city poland _15_mw_[revisionii][proj]

1

Prepared for: Warsaw, Poland

MSW - Energy Implementation of an Integrated Municipal Waste

Processing (Waste to Energy) Complex

March, 2010; Revision I Prepared by BioCRUDE Technologies, Inc

This document outlines the process, details, and methodology of a Waste to Energy Power

Project involving BioCRUDE Technologies Inc.

2

CONTENTS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Present Technologies ............................................................................................................................................... 10

MSW Processing / Treatment / disposal technologies ............................................................................. 10

Sanitary Land Filling ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Landfill gas ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Recovery and Recycling .................................................................................................................................. 11

Composting ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

Energy Recovery from MSW ............................................................................................................................ 12

Incineration ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Anaerobic Digestion.......................................................................................................................................... 12

Refuse Derived Fuel ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Critical Analysis of Various Technologies ................................................................................................... 15

LIMITATION IN SANITARY LANDFILL ......................................................................................................... 15

Limitation in Incineration Technologies.......................................................................................................... 15

Limitation in Composting .................................................................................................................................. 15

Limitation in Bio-methanation .......................................................................................................................... 16

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

View of project participants on the contribution of the project activity to sustainable development: ............ 17

Social well being: .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Economical well being: ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Environmental well being: ................................................................................................................................ 18

TECHNOLOGICAL WELL BEING: ................................................................................................................. 19

GARBAGE (MSW) CHARACTERISTICS, COLLECTION AND ISSUES INVOLVED ............................. 21

Current Waste Management ........................................................................................................................... 21

3

SOURCE OF WASTE GENERATION ........................................................................................................... 21

SEGREGATION OF WASTE AT SOURCE .................................................................................................. 22

WASTE DISPOSAL .......................................................................................................................................... 22

Waste Characterization Methodology ............................................................................................................ 23

Technical description of the Project: ............................................................................................................ 24

Location of the Project: .................................................................................................................................... 24

MUNICIPAL CHARACTERISTICS & MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) CLASSIFICATION: .......... 26

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS & CLASSIFICATION: .............................................. 27

SEWAGE: .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

MEDICAL/CLINICAL WASTE: ........................................................................................................................ 30

Category of project activity: ............................................................................................................................. 31

Technology of project activity: ......................................................................................................................... 31

TECHNOLOGIES’ DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 32

Technology adopted in the RDF Plant .......................................................................................................... 32

Municipal solid waste is converted into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in the following manner: ............. 35

RDF FLOW DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 39

MAJOR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE RDF APPARATUS ................................................................ 41

BioCRUDE Technologies’ Biogas Process ........................................................................................................... 54

Description of Technology ............................................................................................................................... 54

Covered Lagoon ................................................................................................................................................ 55

Complete Mix Digester ..................................................................................................................................... 56

Plug Flow Digester ............................................................................................................................................ 56

Technology adopted in the BioGAS Plant: .................................................................................................... 58

REASONS FOR APPLYING BIOCRUDE TECHNOLOGIES’ BIOGAS TECHNOLOGY ...................... 59

Generation of stable, high quality liquid fertilizer and solid soil amendment: .......................................... 60

Reduction in odours: ......................................................................................................................................... 61

4

Reduction in ground and surface water contamination: .............................................................................. 61

Reduction in public health risk: ....................................................................................................................... 61

THE ROLE OF BIOCRUDE TECHOLOGIES IN THE PROCESS .................................................................... 62

ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM .......................................................................................... 63

LAYOUT OF THE BIOGAS PLANT ....................................................................................................................... 64

MAJOR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOGAS APPARATUS ......................................................... 65

COMPOSTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 71

Generation of stable, high quality liquid fertilizer and solid soil amendment: .......................................... 71

Reduction in odours: ......................................................................................................................................... 72

Reduction in ground and surface water contamination: .............................................................................. 72

Reduction in public health risk: ....................................................................................................................... 73

DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 73

Windrow composting: ....................................................................................................................................... 74

Static aerated piles: .......................................................................................................................................... 74

Within-vessel composting: ............................................................................................................................... 74

THE ROLE OF BIOCRUDE TECHOLOGY IN THE PROCESS ........................................................................ 75

COMPOSTING MAJOR EQUIPMENT description .............................................................................................. 75

LAYOUT OF THE COMPOSTING PLANT ........................................................................................................... 76

Technology adopted in the power PlanT: ...................................................................................................... 77

Boiler: .................................................................................................................................................................. 77

Turbo Generator: ............................................................................................................................................... 78

Water System: ................................................................................................................................................... 79

LAND REQUIREMENTS: ................................................................................................................................ 79

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM: ........................................................................................................................ 80

PROJECT COST ...................................................................................................................................................... 81

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 92

5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 94

APPLICATION OF A BASELINE AND MONITORING METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 95

Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the Project: ..... 95

Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the Project ........................... 95

Description of the sources and gases included in the Project boundary .................................................. 97

PROCESS DESIGN/REDESIGN ........................................................................................................................... 99

Cause / Effect / Solution .................................................................................................................................. 99

Baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario ............................... 101

Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations: ....... 101

Barrier analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 102

Technological Barrier: .................................................................................................................................... 103

Barrier due to prevailing practices: ............................................................................................................... 103

Common practice analysis: ........................................................................................................................... 104

Emission reductions: ...................................................................................................................................... 104

ANNEX 1: BASELINE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 113

ANNEX 2: MONITORING INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 116

ANNEX 3: ESTIMATION OF CARBON CREDITS ............................................................................................ 118

ANNEX 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 131

ANNEX 5: CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT ....................................................................................................... 144

ANNEX 6: REVISION TO THE APPROVED BASELINE METHODOLOGY - ............................................... 153

AM0025 V. 6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 153

ANNEX 7: BOILER/STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR (CHP) .......................................................................... 197

ANNEX 8: STUDY ON COMPOSTING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE USING A CLAY SUBSTRATE OF INOCULUM BY THE TOLUCA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY .................................................................... 202

ANNEX 9: STUDY OF BIOGAS YIELD, MASS AND HEAT PARAMETERS IN A PLUG FLOW DIGESTER ............................................................................................................................................................... 214

ANNEX 10: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS............................................................................................................ 215

6

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The proposed Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), an Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex to be built conforming to Clean Design Mechanism (CDM) for Carbon Emissions Reduction (CER’s), includes a MSW processing plant of 2000 TPD and an additional Power Plant (maximum capacity of 15.0 MW). Biogas and Refuse Derived Fuel derived from the waste will be used as fuel to produce approximately 11.6 MW of Renewable Electricity (Approximately). The various components of the integrated projects are further detailed below:

1. RDF Plant: the plant shall be capable of processing up to a design capacity of 650 TPD of MSW to yield approximately 7.2 MW of Energy, in 2 RDF streamline facilities of 325 TPD each;

2. A Biogas Plant: The plant shall be capable of processing up to a design capacity 800 TPD of MSW which will yield approximately 4.4 MW of Energy, in the Biogas Plug Flow Digesters system;

3. A Composting Facility: The plant shall be capable of processing 50 TPD of Organic Waste;

4. A Power Plant: 15 MW derived from the Biogas and RDF systems;

5. Expandability for addition of more digesters: increasing the amount of input that can be handled, and the yield of marketable products.

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The project has been initiated by the participants to address the critical environmental problem faced in solid waste management. In addition, the project would achieve significant reduction in green house gas emissions due to the following three components:

1. Avoidance of methane emission from dumping solid waste in the landfill site.

2. Avoidance of contamination of water table and soil, eliminating potential breeding grounds for bacteria, and reduction of odors in immediate area of plant

7

3. Provisions of a supply of renewable electricity.

BioCRUDE Technologies proposes viable and cost effective solutions for this problem. Reformation of organic waste products diverts large amount of MSWs from landfills and incineration facilities, reducing environmentally damaging emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. The value of reducing 2000 TPD of MSW cannot be underestimated. This is a major issue affecting Warsaw today. BioCRUDE Technologies proposes viable and cost effective solutions for this problem. Reformation of organic waste products diverts large amount of MSWs from landfills and incineration facilities, reducing environmentally damaging emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.

Here are some environmental facts about Warsaw, Poland:

In recent years, waste management has proved to be one of Poland’s most complicated environmental, political, legal and social problems. Poland has been condemned on numerous occasions by the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with the requirements of European Waste Management Law.

The European Environment Agency, an EU body, has ranked Poland last among the 15 pre-2004 Union members for levels of recycling. It also named Poland as one of Europe's fastest- growing producer of garbage, after Malta.

Of the total waste generated in Poland it is estimated that some 8.8% is recovered while the remaining 91.2% is deposed of, legally or illegally. The existing authorized and controlled landfill sites cover 53% of the population, while the remainder of the population is served by unauthorized landfill sites currently in operation in Poland.

Warsaw, Poland Environmental Policy: The more specific goals in the field of environment policy of the Organization of Warsaw are:

Reduction of pollution, which will ensure a high quality of the physical environment. This will be achieved through application of measures aimed at eliminating all pollution emitting sources, the construction of necessary infrastructure works, the granting of incentives and levying penalties.

Enhancement of the environment and quality of life through operational improvements of the City.

8

Restoration of Attica's landscape and ecology, including the protection and management of mountain regions, the areas of exceptional natural beauty and the coastal zones.

It is important for Warsaw to show that along with its monumental financial and physical growth, it is able to handle the consequences and environmental impact of its success.

As regards to citizens, they feel that waste generated by them can be just thrown in the public places and it is the duty of the urban local bodies only to take care of it. There has been a lack of community sensitization and public awareness towards waste minimization, storing waste in a segregated manner and disposing of it in the proper places.

The leftover garbage in the public places gives rise to morbidity especially due to microbial and parasitic infections and infestations in all segments of populations, with the urban slum dwellers and the waste handlers being the worst affected. In addition, the non-sanitary land filling practice currently followed has been causing uncontrolled methane emission into the atmosphere. A host of other hazardous gases like CO, CO2, SOX, and NOX are also generated from the dump yards due to uncontrolled and incomplete combustion of garbage as well as due to decomposition (by auto-ignition) causing atmospheric pollution. Since MSW is dumped on the open ground, it also gives rise to ground water contamination by leachate that is produced out of garbage and contains a number of dissolved and suspended materials.

It is reported that the bigger urban local bodies spend around 65% of its waste management budget on collection, 30% on transportation and a mere 5% on disposal.

With the overloading of the existing landfill sites in cities, garbage may have to be transported nearly twice the current distance for land filling, escalating the cost of transportation. Once the existing landfill site is exhausted, identification of new landfill sites is exhausted; identification of new landfill sites has also become a very difficult task.

Most of the developed countries have been successful in addressing the problem of solid waste management by evolving efficient MSW management systems and providing suitable technological solutions to garbage disposal / treatment. With the ever-increasing generation of garbage, it is time for immediate and concerted action. The proper disposal of urban waste is not only absolutely necessary for the preservation and improvement of public health, but it has an immense potential for resource recovery.

Municipal Corporations/ Urban bodies in the countries are attempting to set up facilities for processing of MSW as with Management & Handling Rules, which involve

9

Infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of MSW.

The process of recovering raw materials from waste is often called “Urban Mining”, and can be a lucrative as gold mining was in the boom days of the old west (U.S.).

After the sorting is completed, and the recyclable material is removed for processing, the remaining organic waste must be treated and reformed. The concept of a “circular flow economy” can be graphically demonstrated here. A product is made; the waste resulting from the process is reformed into biomass or converted to biogas, which in turn is used to generate electricity that powers the plant which makes the product.

High calorific residual waste, what remains after sorting for recyclable material, can be used as substitute fuel to provide electricity for power stations. Organic waste can composted to create nutrient rich soil enhancement and fertilizer. These are valuable by-products of a good waste management plan.

There are important factors for Warsaw to consider, some new avenues that they can explore in the processing of their organic waste.

Such as the ones we propose. BioCRUDE Technologies has new and unique processes that can drastically improve waste management planning for industry and municipalities in general. While existing practices and technologies are often highly effective, there are new and exciting break-troughs being made every day, and BioCRUDE sits at the cutting edge of this new frontier.

New rapid composting technologies provided by BioCRUDE effectively reduce the resident and turnover times to a maximum time frame of 4 weeks. As well we can offer a new system that will outperform that already impressive reduction in time. Our unique enzymes can further condense the time to a matter of days. With a resident time of 5-7 days, the yield is increased many times over. This would ensure that the power output will equal, and surpass the 12 MW required to recover the investment costs. BioCRUDE technology can make a 15 MW output a very realistic expectation, with expandability for additional digesters. The growth potential is limited only by the land available. As long as there is an adequate MSW supply the plant can meet and surpass its available power goals.

10

PRESENT TECHNOLOGIES

MSW PROCESSING / TREATMENT / DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES

The organic content of MSW tends to decompose, which apart from being a health hazard also leads to various odour problems. It also leads to pollution of the environment. To ensure a safe disposal of the MSW it is desirable to reduce its pollution potential as well as to recover useful products out of it. Several processing methods are adopted for this purpose.

SANITARY LAND FILLING

Garbage disposal by land filling is widely resorted to by city/ town Municipalities. Low-lying wastelands on the out skirts of cities are identified and the MSW is dumped at such sites. Rag pickers collect recyclable items from the dump yard and also fire to the MSW dump. Such indiscriminate acts cause soil, air and water pollution in its neighborhood. Also if some form of waste disposal systems are not operational, it would necessitate creation of new dump yards farther away which results not only in wastage of land but also increase cost of transportation garbage. If land filling can be made clean as scientific (free from pollution) such operations termed as Sanitary Land Filling can be encouraged.

As per MSW handling rules 2000, the organic waste is not supposed to be disposed at landfill site. Only the inert and the construction & demolition waste should be disposed at landfill site. The local bodies have initiated treatment of garbage by using various technologies to reduce the landfill site as much as possible. In India, the first scientific engineered landfill site is in the process of implementation at Surat.

LANDFILL GAS

When large amount of MSW are disposed off at landfill sites, the sites act as bio-reactors in which micro-organisms produce bio-gas composed of about 50% carbon dioxide and 50% methane. In an engineered / sanitary landfill, this can be extracted

11

from gas wells through network of perforated plastic pipes laid within the refuse. About 400 cubic meters of gas (at NTP) can be produced from each ton of waste in a landfill. Over a period of 10 years, one ton of domestic solid waste is expected to produce in excess of 100 times its own volume in bio-gas. The generation of large quantities of methane from landfill sites improved throughout the early 1980s, and the number of sites using this technology is on an increase. Selection of suitable landfill sites has become an important and major step, which dictates the extent of preparations required for safe disposal and tapping of the gas.

