appropriate waste management technology for least developed countries

7/22/2019 Appropriate Waste Management Technology for Least Developed Countries

1/42

Contents:

1. History of Waste Management in Nepal

2. Present Context

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are now the method by which mostmunicipalities dispose of their solid waste. Certain components of the wastestream lend themselves inherently to reuse or recycling under the right economicand geographic circumstances (Curlee et al., 1!). "or other fractions of themunicipal waste stream (e.g. the wet putrescible organic fraction), beneficialrecycling or re#use is infeasible in the $orth %merican conte&t because it is moree&pensive than landfill disposal ("CM, '!). owever, this fraction of the wastestream, subse*uent to some processing, may have value as fertili+er (ar-er andoberts, 1/0). he biological degradation of organic materials almost alwaysyields energy in some form, and in the right conditions such energy can beharnessed (2ayhanian et al., 11). Similarly, components of MSW such as

paper, cardboard, and plastic have an inherent energy value that can be reali+edby combustion or other means (%nderson and illman, 133).

undreds of small municipal landfills are located throughout the province ofSas-atchewan. 4n many communities, recycling programs are not economicaldue to insufficient amounts of waste to compensate for the distance to mar-et.Many of these landfills re*uire continuous e&pansion to accommodate thegrowing amount of waste being produced. 5ne option many municipalities areconsidering for reducing their MSW is waste#to#energy (6esilind et al., '').Several different types of waste#to#energy technologies are available, all differingin their associated costs and environmental effects, and the types and *uantities

of waste they can use. 7sing municipal solid waste for energy results in areduction in the total amount of waste going to the landfill. 4n some cases thisreduction can be very significant, reducing landfilling costs and environmentalimpact. Waste#to#energy can be very appealing to many municipalities, becauseit turns a liability into a resource that can generate revenue.

3. Global trend in waste Management

8lobal trends in waste generation and management Waste generation and waste

composition varies between and also within countries (see able 0), primarily due to

differences in population, urbanisation and affluence. owever, as already noted

above, this type of information tends to be compromised (where used for

comparative purposes) by the variance in definition of waste. Waste generation rates

have been positively correlated to per capita energy consumption, 89 and final

private consumption (:ogner et al '/). ;urope and the 7nited States are the main

producers of MSW in absolute terms (


2/42

populations are increasing. 4n non#5;C9 regions, as countries progress toward ds

achieving a higher standard of living, waste generation per capita and overall national waste

production is set to increase accordingly if current production>consumption patterns persist.

%lthough average annual per capita waste generation in developing nations is estimated at

1#'? that of developed nations, this figure is constantly rising in response to economic

growth. 8lobally, waste generation is increasing. 4n non#5;C9 countries there is a shift in

waste management practices from open dumping or burning to waste disposal in controlled

landfills, and to a higher proportion of the urban population receiving waste collection

services. % number of 5;C9 countries (i.e. %ustralia, Canada, the 7S, and $ew @ealand)

continue to rely on controlled landfilling while ;uropean 7nion (;7) member states, under

the pressure of the ;uropean


3/42


4/42


5/42


6/42


7/42

4. P! ad"i#e

:ecause no single waste management approach

is suitable for managing all waste streams in allcircumstances, ;% developed a hierarchy

ran-ing the most environmentally sound

strategies for municipal solid waste. he

hierarchy places emphasis on reducing, reusing,

and recycling the maority of wastes and

demonstrates the -ey components of ;%Ds

Sustainable Materials Management rogram

(SMM).

SMM is an effort to protect the environment and

conserve resources for future generations

through a systems approach that see-s to

reduce materials use and their associated environmental impacts over their entire life

cycles, starting with e&traction of natural resources and product design and ending with

decisions on recycling or final disposal.

Source Reduction and Reuse

Source reduction,also -nown as waste prevention, means reducing waste at the source.

4t can ta-e many different forms, including reusing or donating items, buying in bul-,

reducing pac-aging, redesigning products, and reducing to&icity. Source reduction also

is important in manufacturing.


8/42

Recyclingis a series of activities that includes the collection of used, reused, or unused

items that would otherwise be considered wasteE sorting and processing the recyclable

products into raw materialsE and remanufacturing the recycled raw materials into new

products. Consumers provide the last lin- in recycling by purchasing products made

from recycled content. ecycling also can includecompostingoffood scraps,yard

trimmings, and other organic materials.

ecycling prevents the emission of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants,

saves energy, supplies valuable raw materials to industry, creates obs, stimulates the

development of greener technologies, conserves resources for our childrenDs future, and

reduces the need for new landfills and combustors.

Energy Recovery

Energy recoveryfrom waste is the conversion of non#recyclable waste materials intouseable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion,

gasification, pyroli+ation, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas (2g or '/ -Wh>ton0). herefore, Gwaste
http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basicshttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/composting/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/foodwaste/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/yardwoodwaste.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/yardwoodwaste.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/wte/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/outreach/lmop/index.htmlhttp://www2.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basicshttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/composting/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/foodwaste/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/yardwoodwaste.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/yardwoodwaste.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/wte/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/outreach/lmop/index.html


9/42

to energyH systems are superior to landfills. 4t is important however to distinguishbetween landfills which capture and utili+e the landfill gas (methane) as opposed tothose which do not perform energy recovery.

(. Nepal swm a#t

). &wm r'les and reg'lation

*. Waste Management sit'ation in Nepal + m'ni#ipalities

Geograp%i#al distrib'tion of m'ni#ipalities

he geographical distribution of these cities and towns as per development region and

ecological +ones is as shown able 1#1.able 1 #1indicates that the municipalities are

concentrated in on eastern and central development regions in erai rather than the hilly#

mountain areas. 5f total municipalities, A1 municipalities are located in erai whereas '0municipalities lie in hilly region and only ' municipalities in Mountain egion. he erai in

the ;9 has ten municipalities whereas "W9 has only three municipalities in the erai

area. owever, the hilly#mountain area in the C9 has ten municipalities whereas the same

region in the MW9 has only two municipalities despite of its greater geographical

coverage.


10/42

he physical factors such as altitude, temperature, rainfall, humidity as well as socio#

economic factors such as population, economic status and consumption patterns etc. are

varied from one region to others. hese factors influence the waste generation,

characteristics as well as treatment and final disposal technologies of waste. his analysis

provides a basis for the comparison of the various indicators describing the state of solid

waste management in the municipalities of different regions and finally helps to recommend

appropriate waste treatment and management approach.

