Developing a 21st Century Energy From Waste Facility – An Island Perspective Marc J. Rogoff, Ph.D.
Outline • What Is Energy From Waste (EfW)? • What Are The Steps in Conducting
Feasibility Analysis? • Case Study in American Samoa
2
My Career Background • Education – Ph.D., Resource Development – MBA, Finance
• Resource Recovery Program Administrator (4 Years) • Solid Waste Management Consultant (25 Years) • University Institute of Government (4 Years)
3
Our Global Challenges • Today, we face numerous environmental & economic challenges: – Population growth and associated waste disposal needs – Global warming – Dependence on fossil fuels
• There is a common solution for all of these challenges:
Energy from Waste (EfW) provides: – Safe, economic waste disposal – Greenhouse gas reduction – Renewable energy
4
Overdependence on Imported Fuels Over 70% in 2009
5
A Growing Waste Problem • In the US an increasing amount
of trash is buried in landfills: Proliferation of MSW Municipal Solid Waste in U.S. (in millions of tons) – Waste generation has increased by over a third in the past 25 years in the 245.7 250 U.S. alone. 200 – Recycling efforts have not 151.6 been able to keep pace with 150 the increased generation of 100 trash. 58.4 50 • The EU has addressed waste 14.5 0 disposal with a directive that 1980 2005 requires reduction of landfilling raw garbage MSW Generation
Recycling Recovery 6
Why Choose EfW ? • Clean power: The US EPA has stated that EfW plants are a “clean,
reliable, renewable source of energy” that “produces electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.”
• Less dependence on imported fuels: For every ton of waste
processed in a EfW facility, we avoid the need to import 1 barrel of oil or mine one quarter ton of coal.
• Net Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction: For every ton of waste
processed in a EfW facility, almost one ton of GHG is avoided.
• A safe and effective solution for managing local trash
generation: Less reliance on landfills and long distance shipping of trash preserves valuable land and resource with minimal disturbance to surrounding neighborhoods.
7
EfW Worldwide EfW
• EfW is used extensively worldwide – 780 EfW facilities; 140 million tons per year (TPY)
Recycling/ Composting
U.S. 89 EfW facilities 29 million TPY
8
Western Europe
Asia
388 EfW facilities 62 million TPY
301 EfW facilities 48 million TPY
China
Singapore
Taiwan
Japan
Ireland
U.K.
Italy
Average
Germany
Sweden
Denmark
U.S.
Landfill
Islands and EfW
9
EfW Benefits For Islands • Preserve limited land for future generations • Decreasing dependence on fuel imports by
using a renewable indigenous fuel • Minimize groundwater contamination • Use of solid residues (ash or slag) to add to land surface • Utilization of recovered metals, ash and low pressure steam (by-product of EfW in ecoparks created around EfWs. 10
EfW Technologies EfW is a specially designed energy generation facility that uses household waste as fuel and helps solve some of society’s big challenges • Traditional Mass Burn – Refuse Derived Fuel –
• Alternative Thermal – Biological –
Power: 400 to 560 kWh Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): 2000 lbs
Metal: 50 lbs
Ash: 10% of original volume
11
Typical Mass Burn Facility
12
Refuse Derived Fuel Systems
Smaller Modular Facilities
•Pre-Fabricated at Factory •Modules Can Be Added
14
Steps in the Process
Loading of Combustion Chamber 450 degrees – air starved condition
15
Secondary Combustion 1200 degrees C
Steps in the Process
Energy Recovery in Waste Heat Boiler, Turbine Generator, Chiller, Heat Exchanger 430 to 650 kwh/Ton of Waste
16
Bottom Ash
Air Emission and Process Control
SCADA Operator Control Designed to Meet EPA and EU Standards 17
THERMAL (Plasma Gasification) Air, O2 or steam MSW Air Lock MRF
Reactor (Gasifier)
Syngas Emission Treatment Heat Source
cooling water blowdown 18
• power generation by various means
Slag
• other uses in manufacturing
BIOLOGICAL (Anaerobic) Steam Biogas MSW
MSW
Anaerobic Reactor Water Mixing
Compost Heat Source
Filtrate Water
• boiler fuel • power generation
Sludge
MRF
19
Treatment
BIO-CHEMICAL (Hydrolysis) Sewage sludge MSW Fermenter
Distiller Ethanol production
Hydrolysis Reactor
MRF
Acid
lignin Biogas
Wastewater Gasifier
20
PROCESS SUMMARY Process
PreProcessing
Pyrolysis
High
Gasification
Med.
Product
Commercial Readiness
Syngas/Oil
Yes
Ash/Slag
Syngas/Char
Yes
Filtrate Water
Biogas, Compost
Yes
By-Product
Char/Ash/Tar/Oil
Anaerobic Digestion
Med./High
Hydrolysis
High
Waste water, ash
Ethanol
No
Aerobic Digestion
Med./High
None
Compost
Yes
Plasma Gasification
Claims Low
Slag/ Blowdown
Syngas 21
No
PROS / CONS Process
Advantages
Drawbacks
Pyrolysis / Gasification
Potential for high power production, high conversion
Untested, possibly high O&M costs, ash disposal
Biological (aerobic & anaerobic)
Proven, “low� tech. Emissions less of a concern.