RECOVERY AND RECYCLING

The practice of recovering recyclable items like papers, plastics, metals, glass, leather / rubber, bio-mass etc from MSW is well established in developed countries. Automated plants of different capacities are operational at different levels of techno-economics, specific to each plant. The biomass separated is either composted, pelletized into densified fuel pellets or compacted for ease in transporting and burning.

COMPOSTING

The organic matter separated from MSW can be converted into fertilizer by mechanical composting, bio-technological process using special cultures or using vermin-culture. All these processes are being carried out in small-scale operations in different parts of the world. There exists a weakness in the compost plant on a standalone basis. The composting requires a large area and the cycle time is very high for conversion. Since glass pieces and inerts are mixed with the garbage, the quality of the compost is not very suitable for any efforts made in each of agricultural purpose. These methods and their success rates are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

12

ENERGY RECOVERY FROM MSW

The energy content in MSW in urban areas is due to the presence of combustibles such as plastics, paper, rags and various other biomass wastes discarded by domestic and commercial establishments. The Energy Content Fraction (ECF) of garbage in India is lower compared to the ECF factor of garbage in developed countries. However, it is important to note that the moisture content of Indian garbage is rather high at 50% - 60% and paper / plastic fraction is low. These factors dictate the technology options suitable for Indian city garbage for energy recovery. The major technology options for energy recovery under practice in the developed countries include Incineration, Anaerobic digestion, Landfill gas and Fuel pellets, amongst others.

INCINERATION

There are over 500 mass burn municipally owned incinerators in USA and UK burning about 13% of MSW. The modern mass incinerators reduce the volume of MSW and the ash that is virtually sterile is land filled.

There are two types of incinerators in use. These include incinerators which burn MSW as received and the other type of incinerators which burn loose combustible waste derived from MSW after processing / refining.

The thermal energy generated through incineration is utilized for production of electricity and/or for heating purposes. The post 1995 incinerators are required to operate to new European Commission (EC) requirements of emission controls. The Toxic emissions should be brought down to concentrations as low as 0.1 to 2.0 nanograms per cubic meter by appropriate combustion control methods.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

The biodegradable wastes of organic or vegetable origin can be processed in anaerobic digestion plants to produce a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. The methane fraction can be separated and used as fuel for power generation, heating purposes including domestic cooking. The organic material separated from MSW is shredded and fed into the Anaerobic Digester (AD). The process is similar to that of generation of

13

sludge gas from sewage. The solid to liquid ratio in the digester is of the order of 15% - 25% and some improved AD converters can take as high as 30% solids. The wastes remain in the heated digester at temperatures in the mesophilic range (25 - 45 deg. C) for varying periods (10-20 days), the duration being dictated by different criteria like external temperature fluctuations and others variables like the waste composition itself. Some newer processes operate at the thermophilic range (temperature of 55. - 60 Deg C) and offers better rate of degradation. Gases given off during the decomposition are continuously drawn off.

REFUSE DERIVED FUEL

The Fuel pellets generally known as Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) are made by refining municipal solid waste in a series of mechanical sorting and shredding stages to separate the combustible portion of the waste. A loose fuel, known as fluff, floe or coarse RDF (c-RDF), or densified pellets or briquettes (d-RDF) are produced.

RDF production can complement materials recycling schemes. Glass, clean paper, metals and any other materials are removed from the waste stream for recycling before it is delivered to the plant. Further materials recovery is conducted at the RDF production site, as many plants incorporate some degree of manual sorting and most plants provide eddy current separators for non-ferrous metal extraction. The mechanically separated organic wastes that will not form part of the fuel are either land filled or subjected to further treatment to produce compost. Various recycling stages can be incorporated into the RDF process, enabling maximum recycling to take place. RDF production also permits a level of flexibility, so that, if for example, no markets were available for low-grade waste paper, it could instead be temporarily redirected to the fuel process rather than being wastefully land filled.

The majority of d-RDF plants produce pellets approximately the size and shape of wine bottle corks, while c-RDF usually looks a little like the fluff from a vacuum cleaner. The Studies on the calorific value of RDF indicate that removing the non-combustibles like glass 85 metals and combustibles like waste paper still leaves MSW with sufficient energy content fraction to make RDF production viable.

In Europe, much of the early development work on RDF technology was done in England, where construction began on the Byker, Newcastle, and Doncaster, South Yorkshire plants in 1976. Poland was also a pioneer in the construction of RDF plants, and two plants were commissioned in 1978 in Pieve di Corano and Ceresara, both in the northern Italian Mantua District. The Herten plant in Germany with two production

14

lines was commissioned in 1981 and each of the two lines is capable of producing 7.5 tonnes of RDF and one tonne of ferrous scrap an hour. RDF is sold to the cement industry. In Netherlands, the ICO power plant in Amsterdam has been treating 150,000 tonnes of waste each year since 1983. Such plants also exist in France at Laval in Mayenne; in Switzerland at Chatel St Denis and five plants are installed in Sweden.

In USA a number of d-RDF plants are operational including Thief Falls in Michigan, Northern Tier in Pennsylvania, Yankton in South Dakota and Iowa Falls and Cherokee, both in Iowa. In Asia, one such plant is known to exist in Korea at Seoul.

Densified RDF, which is manufactured in most of the plants, has the advantage that it is easy to handle, transport and store. The d-RDF is often transported to considerable distances for use in cement plants and co-generation power plants. For example, the RDF from Udine plant is transported 400 km to a fluidized bed gasification plant in Chinati, South of Florence. Pellets from Mantua plants are delivered 150 km to Ravenna cement works.

Separation of combustibles from MSW is an important step in the production of fuel pellets. Further, the moisture content of Indian city garbage makes the process much more complicated. As most of the recyclable items such as glass, plastic, paper and metals are picked up by rag pickers, the garbage received at the dump yards cannot justify investment for automatic separation system employed by the developed nations.

The experience of handling large quantities of garbage indicates that it was preferable to design a commercial scale garbage processing plant as an Integrated Process Plant which can produce energy rich fuel fluff / densified fuel. After the successful demonstration of the fuel pellets production, it was decided to transfer the Technology to the interested agencies for commercial exploitation.

15

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES

LIMITATION IN SANITARY LANDFILL

The sanitary landfill site is only for the disposal of the inert material generated from the garbage. The matter that is not used for any other purpose is to be dumped at the landfill site, thus reducing the requirement of landfill area.

The infrastructure cost required for setting up and the operating cost for maintaining a landfill site is very high. In the case the municipal body of Warsaw has to implement guidelines of Solid Waste Handling, the cost of implementing such guidelines can have a significant cost impact on the citizen.

Green waste is not supposed to go to the Sanitary Landfill. The international trend is to reduce quantity of MSW going to Sanitary landfill.

LIMITATION IN INCINERATION TECHNOLOGIES

High moisture content;

Since segregation is not done the heating value varies over considerable range;

Requires extensive support fuel thus making the project unviable

LIMITATION IN COMPOSTING

The cost of installation of this technology is comparatively lower than the other alternatives but the cost of end product i.e. organic fertilizer is high because of the following reasons:

Tried in various cities but a very few are working;

The land requirement for treatment is high. A plant processing 1000 TPD of MSW by vermin-culture technology would typically require more than 50 Hectares of land;

16

Cost of transportation is very high because of the location of end consumer at farther distance from the city limit;

Process rejections are very high;

Cost of operation is high because of the quantum of mechanization required for initial segregation of the waste;

Required sale price for self-sustaining operations is high. A mechanized composting plant of 300 TPD input capacity was set up in Okhla sewage treatment plant in 2.5 Hectares land adjacent to the NDMC compost plant. The process involved aerobic composting in windrows after separation of in-organics, magnetic separation followed by mixing in a homogenizer after size reduction in rasper. The organic fertilizer thus produced failed to find the market at desired sale price. The plant operation was discontinued in the year 2000 due to the absence of buyers of compost on account of high transportation cost.

LIMITATION IN BIO-METHANATION

Suitable for only segregated green waste;

Stand alone project based on bio-methanation tried in Pune & Lucknow failed due to incompatibility of mixed waste/ low yield of methane;

Bio-methanation is a better option than composting. Land area requirement in the biomethanation is very nominal compare to the composting plant.

SUMMARY

The above mentioned technologies have been tried on a standalone basis in various countries none of which could provide a comprehensive solution to treat the MSW. Since the garbage is heterogeneous in nature, there should be different technologies that can treat the mixed and green waste separately.

17

VIEW OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

BioCRUDE Technologies, the initiator of the project, believes that it has the potential to enhance the economic, environmental and social well being of the people in the region. The project activity has a beneficial effect on the local industries and employment in the region. All governments are concerned that the following indicators for sustainable development be addressed:

1. Social well being

2. Economic well being

3. Environmental well being

4. Technological well being

SOCIAL WELL BEING:

The project will contribute to improving the environmental conditions in the city of Warsaw, Poland by hygienic treatment of municipal solid waste, resulting in improvement of the health standards in the city. The manual as well as mechanical segregation of waste prior to feeding the solid waste for size reduction results in separation of substantial quantity of inert non-biodegradable matter like plastics, rags, stones, metals, glass, tires etc. Some of these items, such as organics, textiles, large woody mats etc., will be recycled within the plant itself as feed for the furnace, producing flue gas for the dryer. Other recyclable items will be disposed of through local contractors/kabari, providing monetary benefits to the local population. The project will provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities to the people of the region.

ECONOMICAL WELL BEING:

With all the financial input that will be earmarked for the project there will be a direct and indirect positive effect on the employment opportunities and economics of the region. This will improve the livelihood of the local people. Further unmanaged land filling of MSW will result health hazards in the localities which are in close proximity with the

18

landfill site resulting in additional health related expenditure. The project by avoiding land filling and scientifically treating the MSW shall improve the hygienic conditions, resulting in reduced health related expenditures in the nearby localities. The project converts solid waste into electricity which helps in reducing the demand on limited natural resources. The project will also earn additional revenue to the local and central government.

ENVIRONMENTAL WELL BEING:

From an environmental perspective, the project helps to reduce methane emission as well as any leachate that would otherwise have generated from the current practice of waste disposal. The project activity diverts 300 tonnes of waste per day from being deposited in landfills or incinerated. This enables the city of Warsaw to exercise better methods in land utilization, such as construction of housing, hospital etc. The project also results in a net decrease in transportation distance for MSW due to optimization of transportation route. This again reduces emission associated with transportation of MSW in the Grecian region. The technology and processes developed by BioCRUDE Technologies are truly “green” from the functionality of the equipment to the finished by-products. Their techniques work especially well in hot climates such as that to be found in Poland. The process is dependent on a specific temperature to fast track the composting process. Of course, the new unique enzymes are a vital part of the mix, reducing resident time in the digester from weeks to days.

The system has the added benefits of reducing health risk and the odours usually associated with MSW piles. Future plans for a biogas plant would ensure not only a greater output, but biogas is a clean burning, environmentally friendly fuel.

Despite the fact that the waste delivered to the plants have a large diversity resulting in reduced amounts of truly green material, our technology makes effective use of the waste, utilizing 50% or more green waste. The faster turnover in the composting procedure means that more Psychology.

Green waste: Green waste comprises of primarily segregated bio-degradable waste from hotels/restaurants/vegetable and fruit markets.

19

TECHNOLOGICAL WELL BEING:

INTEGRATION

The limitations of individual technologies can be mitigated by bringing together a mix of technologies by integrating them together to provide a holistic solution to the treatment of urban waste. An integration of technology so carried out would have the following benefits:

It treats various components of urban waste in an efficient manner so as to provide optimum utilization of optimum utilization to waste to produce compost, bio-gas, power and building materials;

Liquid and solid wastes when treated in the same complex provide tremendous

synergy for being treated in an efficient manner;

It leads to optimization of cost by treating larger quantities at the same place,

sharing infrastructure and variable costs;

It is environmentally desirable, as the rejects of one process becomes inputs for the

other process;

An integrated complex can treat the residual wastes by making building blocks as well

as other products;

When treatment of liquid waste is integrated with urban solid waste, viability of treatment of liquid waste also improves substantially.

INTEGRATION OF SOLID WASTES AND LIQUID WASTES

The integration essentially means: Solid & liquid wastes could be treated in the

same complex. The treatment process would be well integrated in terms of input

and output.

Each stream of the garbage will be treated by the technology most suitable for it;

thus, such a complex would have compost and methane from biomethanation

process, fuel and power from RDF plant, bricks and roadblocks from inert plant.

The integration is essential for the following reasons:

20

This replaces the requirement of bio-mass for the RDF plant which has been observed

as a major weakness of that technology;

It reduces the cost of the bio-methanation process, because separate fuel engines are

not required;

The integration improves the viability of the project, as it leads to cost optimization;

The integration is also environmentally desirable, as it uses wastewater. Secondly, it

substantially reduces need of land for landfill and thirdly it produces very high quality

compost much superior to the product of a compost plant;

It produces green fuel and reduces methane emissions – one of Warsaw’ supports to

the cause of Kyoto Protocol;

It improves viability of Municipal Body, as it does not have to spend money on

acquiring land for landfill sites and about 40% of capital expenditure on STP (sludge

pumping station, digesters, gas holders and sludge drying beds); it is loaded to the

project operator along with about 50% of O&M costs. Secondly, it reduces the average

distance of transportation, thereby bringing long-term benefits to the Municipality.

Thirdly, it ensures sustained treatment of sewage;

Such a complex can further add value to the Municipal Body by integrating door-to-

door collection and transportation of garbage by the operator. This would ensure that

door-to- door segregation of garbage takes place by the operator which improves

operational viability of the projects.

Major Stakeholders in the Project: Municipal Corporation of Warsaw - The

Municipal Corporation of Warsaw is one of the largest Municipalities in the world

providing civic services to an estimated population of 1.7 million citizens (not

including the residents of the suburbs). The project has been designed to accept

waste from the entire area of Warsaw, Poland. At present, waste from the Warsaw

area is being disposed of by the Warsaw Municipal Corporation at dumpsites

(landfills) which is already over exhausted. To decrease the load on the landfill site

and eventually establishing ZERO landfill dumping, the Municipal Corporation of

21

Warsaw, Poland should agreed to provide the land and garbage at a proposed

strategic plant site to set up the proposed MSW processing complex.