Table 1-1 Geographical distributions o the municipalities

9evelopment region ;cological region $o. of municipalities

;astern 9evelopment

egion

Mountain 1

ill A

erai 1

Central 9evelopment

egion

Mountain 1

ill

erai 1

Western 9evelopment

egion

ill /

erai !

Mid#western

9evelopment egion

ill '

erai !

"ar#western9evelopment egion

ill A

erai A

otal Mountain J 'E otal ill J '0E otal erai J A1

,and 'se pattern

he municipalities cover about '.'0? of the total area of country. he smallest municipality in

terms of area coverage seems to be :anepa with an area of =.3 s*uare -ilometer (s* -m) and

the largest one is riyuga of 7dayapur district with an area of A'' s* -m (%nne& %>able1). he

figures indicated that the highest built#up area was found to be A= s* -m in 2athmandu

Metropolitan City (2MC).

-rbanr'ral setting

"or purpose of this SWM baseline study, area of each municipality was categori+ed into urban

and rural wards. Ward is the smallest administrative unit of each municipality. he urban ward is

referring to those areas having higher population density with intense commercial and industrial

activities. he rural wards in the municipalities are those areas of lesser population density with

no commercial activities. 5f total 0/ municipalities, only few municipalities li-e 2athmandu


11/42

valleyFs municipalities, :iratnagar have no rural wards, whereas :himdutta has 13 rural wards in

total 1 wards. Similarly other many municipalities li-e, 2amalamai, 2apilbastu, riyuga,

9ashrathchand, 8ulariya, 2hadbari etc., are dominated by rural wards.

4n this study, wards were chosen both from urban and rural setting of the municipalities for the

waste generation and composition study, which resulted more comprehensive and

representative average per#capita waste generation rate in each municipality.

/emograp%i# information

$epal has 0/ municipalities having a population of !.0 million that accounts for 13? of

the total population in the country. %mong the municipalities, the 2athmandu

Metropolitan City constitutes the largest population of 1,=,=0= followed by o-hara,

able 1.

Municipal solid waste generation and composition

Ho'se%old waste generation

an average per#capita household waste generation figure of 13 gm>capita>day.


12/42

0.49

0.72

0.88

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Mountain municipality Hill municipality Terai municipality

Ecological region

Averagedai

lywaste

generation(kg/family

"487;A#1 %6;%8;57S;5capita>day.

M'ni#ipal waste #omposition

Household waste composition

he analysis of waste composition indicated that the highest waste fractions were organic

matter (=0?) followed by plastics (11?). aper and paper products and others comprised ?

and 3? of the waste respectively. 8lass, metal, rubber and leather, te&tile components all were

at or below A?. he average composition of the household waste of 0/ municipalities showed

that there was a mi&ture of different types of components, with a significant portion (=0?) of

them being compostable. he high organic content indicated the necessity for fre*uent

collection and removal, as well as having a good prospect of organic waste recycling through


13/42

composting. Similarly, the content of maor reusable>recyclable materials (i.e. plastic, paper and

paper products, metal, glass, rubber and te&tiles) comprised with an average of '/?. Moreover,

paper and paper products, te&tiles, plastics and rubber etc., can be used as efused 9erived

"uels (9"s), which comprised about 'A?.

5rganic waste

=0?

,lastics

11?

,aper>paper

products

?

5thers

3?

8lass

A?

Metals

'?

e&tiles

'?

.ubber and


14/42

Existing solid waste management system

Colle#tion and segregation

he solid waste collection system in many municipalities is not satisfactory. %naly+ing theinformation provided by municipalities, the present collection efficiency ranges between 3 to

? in maor cities, whereas in several smaller municipalities it is below 0? (%nne& %>able

').

ransportation transfer station and final disposal

Sites for construction of treatment facilities and sanitary landfills sites are yet to be identified by

many municipalities and waste is currently being disposed off untreated at crude dumping sites

causing problems of health and environment. here is an urgent need to identify and allot

suitable parcels of land for setting up treatment and disposal facilities. he disposal sites in

most of the municipalities are mainly riverban-s, depressed land>dumps, open pit or temporary

open piles as given in "igure !#11.

64

13

25

6

2 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SanitaryLandill

Site

!ontrolled

dumpin"

#i$er%idedumpin"

&pendumpin"

&pen'ri$er

dumpin"

#oad%ide'ri$er%ide

pillin"

(omunicipal

di%po%al%y%tem

Tye of disosal met!ods

"#m$erofm#niciality

"487;!#1 ;5"S5


15/42

%nne& %>able 3 presents the type of final waste disposal methods practiced in 0/

municipalities. 5nly si& municipalitiesE 2athmandu,


16/42

waste based on income, household si+e, percentage of people 1/ to =1,percentage of blac- people, and a random disturbance variable. heir resultsindicate higher income families produce more newspaper and less clothing, andthat household si+e, household age and income were important factors affectingthe waste composition and *uantity, but no consistently strong statistical

relationship was evident.

9as-alopoulos et al. (1/) developed a prediction methodology for wastecomposition and *uantity using data from ;urope and the 7nited States. heyconverted 89 (gross domestic product) data to C; (total consumere&penditure), which vary linearly with one another. 5nly a fraction of the C; isresponsible for municipal waste, referred to as the C; (related total consumere&penditure). 9as-alopoulos et al. (1/) also found that the plastic and paperfractions increased with increasing C;, while glass, metal and organicfractions tended to decrease. owever, none of the relationships between the

waste fractions and C; were linear.

he principal components involved in recovering the energy from the heat,steam, gases, oils or other products produced in the waste#to#energy process aresimilar and typically includeB boilers for the production of steam, steam and gasturbines for motive power, and electric generators for the conversion of motivepower into electricity (chobanoglous et al., 133).

Waste composition

%ffected byB

N 8eographyB building materials, ash content ( heating), green waste.

N ClimateB 7lan :ator, Mongolia ash is =? of the MSW in winter, '? in summer.

N 4ncomeB Wealthier nations have more comple& waste, lower organic content

N CultureB differences in food consumed (eg, pac-aged or fresh), electronic e*uipment

used changes nature of waste

1.Waste 5'antity

Feasibility Based on Waste Quantity

Since the composition of Sas-atchewan waste is suitable for use in thermalconversion facilities, waste *uantity and costs will be the determining parametersfor feasibility. 4n this and the following section, the information regarding thetypical capacities of the facilities and their costs is ta-en from "CM ('!).N otary 2iln 4ncineratorotary -iln incinerators have typical capacities ranging from 1 to 0 tonnes perday ("CM, '!). his aligns with communities between A,' and 10,=people, of which 1 e&ist in Sas-atchewan (Sas-atchewan :ureau of Statistics,


17/42

'1). "or countries other than the 7nited States, :eldanes and :eard (1=)report that the rotary -iln incinerators in operation as of 1= have capacitiesranging from 10' to 1 tonnes>day and averaging !/ tonnes>day. "acilities ofthis si+e re*uire a population of O10,, and thus would be unsuitable e&ceptfor Sas-atoon and egina.

