dr. Marco Castaldi of CUNY discussed thermally converting waste to energy and products. 3. John Norton of Norton Engineering discussed various solid waste management alternatives like composting, recycling, combustion, and landfilling. He provided details on waste-to-energy incineration plants and how they can recover metals and create building
![“Flow Control”
• Supreme Court ruling in 1994 appeared to
eliminate “flow control” [for the waste to be
directed into the new large, expensive plants to
burn]
• Supreme Court ruling in 2007 now clarifies that
flow control for this purpose is legal.
• Very tight air pollution control restriction in the
1999 CAAA: MACT vs BACT
o Maximum vs Best Available Air Control
technology; MACT includes not pricing
consideration](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/masterwtewebinarpresentation52413-130531035055-phpapp02/85/Master-wte_webinar_presentation_52413-36-320.jpg)
![Thank you for attending!
Continue the conversation about
WTE technologies on the [insert
group page name] on asme.org.
Join us for the next webinar in
July 2013 on the topic of
Wind Power.
go.asme.org/energyforum
Learn more:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/masterwtewebinarpresentation52413-130531035055-phpapp02/85/Master-wte_webinar_presentation_52413-83-320.jpg)
Master wte_webinar_presentation_52413
- 1. Turning Trash into Renewable Energy Treasure Steve Goff Covanta Energy John Norton Norton Engineering LLC May 30, 2013 Dr. Marco Castaldi The City University of New York (CUNY)
- 2. Today’s Presentations 2 Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste Steve Goff Vice President of Research & Development Covanta Energy Corporation Thermal Conversion of Waste to Energy and Products Dr. Marco Castaldi Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering Department The City University of New York (CUNY) Solid Waste Management Alternatives John Norton Owner Norton Engineering LLC
- 3. About the ASME Energy Forum 3 The ASME Energy Forum is a new, year-long multimedia series that explores the technical aspects and workings of a broad range of energy sources and related technologies. From solar power and hydrokinetics, to fuel cell vehicles and wind power, you'll get leading expert perspectives on how these energy sources and technologies work, the issues and challenges, and the economic implications for businesses. Learn more about the ASME Energy Forum and upcoming webinar topics at: go.asme.org/energyforum
- 4. About ASME 4 ASME is a not-for-profit membership organization that enables collaboration, knowledge sharing, career enrichment, and skills development across all engineering disciplines, toward a goal of helping the global engineering community develop solutions to benefit lives and livelihoods. Founded in 1880 by a small group of leading industrialists, ASME has grown through the decades to include more than 120,000 members in over 150 countries worldwide.
- 5. During the Webinar 5 • Please type all questions in the box at the bottom of your screen. • We will answer as many questions as possible during the event. • Speakers will answer as many questions as they can via e-mail.
- 6. Solid Waste Management Alternatives John W. Norton, PE, BCEE
- 7. Overview Definition & Statistics Environmental Considerations Incinerator Plant Tour Ash Recovery/ Management Disposal & Trucking Challenges with Implementing WTE Good News about WTE
- 8. Definition Municipal solid waste (MSW), commonly known as trash or garbage consisting of everyday items discarded by the public from homes and similar wastes from industries. It includes food wastes, yard wastes, “empty” containers, product packaging, and other similar wastes.
- 11. US Composting, Recycling, Combustion, and Landfilling (Most recent graph from USEPA website – 1960 to 2006) 1960 - 2005 Recycled Combustion Landfilled Composted
- 12. US Disposal Practices 90% Trucked to Landfills San Francisco - after all possible recycling has been done! And it’s 70 miles to the nearest landfill….
- 13. US Disposal Practices Typical trucks get about 3 MPG Expanded metal screen on the back door…
- 14. Solid Waste Disposal: Environmental Considerations Air Water Energy Land Use
- 16. USEPA on Waste-To-Energy (WTE) • 2002: Best environmental solution for solid waste management • 2003: Modern Incineration with energy recovery is among the cleanest sources of new electricity (next to wind turbines)
- 17. Incinerator Plant Tour! Dayton’s newly built North Plant back in 1992 Weighing in the trash
- 18. Trucks unload to storage pit Cranes feed grapples into each of 3 incinerators
- 19. Trucks unload to storage pit Cranes feed grapples into each of 3 incinerators. Note smoke back on near hopper entrance.