GARBAGE (MSW) CHARACTERISTICS, COLLECTION AND ISSUES INVOLVED

CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT

The management of municipal of solid waste is an essential service and an

obligatory duty of all municipal bodies. Waste management services are typically

divided into the following main components: primary collection, secondary

collection, treatment or processing and disposal. Primary collection includes the

collection of waste from generators and centralizes it for pick up. The secondary

collection system picks up the waste at these centralized points and transfers it to

processing or disposal sites (dumping grounds). Processing can include a number

of activities, most common being composting and material recovery of recyclable

materials). Residual waste that cannot be further reduced or processed must be

disposed, generally in landfills.

The problem of solid waste management is assuming serious proportions due to

increasing population, urbanization, changing lifestyles and consumption patterns.

The garbage from unauthorized developments and slums is not collected which

further adds to the environmental degradation.

SOURCE OF WASTE GENERATION

The majority of waste received at municipal dumping grounds is generated by residential, commercial and institutional sources and municipal activities such as street sweeping and drain cleaning.

22

SEGREGATION OF WASTE AT SOURCE

In certain project areas, segregation of waste at the household level is limited to separation of newspaper and glass bottles and there is no formalized system of segregation. Though Municipal Corporation of Warsaw is promoting the concept of waste segregation into dry and wet waste, through awareness campaigns and also placing two separate bins in market places and street corners, however, this concept is yet to be efficiently effected.

Informal garbage collectors (privately employed contractors and other associations) and rag pickers mainly carry out segregation. The garbage collector picks out the recyclable waste from the mixed waste during primary collection. Rag pickers also separate recyclables from the waste dumped at the open dumpsites. Since the waste is not segregated at source recyclables lose its commercial value due to cross contamination. As a result of this, a lot of recyclables regain in the waste stream and reach the land fill site.

WASTE DISPOSAL

The present system of garbage disposal in landfills being followed by the Municipal Corporation of Warsaw is primitive and environmentally unsound. The landfill sites are marginal lands identified and earmarked in the Master Plan by the appropriate Regulating Division of the Municipal Corporation of Warsaw. This system of disposing garbage in landfills has long been in operation, prior to which there was no organized system and garbage was collected and dumped in low lying areas. According to some resources, some alternative sites have already been identified for future landfill requirements.

The transport vehicles carrying the waste are weighed at the landfill site and are then dumped at the specific working place. A single pass of bulldozer thereafter spreads the deposited waste. The soil/sand and silt brought from various areas is used as a soil cover over the area where the waste is spread.

23

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY

Physical testing of the municipal waste has to be carried out by reputable institutions at the Warsaw Landfill site(s). From general experiences and during study, it was observed that large amount of mixing of MSW occurs with the inerts and other waste during collection and transportation of waste to landfill site. So, a landfill has to be selected to carry out the physical characterization of waste in order to know the true picture of the waste coming at the receipt point (at landfill site in present and hence in the future proposed complex). MSW arriving at the landfill site from selected locations have to be segregated into the different categories.

The laboratory appointed for MSW Characterization along with the Municipal Corporation of Warsaw officials have to identify the trucks in order to have indicative sampling of the wastes reaching the landfill site from the identified zones for the physical characterization of waste. Random sampling has to be done to select a truck from the identified zone reaching the landfill site. From amongst 3-4 vehicles coming to the landfill site from each of the identified locations, one vehicle has to be chosen for the physical characterization of waste.

The conventional method of the gravimetric profiling has been adopted by emptying out the entire trucks contents of the truck on a Plastic Sheet/suitable surface so that there occurs no mixing of linderneath waste/ soil.

The entire truck contents have to be physically separated by rag pickers and arranged by laboratory into different categories. Considering wet nature of kitchen waste and due to intermixing with inerts, there will still be some contents of inerts and other material in the kitchen waste, so further analysis will have to be carried out, to arrive out the actual fractions of the kitchen waste.

Accordingly, the kitchen waste will have to be further segregated after drying for at least one hour. Each of these fractions will be weighed individually using weighing machines. By the quartering 8s coning method, representative samples of around 2-3 kg will be prepared and samples of mixed waste and kitchen waste components of the Physical segregation will be taken in separate plastic envelopes (to ensure minimum loss of moisture). The collected samples from the mixed waste & kitchen waste will also be analyzed for its proximate analysis in addition to other chemical characteristics. Calorific value will be determined for four fractions separated after physical segregation i.e., for mixed waste, Kitchen waste, Fuels & Organic matter.

An approximate Waste Analysis (hereinunder mentioned) of Warsaw, Poland was furnished to the principals of BioCRUDE Technologies, Inc. from agents of the

24

Municipal Corporation of Warsaw, Poland and was used as the basis for generating the total amounts of by-products, relative to the inherent influx.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT:

Please refer to Annex 4: “PROJECT DESCRIPTION” and Annex 5: “CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT” for a comprehensive description of the Design of the Plant.

LOCATION OF THE PROJECT:

Host Party (ies): Municipality of Warsaw

Region/State/Province/Country: Poland

The location detail of the project activity along with the map is given below.

Location Latitude Longitude

Warsaw 52° 13' N 21º 00 E

25

Figure 1: Warsaw, Poland map

Warsaw suffers from a lack of sustainable and effective waste management.

26

MUNICIPAL CHARACTERISTICS & MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) CLASSIFICATION:

These questions will determine the best placement of a facility, the amounts of possible future waste production, and for the economics of the current situation. It is important to include how much is currently being paid per ton for each of the wastes to be included, the frequency of pickup to determine the amount storage required, and the percentage of water to determine the best possible destruction of the waste.

Tons / amount per day / week

Municipal – tons per day/ week 3,080 Tonnes / Day

Sewage – amount per day

Industrial- tons per day/week Tonnes / Day

Oil Sludge- amount per day

Commercial – tons per day/ week Tonnes / Day

Controlled / Toxic – tons per day/week

Hazardous – tons per day/week

Medical – tons per day Tonne / Day

Other – specify type /amount/ charge

27

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS & CLASSIFICATION:

This section deals with the types and amounts of waste that is to be considered in its evaluation for the total waste available and guaranteed for delivery and payment by the local authority.

Approximate Breakdown of the Waste:

FRACTION PERCENTAGE (%)

FUEL

Wooden Pieces 17.6

Paper 6.0

Textiles 2.3

Coconut Shell

Polythene

Plastics 6.0

Thermocol

Total: 31.9

ORGANICS

Green Waste 35.0

Kitchen Waste 6.0

Total: 41.0

28

INERTS

Concrete/Stone/Bricks

Sand/Solid

Cement

Lime

Total: 10.4

RECYCLABLES

Glass 3.6

Metal 9.5

Rubber/Leather 3.6

Total: 16.7

OTHERS

Battery NA

Human Hair NA

Total: NA

TOTAL: 100

*Note: Waste composition may vary from time to time.

29

SEWAGE:

This section refers to the amount of sewage that can be guaranteed for daily delivery as some sewage is collected from septic systems and trucked to the plant. Sewage can be handled by a GES treatment facility or the sludge can be delivered from existing treatment plants.

1 Amount Daily 10 T/Day

Weekly

2 Current Charge for sewage

3 What form delivered in Sludge/Cake/Other(specify) Sludge

4 Liquid Percentage 80

5 Analysis of Solids

a. feces Percentage 50%

b. debris Percentage 20%

c. other (specify) Percentage 30%

30

MEDICAL/CLINICAL WASTE:

1 Amount of waste generated daily 700 kg‐1000kg/Day (max)

2 Amount of waste currently in storage NIL

3 What percentage of the waste is water NIL

4 Waste is stored in how many locations All Hospital / Clinic

5 How many separate facilities are generating waste Approximately 300 clinics.

a. Amount generated at each facility

6 How is waste collected and stored Manually in closed vehicles

7 How are the different wastes identified‐bag color, size, etc.

8 What is the present cost of handling/storage

9 Who is responsible for management‐ Government/ Private Private

10 Give analysis of medical/clinical waste in percentages: AVE %

a. Syringes 1‐5 %

b. Specimens 1‐5%

c. Paper 10‐15%

d. Chemicals Not available

31

e. Radiological 1‐5%

f. Human parts 10‐15%

g. Viral Not available

h. Clothing 60‐80%

i. Contaminated human feces 5‐8%

j. Other (specify) Not available

CATEGORY OF PROJECT ACTIVITY:

“The project activity uses approved methodology AM0025/ version 06 (Refer to Annex 7: “REVISION TO THE APPROVED BASELINE METHODOLOGY”) which falls under Sectoral Scope 13: waste handling and disposal as per UNFCCC website.”

TECHNOLOGY OF PROJECT ACTIVITY:

The project activity, which involves refuse derived fuel (RDF), composting, anaerobic digestion and biogas processing of organic waste for energy generation, involves a 15 MW power plant and expanded potential capacity for additional Waste Processing Capacity, if so required.

We have an exclusive and unique method of composting organic waste/sewage sludge that can produce a finished product in 4 weeks. We also have low cost enzymes that reduce the resident time in the digester from 30 to 45 to 5 to 7 days; at the same time the biogas yield will be dramatically higher, with an accompanying rise in profitability.

32

TECHNOLOGIES’ DESCRIPTION

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED IN THE RDF PLANT

RDF Fluff requirement to produce 7.2 MW, its portion of the Procured Energy from the Waste to Energy Complex, would be about 10 to 13.5 TPH. The RDF Fluff production at the Warsaw plant from 650 TPD of MSW is estimated to be around 225 TPD, based on 18 hour a day operations.

The RDF Plant will have a provision to have a separate receiving and processing line for biomass / horticultural waste whenever available during season. This will be mixed with RDF in RDF storage pits.

Power Plant will have storage of approximately two days RDF Fluff requirement of about 450 T.

RDF Plant will have following operations

Manual Segregation

Shredding

Screening to separate both fine inerts and some percentage of

biodegradable matter

Rotary conveying and as per requirements Drying System

Fines screening

Density separator (ballistic separation)

RDF Plant will have dust collection and disposal facility. RDF Plant will have provision for suitable ventilation system to reduce smell inside the plant.

Hot gas introduced in the drier will have proper pollution control equipment like settling Chamber and the air from the system will be let out through a vertical pipe after washing it with suitable reagents to remove SPM and odorous pollutants.

There will be a 4.0 TPH capacity pelletizing facility (optional) to produce RDF pellets from RDF, biomass and horticultural waste. The pellets will be 20 mm to 25 mm diameter and 20 mm to 40 mm long with a bulk density of 650 kg/cum. These pellets could be used for boiler start up and during high moisture RDF firing.

33

Ash coming out of HAG and power plant boiler (both bottom ash and fly ash) will be disposed to landfill site. If there is a demand, it will be given to building contractors / fly ash brick manufacturers or recycled through contractors.

Once MSW is received at the facility, it will be weighed and inspected then brought to the MSW storage area via truck and the material will be unloaded into pits. After unloading the MSW shall be segregated and the portion aggregated to the RDF processing facility portion will be sprayed with herbal pesticide to retard its decomposition and prepare it for conversion to RDF fluff.

EOT Cranes will pick up this material from the pits through Grab buckets and deposit it on to a main conveyor through vibrator regulatory feeders. The main conveyor shall discharge the MSW to a manual inspection conveyor at an elevated level of 7.0 M. From the slow moving inspection conveyor, all the odd sized and unwanted objects shall be handpicked at the manual separation station. These will be mostly large textile pieces, large twigs and woody pieces, thermocole, as well as consumer durables. These items will be dropped into the respective chutes for collection and dispatch. After manual inspection the material is transferred to the magnetic separator to remove ferrous objects.

The MSW, after inspection and magnetic separation is fed into a primary shredder. This shredder is a matrix of moving blades, cutting blades and fixed blades which are capable of determining the size of the end product. During this operation, all the materials will get homogenized and its size will be reduced to minus 100 mm. These shredders are very sensitive to hard materials. Therefore, natural separation and manual operation previously deployed are to be very effective.

Materials from primary shredder will be put into a rotary screening trommel having minus 15 mm holes. The minus 15 mm fraction shall have considerable bio-degradable material and shall be sent outside for use as a soil enricher. Plus 15 mm fraction will be fed to the dryer. Depending upon the moisture content of plus 15 mm, a requisite amount of hot air produced by Hot Gas Generator (HAG) can be adjusted.

Material having more than 25% moisture will be put into a Rotary Dryer. In the Rotary dryer, material is dried in a co-current manner. The hot air is generated in a fixed grate hot gas generator. Woody Biomass separated from MSW or RDF will be combusted in the HAG. The output from Rotary Dryer is fed into a fine Rotary screen (Trommel) and minus 8 mm fraction consisting of dust, grit, sand, etc is separated. This fraction has commercial demand and is used as a soil enricher, especially for ash mounts of power stations.

The screened material from the dryer is then subjected to classification /density separation through a Ballistic Separator and heavy & light fractions are separated. Light fraction will be conveyed to the RDF storage yard. Heavy fraction will be further segregated. Recovered woody Biomass shall be sent to HAG as fuel and inert will be put into recycling / processing and or disposal to land fill. The Ballastic separator will also produce some dust which will be that of rotary screen and disposed of.

34

The light fraction thus separated and conveyed to RDF yard comprises of biomass, paper, textile, fine plastics and other combustible materials and is termed as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF Fluff). As per need, RDF can be further ground in a Secondary Shredder and then converted into RDF pellets.

The RDF fluff generated from the RDF facility portion of the Waste to Energy Complex will be stored in a covered area adjacent to the boiler. The Fluff will be transferred from this storage to a Belt feeder by a grab crane, which in turn will feed the boiler Receiving Hopper. The Boiler, bag house, Flue Gas treatment facilities, ID fan and 65 m high Chimney-win will be positioned such that they could be accommodated in the layout.

The turbo generator building will be located adjacent and/or parallel to the boiler. The TG auxiliaries like, lube oil system, gland steam condenser, boiler feed pumps, condensate pumps, and piping will be located in the TG building. The air cooled condenser will be located behind the Turbine building. The Electrical room will be located in the TG building and the power plant control room will be located in a floor above the electrical room.

The switchyard will be located parallel to the air cooled condenser. The water treatment facilities such as filters, RO plant and MB (mixed bed) unit, DM water storage tank should be located near the air cooled condenser.

The common monitoring basis is provided near the RDF plant, where reject water from RO plant, DM plant and cooling water blow down will be collected, neutralized and corrected as per required Standards. The reject water from the power plant will be forwarded to the municipal sewerage disposal.

Fly Ash from economizer hoppers and ESP hoppers will be pneumatically collected and conveyed to a fly ash silo, which is located near the chimney. Road access has been provided for the trucks to collect ash from the silo for disposal. Bottom ash will be collected in wet form.