N Mass :urn 4ncinerationhese facilities typically range in si+e from 1 to 1 tonnes per day ("CM'!). his waste production rate would re*uire a population of between A1,to A1,E only ! centres of this si+e e&ist in Sas-atchewanB Sas-atoon, egina,rince %lbert and Moose Iaw.N Starved %ir 4ncinerationhese facilities range in si+e from 1 to 1 tonnes per day. his suggestscommunities with A,' to A', residents could support such a facility. Si&teencommunities of this si+e e&ist in Sas-atchewan (Sas-atchewan :ureau ofStatistics, '1).N "luidi+ed :ed Combustion

"luidi+ed bed combustors range in si+e from 0 to 0 tonnes per day. 4nSas-atchewan this means that communities with between 10,= and 10=,residents could possibly support this type of technology. "ive communities inSas-atchewan fall into or above this range (Sas-atchewan :ureau of Statistics,'1).N yrolysis and 8asificationhough pilot studies have been done, pyrolysis and gasification systems haveyet to be successfully commercially applied to the management of municipal solid

waste in $orth %merica ("CM, '!E 2umar, '). hey are still emergingtechnologies for use with non#homogeneous materials such as municipal solid

waste (%dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc., '!). 8asification has beensuccessful in parts of ;urope where MSW is segregated by citi+ens at its source.(Crow et al., ''). his has not been attempted in $orth %merica, where themain reasons for failures of these types of plants has been the heterogeneity ofMSW and the difficulty of segregation (6esilind et al., ''). 4f landfill andoperating costs increase, and energy prices change in terms of environmentalcosts, these technologies could become attractive in Canada. owever, this typeof technology is not currently recommended for small cities and towns inSas-atchewan as followsB

hese technologies have yet to be applied in Canada to municipal solidwaste. hey are not well understood, and maor e&pertise would be re*uiredto run a plant (which would li-ely not be available in small cities and towns).

he capital costs of such facilities are *uite high, estimated to be betweenPA and P! million for a town in %lberta with ', residents (C%;, '0).8asification plants for larger location could cost ten times as much.

% :ritish company, 5rganics year and a revenue of about P1.0 million a year (;den, 1).aybac- was estimated at only '.A to A./ years. his e&cludes the cost of thefront#end separator, and is based on a facility that obtains 1 tonnes per day


18/42

of waste. his seems *uite attractive, but it may be biased by much highertipping fees and higher energy prices in ;urope.


19/42

11.n"ironmental 0mpa#t

;ach type of waste#to#energy has different effects on the environment. %ll can bebuilt to meet Canadian regulatory re*uirements and environmental standards,however, not all are considered GgreenH energy.


20/42

3luidi4ed #ed Combustionhis type of thermal technology produces more fine ashin the air pollution it generates than the other technologies mentioned, and thusre*uires e&tensiveair pollution control systems. owever, the solid ash that is produced is of better*uality ("CM, '!).

Rating Environmental 2mpacts:ased on the total savings of greenhouse gas emissions, Murphy and Mc2eogh('A) compared three technologiesB incineration, gasification and biogas production(anaerobic digestion). hey found that biogas was the most GgreenH, followed bygasification then incineration. 8reenhouse gas emissions are a good measure ofenvironmental impact, but other wastes such as the ash produced from combustionand incineration processes are also produced.:ased on greenhouse gas emissions as well as the residues produced, the ran-ingof technologies considered here from least to most impact on the environment isB1) %naerobic digestion

') :ioreactor landfill and landfill gas utili+ationA) 8asification and pyrolysis!) "luidi+ed bed combustion0) otary -iln, mass burn and starved air incineration%naerobic digestion is most favourable since it eliminates the greenhouse gasemissions that would have been produced from the decaying organic matter."urthermore, the sludge if composted properly can become a useful fertili+er.:ioreactor landfills and landfill gas utili+ation are ne&t since the end result of thedegraded organic waste remains in the landfill and is not utili+ed. :ioreactor landfillscould be considered somewhat more environmentally friendly, since the leachateproduced is re#circulated, resulting in reduced chances for percolation into thegroundwater and soil below the landfill. owever, for well designed landfills, this istypically not a concern. 8asification and pyrolysis burn cleaner than otherincineration technologies, and produce less ash residue. "luidi+ed bed combustionproduces less ash residue than the incineration technologies mentioned, but moreair pollution than gasification and pyrolysis. otary -iln, mass burn, and starved airincineration produce more air pollution and more ha+ardous ash residues than allthe technologies mentioned.

12.Waste Management system adopted


21/42

13.6ationale for sear#% for te#%nologyTechnology driversN 2mproved pollution and emissions controls or combustion. 5ne of theprimary obections against waste incineration, even when used to generateenergy, has been that burning releases particulate matter and pollutants li-enitrogen o&ides ($5&) into the atmosphere. owever, improved technologies fortreating gas waste streams are mitigating these concerns (see echnologyrofile A.'.1, G%ir ollution Control echnologiesH).N dvanced non-incineration conversion methods) $ew technologies li-epyrolysis, thermal gasification, and plasma#arc gasification are providing ways ofgenerating energy from waste that avoid many of the pollution concerns aroundincineration, and may provide better economics for waste#to#energy as well. Nydrogen production enabling other clean technologies li-e fuel cells. Waste#to#energy systems li-e thermal gasification#based waste conversion plants can befitted with direct hydrogen generation. While many countries are interested indeveloping a hydrogen infrastructure for fuel#cell#powered vehicles, in mostcases, including the 7.S. and Canada, current plans include only hydrogengeneration from coal plants. Waste#to#energy systems could provide a moresustainable solution.Strategic driversN Reduction in landill dumping.


