Moi, I asked Michelle Lewis who was the author of this piece you posted about Pyrogenesis being a solution.. She went right to the interviewee in the article and this was her response..
It seems the cathode/electrode lifespan seems to be an issue with him but I did not get the impression it was a show-stopper and it appears the Queens University is involved in plasma research?
So I think it is safe to say improving the components of the cathode and anode will be paramount for the cement as well as iron ore industries to adopt this technology.. maybe? There very well could be adoption by say Iron Ore induration pelletization industry accepting the life span of these elements as it outweighs the carbon tax liability.. We shall see. I’m sure we will hear from Peter with regards to this in good time.
Hi Doug,
I asked him personally for you, and here is his response:
Plasma arc technology is just one of many innovative technologies that cement producers, government, academia, and others are researching and we’re excited that Queen’s University is part of that effort. Cement manufacturing requires both high temperatures and high rates of heat transfer. While plasma arc technology does provide high temperatures, its ability to provide high rates of heat transfer at the scales needed to manufacture cement remains an open question. The cement manufacturing process is a 24/7process requiring 24/7availability. Plasma arc technology is limited by the life expectancy of cathodes (1,000 hours) and anodes (500 hours) and the availability of the gases needed for sheathing (argon and nitrogen), forming, (air, nitrogen, oxygen) and ignition (helium).