- 20. Typical Cross Section of the Combustion Box and Kiln
- 21. Bottom of the Entrance Hopper Chute, Beginning of the Combustion Box Looking down on the Grates. Air comes from below.
- 22. Inspecting the wear between the Combustion Box and Kiln Repairing the Rotary Kiln
- 23. Note the white hot fire; this is just the garbage burning - no auxiliary fuel ! A smoky view up the kiln
- 24. U.S. Garbage Note the plastics ….and the cardboard and wood A look into an American Waste Storage Pit
- 25. Note the small amount of vegetable matter: peels, pits, bad food, etc. Typical percentages of various materials in the American trash. U.S. Garbage
- 26. Back to the Incinerator… This is the drag conveyor that pulls it out of the water. Note the acetylene bottle, these units are tough! This is where the ash material falls out. The red bits are molten glass and steel bits like nails, screws, nuts, bolts, etc.
- 27. Incinerator Ash Management In the U.S, the primary benefit from incineration is reduced volume. But the ash material can be recovered too!
- 28. Ash Recovery - Steel first, then all the other metals After the steel has been removed, all the Brass, Aluminum, Copper, and Tin can all be removed by passing the relatively uniform ash residue across a spinning magnet which causes any metal in its magnetic field to jump off the conveyor.
- 29. This is where the metal had first been removed; we allowed people to come in and just pick it out for sale. They paid us about $1 per ton just so we could keep track of how much there was. Unfortunately these men missed a lot of it and they would occasionally get into fights about whose pile belonged to who. Reclaiming Steel…
- 30. Reclaiming Steel… Eventually we selected a big metal firm to set up their own equipment and recover almost all of the metal. Iron first... Mostly is it removed by size selection and magnetics. Several passes, perhaps.
- 31. Here is a view of the recovered iron and steel material. Reclaiming Steel… An even closer view. On closer inspection, you can find not only paper clips, but staples from the paper documents as well, essentially 100%
- 32. Ash Recovery: Building Blocks With all the metals removed the remaining material (glass cullet, crockery particles, rocks and sand) can be used to make Building Blocks.
- 33. Ash Blocks used to build these buildings in Dayton… Building used for tractor maintenance
- 34. US Disposal Practices 90% Trucked to Landfills 10% Incinerated via WTE EU policy: nothing to be buried with more than 2% combustible content. Results in a higher % of combustion and energy recovery EU Disposal Practices
- 35. Challenges Implementing WTE Costly Financing is impossible without “Flow Control”
- 36. “Flow Control” • Supreme Court ruling in 1994 appeared to eliminate “flow control” [for the waste to be directed into the new large, expensive plants to burn] • Supreme Court ruling in 2007 now clarifies that flow control for this purpose is legal. • Very tight air pollution control restriction in the 1999 CAAA: MACT vs BACT o Maximum vs Best Available Air Control technology; MACT includes not pricing consideration
- 37. Good News about WTE • 86 large operating WTE incinerator plants in this country. o Non compliance measured in minutes over a 15 year period of intense scrutiny. • Roughly 10 WTE incinerators are undergoing popular expansions at this point. • Some new plants under consideration • WTE lowers the Carbon Footprint
- 38. 38 Steve Goff Covanta Energy Corporation May 2013 Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste
- 39. 1. Gasification Basics 2. Challenges with MSW 3. Commercial Demonstration 4. Covanta CLEERGAS® System 39 Agenda
- 40. PYROLYSIS GASIFICATION COMBUSTION HCs, Tars, Char H2 / CO CO2, H2O (No air) (Partial air) (Excess air) Very Endothermic Exothermic / Endothermic Very Exothermic Balance Gasification Gasification is the partial oxidation of the organic content of a feedstock to produce a H2 / CO containing syngas • Market perception that gasification is a superior process • Potential benefits of reduced air requirement and lower emissions
- 41. 41 Gasification Reactions OXIDATION REACTION: • Partial Oxidation: CxHy + O2 CO2 + H2O GASIFICATION REACTIONS: • Steam Reforming: CxHy + H2O CO + H2 • CO2 Reforming: CxHy + CO2 CO + y/2 H2 • Pyrolysis: CxHy CH4 + (x-y/4) C EQUILIBRIUM REACTIONS: • Water Gas Shift: CO + H2O CO2 + H2 • Boudouard: 2CO CO2 + C
