Thermal Oxidizer vs. Flare

What is a thermal oxidizer?

A thermal oxidizer (TOX) is an air pollution control system used to destroy volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and odorous emissions. It works by collecting process emissions, heating them to a high temperature, holding it (dwell time) under sufficient turbulence and oxygen for oxidation, converting pollutants into CO2 and H2O, and then releasing cleaned gas to the atmosphere.

TOX systems are designed to work with continuous or semi-continuous operations where process exhaust is present. See How Thermal Oxidizers Work for more information.

What is a flare?

A flare is a combustion device used to burn off unwanted gases (waste VOC gasses, emergency vent emissions, blowdowns, reliefs) rather than venting them directly to the atmosphere. Flares are often used for safety and regulatory compliance, particularly in petrochemical, refining, or other high-hazard industries.

Flares may be open or enclosed, and ground mounted or elevated. They may be used continuously for waste streams or intermittently (for emergency releases). Efficiency, viable emissions, radiation, noise, and safety are all key design considerations.

Key Performance Criteria & Design Considerations

When deciding between a thermal oxidizer and a flare, it’s important to evaluate the following factors and understand why each one matters:

• VOC/HAP Concentration & Composition: Level of energy needed, risk of overheating, etc.
• Flow Rate & Duty Cycle (continuous vs. intermittent): Affects sizing, dwell time, fuel consumption, and economics.
• Heat Recovery Potential: For TOX, possibilities to recover and reuse heat affect operating costs.
• Regulatory Emission Limits/Destruction Efficiency Requirements: Some applications require >99% destruction, low emissions of CO, NOx, visible smoke, etc.
• Safety/Emergency Consideration: Flares handle emergency/relief events; oxidizers generally are for process exhaust.
• Capital Expenditure vs. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): Upfront cost vs. fuel, maintenance, downtime, and regulatory compliance.
• Space, Infrastructure, Fuel supply: Burner systems, flare stacks, access to fuel and control systems.

Comparing Thermal Oxidizers and Flares

Here we'll look at how key features of these systems size up with each other in cost, reliability, safety, and ability.

Thermal Oxidizer

Some characteristics of thermal oxidation systems include: 

VOC Destruction Efficiency: Very high, often ≥ 95-99% under good design (adequate temperature, dwell, turbulence).

Operating Cost & Fuel Use: Higher fixed fuel/energy demand if heat recovery is not used. Recuperative systems help reduce fuel usage. For continuous processes, a TOX with heat recovery can be more cost-efficient over time.

Reliability, Maintenance, Lifecycle: Oxidizers need durable refractory linings, heat exchangers, and routine inspection of burners to handle cycling stresses. When properly maintained, they can offer a long, reliable service life.

Safety & Regulatory Aspects: Provides tighter control of emissions. Easier to guarantee destruction efficiencies, lower visible emissions, and better suited for meeting strict emission permits.

Capital Cost & Installation Complexity: Typically higher capital cost due to heat exchangers, burners, auxiliary systems, control, and support infrastructure. Installation of oxidizer, ducts, and possibly heat recovery system adds complexity.

Intermittency/Process Matching: Best suited for continuous or semi-continuous waste stream. Cycling on/off or large fluctuations are hard on oxidizers (thermal shock, heat exchanger fatigue). Some oxidizers can be designed with bypass or warm-up features, but that increases complexity.

Flare

A thermal flare's characteristics include: 

VOC Destruction Efficiency: Can be high, but typically lower or more variable. Efficiency depends heavily on flame stability, mixing, residence time, and wind/atmospheric conditions (for elevated flares). Some flares struggle to achieve consistent destruction, particularly under low flow or “lean” waste gas conditions.

Operating Cost & Fuel Use: Lower if flare is purely relief/emergency (low usage). But if used continuously, fuel and operational costs can be high and unpredictable.

Reliability, Maintenance, Lifecycle: Flares are simpler in certain respects (less complex flow path, no heat exchanger, potentially no draft fan, etc.), but issues can include frame stability, soot/visible emissions, pilot flame reliability, weather/wind effects, stack corrosion, and noise. Maintenance of flare tip, pilot, and ignition equipment is needed.

Safety & Regulatory Aspects: Flares are often mandated for safety/overpressure relief situations, but it may produce more visible smoke, may face stricter scrutiny under air quality/visible emission regulation, and could possibly be higher risk in certain configurations (radiation, flame impingement, etc.).

Capital Cost & Installation Complexity: Generally lower capital cost for a flare system versus a full thermal oxidizer with heat recovery. But costs for flare stack, pilot systems, safety systems, and possibly enclosure or smoke suppression can add up.

Intermittency/Process Matching: Flexible for intermittent/relief/emergency flows. Flares handle fluctuating loads more easily in many cases. For continuous waste stream, performance and efficiency often suffer.

When a Thermal Oxidizer Might Be the Better Option

Scenarios in which selecting a thermal oxidizer may be superior:

• When continuous or semi-continuous VOC/HAP emissions demand high destruction efficiency, along with stable predictable operation.
• Where regulatory permits require tight control of emissions (low visible smoke, low CO, NOₓ, etc.).
• When there is potential for heat recovery (using recovered heat for process heating or steam) to offset operational cost.
• Where fuel cost is high, or there is need to minimize auxiliary fuel input.
• If odors, visible emissions, community impact or nuisance is a concern, and a controlled combustion device (oxidizer) can provide cleaner, more consistent output.
• Where long-term total cost of ownership (fuel, maintenance, regulatory compliance) favors oxidizer despite the higher capex.

When a Flare Might Be the Better Option

Scenarios where a flare may outperform or be more appropriate than a thermal oxidizer:

• For emergency venting, overpressure relief, blowdowns, or where regulations mandate a flare for safety or compliance.
• When waste gas flows are highly intermittent, sporadic, with long downtime; the fixed costs of an oxidizer may not justify continuous operation.
• If VOC/HAP concentrations are very high, such that heat release is large and the oxidizer would overheat or require costly design modifications.
• Where capital budget is limited, and simpler, less expensive infrastructure (flare stack, pilot, etc.) meets regulatory minimums.
• For remote or temporary installations where maintenance / operational support for oxidizer systems is more challenging.

Recommendations: Flare vs. Thermal Oxidizer

While there is no one-size-fits-all, both thermal oxidizers and flares have their places. If a process emits VOCs continuously, needs high destruction efficiencies, and there is an opportunity for heat recovery, a thermal oxidizer is often more cost efficient over the long-term. If the emissions are largely intermittent, or safety/relief venting driven, or capital expenditure must be minimized, a flare may suffice and is often required for emergencies. Always evaluate the total cost of ownership and regulatory compliance, not just the upfront capital cost.

‍

‍