22/42

N Reduced dependence on ossil uels)With advanced technologies, wastecan be used to generate fuel that does not re*uire mining or drilling forincreasingly scarce and e&pensive non#renewable fossil#fuel resources.N Reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution) 7sing waste as afeedstoc- for energy production reduces the pollution caused by burning coal or

other fossil fuels. While traditional incineration still produces C5' and pollutants,advanced methods such as gasification have the potential to provide a doublebenefitB reduced C5' emissions compared with incineration or coal plants, andreduced methane emissions from landfills.N Eligibility or carbon credits and ta5 incentives. :ecause they replace fossil#fuel use, most advanced waste#to#energy technologies are eligible forgreenhouse#gas emission credits.hese credits can be used by corporations to offset greenhousegas emissions,or sold as a commodity via carbon cap#and#tradeprograms li-e the ChicagoClimate ;&change. 4n addition, government programs in several ;7 countries arepromoting the use of biogas from waste and offering ta& incentives for producers.

14.C%allenges in te#%nology

Technology challengesN 6ac7 o versatility)Many waste#to#energy technologies are designed to handleonly one or a few types of waste (whether plastic, biomass, or others). owever,it is often impossible to fully separate different types of waste or to determine thee&act composition of a waste source. "or many waste#to#energy technologies tobe successful, they will also have to become more versatile or be supplementedby material handling and sorting systems.8 9aste-gas cleanup) he gas generated by processes li-e pyrolysis andthermal gasification must be cleaned of tars and particulates in order to produceclean, efficient fuel gas.8 Conversion eiciency)Some waste#to#energy pilot plants, particularly thoseusing energy#intensive techni*ues li-e plasma, have functioned with lowefficiency or actually consumed more energy than they were able to produce. "ore&ample, many sites in 4ndia have been forced to shut down because they werenot financially sustainable once government subsidies ran out.Strategic challengesN Regulatory hurdles. he regulatory climate for waste#to energy technologiescan be e&tremely comple&. %t one end are regulations that may prohibit a

particular method, typically incineration, due to air#*uality concerns, or classifyash byproducts of waste#to#energy technologies as ha+ardous materials. %t theother end, while changes in the power industry have allowed small producers tocompete with established power utilities in many areas, the electrical grid is stillprotected by yet more regulations, presenting obstacles to would#be waste#energy producers.N igh capital costs. Waste#to#energy systems are often *uite e&pensive toinstall. 9espite the financial benefits they promise due to reductions in waste and


23/42

production of energy, assembling the financing pac-ages for installations is amaor hurdle, particularly for new technologies that arenFt widely established inthe mar-et.8 ;pposition rom environmental and citi4en groups. :ecause traditionalincineration#based waste#to#energy technologies can produce significant

pollution from the burning of waste, environmental and citi+en groups have oftenopposed such systems. 9evelopers argue that advanced technologies li-epyrolysis release few emissions, and that any pollution that is released iscaptured with emissions#control systems. owever, many activists remainunconvinced, and some e&press concern that using waste as a feedstoc- forenergy generation will cause municipalities to abandon their efforts in wastereduction, recycling, and composting.

1$.7est option strategies

1$.1. &H80 C6060! GN6!, M9/,

3actors Criteria

S-SocialN S-ills of the wor-erB trainingN 5fficer needs and preferencesE treatment cost, convenience, more benefitsN Willingness to rayN $umber of patients, bed patient and 5CN 4nfluence ability to operate and maintain

-ealthN ospital facilitiesE hygienic related concernsN 9iseases carrying by waste

T-TechnologicalN Waste typeN %vailability of spare pails and materialsN %vailability of local -nowledge and e&pertiseN Current procedure of disposing the wasteN ower re*uirementsE electricity fuel etc.

E-EconomicN Quantity and *uality of wasteN 5verall repute of hospital and fame affecting by the waste problemsN Structure of economyN


24/42

N %bility and willingness to pay2-2nstitutional

N ;&isting roles and responsibilities of organi+ation and managementN elationship between organi+ationsN


25/42

combustors. "luidi+ed bed systems do not fall into any of the categoriesmentioned by Salvato et al. ('A).

Advantages:he primary obective of incineration is to combust solid waste, reducing itsvolume and producing non#offensive gases and non#combustive ash residues

(Wilson, 133E 6esilind and imer, 1/1). 6olume can be reduced by /#0?and weight by 3#/? and thus incineration significantly reduces the landre*uired for disposal of municipal wastes (:aum and ar-er, 13!E 6esilind andimer, 1/1E Salvato et al., 'AE). %lthough incineration produces air pollutantsprimarily in the forms of nitrogen o&ides, sulphur dio&ide, and hydrogen chloride,these emissions can be reduced substantially through combustion modificationsand air pollution control e*uipment (California %ir esources :oard, 1/!).heoretically, incineration could be combined with anaerobic digestion, whereinthe residue from anaerobic digestion is incinerated (feffer and


26/42

ar-er, '). he process is conducted at /10C, most commonly in what iscalled a fluidi+ed bed (Iac-son, 13!E %dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc., '!).Cellulose molecules within the municipal waste dissociate instead of burning, dueto the absence of o&ygen. he fragments of the dissociated molecule formmethane, carbon dio&ide, hydrogen, carbon mono&ide, and water (Iac-son,

13!).Advantages:he process is highly e&othermic (gives off heat) and therefore re*uires very littleenergy (chobanoglous et al., 133). 4t transforms refuse into gaseous or li*uidfuel products that can be utili+ed by a wide variety of end users, includingconventional engines and boilers (chobanoglous et al., 133). he gasesproduced from pyrolysis can be used to create steam, which could become muchmore valuable with oil price increases in the future (


27/42

he products of gasification are very useful for ma-ing products includingmethanol, ammonia, and diesel fuel (ar-er, '). he process is *uite energyefficient (=? to ?E ;den, 1). Waste volume is reduced by about ?(chobanoglous et al., 1AE 2umar, ') and only /#1'? ash is producedcompared to 10#'? for incineration (2umar, '). "urthermore, the ha+ardous

by#products produced during incineration such as dio&ins and furans are givenlittle opportunity for formation during gasification (;den, 1).Disadvantages:%s of 1A, reliable results with full#scale and pilot#scale gasifiers had not beenachieved. %t that time, chobanoglous et al. (1A) stated that gasificationsystems could not be considered a commercial technology. owever, since1A, some plants have successfully operated on a pilot scale in Canada and the7S (2umar, '). %ccording to %dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc. ('!),application of gasification to municipal waste is still a relatively new development.emoving inert material before using municipal waste in a gasifier is important inorder to reduce air pollution and improve performance, but this can be difficult.

article si+e distribution, which can be difficult to control, is important to ensurethe flow through the gasifier is uniform and bloc-age does not occur (;den,1). 4f the moisture content is ade*uate (between 1? and '?), air can beused rather than steam. owever, most municipal solid waste normally has amoisture content of 0? and some drying may be necessary (;den, 1). heproduct gas may contain particulate matter, heavy metals and other to&icchemicals (;den, 1).