- 42. • Heterogeneous nature of MSW complicates equipment design, process design and process control – Broad range of physical and chemical properties – Heating value variability • Gasification processes developed for coal or biomass require significant pre-processing of MSW – high cost – Moving bed, fluidized bed, entrained flow reactor types • Syngas quality and heating value dependent on many parameters – Gasification temperature, air vs. oxygen, other reactants (steam, CO2), other energy inputs (plasma), gasifier design, control system 42 Challenges With MSW Gasification of MSW is technically and economically challenging
- 43. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 SyngasHHV(BTU/SCF) GasificationAdiabaticTemp(F) Stoichiometric Air Ratio MSW Gasification Energy Balance Considerations
- 44. GASIFICATION / SYNGAS COMBUSTION - Goal of improved emissions & energy efficiency GASIFICATION / SYNGAS RECOVERY - Goal of combined cycle power or high value products Syngas Combustion MSW Gasification Conventional Boiler, APC, Power Gen Air Low Quality Syngas Reduced NOx , CO & gas flow Gasification MSW Hydrogen Production Combined Cycle Power Syngas Cleaning Liquid Fuels Production Air / O2 High Quality Syngas Syngas Upgrading Types of MSW Gasification Processes
- 45. MSW Gasification Impact of Oxygen Enrichment 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 SyngasHHV(BTU/SCF) GasificationAdiabaticTemp(F) Stoichiometric Air Ratio Air Air 50% O2 50% O2 Cost of O2 enrichment determined to not justified for power generation processes
- 46. • Comprehensive study on hundreds of advanced thermal technologies • 5 TPD gasification / syngas combustion pilot program • 5 TPD gasification / syngas recovery pilot program • 350 TPD commercial gasification / syngas combustion unit • Engineered commercial 300 TPD modular system • Continuing R&D on gasification / syngas recovery – 2006 – 2009 – 2010 – 2011 – 2012 – 2013 Covanta Research & Development Ongoing Investment in Development of MSW Gasification
- 47. • System designed for unprocessed, post-recycling MSW – Handling, shredding, processing, storing waste = high costs • Employ reliable solid handling equipment for feed system, gasifier, and ash removal – Analogous to conventional EfW • No additional sources of energy input to the process – No electric power, plasma, coal or coke • Air based – no oxygen enrichment – Oxygen aids process, but cost is not recovered in product value 47 MSW Gasification Key Components for Commercial Viability Commercial success very dependent on the process and equipment.
- 48. • Refurbishment of existing 350 TPD EfW waterwall boiler – Tulsa, OK • No preprocessing of MSW • Covanta designed reciprocating platform • Extensive air distribution system • Covanta designed control system – Superior system stability • Operating reliably since July 2011 – 94% availability • Low emissions: NOx at 40 – 60 ppm • Reduced particulate resulting in less boiler fouling and corrosion Covanta Reciprocating Platform Syngas Sampling Syngas Combustion Air Distribution Gasification Chamber Roof Bullnose Gasification Primary Air Distribution Gasification Chamber Syngas Combustion Chamber SNCR Ammonia Injection Commercial Demonstration MSW Gasification with Syngas Combustion
- 49. 4500 Btu/lb MSW 5000 Btu/lb MSW 5500 Btu/lb MSW 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SyngasHeatingValue,Btu/SCF Stoichiometric ratio Syngas Sampling and Analysis Syngas heating value from Tulsa demonstration limited by retrofit of waterwall furnace
- 50. Covanta CLEERGAS® Gasifier Process Improvements from Tulsa Refurbishment • Separation of gasification zone from carbon burnout zone in gasifier reactor • Burnout zone energy recovered to drive gasification process – reduces stoichiometric ratio and increases syngas heating value • Refractory-lined gasifier to minimize energy loss – simpler design than waterwall furnace • Cylindrical waterwall syngas combustor with staged air injection – reduces air requirement and NOx formation • Optimal SNCR performance in turbulent syngas combustor • Advanced control system developed from Tulsa demonstration
- 51. 4500 Btu/lb MSW 5000 Btu/lb MSW 5500 Btu/lb MSW 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 SyngasHeatingValue,Btu/SCF Stoichiometric ratio CLEERGAS® – Higher Syngas Quality