The ash water requirement for the plant is to be utilized from the treated water effluent from the Municipal water supply.

It is necessary that the recyclables and ash are disposed off on a daily basis since the space available is much less for the plant.

Scheme for an Inert processing facility shall be considered in the design. Depending on the viability, this fraction can be disposed to landfill site.

Recyclable matter coming out of RDF plant would be given to Recycling units. Storage space for such items would be provided in the plant.

35

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IS CONVERTED INTO REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:

The integrated waste to power complex will have a section for processing municipal solid waste (MSW) into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) required for combustion in the boiler. The Boundary conditions of MSW to RDF sections are as follows:

a. The plant will have two process streamlines of 325 T of MSW/day, per streamline, to produce a total of 243 T/day of RDF.

b. The RDF Plant will have dust collection and disposal facilities. The RDF Plant will have provisions for a suitable ventilation system to reduce odours inside the plant.

c. Hot gas introduced in the drier will have proper pollution control equipment such as a cyclone, settling Chamber, etc. Air from the system will be let out through a vertical pipe.

d. There will be a 4.0 TPH capacity pelletizing facility to produce RDF pellets from RDF, biomass and horticultural waste. The pellets will be 20 mm to 25 mm in diameter and 20 mm to 40 mm long with a bulk density of 650 kg/cum. These pellets could be used for boiler start up and during high moisture RDF firing.

e. Ash coming out of the HAG and power plant boiler (both bottom ash and fly ash) will be disposed at a landfill site. If there is a demand, it will be given to building contractors / fly ash brick manufacturers.

f. Recyclable matter coming out of RDF plant would be given to Recycling units. Storage space for such items would be provided in the plant.

g. The Power Plant will be designed for the following emission levels:

SPM 50 mg/Nm3

SOx 100 mg/Nm3

NOx 200 mg/Nm3

h. The plant will be designed to work for two shifts per day and shall operate for 330 days in a year.

i. The size of RDF fluff should be minus 100 mm; edge to edge and its density should be around 80-100 kg/m3.

j. Depending on many factors, the CV of the fuel should be about 2600 kcal/kg ± l00 kcal/kg.

36

k. During screening of MSW through (-) 15 mm size the smaller fraction will be separated out and sold as soil enricher, especially to a nearby coal based power plant as an organic cover for fly ash damper.

l. A separate inert processing disposal scheme may also be worked out.

m. The RDF stream will have identical sequence of unit operations as given below, if the need of expansion is required.

n. Receipts of leaves and horticultural waste directly to the RDF storage.

o. Receipt of MSW in one of the pits.

p. Manual separation and rejection of odd size objects.

q. Primary size reduction and homogenization.

r. Screening to remove minus 50 mm size.

s. Drying (when required).

t. Screening to remove Grits.

u. Classification into light fraction (RDF), heavy rejects and residual dust.

v. Secondary Size reduction & pelletizing option.

REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) PROPERTIES

MSW collected from different sources has different calorific values. However, after drying and separation of non-combustible fraction, MSW on conversion to RDF, possesses an average calorific value of 2600 kcal / kg. The RDF fluff / pellet produced from MSW combustibles have the following properties.

37

Physical Properties of RDF

RDF Fluff RDF Pellets

RDF Fluff Pellets

Shape Irregular Cylindrical

Size 100 x 100 mm Dia.: 20 – 25 mm

Length N/A 20 – 40 mm

Bulk Density 80 – 100 kg/cum +650 kg/cum

Proximate Analysis:

Moisture Ash Content Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon

15% - 25% 15% - 25% 40% - 60% 10% - 20%

38

Ultimate Analysis:

Moisture Mineral Matter Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphur Oxygen

15% - 25% 15% - 25% 35% - 40% 5% - 8% 1% - 1.5% 0.2% - 0.5% 25% - 30%

Combustion Properties:

Gross Calorific Value of RDF (Avg) Ash Fusion Temperature Initial Deformation Temperature Softening Temperature Hemispherical Temperature Fluid Temperature

2,600 kcal/kg ±100 N/A

860° C

950 °C

1040° C

1100°C

Chloride Content 0.04%

Elemental Ash Analysis: (% of Oxides)

Silica Alumina Iron Oxide Titanium dioxide Calcium Oxide Magnesium oxide Sodium oxide Potassium oxide Sulphur trioxide Phosphorous pentoxide

53.10% 11.18% 4.87% 0.89% 13.15% 2.90% 5.79% 1.56% 2.55% 1.43%

RDF Production:

RDF Fluff / day RDF Fluff / year

225 TPD 74,250 TPY (330 days/year-18 hrs/day

39

RDF FLOW DIAGRAM

Two (2) 325 TPD streamlines of the RDF facility

40

Particulars/Description Quantity

Plant & Machinery for each Stream

MSW Receiving Pits (1300 cum) 2

Feeding Hopper with Vibro Feeder (3m x 3m) 4

E.O.T Crane with Grab Bucket (2 cum) 1 tonne lifting capacity

3

MSW feeding conveyor to an elevated manual segregation station (horizontal & inclined)

1

Conveyor with manual sorting station for manual removal of gross items

1

Magnetic Separator 1

Primary Shredder (all – 100 discharge) 1

Shredded Material Discharge conveyor 1

Trommel (Rotary Screen) 1

Belt conveyor below Trommel (for – 15 mm material) 1

Bin for collection & dispatch (- 15 mm material) 4

Trommel Discharge conveyor (+15 mm material fraction discharge – from Trommel to Dryer)

1

Rotary Dryer with suction Blower, Cyclone, Chimney etc 1

Hot Air Generator (HAG) with PA/SA Fans & System 1

Dryer Discharge conveyor 1

Fine Rotary Screen (10 mm size) 1

Screw conveyor for dust (- 10 mm) 1

Fines Transfer conveyor 1

Rotary Screen Conveyor (large size materials) 1

Ballistic Separator (fines discharge) 1

Heavies Discharge conveyor 1

RDF Feeding conveyor to storage for Boiler 1

Particulars/Description Quantity

Components for Pelletizing Unit

RDF Feeding conveyor for RDF storage 1

Secondary Shredder with Pneumatic discharge 1

Cyclone for collection of Raw Material 1

Pellet Mill with Pellet cooler 1

Bucket Elevator 1

Pellet Storage Bunker (1000 cum) 1

Common Equipment needed for both streams

Cutter Chipper for gross HAG fuel 1

Belt Conveyor to carry fuel to HAG 1

41

MAJOR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE RDF APPARATUS

EOT CRANE WITH GRAB BUCKET

It will be an electrically operated, overhead traveling crane. The long travel and cross travel will be electrically operated. Grab will be controlled hydraulically. The cranes will be controlled from the 'control pulpit' in the control room.

Span: 12 m

Lift Height: 10 m

Grab Bucket Volume: 2 cum

Minimal Operations per hour: --------

Normal Operating Time: --------

DRIVE MOTOR

Crane is to be designed to operate round the clock. Adequate focusing lights will be provided besides the general lighting of the crane area.

Long Travel: 2 x 2 km with Normal Speed Control

Cross Travel: 1 x 2 km with Normal Speed Control

Hoist Motor: 1 x 3 kW

Hydraulic Panel: 1 x2 HP

TROMMEL

Incoming mixed municipal solid waste is to be separated out in different sizes for further processing. This is done in Trommel. It consists of a rotary frame supported on pedestals for smooth rotation. The hole size of the screen is 50 mm. Feed passing through the holes mostly consists of small pieces of inert and biomas3. The fraction of + 50 mm consists of paper, cloth, cardboard boxes, twigs, and leather, amongst other things.

42

- Input Material

Mixed MSW with following characteristics: - Moisture average 25%, Maximum 45%, Bulk density 400 - 600 kg/in3.

- Feeding Mechanism

Slat conveyor or belt conveyor of adequate capacity to feed the material into the screen separator.

- Discharge Mechanism

(-) 50 mm fraction is rejected and collected by the conveyor. + 50 mm fraction is rejected at the end of the Trommel and transported by a conveyor for feeding to the Rotary Dryer.

- Technical Details

The Trommel is a Rotary cylinder built up with steel section having supporting rollers at both the ends. Drive to screen separator is provided by motor and gearbox through girth gear and pinion. Support rollers are of hard rubber construction to give it a smooth drive.

The screening sections are covered with steel sheet. Material discharge from the Trommel is connected at the outlets.

The Trommel has wide entry gate at discharge end for inside inspection of screen. Cleaning of any choking can also be carried out through the gate. Material inlet to the Trommel is properly sealed to avoid dust coming out of the system.

- Broad Specifications

Capacity: 40 T/hr

Type of Construction: Fabricated

Length: 10.5 m

Diameter: 2.8 m

Speed: 6-10 rpm

Drive Motor: 15 HP

43

ROTARY DRYER WITH HOT AIR GENERATOR


Length: 30 m

Diameter: 3 m

Input: 30 T/hr, minimum at 45% Moisture (max)

Output: 28 T/hr, minimum at 45% Moisture

ROTARY CASCADE DRYER SYSTEM

This is a rotating cylindrical shell provided with a set of lifting flights. The cylindrical shell will be in MSW and the lines will be in MSW. During rotation of the cylindrical shell the wet material is lifted and made to shower across the cross section of the cylinder. The hot air, which is introduced co-currently to the material flow, intimately contacts the wet solids undergoing showering action, resulting in drying. The material travels along the length of the dryer in a cascade manner by virtue of Jie lifting flights and the inclination of the rotating shell. The material is dried by the time it reaches discharge end. The material is discharged from the dryer via discharge port. Fixed end chambers are provided on both the ends of the rotating cylinder. The rotating cylinder is provided with two nos. tyre rings, externally fitted. These tyre rings rest on support rollers. The rollers & tyres will be provided with lubrication chamber, so that layer of oil is always covering the tyre/roller surfaces.

Flow Type: Co-current

Drive Unit: Motor Reduction Gear Box with Girth

Supports: Gear & Pinion Arrangement

Manhole: Final rpm of the Dryer will be 2-3 rpm

Tyres supported on rollers. Thrust Rollers are provided for preventing axial displacement. Suitable manholes are provided at both end covers.

44

DOUBLE FLAP VALVE (FEED SIDE & PRODUCT SIDE)

This is an air lock valve having two flaps, mounted serially and working alternately. The flap operation is carried out by means of pneumatics power cylinders. Timer and suitable pneumatic control system govern the actuation of the pneumatic cylinders. This will provide air locks at feed side as well as product side.

HOT AIR GENERATOR

This will be direct mixing type (direct Tired) hot air generator consisting of a refractory chamber to which fuel is dozed continuously and uniformly. This is done both mechanically and manually. The fuel gets ignited due to existence of flame inside. The flue gases formed are diluted with ambient air to give hot gases, at required temperature 8s flow rate. The ash formed during the combustion process falls below into ash collection chamber from where it is removed manually. The air required for combustion is provided by the air handling system of the dryer. Start up of the operation (in cold condition) is done employing a specially installed tempest burner. This pre-heating operation is carried out by using High Speed Diesel. After the fire chamber reaches the operating temperature, the burner is switched off.

DRYER GAS CLEANING

The exhaust gases from the dryer are passed through a cyclone followed by a settling chamber. The chamber is a vertical cylinder constructed in masonry. The entrained solids from the dryer system are allowed to settle on the bottom floor of the chamber. A door provides access to the inside of the chamber from where the settled material is periodically removed. Chimney is required for exhausting the humid gases from the dryer system at suitable elevation.

FD FANS & ID FANS

A FD fan sucks the air from the atmosphere and delivers it into the HAG. The ID fan draws the air at the dryer outlet and delivers it into atmosphere; the impellers will be dynamically balanced. Material of Construction for fans is Mild Steel.

Type: Centrifugal type

Drive Arrangement: V Belt Driven

45

Impeller: Dynamically Balanced

FINE ROTARY SCREEN

To separate out soil enricher (mixer of sand/grit and biomass) from dried MSW, Rotary Screen is used. For effective dust separation, 10 mm punched hole sieve is placed on rotating angle frame. Below this a screw conveyor is mounted for collection of fines. The fines are further removed through a belt conveyor and loaded on to the truck for disposal.


Length 8000 mm

Diameter 2000 mm

Speed 5-10 rpm

Drive Mechanism Through Pinion mounted on Gear Box Output Shaft and Gear on the Body

Drive Motor 15 HP

Angle of Inclination 6-10 Degrees

Material of Construction Mild Steel Plate 6-10 mm thickness with punched holes

Hole Size 6-10 mm

Capacity 25 T/hr

46

BALLISTIC SEPARATOR

Type: Ballistic 3-PhaseClassifier with screening elements with direct drive and open design.

- Design Features

Open design

Hole size in screening elements as per design specifications

Necessary electric safety components mounted on machine

Material outlets

Motor mounting, left or right ace, as per design specifications

- Options

Closed design (top & Gables)

Service doors

Adjustable inclination

Variable motor speed

Heavy duty screening elements

Screening elements with exchangeable hole plates

- Power Supply: 380-415 V, 50 Hz; Main Dimensions

Length: 7475 mm

Width: 5762 mm

Height: 2975 mm

- Product Outlets, Main Dimensions

Heavy fraction: 880 x 3861 mm

Screen fraction: 4350 x 3861 mm

Light fraction: 1080 x 3861 mm

47

- Weight

7000 kg

- Motor & Drive Type

Electric motor with gear, type SEW Euro drive

PELLETIZING OF RDF (SPECIFICATION CAPACITY 4 TPH)

A secondary shredder is designed to have size reduction of combustible fraction of Municipal Solid Waste after it is passed through the Ballistic Separator and kept in RDF Storage. The material from the RDF Storage is fed into the secondary shredder. The crushed material from the secondary shredder is lifted through a pneumatic transfer system consisting of cyclone, fan and other inter-related components.

- Size of Input Feed

All the materials segregated in Ballistic Separator & having size minus 100 mm are fed into the secondary shredder for fine crushing.

- Output from Shredder

The size of fluff after crushing mainly depends upon the diameter of pellets to be made in the Pelletizing Press. For pellets of 8 mm - 10 mm diameter, the fluff should be ground to below 3 mm size & for pellets of diameter 22 mm - 25 mm, fluff be ground to below 10mm size. The size of output is adjusted by replacing appropriate size of screen at the bottom.

- Technical Details

The secondary shredder is a centrally fed hammer mill having reversible direction of rotation & directly coupled with the motor using pin bush coupling. The body of the crusher is fabricated from 16mm thick MSW Plate. Ribs are provided to reinforce at critical areas. The rotor is made up of machined MS Plate & holes are drilled using special jig. The shaft is made out of high carbon steel & duly heat-treated. The rotor assembly is also balanced before installation.