1(.$. !naerobi# /igestion

Process:%naerobic digestion is the decay of organic matter (without o&ygen) producing

primarily carbon dio&ide and methane, but also small amounts of hydrogensulphide, ammonia, and other compounds (6esilind and imer, 1/1). heputrescible and combustible (paper) fraction of the waste is removed and placedin a contained digester to decay. hree main steps are involved in anaerobicdigestion (chobanoglous et al., 133). he first involves the preparation oftheorganic fraction of the waste including sorting, separating and si+e reduction.he second step involves adding moisture and nutrients, blending, adusting thep to about =.3 and heating the slurry to about 00#=C. he contents are wellmi&ed for 0#1 days. "or colder climates, the slurry is heater to a lowertemperature, but mi&ed for a longer period of time. he third step involvescapture, separation (if necessary) and storage of the gas components. he

residual sludge must be disposed of (though if free of contaminants, compostingmay be possible), and treatment of this residual could be considered anotherstep in the process (obinson, 1/=). he micro#organisms responsible foranaerobic digestion can be divided into two main categoriesB acid formers andmethane formers (6esilind and imer, 1/1). he acid formers degrade thecomple& organic compounds to simple acids, then the methane formers convertthe acids into methane (6esilind and imer, 1/1). Methane forming bacteria aresensitive to many environmental factorsE maintaining the appropriate temperature


28/42

is important, as is preventing o&ygen and other substances to&ic to the microbesfrom entering the system (6esilind and imer, 1/1). Methane can be generatedin two waysB the gases can be captured directly off of the landfill (sanitary landfillor bioreactor landfill) or the refuse can be pre#treated and digested in a tan-.;ither high solids digesters or low solids digesters can be used. day anaerobic digestion plant(6esilind and imer, 1/1)E however, this si+e of plant is much larger than what

would be re*uired anywhere in Sas-atchewan. %naerobic digestion of MSW hasnever been successful in $orth %merica on a prototype scale, though it has beensuccessful in ;urope where the high cost of landfill space ma-es it moreeconomical ("CM, '!E 6esilind et al., '').

Advantages:

he purpose of anaerobic digesters is to utili+e the gas produced bydecomposing refuse as a source of fuel (6esilind and imer, 1/1). %ccording toicci (13!), anaerobic digestion appeared to be the most popular mechanismfor methane production from wastes. Waste can be aerobically composted afteranaerobic digestion to obtain the benefits of both biogas as well as humus for soilimprovement and fuel for power plants (2ayhanian et al., 11). 9e :aere (1/!)discusses the use of high#rate anaerobic composting with biogas recovery, whichcould be an attractive option economically. his process is similar to anaerobicdigestion, but the pathogenic materials are removed, allowing for the residual ofthe digestion to be useable compost. 8lauser et al. (1/3) found anaerobicdigestion to be possible even with the natural moisture content of the organicmunicipal solid waste fraction of about =?. "rom the point of view of life cyclecost, anaerobic digestion is comparatively more cost effective (2umar, ').Disadvantages:;nsuring the removal of to&ic substances before the waste goes into the digesteris difficult, and the problem of what to do with the residue from anaerobicdigestion has not been solved (6esilind and imer, 1/1). %ccording to ar-erand oberts (1/0), anaerobic digestion would li-ely only be feasible if it wascombined with sewage or agricultural waste digestion. %naerobic digestion iscommonly used for treatment of sewage and manure because this material isuniform and easily degradable. he addition of such materials to MSW wouldenhance the digestion process. he current trend for anaerobic digestion seemsto be towards larger proects (9e :aere, '). %naerobic digestion still has tocompete vigorously with aerobic composting (


29/42

no efforts made to increase gas productionE gas is simply captured as it isgenerated (6esilind and imer, 1/1).


30/42

From a Bioreactor LandfillProcess:% bioreactor landfill is similar to a regular landfill from which gas is collected,e&cept the waste is stabili+ed and degraded faster by adding li*uid and>or air toenhance microbial processes (;%, '!). hree ways of creating a bioreactor

landfill include aerobic (with o&ygen), anaerobic (without o&ygen), and hybrid(partly with and partly without o&ygen) (;%, '!). %ll methods utili+e leachaterecirculation to add moisture and aid with bacterial decay. %naerobic landfillsresult in earlier and more rapid methanogenosis (production of methane gas) andare therefore more common (;%, '!).

Advantages::ioreactor landfills provide decomposition and biological stabili+ation in yearsrather than decades or centuries, which is the case for Gdry tombH landfills, (thosein which measures are not ta-en to enhance the rate of decay) (;%, '!Eacey, 1). :ioreactor landfills also lead to less to&icity in the waste, reducedleachate disposal costs, a gain in landfill space of 10#A?, increased landfill gas

generation (but much less released into the environment), and reduced postclosure care (einhart and ownsend, 1/E acey, 1E ;%, '!E).:ioreactor landfills are more li-ely to allow for the actual methane potential of theMSW to be reali+ed, as compared to regular landfills (;%, '!). he methanepotential of MSW ranges from 1#13 mA of methane per tonne of MSW(hompson and anapat, '!).Disadvantages:Compared to the average sanitary landfill, bioreactor landfills produce more gasemissions and odours, have more physical instability of the waste, haveincreased liner instability, and have increased occurrences of surface seeps andlandfill fires (;%, '!). 4n drier climates, such as the Canadian prairies,leachate re#circulation alone may not provide sufficient moisture balance toachieve the optimum moisture content, and moisture must be added fromanother source (erera and 6an ;verdingen, '0).