- 52. • Commercialization of MSW gasification with syngas combustion – Lower emissions – Higher boiler efficiency – Reduced boiler fouling and corrosion – Lower capital cost – modularization – Developing projects around the world • Ongoing development of gasification with syngas recovery – Syngas tars conversion and clean-up difficult – Main driver remains reduced emissions potential – Minimal energy efficiency benefit potential with gas engines & turbines – Conversion to liquids challenged by syngas quality and economics Covanta CLEERGAS®
- 53. Thank You
- 54. Thermal Conversion of Waste to Energy and Products American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Webinar: Turning Trash Into Renewable Energy Treasure Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:00PM –3:00PM ET, New York U.S. Marco J. Castaldi Associate Professor Chemical Engineering Department The City College of New York City University of New York
- 55. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facility IN 100 cubic yards of waste OUT 10 cubic yards of (inert) ash 90% volume reduction Reducing the Volume of Waste & Generating Energy 13,000 KWh generated E = M x C2 Energy is mass times a constant (from the mass recover energy)
- 56. Waste Management Options 249 Million tons of trash (MSW) goes to landfills Up to 100 kilowatt hours of electricity per ton of waste Renewable Energy Generated from Landfills - 5 billion kWh 29 Million tons of trash goes to EfW Renewable energy generated from WTE Facilities - 15 billion kWh Up to 700 kilowatt hours of electricity per ton of waste Waste to Energy Landfills These two options must co-exist for the foreseeable future
- 57. WTE is Increasing • In 2011 the world MSW generated ±2 billion tons • Currently ~800 thermal WTE plants – Operating in nearly 40 countries – This is 11% vs. 70% landfilled • WTE expected to increase – From 221 terawatt hours in 2010 to 283 tW-hrs by 2022 – Global market for WTE technologies $6.2 billion in 2012 and expected to grow to $29.2 billion by 2022. Source: Pike Research
- 58. • WTE conserves fossil fuels by generating electricity. (Energy) – 1 ton of waste combusted = 45 gallons of oil or 0.28 tons of coal – Most WTE facilities in U.S. process between 500 and 3,000 tons of waste per day – Electricity for 2.8 million homes • WTE facilities process 14% of the MSW in the United States. (Health) – Trash-disposal needs about than 37 million people • WTE facilities meet some of the world's most stringent standards. (Environmental, local) – Achieved compliance with new Clean Air Act pollution control standards in 2000 – EPA data :dioxin emissions now account for less than 0.5% of dioxin emissions • WTE facilities reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Climate, global) – EPA estimates: WTE facilities prevent 33 million metric tons of CO2 per year avoided • WTE facilities save real estate. (Land) – They reduce the space required for landfills by about 90% • WTE is compatible with recycling. (Resource Minimization) – WTE Communities recycle 35% of their trash, compared to 30% for the general population. – Annually removes more than 700,000 tons of ferrous materials – 3 million tons of WTE ash reused as landfill cover, roadbed, or building material. • WTE facilities provide economic benefits. (Economic) – WTE is a $10 billion industry employs ~ 6,000 American workers annual wages ~ $400 million WTE cuts across many sustainable fronts
- 59. A Renewable Resource • ASTM D8666 testing standard using 14C • Biomass content; 3 WTE flue gas samples • 66%, 68% and 66% •10% - 36% reduction of CO2 emissions compared to landfill
- 60. Ladder WTE and recycling are complementary Why? A complete look at waste management includes ALL options
- 61. Representative Emissions for U.S. WTE Operational Facilities (meeting strict EU standards which are lower than US standards)
- 62. Dioxins Reality 1 1.005 1.01 4 6 8 10 background 1990 2000 2009 Relative concentrations of dioxins Background 1990 000.0E+0 100.0E+6 200.0E+6 300.0E+6 400.0E+6 500.0E+6 600.0E+6 700.0E+6 1 Dioxin emissions to atmosphere for 100 years of WTE plant operation equals 15 minutes of fireworks Bar = timescale of WTE Red line = timescale of fireworks
- 63. Technology