The rotor is directly coupled to TEFC, squirrel cage induction motor, through pin bush coupling.

48

PNEUMATIC CONVEYING SYSTEM

For transfer of ground RDF fluff from the secondary shredder, a pneumatic conveying system is used.

The ground material from the secondary shredder is sucked into the cyclone with low-pressure centrifugal fan at the other end. Closely machined, rotary air lock ensures, jam free operation & seals the negative pressure system. Dust bag filter system is provided to collect the dust before the air is discharged in air.


Special Features Centre feed, reversible, replaceable, grinding bars. Provision of clean hot air-injection up to 100° C. Directly coupled and dust free, completely closed.

Mechanical Fabricated body with heavy MS construction 16 mm thick. Ribs are provided to reinforce at critical area. Bearing pedestal area mounted on mechanical plates. Balanced rotor made of machined MS place and specially made holes.

Shaft Diameter 110 mm

Bearing 22324 K spherical roller

Pedestal Block S-624 cast iron, machined

- Complete assembly is mounted on base frame with anti vibration mounting pad.

Capacity 4 T/hr output at 10-12% moisture

Size of Crusher 40 x 52

Motor Drive 150 Hp, squirrel cage induction motor, TEFC 415 V, 3 Phase, 50 Cycles, Directly coupled with pin bush coupling, special arrangement ID to be made for starting of motor and reversible arrangement and recording of directional running time.

49

Dimensions

Length: 2,700 mm

Width: 1,560 mm

Height: 1,785 mm

RPM: 1,470

Grinding Area: 13,800 sq. cm

Screening Area: 20,000 sq. cm

Screening Hole: 16 mm

Static Load: 4,000 kg

Dynamic Load: 12,000 kg

Hammer Nos: 288 pcs

Weight of each Hammer: 2 kg

Swing Diameter/Speed: 1,000 mm: 75 m/s

Total Area Required: 300 sq. ft

Open Area Required: 6 feet all around the equipment

PNEUMATIC PICK UP SYSTEM

To assist secondary crusher in grinding, the segregated MSW is forced into the crusher. Bottom of screen is to be maintained under negative pressure to suck the material through the screen under impact pressure from the hammers. Ground material with air is discharged into cyclone for separating crushed MSW from air. Dust laden air is divided into two parts. About 25 % air goes to bag filters. 75 % air is re-circulated in to the system. This reduces the filter area and HP required for filtering. Since, during grinding some moisture is always liberated, it is desirable that some quantity of air is always discharged in to atmosphere and make up air is supplied to secondary crusher. In case it is desired to supply hot air, it can also be done at crusher.

50

CYCLONE

Cyclone with long neck is envisaged here. Cyclone inlet is reinforced to take care of wear at the inlet. A long neck cyclone enables better separation of MSW from air. Self-fixing cyclone air discharge duct is provided.

- Specifications

Length/Diameter: 3,200 mm/1,200 mm

Inlet Duct: 300 mm

Outlet Duct: 350 mm

- Rotary Air Lock

Length/Diameter: 450 mm/500 mm

Drive Motor/Gear Box: 2 HP/ 25 rpm & SA287

Power Transmission: Chain sprocket

Rotor Construction: Non clogging, one directional

Rotor Blade: 6 sector, closely machined

- Fan

Radial blade centrifugal fan dynamically balance impeller

Air Flow: 6,000 cu. ft.

Pressure: 150 mm WG

Drive Rating: 10 HP x 1,440 rpm

Fan Discharge: Bottom horizontal

Bearing: 1,310 K, self aligning

- Assembled Frame

Static/Dynamic Load: 1.05 T/1.5 T

Frame Length/Width: 2,900 mm/1,700 mm

51

MODULAR FILTER

To collect the fine dust generated during secondary crusher operation bag filter is provided. Part of the air (as per. adjustment) from pneumatic conveying system is diverted lo bag filter.

Unit is steel cubical with bottom inlet and top discharge. A high-pressure fan maintains the filter under negative pressure. Mechanical shaking device is provided for collection of dust. 0.5 HP air lock installed at the discharge end of dust, clean air into the atmosphere.

Air Quantity: 1,000 CMH

Std. Pressure: 150 mm WG

Fan Speed: 1,500 rpm

Fan Motor: 5 HP

Dust collector complete with mechanical shaking arrangement for filter bags and air lock is provided for discharge of micro dust.

No. of Bags: 36

Type: Woven fabric

Flap Length: 200 mm

Diameter: 125 mm

No. of Rings: 3

Distance between Rings: from 200 mm, 3 Nos. @ 1,000 mm

Distance Section: 800 mm

Total Length: 60 m

Length: 1,300 mm

Width: 800 mm

Height: 4,500 mm

52

Air Lock

Diameter: 300 mm

Length: 250 mm

Motor: 0.5 HP

Gear Box: SA200

Static Load: 1.6 T

Dynamic Load: 2.0 T

PELLET MILL

In power plant operation densified RDF is desirable for stability of boiler operation and also as back up fuel. Due to high bulk density of 600 - 700 kg/m3, RDF pellets are very convenient to store.

For marketing, densified RDF is the only possible route as transportation over 50 KM distance is not possible without densification.

Pelletizing is continuous extrusion from the die, under pressure from moving rollers. Pelletizing temperature is 80 -100° C and different size of pellets can be produced.

- Input Characteristics

For palletizing, it is desirable, that input material is conditioned depending upon the pellet diameter. Desired RDF fluff should be ground to size below 3 mm for 8-10 mm diameter Pellets. For 22 -25 mm diameter Pellets, material should be ground to below 10mm. Moisture after conditioning should be around 20%. Higher the input temperature better will be the quality of product.

- Output from Pelletizer

Densified pellets bearing following characteristics will be produced.

Size: 08 – 10 mm Diameter 15 – 20 mm Length

22 – 25 mm Diameter 25 – 40 mm Length

Density: 600-700 kg/cum

53

Moisture: 10 – 20%

Calorific Value: 2,600 kcal/kg


Loose granular, low bulk density combustible material with or without binder after steam conditioning is up the roller and dies and compressed into, desired-length. Pallets can be produced in variety of size it is a reliable and continuous process machine.

Material of construction: MS Roller, Alloy Steel Shaft, Roller & die & Bronze Gear

Type: Stationary flat die

Model: PL-1000

Capacity: 4 T/hr

Size of Crusher: 40 x 52

Motor: 150 HP, squirrel cage induction motor, TEFC 4 415 V, 3 Phase, 50

Drive Arrangement: 60 – 80 rpm

Die Diameter: 1,000 mm

Die Thickness: 60 – 100 mm

Hole Diameter: 16 – 20 mm

Roller Diameter: 450 mm

Mechanical Pressure Regulation System for Gap Adjustment

Static Load: 6.0 T

Dynamic Load: 7.5 T

Dimensions

Length: 2,800 mm

Width: 1,200 mm

Height: 2,400 mm

RPM: 1,470

54

BIOCRUDE TECHNOLOGIES’ BIOGAS PROCESS

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY

Anaerobic digestion is a biological process in which bacteria breaks down organic matter within an airless environment, with biogas as the end product. Biogas derived from dairy farm waste is made up of approximately 60% methane (CH

4), 40% carbon

dioxide (CO2), and trace amounts of other gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H

2S).

55

Anaerobic digestion can occur within three different temperature ranges: psychrophilic, mesophilic, and thermophilic.

Psychrophilic digestion occurs at temperatures below 68°F and is usually associated with systems that operate at ground temperature. Psychrophilic digestion has the lowest biogas production rate of the three temperature ranges. Also, the production rate is susceptible to seasonal and diurnal fluctuations in temperature, making it difficult to predict how much biogas will be available.

The mesophilic temperature range is between 68°F and 105°F. The optimal temperature for mesophilic digestion is approximately 100°F, which is almost equal to the body temperature of dairy cattle. This allows the same bacteria at work in a cow’s ruminant system to continue breaking down the excreted organic matter for a period of several days. Digesters operating in the mesophilic range require constant heating in order to maintain a temperature of 100°F.

The thermophilic range is between 110°F and 160°F. The elevated temperature allows for the highest rate of biogas production and the lowest hydraulic retention time (HRT). The HRT is the amount of time material must remain in the digester before it is sufficiently processed. Digesters that operate in the thermophilic range require substantial amounts of energy to maintain the proper temperature and are prone to biological upset due to temperature fluctuations. To avoid upset, they require closer monitoring and maintenance. Another drawback is that the effluent is not odour free.

Following is a brief description of the three most common digester types in use today that could be considered to treat and transform the organic waste.

COVERED LAGOON

Covered lagoons are the least technical and least expensive of the anaerobic systems used.

They require large land areas, have the lowest biogas production rate, and can only be used in locations with low water tables. Covered lagoons are not normally heated and operate approximately at ground temperature (in the psychrophilic range).

This technique is designed to be used in a warm climate with diluted sewage sludge containing less than 2 percent solids content. Biogas is captured by placing an impermeable floating cover over part of, or the entire waste storage lagoon. Biogas

56

production rates vary based on the temperature of the lagoon, which in turn is affected by daily and seasonal fluctuations in the temperature of the ground, air, and feedstock.

COMPLETE MIX DIGESTER

Complete mix digesters are the most technically complex of the anaerobic systems, as well as being the most expensive to build and operate. The heated tank can be placed either above or below ground level and is designed to treat organic waste with a solid content between 2 percent and 10 percent.

The sewage sludge is continuously mixed either mechanically or by using pumped gas circulation to keep the solids in suspension. It is often operated in the thermophilic range, thereby generating biogas at a high rate. Substantial amounts of energy are required to maintain digester temperature and mix the digester contents.

The high capital and energy costs generally limit the complete mix process to large centralized facilities.

PLUG FLOW DIGESTER

Plug flow digesters are designed to handle undiluted dairy organic waste with an 11 to 14% solid content. The standard design consists of a covered rectangular concrete tank that holds approximately 20 days worth of waste. Each time fresh waste is added to the plug flow digester, usually on a daily basis, an equal volume of digested waste is forced out at the other end. Biogas is captured in the space between the digesting material and the cover. A daily plug of organic waste requires about 20 days passing through the digester.

Digestion is carried out by mesophilic bacteria in a temperature range of 95°F and 103°F. The organic waste in the digester must be continuously heated in order to maintain the optimal temperature range. This heat can come either from engine waste heat or from the biogas stream itself. As with the complete mix digester, the long, constant exposure to heat kills most pathogens and weed seeds in the waste. Plug flow digesters only work with undiluted waste (refer to Annex 9: for the Plug Flow Digester “STUDY OF BIOGAS YIELD, MASS AND HEAT PARAMETERS IN A PLUG FLOW DIGESTER”).

Here is a sample flow diagram for a Plug Flow System:

58

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED IN THE BIOGAS PLANT:

A two phase modified up Plug flow digester design will be adopted in the biogas project. A special design of plug flow digester will be employed in the project. This is a two-stage design. The sizes of the digesters for the first stage and the second stage are decided on the basis of the suspended organic contents of the slurry to be treated. The first stage fermentation is the hydrolysis stage and the second methanation and polishing stage, with the first stage having been designed to give maximum solid retention time for the hydrolysis and the second stage as being either proprietary modular construction or specially developed hybrid design. Both stages operate in the Mesophilic range.

Biogas technology has wide applications in both developing and developed countries. China is the world leader in implementing biogas digester. In 1970, the government in China constructed the first large-scale biogas plant in which seven million digesters were installed, providing energy to approximately 25 million people. The types of biomass used in anaerobic digesters are animal dung, kitchen wastes, water hyacinths, human feces, and straw.

Industrial countries have built larger digesters, where the input products are sewage sludge, municipal wastes, industrial organic-waste (e.g. food processing, dairy, brewing, paper, pulp, pharmaceutical, and alcohol production), and crop byproducts (e.g. wheat and alfalfa). Additionally, the biogas generated from landfill is collected and used for energy generation.

The Biogas process is a way to treat different types of waste in an environmental friendly way, and is an excellent source of energy. The anaerobic digestion process is mainly utilized to treat four groups of waste:

1. Sludge produced during the aerobic treatment of municipal sewage. The biogas produced during digestion process can partly cover the amount of energy consumed in the sewage treatment plant.

2. Wastewater generated from industry (e.g. food and fermentation industry) is treated in biogas plants before discharge it to the aquatic environment or to the sewage system. This type of wastewater contains a high concentration of pollutants; therefore it cannot be discharged directly to the surroundings. The biogas produced from treatment process can cover the amount of energy consumed.

59

3. Animal waste is used as biomass in the biogas plant to produce energy and to improve the fertilizer quality. Anaerobic digestion of waste helps to remove the pathogens which may present in the raw waste and thereby improve the quality of fertilizers. This application is growing due to the restrictive rules governing the usage, distribution storage of waste.

4. Organic waste from households is utilized in the biogas plant for energy production. The aim is to reduce the amount of waste goes to landfills and incineration plants, and to exploit the nutrients from this type of waste in agriculture. The energy yield of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) using anaerobic digestion process is 80-160 kWh/tonne of MSW. While, the energy yield of MSW using incineration is 450-500 kWh/tonne of MSW.

5. Biogas generated from 100 TPD of organic waste is approximately 5000 m3 per day. In the case where the segregated MSW has higher Total Solids (TS) and Volatile Solids (VS) percentage, the biogas quantity will increase proportionately. This biogas will be used as auxiliary fuel for the boiler and dryer in power plant.

REASONS FOR APPLYING BIOCRUDE TECHNOLOGIES’ BIOGAS TECHNOLOGY

The main reasons for the application of this technology are:

1. It is an effective method to treat different types of waste (e.g. animal waste, organic waste from households, waste from food industries, and sludge from wastewater treatment plants) in an environmentally friendly way.

2. A Biogas plant is a key element in reducing CO2 emission by 50%. Therefore, applying biogas technology will help to achieve the CO2 reduction target.

3. There is an improvement in the quality of the fertilizers by digesting raw waste containing pathogens. These pathogens can be easily transferred to humans if raw waste is spread directly on the fields. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste improves the fertilizer quality from a hygienic point of view. Additionally, the solid residuals of the digestion process from the biogas plant (fertilizers) can be easily spread on crop producing fields.

4. Anaerobic digestion reduces the bad smell of biomass and thereby minimizes the nuisance from odour and flies.

5. Biogas plants create employment opportunities, especially in rural areas.

60

6. It has the potential to achieve a reduction in the cost of biogas by continuous research and development in this area. The aim is to make this technology profitable to the private sectors.