1(.). 2.3.( 9t%er ypes

he following types of waste to energy are not as common as those alreadymentioned. owever, they are briefly discussed here since they may becomemore popular in the future.Pelletizationelleti+ation is the process of producing fuel pellets from solid waste (2umar,'), and involves drying, removal of non#combustibles, grinding and mi&ing.

ellets have a calorific value roughly four times the amount of raw garbage(2umar, ').Thermo Chemical ed!ctionhis technology is more often applied to ha+ardous waste, though it has beenused in Canada for municipal solid waste. he process is based on the gasphasethermo#chemical reaction of hydrogen with non organic and chlorinated organiccompounds at elevated temperatures (around 1C or more) ("CM, '!).Plasma arc "Pyro#$lasma $rocess%


31/42

his system uses a heat source called a plasma arc flame, which results in theutili+ation of all organic matter, including the non#biodegradable fraction (2umar,'). his process is still in the developmental stage, and no commercial scaleunits managing municipal solid waste in $orth %merica are in e&istence.owever, different patented plasma arc systems are proposed for the treatment

of ha+ardous waste ("CM, '!).&arret Flash Pyrolysishis is low temperature pyrolysis (A0 to !0C) that produces fuel oil (2umar,').Fermentation"ermentation is a biological conversion process used for the production ofethanol. he most suitable feedstoc-s are wood, agricultural residues, grasses,and the organic portion of municipal waste (:eldanes and :eard, 1=).ef!se Derived F!el "DF%9" systems treat waste to produce fuel that can be used to substituteconventional fossil fuels, typically coal, in industrial manufacturing, utility power

generation, and institutional applications (e.g., district heating). 4n Canada, onesuch facility is in operation in Caledon, 5ntario, however commercial use of theirgas has yet to occur ("CM, '!).Fl!idized Bed Com'!stion"luidi+ed bed combustors have been commercially used for homogenous

wastes, though they can be used for municipal waste as well. he process issimilar in some ways to pyrolysis and gasification. %ir is inected and dispersedinto a sand bed, decreasing the density of the sand mass to enable it to transportair and heat to the particles of waste substance to be treated(combusted). he temperature is raised to appro&imately /0C and the waste ismoved into the body of the sand bed by the convection current movement of theair and sand particles. he waste is burned to produce carbon mono&ide andother volatiles that can be utili+ed. he bi#products are flue gases and ash ("CM,'!).

1).Comparison of te#%nologies

S$o. ;b


32/42

'

o compare SWM strategies thatminimi+e cost and 88emissions using the MSW#9S.

Mass of MSWset out forcollection

When the obective was to minimi+ecost, a recyclables drop#off facility wasthe cheapest SWM alternative. When theobective was to minimi+e 88emissions, a W; facility was shown tobe superior.

A

o compare two strategies fortreatment of organic householdwaste using ;%S;W%S;(;nvironmental %ssessment ofSolid Waste Systems andechnologies)B (1) anaerobicdigestion of organic household

waste, (') combustion of organichousehold waste with residualMSW.

Mass ofseparatedorganichousehold wastein %arhhus,9enmar-

he combustion scenario may supplymore dwellings with energy for heatingand electricity and reduce 88emissions. owever, large energy andresource savings occur with bothscenarios. he results show that thecombustion of organic waste ismarginally better than anaerobicdigestion with regards to global warming.

!

o analy+e the validity of si&SWM models on three wastetreatment scenarios for C5'emissionsB landfill, combustion,and material recovery facility. hemodels were %;S, ;4C>CS(4ntegrated Solid WasteManagement ool), MSW#9S,4WM' (4ntegrated WasteManagement '), 5W%;, and7M:;5.

Mass ofhousehold wastein 9resden,8ermany

"ive of the si& models agreed that theM" scenario had the lowest C5'emissions, followed by either the landfillor incineration scenarios. owever, thepaper did not differentiate C5'#fossil andC5'#biomass, nor did the paper includefugitive C!emissions. he results are,therefore, incomplete and misleading.

0

o evaluate ten SWM options oncollection, long haultransportation, recycling (including

transfer stations and materialsrecovery facilities), combustion,and landfilling for 88, energyconsumption, nitrogen o&ideemissions, and cost using theMSW#9S. Mass of MSW

When the obective was to minimi+ecost, the scenario with '? recyclingand /? landfilled waste with no gascollection and control was found to bethe most cost effective option. Whene&amining impact categories such as

acidification, smog, net carbonemissions, and human health a A?recycle rate with 3? combustion usinga W; facility generating electricity andrecovery of metals was the bestscenario.

=

o evaluate alternative plans forSWM in the State of 9elaware forcost and 88 emissionsconsidering curbside recycling,yard waste composting, and W;to divert waste from landfills. heMSW#9S model was used.

Mass of MSWset out forcollection

Curbside recycling for only a fraction ofthe population was found to be the mostcost effective strategy to achieve a statelandfill diversion target. o meet 88emissions at the minimum cost, usingW; for a fraction of the total waste wasthe optimal solution.

3

o establish a techni*ue fordetermining the carbon content ofMSW and to use this techni*ue toanaly+e the 88 impacts of W;facilities and landfills. he MSW#9S model was used for the


33/42

/

o test the validity of a wastehierarchy by evaluating differentscenarios for SWM consideringlandfilling, combustion with energyrecovery, and recycling of

newsprint and ;.

Mass ofnewspaper and

;

When the obective was to compare naerobic Digestion) 5WS did not propose a proectcapacity for Santa :arbara, but provided general information supporting their ability toprocess between 1, tpy and '', tpy of the sorted organic fraction of MSW.%lthough pre#processing is re*uired, 5WS did not specify a technology, indicating localfirms typically provide that part of the proect when re*uired. 5WS stated, however, thatit could provide pre#processing. :ased on the information submitted in response to the"4 and on %4Fs previous review of 5WS for $ew or- City, its process is applied most


34/42

often to source#separated organic waste, and its e&perience in processing mi&ed MSW(including necessary front#end processing and the generation of mar-etable compostfrom mi&ed MSW) is limited. %s a result, 5WSDs ability to develop a large#scale plantprocessing mi&ed MSW (including !#' necessary pre#processing) is uncertain. 5WSreported that a 1, tpy digestion facility would re*uire 0#3.0 acres. :ased on the

information provided and %4Fs evaluation of 5WS for $ew or- City, this area isbelieved to be for the digestion process only. "ull proect development, including pre#processing and other proect components, would li-ely re*uire 1#10 acres for 1,tpy and ' acres or more for full development at '', tpy. While not clear based oninformation provided, it appears unli-ely that 5WS could develop a proect of there*uired capacity within the available acreage.N 'rimenergy > Thermal Gasiication) rimenergy proposed a '', tpy proectconsisting of a front#end M" followed by two gasification trains. he M" technologyhas not yet been selected so it could not be evaluated. he gasification technology is inoperation commercially and at a scale comparable to that suggested for Santa :arbara,but not for MSW. rimenergy has a 00 tpd (', tpy) reference facility in %r-ansas,