- 64. Pyrolysis, Gasification or Combustion • Sub stoichiometric air • Lower total volumetric flow • Lower fly ash carry over • Pollutants in reduced form (H2S, COS) • Char @ Low T • Vitrified Slag @ high T • Scale: ~ 100 tons/day • Excess air • Higher volumetric flowrate • Fly ash carry over • Pollutants in oxidized form (SOx, NOx, etc) • Bottom ash • Scale: ~ 1500 tons/day • Normally no air • Only heat (external or internal) • Want liquid, Gases not desired • Pollutants in reduced form (H2S, COS) • High Char • Scale: ~ 10 tons/day No additional Oxygen (only heat) Unconverted solid will remain! Some additional Oxygen (or air) Heat added or comes from reactions Much additional Oxygen (or air) Heat comes from reactions
- 65. Combustion Option 1) C + O2 CO2 + Heat 2) H2 + 1/2O2 H2O + Heat 3) Char + Heat Slag • A heat engine converts heat into work. efficiency is given by = |w| / qh = 1 - |qc| / qh = 1 - |Tc| / Th Th Tc Engine qh qc w Primarily generate heat Combustion systems are constrained by Carnot cycle to extract work (i.e. electricity, power)
- 66. Gasification Option Work needs to be done here Gasification (and pyrolysis) have option to make other products, not only heat and work
- 67. Gasification status • 163 commercial gasification projects worldwide consisting of a total of 468 gasifiers. DOE survey • ~ 120 plants began operations between 1960 and 2000 – majority (more than 72 plants) commissioned after 1980. Currently ~34 new plants are at various stages of planning and construction. • The majority of the existing plants were designed and constructed to produce a synthetic gas, consisting primarily of H2 and CO • Ethanol – EnerChem/City of Edmonton – 2013 Pilot • Energos (Sweden, UK) building plants @ <150,000 tpy Totaling ~ 35 million tpy (metric)
- 68. Combustion Status (metric tons) • Number of nations using WTE: 35 • Total number of WTE plants > 600 • Estimated global WTE: 170 million tpy • U.S. WTE: 26 million tpy • Urban global landfilling: 830 million tpy • U.S. landfilling: 225 million tpy • Recent expansions of ~800,000 tpy • New US Facility ~ 1 million tpy (2015)
- 69. Worldwide Installations of Units (i.e. boiler, gasifier, etc) NumberofUnits(logarithmic)
- 70. Environmental Management System Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) Odors Burned in Boilers Ash Wetted High-temperature Combustion Acid Gas Scrubbers Baghouse or ESP Carbon Injection* Tall Stack Manual Stack Tests Typical Waste-to-Energy Plant Enclosed Unloading and Storage Areas Urea Injection* Thermal Treatment
- 71. THERMOSELECTPROCESS OVERVIEW Zinc Concentrate Salt Clean water Sulfur Synthesis Gas Production of Hydrogen Methanol Ammonia or Power generation O2 Press Degassing Channel Oxygen facility Homogenization reactor QuenchHigh Temperature Chamber Waste of all kinds Process water treatment Synthesis gas scrubbing Metals and Minerals 1600°C2000°C 1200°C Scrubber H2, CO, CO2, H2O The Thermoselect Process (Interstate Waste Technologies, U.S.) Thermal Treatment
- 72. Process Flowsheet Overhead Crane Waste Pit Waste Hopper Shredder Waste Feeder Gasifier *1 Noncombustible Discharge Conveyor Sand Screen Magnetic Separator Iron Inert materials Aluminum Slag Ash- melting Furnace Quenching Pit Aluminum Separator Waste Heat Boiler Economizer No. 1 Ash Treatment Facility Treated APC Ash Other reagents Treated Flue Gas Bag Filter Induced Draft Fan Flue Gas Reheater Catalytic Reactor Ammonia Stack Cooling Water Ash Treatment Agent Flue Gas Cooler Caustic Soda Liquid Chelate Gas Scrubber Circulating Fan Waste Water Flue Gas Treatment (Air Pollution Control)Thermal TreatmentStorage and Feeding Conventional technologyConventional technology Ebara Fluidized-bed TwinRec/TIFG Technology
- 73. The Nippon Steel WTE Process Bag Thermal Treatment
- 74. Comparison Summary for Plasma Systems Technology Energy (kWh/ton) Capital Costs ($/ton) InEnTec 530 ~77 (est) Alter NRG 617 81 Europlasma 605 86 Plasco 530 86 Newer WTE 650 74 Grate WTE (US avg) 550 60 Efficiency comes at a cost
- 76. History of MSW Thermal Treatment 1900 - 2000 1896 1970
- 77. Combustion (WTE) Facilities Today
- 78. What’s Next • Next generation combustors – higher energy density – Low NOx operation – Approach 3+ MW m-2 – Injection of halogen scavengers • Liquefaction of wastes (T ~ 300 – 500 ºC) – Removal of O2 • Gasification to fuels and chemicals – Enerkem – Solena Group Inc • Novel uses of ash – catalytic and property adjustment • LFGTE Applications and LFG to fuels