7. There must be an increase in the implementation of renewable energy creation, which is especially important in a country facing a critical power shortage in many areas. The aim is to make our systems independent of traditional energy sources and to lessen the impact of changes in oil prices.

8. The biogas process is an economical method for treating organic waste, as compared to other currently used treatment plans (landfill and incineration). Therefore monetary savings can be realized by treating organic waste with a digestion process.

9. Biogas technology can be combined with separation technology used for waste. This combination has advantages for both farmers and biogas plants. The purpose of separation of waste is to refine nutrients in a concentrated form.

10. Expandability is possible with the addition of new digesters. The likelihood of the plant remaining profitable up to the 25th year is greatly augmented because of the increased yield.

Based on these reasons, BioCRUDE Technologies supported research programs to develop biogas technology, knowing that the efficiency of the digestion process could be improved and that large scale biogas plants could now be built.

GENERATION OF STABLE, HIGH QUALITY LIQUID FERTILIZER AND SOLID SOIL AMENDMENT:

Digestion does not reduce the quantities of nutrients in waste. The process converts them into new, more soluble, and more available forms. The liquid, commonly called filtrate, is a valuable fertilizer that can be applied directly to the land. The anaerobic digestion process converts the chief nutrients in waste, (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) into a soluble form that is more readily available to plants. In the process of anaerobic digestion, the organic nitrogen in the waste is largely converted to ammonium, a primary constituent of commercial fertilizer, which is readily available and utilized by plants. The biogas process also produces an essentially sterile fiber that is nearly free of weed seeds and pathogens. The solid fiber can be used as livestock bedding material or as an excellent soil amendment.

61

REDUCTION IN ODOURS:

Biogas systems have the ability to reduce offensive odours from overloaded or improperly managed waste storage facilities

These odours impair air quality and are a nuisance to nearby communities, particularly as new residential and commercial developments continue to expand into historically agricultural areas. Biogas systems reduce these offensive odors because volatile organic acids, the odour-causing compounds, are consumed by biogas-producing bacteria.

REDUCTION IN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION:

Digester effluent is a more uniform and predictable product than untreated waste. Its higher ammonium content allows better crop utilization, and its physical properties allow easier land application. Properly applied, digester effluent reduces the likelihood of surface or groundwater pollution. Once the filtrate is properly applied, the risk of further ammonia losses is extremely small compared to raw waste. There are three reasons for this:

1. Due to the lower viscosity of the filtrate, it penetrates the soil faster.

2. Soil ammonium adsorption is high, resulting in low washout.

3. Ammonium is more readily available to plants than the organic nitrogen found in untreated waste; hence, the uptake through nitrification is faster, and the chance for washout is reduced.

REDUCTION IN PUBLIC HEALTH RISK:

Heated digesters reduce waste pathogen populations dramatically within a few days. Many farmers have reported that their biogas system has substantially decreased fly populations on their farms.

The Biogas system from BioCRUDE technologies has the ability to offer substantial benefits, both economic and intangible, to dairy farm operators. In many cases, without the implementation of this technology, farmers would have been forced to cease their operations.

62

THE ROLE OF BIOCRUDE TECHOLOGIES IN THE PROCESS

The added BioCRUDE enzymes extend the range of degradable substrates. This leads to a lower viscosity with improved separation and a decreased application of flocculent. There is a higher output of digester gas, resulting in improved profitability for a sewage sludge and organic waste plant.

BioCRUDE technologies have enzymes that dramatically decrease the decomposition rate, completing the process in as short a period of time as 5 to 7 days. Current experiments being done through our research partners in the environmental laboratory of the Toluca Institute of Technology and the few other Universities working with BioCRUDE are focused on determining the optimal process in treating sewage sludge and other waste products targeted by this project, with the goal of decreasing decomposition rates and costs.

63

ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM

64

LAYOUT OF THE BIOGAS PLANT

The approximate land required to build the facility is 3,000 m2.

65

ITEM DESCRIPTION

01 LOADING RAMP

02 PULVERIZER PLATFORM

03 SLURRY PREPARATION TANK

04 PRIMARY DIGESTER

05 RECYCLE CHAMBER

06 SECONDARY DIGESTER

07 SCUM AND DRAIN CHAMBER

08 EFFLUENT BUFFER TANK

09 AERATION TANK

10 SETTLELING TANK

11 TREATED WATED TANK

12 GAS HOLDER ENCLOSURE

13 BIOGAS SCRUBBER FUNDATION

14 MCC ROOM

15 CENTRIFUGE AND MANURE YARD

16 RESERVOIR FOR STP WATER

17 FLARE

MAJOR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOGAS APPARATUS

FEED PREPARATION

Loading Ramp

The trucks/dumpers carrying the pre-sorted waste will be brought into an enclosed room which has rolling shutters.

Once the truck is inside the room, the waste is unloaded into a pit full of recycled water. The pit is equipped with slow rotating paddles / skimmers and the green waste is "water washed". The pit has a hopper bottom with a slow moving screw conveyor mounted at the bottom. The heavy particles like sand, stones, metallic objects accumulate at the bottom and are removed using the screw conveyor and are collected in a bin. The bin is then transported by tractor trolley to the inert storage section. All the green waste will

66

float on top. The paddles / skimmers will direct this waste towards a hopper at one end and the waste will then fall onto the belt conveyors.

Odour control: Centrifugal blowers will suck out the foul air from this enclosed waste unloading area and it will be passed through a bio-filter and finally vented outside. Two air changes per hour are envisaged to ensure a favorable working environment in this area.

Belt conveyors

The waste material will fall onto slow moving belt conveyors with a suitable angle of inclination. The belt conveyor capacity will be 3 tones per hour. The belt conveyors will be covered from the top and sides with transparent sheets so that the waste will not fly around and will not contaminate the surroundings. Centrifugal blowers will suck out the foul air on the belt conveyors and it will be passed through a bio-filter and finally vented outside.

The waste will be further sorted manually by personnel stationed on either side of the conveyors - especially looking for plastic and non biodegradable floating waste. Suitable openings in the belt conveyor covering will enable the personnel to sort the waste - but the waste will not be touched by human hands. The non-biodegradable waste will be disposed of down a chute.

Shredders / Pulpers

Shredders / pulpers are provided with cutting blades which will shred the organic waste. Feeding boxes are provided for this equipment. The waste from the belt conveyors will fall into the feeding boxes and will eventually be crushed.

The choice of size reduction device is constrained by the high moisture content of the waste. There are two basic types that fit this designation - screw and rotary shear mills. Either will be acceptable. However, the mill must be of robust quality as it will be subjected to heavy duty and the success of the downstream plant will be significantly affected by its performance. A Rotary type of shear mill of 5 tones/hr capacity will be utilized for this project.

Slurry Preparation Tank

The waste falls into this hopper bottom tank. Shredders / pulpers are attached to this tank. Provision has been made to remove sand from the bottom and non-biodegradable floating matter from the top. Treated sewage water is used for dilution and the slurry is mixed thoroughly. It is then sent directly to the primary digester. The size of this tank will

67

be 5m X 5m x 3m water depth. Volume of mixed slurry considering dilution is in a 1: 1 proportion and a holding time of 8 hours is appropriate for this size of tank. The size of the treated sewage storage tank is 3m x 3m x 3m for temporary holding of sewage water.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

The vegetable market waste comprises of highly putrescible components, especially fruits and certain vegetables. In digesting these within a one stage anaerobic digestion process, such as a continuous stirred tank digester, rapid generation of fatty acid ensues which can either lower or completely stop the methane production (the latter condition is referred to as 'sour' or 'stuck' system, when high acidity inhibits the methane generating bacteria). Such processes suffer from low organic throughput, lower yield, toxicity introduced by pH controlling compounds and odour. A stringent and elaborate control of its environmental conditions may be required, due to day to day changes in relative mix between putrescible and slow degradable in the waste.

These problems are largely overcome by the use of a two stage or two phase system, which broadly separates fatty acid generation stage from that of its consumption. In this application, two phase processes will generally have higher specific productivity and give an increased yield of methane.

Flexibility in distribution of the mixed waste slurry is provided to cater for fluctuating organic waste especially in the monsoon season.

Primary Digester

In this digester, a consortium of anaerobic organisms work together to bring out the conversion of organic sludge and wastes. One group of organisms is responsible for hydrolyzing organic polymers and lipids into basic structural building blocks such as monosaccharides, amino acids, and related compounds. The second group of microorganisms in anaerobic digestion ferments the breakdown of products to simple organic compounds, the most common of which in are acetic acids. This digester is made in RCC. It contains proprietary internal modules made with FRP reinforced with Mild Steel and is provided with a top cover made in Mild Steel with FRP lining. Proprietary scum breaking mechanism is provided. A sludge removal system is also provided.

68

Biogas will collect under the top cover in the free board area and will subsequently collect in the biogas holder. Part of the treated overflow is recycled back to the digester and the rest will be sent by gravity to the Secondary digester for further treatment.

Recycle Chamber

It serves as a sump for the digester pumps. The size will be 5m x 5m x 3m water depth.

Pumps for Secondary Digester

These pumps will pump the partially treated slurry from the primary digester to the secondary digester, as well as being used for recycling.

Secondary Digester

In the secondary digester, the two principal pathways involved in formation of methane are:

Conversion of the hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methane and water. Conversion of the acetate to methane and carbon dioxide.

The methanogen and the acidogens form a Syntrophic relationship in which the methanogens convert the fermentation end products such as hydrogen, formate, and acetate to methane and carbon dioxide.

To maintain an anaerobic treatment inside the secondary chamber that will stabilize organic waste efficiently, the non-methanogenic and methanogenic bacteria must be in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Also the pH of this environment should range between 6.6 and 7.6. Sufficient alkalinity should be present to ensure that the pH will not drop. Adequate amount of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, must also be available to ensure proper growth.

It will contain proprietary internal modules reinforced with Mild Steel and is provided with a top cover made in Mild Steel. Proprietary scum breaking mechanism is provided. A sludge removal system is also provided. The anaerobically treated water from this digester is connected to the water treatment section.

69

WASTE WATER TREATMENT

Aeration system

The BOD and COD level in the overflow from the anaerobic system needs to be reduced further before reuse. Diffused aeration helps to reduce the BOD levels further and is suitable for captive irrigation after filtration and settling. Diffused aeration is carried out using blowers and fine bubble diffusers.

Diffusers will be almost 16 - 20 arranged in a matrix network pattern with air header distributors. The aerated water is then settled in a settling tank adjoining the aeration tank.

Proprietary modules and settler tubes are placed inside the settling tank and help in "clarifying" the water. Poly electrolytes can be added to aid the settling process if desired at a later date. The size of the aeration tank will be 8m x 6m x 3m.

The next system consists of the Pressure Sand Filter, Activated carbon Filter and the chlorination system.

Pressure Sand Filter (PSF)

The PSF is a cylindrical pressure vessel made in MS with FRP lining. On one side it is mounted with a multiport valve and pressure gauges.

The Filter media used is as per IS 8419. The filtration beds are comprised of the coarsest beds starting from pebbles to the finest layer of fine sand. PSF is provided to remove the turbidity and suspended particles present in the feed water with minimum pressure drop. A fresh water line with multi-port valve has to be provided for backwashing the filters. The water quantity required for back wash will be 4 KLPD. Two back wash cycles are envisaged each day.

The back wash dirty water will be connected back to the mixing chamber.

It is also provided with one set of internal fittings comprised of the inlet distributor, the bottom collector and the backwash system.

Activated Carbon Filter (ACF)

The ACF is also a cylindrical pressure vessel of made in MS with FRP lining. It has a multiport valve and pressure gauges on one side.

The Filter media used is as per IS 8419. The filtration beds are comprised of layers of Activated Carbon. Activated Carbon can absorb itself to the particles and thus trap

70

them. ACF is provided to remove the smell and also for removing odour present in the feed water with minimum pressure drop. A fresh water line with isolation valve has to be provided for backwashing the filters. It also has internal fittings including an inlet distributor, bottom collector and backwash system. The water quantity required for back wash will be 4 KLPD. Two back wash cycles are envisaged every day. The back wash dirty water will be connected back to the mixing chamber.

Chlorination System

In the settling tank, chlorine dosing is carried out for disinfection. Sodium Hypochloride solution will be dosed for disinfection. The dosage will be about 5 ppm and will be vary according to the analysis reports from the site laboratory. The treated water after chlorination will be stored in a tank having a volume of 50 cum. Half the treated water is recycled for slurry making and the rest is used for captive irrigation. The treated water will meet with the pollution control board requirements.

BIOGAS STORAGE AND CLEANING

Estimates of biogas yield are ascertained from the composition of the market waste (in terms of moisture, volatile solids and lignin content). - Biodegradability of such waste materials is inversely proportional to their lignin content provided feedstocks are homogenized appropriately. Based on the waste composition and lignin content, and taking into account the balance between project reliability and biogas yield the likely gas yield is estimated to be of the order of 0.60 m3 per kg of volatile solids destroyed in the biogas plant, i.e. approximately 55-60 m3 of biogas per ton of vegetable market waste.

The addition of banana waste to the rest of the vegetable market waste would reduce the specific gas yields of the resultant waste mix. This is because banana waste is reported to give very low gas yields (around 10 cum. per ton total solids which equates to around 13 cum. per ton of volatile solids added. We suggest that banana waste should not be included in the design and operation of the Biogas plant.

Biogas Storage

The biogas, which is generated in Primary and secondary digesters, is collected in biogas holders. It fills up even at a low pressure of 25 mm WC (0.025 kg/cm2). The raw gas balloon storage is about 750 in 3 and clean gas storage is about 200m3.

They are equipped with all the necessary and requisite safety devices.

71

COMPOSTING

Composting organic waste is a technology that has been shown to effectively address many of the problems associated with organic waste and waste management while providing reliable fertilizer and energy resources. This process is by no means a new technology. It has been in use on a small scale for many centuries in India and China. In Europe composting has become common on many farms. When properly designed, constructed, and managed, composting has proved to be a successful organic waste management tool. Using organic waste as the only input, the composting process yields valuable output by-products: fertilizer.