Some odor. Lack of market for compost, low conversion
Plasma Gasification
Potential for high power production, high conversion
Untested, possibly high O&M costs, safety concerns, slag market (?)
Bio-Chemical (Hydrolysis)
Fuel production, sludge processing
Untested, Treats only cellulosic part of waste
22
Beyond The “HYPE” • Some companies that market the thermal technologies have had
dubious performance records with some plants operated abroad. • Problems ranged from complete failures, to explosions, excess air
emissions, continual process breakdown, discharges of contaminated liquids, false claims, and data validation. – Verification of operating records & permitting conditions in other countries makes
direct comparisons incomplete and risky.
• California, Hawaii, Arizona, and Washington have had problems with
actual facilities or technical proposals.
23
Case Study of EfW Feasibility Analysis in American Samoa
American Samoa Power Authority
24
Similar Island Concerns • Increasing cost of energy • Limited space due to topography for new
landfills • Increasing population growth • Improvements in solid waste management
25
Steps in Feasibility Analysis Funded by DOI
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
26
Phase I – Feasibility Analysis Waste Stream Analysis • Review Permitting Requirements Waste Disposal Practices Analysis • Risk and Legal Assessment Energy and Materials Market Study • Financial Analysis Analysis of Feasible Waste-to-Energy • Develop Project Alternatives Technologies • Go/No-Go Decision Analysis of Potential Facility Sites Phase II – Procurement Select Project Alternative • Develop Financing Plan Select Site and Acquire • RFQ/RFP Produced and Issued Permitting Underway • Contractor Selected Market Contracts Concluded • Contract Negotiations Concluded Waste Stream Guarantee • Notice-to-Proceed Phase III – Plant Construction Site Preparation • Equipment Installed Complete Final Design • Testing and Startup Equipment Ordered • Acceptance Testing Building Constructed • Certificate of Completion Phase IV – Plant Operations Service Fee Payment • Annual Report (Optional) Annual Tipping Fee Adjustment • Facility Retesting (Optional)
EfW Building Blocks 1. Waste supply 2. Energy markets and potential revenues 3. Site – good logistics, permitable, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 27
neighbors Landfill Contractor Capital Ability to finance Political will
Waste Composition Analysis
Two Weekly Sorting Programs – February and July, 2009
28
Detailed Components in Waste Stream
29
Top Ten Materials in Waste Stream Material Type
Mean %
Cum %
Cardboard and Kraft
3,316
15.1%
15.1%
Ferrous Cans
2,930
13.4%
28.5%
Mixed Residue
2,927
13.4%
41.8%
Yard Waste
2,010
9.2%
51.0%
Diapers
1,027
4.7%
55.7%
Fish Meal
925
4.2%
59.9%
Food Waste
909
4.1%
64.1%
Fish Waste
761
3.5%
67.5%
Bag Film Plastic
749
3.4%
71.0%
Boxboard
621
2.8%
73.8%
Total
30
Tons
16,174
73.8%
Preliminary Waste Composition Results – Feb 2009
31
Other Important Wastes
Waste Oil 120,000 Gallons/Year
32
Tires 1,200 Tons/Year
33
EfW Plant Sizing
Assumptions Waste Growth (1.5%/Year) WTE Downtime &10% WTE Downtime @15%
34
0
1
2
3
4
Year 5 6
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
84
86
87
78
79
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
91
7
8
9
10
Can American Samoa Serve As Regional MSW Disposal Hub?
35
Proposed Plant Siting
Tafuna Power Plant
3.5 Acre Parcel
36
Who Is Responsible For What ? (there is no set structure)
EfW Company
Financing
Investors
Grant
ASPA Contract
Design / Build Operate Company
Permits “Avoided cost� Payments
Owner 37
Territory/ Federal Agencies Regulatory Agency
Energy Revenues/Deferred Costs
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 38
$ Per KWh Fuel and Production Total Operating Expenses Expenses 0.097 0.124 0.110 0.142 0.141 0.175 0.181 0.207 0.180 0.211 0.260 0.289
Other Revenues • Process steam to industry • Process steam for district heating • Chilled water or air for central cooling • Desalinated water • Scrap metal recovered from bottom ash • Carbon credits • IRS Section 45 production tax credits • Treasury grant under ARRA
39
Financial Analysis • Developed a Pro Forma Economic Model – Operating costs – Capital costs – Project revenues – User fees/customer charges – Grant/bond financing – Roadmap
40
Next Steps • Conduct second waste sort • Finalize inputs to Pro Forma model • Finalize draft report • Regional market study? • Issue final report • ASPA Go/No-Go • Move onto procurement phase
41
Questions??? Marc J. Rogoff SCS Engineers mrogoff@scsengineers.com 42