THE POWER OF PLASMA
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions while increasing profitability at the same time? Today this can only be achieved by ONE nitriding process:
Compared to gas nitriding, it has five significant advantages:.
Less consumption of process gases
Increased occupational safety
Lower requirements for space and periphery
Easier integration into existing production lines
Environmentally friendly
For the end customer, this leads to
SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS
LESSNOx-, CO- and CO2-EMISSIONS.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS:
Many studies have now verified that the plasma nitriding process can be carried out more cost-effectively than gas nitriding. The difference between these two processes essentially lies in which mechanism enables the infusion of oxygen. The reduced burden on the environment is an additional advantage of plasma nitriding: Hazardous waste gases are not produced; there is no risk of explosion; it does not cause significant pollution, odour disturbance or noise pollution, all the while using partially lower process temperatures and greatly reducing energy and process gas consumption.
Gas nitriding compared to plasma nitriding (as of November)
Source: current market prices as of Nov. 2022
The processing costs for plasma nitriding could be reduced by 270% compared to gas nitriding. And this is despite taking into account that higher batch quantities can be handled in the gas nitriding process under certain conditions.
Basis for calculation:
Component: trailer coupling
Background: was previously nitrided in gas and converted to plasma nitriding for economic reasons
Process duration: in total, for each situation, approx. 17h
Components per process: PN: 500, GN: 900.
System size: PN: 1,000 x 1,800mm, GN: 1,100 x 1,800mm
Energy costs: € 0.15/kWh
LEARN MORE?
The ecological process comparison based on ‘eco-balance’
A large percentage of ecological pollution in the production sector is created by power loads (i.e. the actual power generation). The method of ecological balance, among other things, was developed to record the material and energy flows of products from their entire life cycles (production, consumption, disposal) and indicate their possible effects on the environment. The associated ISO 14050 et seq. later developed as a result.
Within the framework of a study, the comparison between plasma and gas nitriding was made through ecological balancing from the material flow and ecological perspective presented here. In this, the studied process and system as well as their cumulative energy consumption were observed in more detail, and the differences were shown.
It was thus necessary that – within the system limits – the differences of the production steps in the systems and the provision, for example, of energy, process gases and cooling water should also be displayed
The above-mentioned study achieved a significant finding: Approximately 40% of the electrical power was required to bring the batch to nitriding temperature. During the actual nitriding processes, despite the longer duration, less heating energy is required, however, as, for the most part, the plasma assumes the heating capacity. Electrical power during cooling is primarily required for the cooling fans.
The study has also shed light on the environmental impact of electricity and gas supplies and water treatment. On the whole, electricity provision stands out in both cases here. Emissions from the nitriding process predominantly cause a photochemical oxidation. Moreover, it is evident that the gas nitriding process has a greater impact due to the larger volume flow of gas and the post-combustion of process gases and thus is more damaging to the environment than the corresponding plasma nitriding process.
Source: Ecological Process Comparison of Plasma and Gas Nitriding by Stefan Leichtenmüller, Hubert Biedermann – Chair of Economic and Business Management, University of Leoben, Austria
MORE INFORMATION?