The principal reasons to consider the use of composting process include the following:

GENERATION OF STABLE, HIGH QUALITY LIQUID FERTILIZER AND SOLID SOIL AMENDMENT:

Digestion does not reduce the quantities of nutrients in waste. The process converts them into new, more soluble, and more available forms. The liquid, commonly called filtrate, is a valuable fertilizer that can be applied directly to the land. The anaerobic digestion process converts the chief nutrients in waste, (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) into a soluble form that is more readily available to plants. In the process of

72

anaerobic digestion, the organic nitrogen in the waste is largely converted to ammonium, a primary constituent of commercial fertilizer, which is readily available and utilized by plants. The biogas process also produces an essentially sterile fibre that is nearly free of weed seeds and pathogens. The solid fibre can be used as livestock bedding material or as an excellent soil amendment.

REDUCTION IN ODOURS:

Biogas systems have the ability to reduce offensive odours from overloaded or improperly managed waste storage facilities

These odours impair air quality and are a nuisance to nearby communities, particularly as new residential and commercial developments continue to expand into historically agricultural areas. Biogas systems reduce these offensive odors because volatile organic acids, the odour-causing compounds, are consumed by biogas-producing bacteria.

REDUCTION IN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION:

Digester effluent is a more uniform and predictable product than untreated waste. Its higher ammonium content allows better crop utilization, and its physical properties allow easier land application. Properly applied, digester effluent reduces the likelihood of surface or groundwater pollution. Once the filtrate is properly applied, the risk of further ammonia losses is extremely small compared to raw waste. There are three reasons for this:

1. Due to the lower viscosity of the filtrate, it penetrates faster into the soil.

2. Soil ammonium adsorption is high, resulting in low washout.

3. Ammonium is more readily available to plants than the organic nitrogen found in untreated waste; hence, the uptake through nitrification is faster, and the chance for washout is reduced.

73

REDUCTION IN PUBLIC HEALTH RISK:

Heated digesters reduce waste pathogen populations dramatically in a few days. Many farmers have reported that their biogas system has substantially decreased fly populations on their farm.

The Biogas system from BioCRUDE technologies has the ability to offer substantial benefits, both economic and intangible, to dairy farm operators. In many cases, without the implementation of this technology on farms, many farmers would have been forced to cease their operations.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY

Composting is a natural way to recycle, utilizing thermophilic bacteria and other microorganisms (actinomycetes, fungi) in a largely aerobic environment.

The composting process produces CO2, H2O, heat and fertilizer.

Compost decomposition is the process by which organic nutrients are converted to plant-available inorganic forms. Soils regularly augmented with organic wastes will accumulate organic nutrients until they reach a steady-state condition, a concept useful for planning management strategies. Several factors affect decomposition rates, particularly temperature, so output varies throughout the year in a predictable pattern. An understanding of these patterns is necessary to match crop nutrient demands with plant-available nutrients in the soil.

Waste nutrients come in both organic and inorganic forms. Inorganic nutrients, mostly ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-), are readily available to plants. Before organic nutrients can be taken up, however they must first be converted into inorganic forms. This process, which is completed by soil microbes as a by-product of organic matter breakdown, is called decomposition. The decomposition rate is therefore the rate at which organic nutrients are made plant available. In waste forage systems, decomposition satisfies much or most crop needs. An understanding of the concept and rate of decomposition can help improve waste management to meet crop nutrient demands, while minimizing the potential for regulatory concerns regarding groundwater pollution.

74

There are four commonly used methods of composting: windrow, static aerated piles, within-vessel and air drying. Following is a brief description:

WINDROW COMPOSTING:

Windrow composting involves stacking the sewage sludge/bulking agent mixture into long piles, generally 3 to 6 ft high and 6 to 16 feet wide. These rows are regularly turned or mixed using a front-end loader to ensure steady oxygen supply for the microorganisms and to reduce the moisture content. In cold climates, winter weather can significantly increase the amount required to attain temperatures needed for pathogen control.

STATIC AERATED PILES:

Static aerated piles use forced-air rather than mechanical mixing to supply oxygen and reduce moisture. The sludge-bulking agent mixture is placed on top of an aeration system such as perforated piping. It is then topped off with a bed of bulking agent. In addition the entire pile is covered with a layer of cured compost for insulation and odour control. Pumps are used to suck air through the compost pile. The air that is removed from the compost pile flows into a diffuser or filter pile, which contains the odours given off by the compost pile.

WITHIN-VESSEL COMPOSTING:

Within-vessel composting takes place in a reactor where the operating conditions can be carefully controlled. The curing period takes place outside of the vessel. Using either the within-vessel, composting method or the static aerated pile composting method, the temperature of the sewage sludge is maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for 3 days. Using the windrow method, the temperature of the sewage sludge is maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for 15 days or longer. During the period when the compost is maintained at 55°C (131°F) there should be a minimum of five turnings of the windrow.

In general, within-vessel composting attains the required conditions in approximately 10 days. The static-pile and windrow processes generally require about 3 weeks. Longer

75

composting periods may be necessary to fully stabilize the sludge. If volatile solids remain in the sludge, fecal coli form can later regenerate in significant numbers.

Addition of a clay inoculum and redefined process can dramatically decrease the time frame for completion of this process (from 4 – 6 weeks; refer to Annex 8: STUDY ON COMPOSTING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE USING CLAY AS A SUBSTRATE OF INOCULUM BY THE TOLUCA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY)

THE ROLE OF BIOCRUDE TECHOLOGY IN THE PROCESS

The decomposition rate is the key to the feasibility of the fertilizer production. Traditional methods achieve results after 12-36 weeks. However, BioCRUDE technologies have an optimized and well operated system the maximum time is 4-6 weeks, also an excellent time frame for this process. Current experiments being done by our research partners in the environmental laboratory are focused on determining the optimal process to treat the organic waste and other waste products targeted by this project, with the goal of decreasing decomposition rates and costs.

COMPOSTING MAJOR EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION

Compost Turners - elevating face compost-turning equipment is specifically designed for use in large-scale composting and bioremediation operations. Elevating face technology gently inverts a compost windrow without reducing particle size, and introduces oxygen into the material to help speed the decomposition process. Tub Grinders - enhance productivity, efficiency, and safety. With high-capacity discharge systems, one-pass grinding, patented Thrown Object Restraint Systems, sturdy loaders, and countless other features, it’s no wonder that Vermeer is at the top of the pile when it comes to tub grinding. Horizontal Grinders - built tough and available in a variety of configurations to suit large land-clearing and municipal waste operations. Vermeer horizontal grinders feature remote-controlled operation, an exclusive feed system, the patented Vermeer Duplex Drum, and many other productivity enhancing features.

76

LAYOUT OF THE COMPOSTING PLANT

An 800-1,000 m2 parcel of land is required to build the facility for 50 tonnes per day.

77

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTED IN THE POWER PLANT:

The power plant consists of two major systems:

1. A steam turbo generator with all its auxiliaries for converting high pressure steam to electrical power.

2. Plant water system to meet power plant water needs.

BOILER:

The Boiler characteristics are the following: 80 TPH capacity with steam outlet parameters of 43 ata and 415°C steam outlet temperature with one 12MW bleed cum condensing (ACC) turbo-generator generating power at 11 kV level. The generated power will be stepped down to 433 V through two (2) distribution transformers of 2.5 MVA capacity and one (1) converter transformer of 2.5 MVA for in house power distribution. One of the 2.5 MVA transformers will be for spare; the converter transformer will feed the VFD drives whereas the distribution transformers will feed the motors in the RDF, Bio-Methanation and Power Plant auxiliaries.

The boiler will have an adequate cleaning system in place to remove combustion dust that will settle on boiler surfaces, impairing heat transfer and ultimately affecting steam generation. A combination of steam operated soot blowers and mechanical cleaning devices in adequate numbers will be provided. Ammonia / Urea injection is proposed in the furnace to reduce Nitrogen Oxide emission reduction.

The boiler will be provided with a suitable ESP to limit the dust emission to less than 50 mg/Nm3. A Chimney of height 60 m will be provided to dissipate the flue gas over a wide area. Lime injection before the reactor and activated carbon injection before the bag house is proposed for capturing HCL, SO2, HF & heavy metals. The following are the specifications of the boiler to be used:

78

BOILER SPECIFICATIONS

TURBO GENERATOR:

The turbo generator will operate at 410°C and will generate 12 MW of power. The turbo generator will be a single extraction cum condensing type and of high efficiency. The turbine’ shall be a horizontal, single cylinder, single extraction cum condensing type.

All casings and stator blade carriers shall be horizontally split and the design shall be such as to permit examination of the blades without disturbing shaft alignment or causing damage to the blades. The design of the casing and the supports shall be such as to permit free thermal expansion in all directions.

The power plant would be centrally controlled from the control room with display and recording of major parameters. Refer to Annex 7: “BOILER/STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR (CHP)”:

Design Steam Generation 80 TPH

Normal Steam Generation 75.90 TPH (for 12 MW

power generation)

Pressure 42 Kg/sq.cm (g)

Temperature 415°C

Biogas available N/A

79

WATER SYSTEM:

The Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex requires main source of raw water for the RDF, Bio-Methanation and Power Plant facilities, which should be made available from the sewage treatment plant. This treated sewage water is purified in a clarifier and the refined water will be retained in a storage tank. Clarified water is further treated in a series of filters and fed to the RO plant. Plant service water shall also be obtained after processing of treated sewage to the desired norms.

LAND REQUIREMENTS:

The total land requirements in order to house the proposed integrated waste to energy plant is in the proximity of 15-18 acres (60,700 – 73,000 square meters). This will encompass the following:

a) MSW Storage Facility (JIT 2-3 days capacity)

b) Biomethanation Plant

c) RDF Plant

d) Composting Plant

e) Power Plant

f) Warehousing of By-Products

g) Internal Roads

h) Green Belt

80

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM:

81

PROJECT COST

BIOGAS SYSTEM COST

The estimated (using North American economies) cost of the Biogas portion of the project was analyzed considering the following categories:

1. Cost of land development 2. Cost of civil construction 3. Cost of plant & machinery 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation 5. Cost of Appurtenant works

Particulars Estimated

cost (k USD)

1. Cost of land development Land Levelling 5

Fencing 7.5

Gates - 2 Nos. 3.125

Landscaping & gardening 2.5

Internal roads & storm drains 10

Total land development cost 28.125

82


cost (k USD) 2. Cost of civil construction

Weigh bridge & Security Cabin 300

Unloading ramp 80

Covered shed for waste handling area 200

Covered shed for Pulveriser platform 160

Mixing tank with cover 80

Treated sewage storage tank 100

Primary Digester (4) 800

Recycle chamber 80

Secondary Digester (4) 1,400

Scum and Drain Chambers 130

Effluent Buffer Tank 100

Aeration Tank Settling Tank 195

Treated water storage tank 60

Biogas enclosure 240

Biogas scrubber foundations 60

Centrifuge room and manure yard 200

MCC room & office 100

Laboratory cum store room 100

Workers rest room including toilet facilities 30

Misc. items like chamber foundation, paving, earthing pits, etc

160

Total civil works Cost 4,575

83


cost (k USD) 3. Cost of plant & machinery

Weigh Bridge 12.5

Front end loader tractor with accessories 25

Belt conveyors ( 3 nos ) with cover 37.5

Pulverizer 35

Pulverizer platform for operator segregation 10

Agitator for Mixing tank 5

Dilution water pumps 5

Sand Separator 3.75

Primary digester top cover (2) 40

Primary Digester internals and scum removal unit (2)

80

Recycle pumps 11.25

Secondary digester top cover (2) 75

Secondary Digester internals and scum removal unit (2)

105

Aeration tank internals, blowers and diffusers 22.5

Settling tank modules 6.25

Pressure Sand Filter pumps 1.25

Pressure Sand Filter and accessories 7.5

Activated Carbon Filter 8.75

Chlorination system 7

Treated water pumps 5

Biogas holders 80

Biogas compressors 12.5

Biological H2S Scrubber & accessories 70

Moisture Traps 1.75

Flare Pumps for centrifuge 8.75

Centrifuge 62.5

Granulation and manure bagging packing unit 35

Miscellaneous items 3.75

Total cost 777.5

Taxes & duties (20%) 31.25

Total plant & machinery cost 808.75

84


cost (k USD) 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation

Control Panel 12.5

Electrical works 62.5

Instrumentation works 75

Piping 62.5

Total electrical, instrumentation & piping cost 212.5


cost (k USD) 5. Cost of Appurtenant works

Spare & Misc. Tools 8s Tackles 15

Sign boards, safety signs and items 10

Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment 160

Basic fabrication equipment for maintenance 20

Testing equipment for elect and mech items 19

Fire fighting equipments ( Fire Hydrant) 100

Office equipment 20

Ventilation and exhaust systems 60

Hoisting equipment 100

Ladders, railings, walkway 60

Piping from DJB sewerage plant to TOWMCL site including civil works, valves and fittings for the piping, etc.

1,400

Polish model 15

Total Appurtenant Works Cost 1,979


cost (k USD) 6. Project cost summary

Site Development Cost 28.125

Civil construction cost 4,575

Plant & Machinery Cost 808

Electrical, Instrumentation and piping cost 212.5

Appurtenant works cost 1,979

Total Works Cost for Biogas plant 7,603.375

85

COMPOSTING PLANT COST

The final cost of the Composting portion of the project was analyzed considering the following categories:

1. Cost of land development 2. Cost of civil construction 3. Cost of plant & machinery 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation 5. Cost of Appurtenant works

Particulars Estimated cost (k US Dollars)

1. Cost of land development Land Levelling 2

Fencing 3

Gates - 2 Nos. 1.25

Land Scaping & gardening 1

Internal roads & storm drains 4



2. Cost of civil construction

Weigh bridge & Security Cabin 15

Covered shed for waste handling area 10

Covered shed for Pulveriser platform 8

MCC room & office 5

Laboratory and storage room 5

Workers rest room including toilet facilities 1.5

Misc. items like chamber foundation, paving, earthing pits, etc

8

Total civil works Cost 52.5

86

Particulars

Estimated cost (k US Dollars)

3. Cost of plant & machinery

Compost Turner 120

Tub grinder 150

Miscellaneous items 1.5

Total cost 96.5

Taxes & duties 40.725

Total plant & machinery cost 408.725

Particulars Estimated cost (k

US Dollars) 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation

Control Panel 5

Electrical works 10

Instrumentation works 10

Piping 15

Total electrical, instrumentation & piping cost

40


US Dollars) 5. Cost of Appurtenant works

Spare & Misc. Tools 8s Tackles 0.75

Sign boards, safety signs and items 0.5

Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment 10

Basic fabrication equipment for maintenance 1

Testing equipment for elect and mech items 0.95

Fire fighting equipments ( Fire Hydrant) 5

Office equipment 1

Ventilation and exhaust systems 3

Hoisting equipment 5

Ladders, railings, walkway 3

Project site model 0.75 Total Appurtenant Works Cost 30.95

87


US Dollars) 6. Project cost summary


Civil construction cost 52.5

Plant & Machinery Cost 408.725

Electrical, Instrumentation and piping cost 40

Appurtenant works cost 30.95

Total Works Cost for Composting Plant 543.425

RDF COST

The final cost of the RDF portion of the project was analyzed considering the following categories (unit cost); there are 2 streamlines hence 2 times the cost:

1. Cost of land development 2. Cost of civil construction 3. Cost of plant & machinery 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation and Cost of Appurtenant works


cost (k USD)

1. Cost of land development Land filling, dressing, plantation & Boundary Wall 62.5

Paved Yard (heavy duty) 37.5

Paved Yard (light duty) 37.5


Particulars Estimated cost

(US Dollars) 2. Cost of civil construction

MSW dumping pit 62.5

Factory Shed 650

Rest house 25

Sanitation/ wash place/ washer 37.5

Foundation of equipment (approx.) 197.15

Total civil works Cost 972.15

88


(k USD) 3. Cost of plant & machinery

Feeding Hopper with Vibro Feeder 5




E.O.T Crane with Grab Bucket (Im3) 1 tonne lifting capacity X 4 nos.