- 79. City College of New York (CCNY) Columbia University WTERT, U.S. (2002) www.wtert.org SYNERGIA, Greece (2007) www.wtert.gr WTERT, China (2008) www.wtert.cn CEFWC, Canada (2008) www.wtert.ca WERT, Germany (2009) www.wtert.eu WTERT, Japan (2010) www.wtert.jp WTERT-Brasil, Brazil (2010) www.wtert.com.br Under formation: France, U.K., India, Argentina, Mexico, Thailand, Italy, Czech Republic A truly international organization: Sister organizations in many nations
- 80. Beginning in 2013, the IT3/HWC conference will be organized in odd years in partnership with the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) and the Materials and Energy Recovery Division (MER) of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). These groups will be involved in the conference planning and development of technical sessions Chemical Engineering Department Earth Engineering Center Columbia University and City College of New York
- 81. Acknowledgements Chemical Engineering Department Earth Engineering Center Columbia University and City College of New York Sustainability in Urban Environment – Capstone project (Engineering, Science & Architecture) “An Integrated Waste-to-Energy Plan for New York City” You, The Audience for Attention
- 82. 82 Questions?
- 83. Thank you for attending! Continue the conversation about WTE technologies on the [insert group page name] on asme.org. Join us for the next webinar in July 2013 on the topic of Wind Power. go.asme.org/energyforum Learn more:
- 84. 84 Appendix
- 85. 85 About the Presenters Steve Goff Covanta Energy Steve Goff is Vice President of Research & Development for Covanta Energy Corporation, where he is responsible for leading Covanta’s research and technology development efforts. Key areas under his responsibility include the evaluation and development of new thermal conversion technologies, including combustion and gasification, for municipal solid waste and other renewable solid fuels, boiler and power generation technologies, emissions control technologies, and ash treatment and reuse methods. Mr. Goff joined Covanta in 2005 with the acquisition of American Ref-Fuel Company, where he had worked since the formation of the company in 1985. Mr. Goff has over 30 years of industrial experience in Energy from Waste and other environmental and high-temperature process industries. He earned his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Villanova University, and his M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Lehigh University.
- 86. 86 About the Presenters John Norton Norton Engineering LLC John Norton operated two Solid Waste Combustion Plants (each with a 750 TPD capacity) as the former Director of the Dayton, Ohio Solid Waste Management Department. He is a Registered Professional Engineer and is a Board Certified Solid Waste Expert by The American Academy of Environmental Engineers (BCEE). Since 1976, Mr. Norton has provided consulting services in civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering and environmental matters: Solid waste management plans, designs, construction, operation, and troubleshooting, as well as stormwater systems modeling, design, and monitoring, and analysis.
- 87. 87 About the Presenters Dr. Marco Castaldi The City College of The City University of New York (CUNY) Marco Castaldi was born in New York City and received his B.S. Ch.E. (Magna cum Laude) from Manhattan College. His Ph.D. is in Chemical Engineering from UCLA and he has minors in Advanced Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics. Prior to joining CCNY he was Associate Professor at Columbia University’s Earth & Environmental Engineering Department. Professor Castaldi has approximately 50 peer-reviewed research articles, 32 peer-reviewed conference papers, 3 book chapters and 11 patents in the fields of catalysis, combustion and gasification. Some of his research findings have been covered by The New York Times, The Observer, CNN, and other trade publications. In addition, he is the Editor of the North American Waste to Energy Conference (NAWTEC) Series (ISBN: 978-0-7918-4393-2), Editor of the Waste to Energy text published by Woodhead Publishing, Editorial Board Member of Waste and Biomass Valorization published through Springer (ISSN: 1877-2641) and Catalysts (ISSN 2073-4344).