but the facility processes rice hulls. rimenergyDs gasification technology has beentested at only a small#scale (A tpd) pilot installation, for an unspecified amount of 9".his is below the capacity re*uired to demonstrate the technology (see Criterion T/).:ased on the limited e&perience of the technology with MSW, its ability to operate at'', tpy is uncertain and Criterion 1 is not determined to be met. 4n addition,rimenergy has specified that the proect will re*uire a total of 1' acres U = acres eachfor the M" and gasification facility, which is double the acreage currently available fora proect. %lthough the two components could be physically separate, this would not bean ideal arrangement and would still re*uire additional land.N 9orld 9aste Technologies > Thermal Gasiication) World Waste has stated that itstechnology platform is capable of accommodating up to '0, tpy of MSW, using twogasification trains. World Waste further stated that the proect configuration would fit

within the =#acre site. he gasification technology proposed by World Waste is not yet incommercial operation, and has been tested at only a small#scale (0 tpd) pilot plant, foran unspecified type of waste. his is below the capacity re*uired to demonstrate thetechnology (see Criterion T/). :ased on the limited e&perience of the technology, itsability to operate at '', tpy is uncertain and Criterion 1 is not determined to be met.Ta$le 42 %riterion 1 & 'rocessing %aacityCriterion 1:Any considered CT must be capable of processing a minimum of 100,000 tons peryear (tpy) of MSW during the first operating year of the proect, and must be capable ofincreasing capacity up to !!0,000 tpy "ithin 10 years of the first operating year of the proect#

Table ,-!) Criterion 1 >'rocessing Capacity

S $o.

'ro*ect +eveloer and/orTec!nology ,#lier*Li%ted +lp,a-etically -yType o Tec,nolo"y

-nitial 'rocessing %aacity .#t#re 'rocessing %aac


35/42

1

Anaero$ic +igestion %Aenewa$le Tec!nologies

(%AT) / !##ncorporated /+rrocolo"y and n"ineerin"+naero-ic i"e%tion

) 100000 tpy ) 2/line plant at 150tpd eac, line *300 tpd total 2/%,itoperation it, 13.5 producti$e,our% per day ) Similar reerenceacility in Sydney +u%tralia *MS2/line plant at 100000 tpy i% under

con%truction %maller reerenceacility operational in Tel +$i$ %rael*MS 1/line plant at 50000 tpy )nitial pro:ect re;uire% 3.5 acre%ront/end and -acro:ectre;uire% 5.5 acre% includin" a30000 % indu%trial -uildin" *or pre/proce%%in" and po%t/proce%%in"

Same a% initial capacity

A

0rganic aste ,ystems(0,)

) !apacity not propo%ed ) =amplepro$ided o an

!apacity not propo%ed

!

+naero-ic i"e%tion

anaero-ic di"e%tion acility*e=cludin" pre/proce%%in" t,atcould di"e%t t,e %orted or"anicraction o up to 200000 tpy oincomin" MS no detail% or pre/proce%%in" ) =perience i%predominantly it, %ource/%eparated or"anic a%te )#eerence acility *@itoria Spainproce%%e% 120000 tpy o mi=eda%te compara-ility o a%te toMS un


36/42

0

T!ermal 'rocessingAdative" T,ermal A>la%ma Ba%iication

) 219000 tpy ) i",t *8 %tandard%iCe 100/tpd reactor% *model%-2000 6 o ,ic, are proce%%in"at all time% *600 tpd total capacity )Modular de%i"n -ut multiple/reactorpro:ect% not pre$iou%ly in%talled )

#e;uired ootprint i% appro=imately6 acre% inclu%i$e o %pace or utureup"rade% to lar"er capacity ide%ired *i.e. addition o%upplemental reactor% and poer"enerator%


=

-nternationalEnvironmental ,ol#tions(-E,) / S /&ne >lanetner"y / #ain-o i%po%al

/ ?ronco T,ermal A>yroly%i%

) 220000 tpy ) 3 proce%%in" train%de%i"ned to proce%% 125 tpd drya%te eac, or 200 tpd a%/recei$edMS ) Multiple/unit acility notpre$iou%ly in%talled ) =i%tin"reerence acility in #omoland !+

,a% a capacity o 50 tpd 125/tpd%y%tem i% under de$elopment )>ro:ect re;uire% appro=imately 5acre%

Same a% initial capacity un?ar-ara c,oo%e% to %tart %m

e=pand to 220000 tpy

3

-nterstate asteTec!nologies (-T)T,ermal A Ba%iication

) 220000 tpy ) 2 unit% at 352 tpdeac, *704 tpd total 85.6D"uaranteed a$aila-ility )!ompara-le reerence acility*Eura%,iro:ectre;uire% minimum o 6 acre% -ut 8acre% ould -e preerred T

illin" to incur co%t to reclaimadditional property at t,e %ite orpurc,a%e additional land ad:acent tot,e %ite


/'lasco Energy ro#

) 150000 tpy ) 4 unit% at 110 tpdeac,

) 220000 tpy ) +ddition o 2

T,ermal A >la%maBa%iication

) Multiple/unit acility not pre$iou%lyin%talled ) #eerence acility in&ttaa !anada con%i%t% o 1 unito t,e %ame capacity *110 tpd )>ro:ect re;uire% 6 acre%

*110 tpd eac, ) ill re;uireacre% or a %eparate %ite it,

'rimenergy 33% ) 220000 tpy ) 2 M#G proce%%in"line% *%peciic Same a% initial capacity


37/42

T,ermal A Ba%iication

M#G tec,nolo"y not yet %elected )2 "a%iication't,ermal train% )#eerence acility in Stutt"art

+r


38/42

1*.!doption of te#%nology

1*.1. G-0/ 9 0N00!, !&&&&MN 98 ! P9N0!,

P69=Chis section describes the general steps that a procurer of a waste managementservice or processing facility should ta-e in assessing the viability of the proect. heguide is then rounded off with e&amples of specific issues to be considered and theconse*uences of failing to ade*uately assess and address these issues at an earlystage.

1*.1.1. /efine Pro>e#t 9b>e#ti"es ? Constraints

he first step in a proect should be to define the desired outcome and theconstraints that will limit the options available. % list of the main criteria that may

be relevant to a waste thermal treatment proect are given belowB

The 9aste Stream1) ow much waste is there to be treatedV') What type of waste is to be treatedV "or e&ample does it contain ust MSW ordoes it include commercial waste, sewage sludge, tyres etc.VA) What are the characteristics of the waste in terms of chemical composition,calorific value, particle si+e, moisture, *uantity of ash, and properties of ashVEnergy =tilisation!) 4s there a suitable mar-et for heat sales nearbyV0) 4s there a suitable mar-et for the syngas product nearby such as a powerstation or industrial plantV=) 4s it possible to connect to the local electricity distribution networ- or largepower consumers at a reasonable costV'rocurement and 3inance3) 4s the intention to procure a waste treatment plant or a waste treatmentserviceV/) ow will the proect be financedV he re*uired method of finance maypreclude certain procurement strategies and some technologiesE) What are the budget and other financial constraintsV'ermitting1) What are the li-ely planning constraintsV11) What is the li-ely acceptability of the proect and technology to interestedpartiesV

1*.1.2. !ssess 6is@s

he main ris- issues to be assessed as early as possible areB1) Will the plant perform reliably and efficiently over the proect lifeVa) %re there comparable reference plantsV


39/42

b) 9o the contractors and suppliers have ade*uate and relevant trac- recordsVc) "or imported technology, how will the plant be delivered in the 72 andsupported throughout its operating lifeV') %re the estimates of plant economics and plant performance realisticVa) as the technology supplier built any similar plants to base their estimates of

plant costs and plant performance onVb) What is the basis of the estimatesVc) What are the conse*uences of estimating errorsVA) %re the contract structure, guarantees, and warranties ade*uateVa) 9o the guarantees accurately reflect the performance obectives and are theyprovableVb) %re the guarantees realistic when compared with the performance of thesupplierFs reference plantsVc) Can the guarantors afford to honour their guarantees in the event of claimsVWhat are their financial strengths and credit ratingsV!) Some of the potential conse*uences of failure will be reduced for the

purchaser if the facilities are to be built and owned by a service provider for agate fee. owever, the purchaser will still be left with the cost of alternativedisposal or penalties for failing to achieve landfill diversion targets if the proectfails to deliver.

1*.1.3. !ssess /eli"erability

he main hurdles to delivery of a proect are the ability to obtain finance,necessary permissions

to build and operate the plant, and the ability of both the contractor and

the technology supplier

to deliver the performance re*uired by the proect. he means of

overcoming these hurdles must be clear from the outset to avoid the ris- of spending time and resources

pursuing options that

cannot be delivered.

1*.1.4. !bility to !ttra#t 8inan#e

1) ow will the proect be financedVa) "ew organisations will be able and willing to finance large proects fromtheirbown balance sheetsE

b) 4f debt finance is re*uired then the ris- of unproven technologies is unli-ely tobe accepted by lenders.') 4s the intention to purchase the facility outrightV 4n this case, the purchaser willprocure the facility re*uiring significant capital e&penditure.a) "or proects that depend on debt finance, the ris- of multiple contracts isunli-ely be acceptable to lenders unless the technology is mature and proven,the proect management team has a sound trac- record and a 72 cost recordestablishedE


40/42

b) rocurement by means of a lump sum design and build turn-ey contract willbe more acceptable to lenders but will significantly increase costs, since the maincontractor will charge a fee for ta-ing on the overall ris- for the proectEc) here are very few remaining maor contractors in the 72 mar-et willing tooffer contracts on a design and build lump sum basis, against firm performance

guarantees, for proects based on proven technology and none for proectsbased on unproven technology.A) %lternatively, is it intended to let a waste treatment contract in which theservice provider finances the facilityVa) he purchaser re*uires little or no capital and is not subected to these ris-sEb) he service provider will ta-e on the tas- and ris-s of obtaining capital. hesame considerations listed in item ') above will applyEc) he purchaser will still need to consider the ris- and conse*uences of havingno waste treatment facility if the service provider fails to deliverEd) he purchaser will pay a premium to the service provider to cover ris-s,financing and operation of the plant.

1*.1.$. Planning ? 6eg'latory 0ss'es

1) What is the planning application process li-ely to involve and is it li-ely to besuccessfulVa) 9oes the proect conform to government and local waste strategiesVb) as a case been ustified for the proect as the best practicable environmentaloptionVc) What is the li-ely acceptability of the proect to local residents, localbusinesses, politicians, and environmental pressure groupsVd) 4s a public in*uiry li-ely to be re*uiredV

e) 9oes the political will necessary for the approval of the proect e&istV') Will the proect comply with the stringent emission re*uirements of the Waste4ncineration 9irective (W49)VA) 4s the environmental case for the proect robust enough to achieveauthori+ation under the C egulationsV

1*.1.(. Contra#ting 9rgani


41/42

b) 4f the technology *ualifies, assess what portion of the power generated will beclassed as renewable and therefore *ualify for 5CsEc) "inancial bac-ers for the proect may insist on a long#term power purchaseagreement with an electricity supplier, which will reduce the value of the 5Cs.

9irective '>3=>;C, ', on the incineration of waste

Ghe C egulationsH, S4'>13A). %s amended by S4'1>0A Statutory 4nstrument '' $o 1! Ghe enewables 5bligation 5rder ''H

') %ssess materials recoveryBa) %re the claimed materials recovery rates proven or ust theoretical estimatesVb) 4s the materials recovery due to the choice of thermal treatment technology ordue to pre#treatment systems that could be applied regardless of technology toobtain similar benefitsVc) %re there ade*uate mar-ets for these recovered materials or will they beclassed as a waste that re*uires disposalVd) %re the recovered materials of ade*uate *uality for the intended useVe) What is the net cost>revenue for disposal>sale of these recovered materialsV

A) %ssess energy recovery ratesBa) %re the energy recovery efficiencies, heat and>or power, provenVb) %re there ready mar-ets for heat and>or powerVc) What is the net cost>revenue for disposal>sale of the heat and>or powerV!) %ssess alternative uses for the product syngasBa) %re there ade*uate proven mar-ets for the syngasVb) 4s the syngas clean enough to satisfy these mar-etsVc) What is the net revenue for sale of syngasV

1*.1.*. !ssess 8inan#ial Costs

1) What is the li-ely capital cost of the entire proectV he capital cost shouldincludeB

a) Cost of the plantEb) ;nabling costs such as electrical connectionsEc)


42/42

1*.1.. !ssess n"ironmental 0mpa#ts

What is the environmental impact of the proect including emissions to land, airand waterV 4t is important to consider the overall impact of the proect includingthe impact of processes that ta-e place before the waste arrives on site and afterthe products and residues leave the plant.

;nergy recovery from waste is the conversion of non#recyclable waste materials

into useable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including

combustion, gasification, pyroli+ation, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas (

appropriate waste management technology for least developed countries

Documents