112.5

MSW feeding conveyor 37.5

Conveyor with manual sorting station 85 Magnetic Separator

20

Shredder 425

Shredder Discharge conveyor 15

Trommel 112.5

Belt conveyor below Trommel 10

Bin for collection 5

Trommel Discharge conveyor 10 Rotary Dryer with suction Blower, Cyclone, Chimney ,etc.,& hot air generator with PA/SA fan

600

Dryer Discharge conveyor 10

Rotary Screen 37.5

Screw conveyor 5

Fines Transfer conveyor 7.5


Heavies Discharge conveyor 25


RDF Feeding conveyor 32.5

Feeding conveyor 10

Secondary Shredder 45

Cyclone -

Pellet Mill with Pellet cooler 87.5

Bucket Elevator 25

Pellet Storage Bunker flOOO M3 25

Plant Machinery

Cutter Chipper 5

Belt Conveyor 20

Transport/Insurance/Unloading/Erection/Commissioning 353.75

Total plant & machinery cost 2,066.25

89


cost (k USD) 4. Cost of electrical, piping & misc.

Electrical works, Electrical PDB, MCC, Utility Board, Lighting, Cable laying, earthing, etc.

525

Mobile equipments, Lockers, Safety equipments,.. . 62.5

Workshop/Firefighting 62.5

Total electrical, piping & misc. cost 650


US Dollars) 6. Project cost summary


Civil construction cost 972.15

Plant & Machinery Cost 2,066.25

Electrical, piping & misc. cost 650

Total Works Cost for 1 RDF Streamline Plant 3,825.9

POWER PLANT COST

The final cost of the Power Plant portion of the project was analyzed considering the following categories:

1. Cost of land development 2. Cost of civil construction 3. Cost of plant & machinery 4. Cost of electrical, piping & instrumentation and Cost of Appurtenant works


cost (k USD)

1. Cost of land development Land levelling, site preparation & development 187.5

Internal roads 187.5

Fencing & Compound Wall 237.5

Gates 20

Drains & Sewers including effluent treatment pit 162.5

Total land development cost 795

90


cost (k USD) 2. Cost of civil construction

Power Plant building 487.5

Foundation for Boiler, Turbo-generator, Transformers, Condenser, Compressor & other misc. pumps

662.5

ACC, Ash Silo, misc. Foundations for conveyors 287.5

Chimney foundation including Concrete Chimney of 2.2 M Internal Diameter and 65 M height with refractory Lining

262.5

Switchyard Civil foundation 50

Raw water Reservoir 112.5

Administration Building 62.5

DG shed, stores & Technical room 75

Worker’s restroom & cycle shed 37.5

Pavement, greenery development 62.5

Time office 112.5

Security Cabin Weighbridge rooms 87.5

Total civil works Cost 2,300

91


(k USD) 3a. Cost of plant & machinery (Mechanical)

80 TPH, 43 ata, 415 Deg.C steam generator including instrumentation and control, fans, pumps, valves

8,125

Flue gas treatment system consisting of bag house, activated carbon injection, reactor, dry cleaning & of SOX system including ducting, feeding system, etc.

2,375

Bleed Cum condensing Turbo-generator unit including control instrumentation lube oil systems, alternator control, relay & metering panels, HT panels, NGRs, LAVTs, etc.

3,975

Air cooled condenser and auxiliary cooling water system

400

Fuel handling system including Belt conveyors to the Boiler

875

Ash handling system for bottom Ash 237.5

High pressure steam piping & valves for supports including PRDS

100

Auxiliary low pressure steam piping & other piping 50

50 T EOT crane for turbine hall 125

Water Treatment Plant 1,350

Tankages for DM water 87,5

Air conditioning for control room and ventilation 275

Air Compressor & compressed air system 50

Fire Protection system (RDF storage & Power Plant) 187.5

DCS based instrumentation system for the plant & BOP instrumentation

462.5

Misc. Pumps 50

Ventilation system for fuel preparation area 212.5

Total cost of Plant & Machinery (Mechanical) 18,937.5

92


(k USD) 3b. Cost of plant & machinery (Electrical)

Generator: all generator accessories including relay metering and control panels, AVR, synchronizing panel, NGR & LAVT and Switchboard.

(Included with Turbine)

Switchyard

16 MVA Power Transformer (11 kV / 33 kV) 375

Switchyard equipment including installation at plant end (33 kV)

175

3 x 2.5 MVA (11 kV / 433 V) distribution transformers

125

LT bus duct, 415 V, 2500 A 37.5

HT XLPE cables 3 C x 300 Sq.mm 37.5

Termination kits for the XLPE cables 87.5

LT Cables for Power plant 125

LT Panels for Power Plant 375

UPS, Battery 8& Battery Charger 62.5

Lighting for fuel processing power plant and Bio-methanation plant

100

Earthing and Lightning Protection 50

Plant Communication system 50

33 kV Transmission Line, Single circuit including substation modification at sub-station

237.5

Total cost of Plant & Machinery (Electrical) 1,837.5


POWER PLANT system cost summary

Site Development Cost 795

Civil construction cost 2 300

Plant & Machinery Cost (Mechanical) 18,937.5

Plant & Machinery Cost (Electrical) 1,837.5

Total Works Cost for Power Plant 23,870

The approximate capital cost of development, less land concession, building permits, professional fees (Project Management & Supervision: 15.0% of Capital Cost) and licenses (5.0% of Capital Cost) is estimated to be 39,668,600 USD (refer to Annex 10, “Financial Projections” and proformas provided in electronic format).

93

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

COMPOSTING

The wholesale market value of compost fertilizer in Colombia ranges from 55 to 65 USD per Tonne. The potential revenue for composting sales of the 50 TPD facility at a 80% efficiency (under stated) is approximately 584,000 USD, at 40 USD/T.

BIOGAS SYSTEM

The economic analysis can be made considering the biogas yield in the process, for example: 1 ton of organic waste with 3.5% of volatile solids can produce 150 m3 of biogas with a 30% of electrical efficiency.

800 TPD biogas plant will produce approximately 120,000 m3 of biogas per day, 43.8E6 m3 of biogas per year, hence 244,800 kWh per day and 89.34E6 kWh per year, which can yield energy revenues of approximately 4,462,782 USD per year, at a resale value of 0.115 USD/kWh.

Considering a conservative O&M cost (including self consumption and inefficiencies) of 35% the potential revenue for the project activity, from the Biogas System, is around 2,900,808 USD per year. The potential revenue from the sale of fertilizer at a 40% efficiency of the influx capacity of the OFMSW is approximated to be in the neighborhood of 4,496,800 USD, at 40 USD/T, not including the potential revenues from the sale of the Carbon Credits.

RDF SYSTEM

650 TPD of MSW can be transformed to 200 TPD of RDF which can yield energy revenues of approximately 4,701,536 USD per year.

Considering a conservative O&M cost (including self consumption and inefficiencies) of 35% the potential revenue for the project activity, from the RDF System, is around 1,041,148 USD per year, not including the potential revenues from the sale of the Carbon Credits.

94

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall objective of this report was to provide the technical information needed to fully evaluate the use of the BioCRUDE technologies in transforming 2000 TPD of MSW into energy, and into marketable by-products in Poland. The social, economic, environmental and technological benefits were identified and analyzed; the project proposed improvement over the current practices and technologies available in Poland, in the management of MSW and provides potential revenues from the sale of electricity, fertilizer and Carbon Credits. The BioCRUDE technologies, processes, strategies and equipments required were described, and the implementation of the project activity provided by BioCRUDE Technologies appears to be cost competitive. It was also concluded that processing of up to 730,000 tonnes/year of MSW at the facility is viable. The plant can be upgraded to handle future influx increases of MSW. Cost for land development, civil works, plant, machinery were identified and analyzed; the overall cost has to be adapted to the Polish scenario. The economic analysis shows that there are potential revenues and proves that the system is cost efficient. A detailed study of the chemical composition of the waste, waste collection practices, and labour costs are the keys in designing a conceptual process with a successful performance adapted to the Polish scenario.

95

APPLICATION OF A BASELINE AND MONITORING METHODOLOGY

TITLE AND REFERENCE OF THE APPROVED BASELINE AND MONITORING METHODOLOGY APPLIED TO THE PROJECT:

Title: Approved baseline Methodology AM0025 (version 06); refer to Annex 1: “BASELINE INFORMATION”, Annex 2: “MONITORING INFORMATION” and Annex 7: “REVISION TO THE APPROVED BASELINE METHODOLOGY”; “Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment process."

Reference: NM0090: "Organic waste composting at the Matuail landfill site Dhaka, Bangladesh"

NM0127: "Integrated solid waste management with methane destruction and energy generation"

NM0032: "Municipal Solid Waste Treatment cum Energy Generation Project, Lucknow, India"

NM0178: "Aerobic thermal treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) without incineration in Parobe-RS".

"Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources" (ACM0002), Small-scale methodologies 1 .D "Renewable electricity generation for a grid"

The latest version of the "tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality"

For more information please log on to http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/aporoved,html.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE CHOICE OF THE METHODOLOGY AND WHY IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT

The project activity meets all the applicability criteria of the approved methodology AM0025 as given below.

96

1. The project activity involves one or a combination of the following waste treatment options for the fresh waste that in a given year would have otherwise been disposed of in a landfill:

2. Composting process in aerobic conditions;

3. Anaerobic digestion with biogas collection and flaring and/or its use;

4. Mechanical process to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and its use.

In case of anaerobic digestion and RDF processing of waste, the residual waste from these processes is aerobically composted and/or delivered to a landfill.

In case of RDF processing, the produced RDF will not be stored in a manner that may result in anaerobic conditions before its use.

The proportions and characteristics of different types of organic waste processed in the project activity can be determined, in order to apply a multiphase landfill gas generation model to estimate the quantity of landfill gas that would have been generated in the absence of the project activity.

The project activity includes electricity generation and/or thermal energy generation from the biogas, captured or RDF produced, respectively, from the anaerobic digester, and RDF combustor. In the case of RDF produced, the emission reductions have been claimed only for the cases where the RDF used for electricity and/or thermal energy generation can be monitored.

Waste handling in the baseline scenario shows a continuation of current practice of disposing the waste in a landfill despite environmental regulation that mandates the treatment of the waste, using any of the treatment process mentioned above.

The compliance rate of the environmental regulations during (part of) the crediting period is below 50%

Local regulations do not constrain the establishment of RDF production plants/thermal treatment plants or the use of RDF as fuel or raw material.

The project activity does not involve thermal treatment process of industrial or hospital/medical/hazardous waste.

97

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCES AND GASES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY

Source Gas Justification/Explanation

Bas

elin

e

Emissions From decomposition of waste at the landfill site

CE4 Included The major source of emissions in the baseline.

N2O Excluded N2O emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills. Exclusion of this gas is conservative.

CO2 Excluded CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste are not accounted.

Emissions from CO2 Included Electricity may be consumed from the grid or

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

Emission from CO2 Included If thermal energy generation is included in the project

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

Pro

ject

Act

ivity

Onsite fossil fuel consumption due to project activity

CO, Included May be an important emission source.

CR, Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small.

Emissions from on-site electricity e

CO2 Included May be an important emission source. If electricity is generated from collected biogas, these emissions are not accounted for. CO2 emissions from fossil based waste from RDF combustion to generate electricity to be used on-site are accounted for.

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small.

98


Direct emissions from the waste treatment processes

N2O Included May be an important emission source for composting activities. N2O can be emitted from Syngas produced, anaerobic digestion of waste and RDF combustion.

CO2 Included CO2 emissions from gasification or combustion of fossil based waste shall be included. CO2 emissions from the decomposition or combustion of organic waste are not accounted.

CH4 Included The composting process may not be complete and result in anaerobic decay. CH4 leakage from the anaerobic digester and incomplete combustion in the flaring process are potential sources of project emissions. CH4 may emitted from stacks b from the gasification process and the RDF combustion.

The project boundary is limited to geographical boundary of the project sites; i.e. the site where all the facilities of the project are located. The following project activity and the emission sources are considered within the project boundary:

1. Project Activity: RDF, Biogas, and Fast Composing

2. BioCRUDE Technologies Plant

3. RDF Processing Plant and fast composing

99

PROCESS DESIGN/REDESIGN

DEFINE

Transform the municipal solid waste in Warsaw, Poland to electricity and marketable by-products by the use of the BioCRUDE technologies.

Scenario

PROBLEM

High waste amounts

Deficiency of energy

GOAL/VISION

Satisfied the Energy needs

Transform organic waste to energy (biogas/composting and RDF) and marketable by-products

Design/Redesign a cost-efficient process AND improve the conventional technologies

CAUSE / EFFECT / SOLUTION

When evaluating the potential of a project, or finding a solution for a problem, it is important to define clearly the cause of the problem, what the result or effect is of that problem if there is no intervention, and what possible solutions can be applied. We have found that some issues and assumptions may create a risk situation for this project. In the next table we have outlined their case and effect, and have provided suggestions for solutions for these issues

100

The following barriers are identified in the project activity:

Cause Effect BioCRUDE Solution

Biogas yield is lower than the expected.

Less efficiency in the power plant, the process produces less than the energy expected.

The Green waste digester has been optimized (engineering and enzymes), a second digester can transform the sewage sludge from the waste water treatment plant in biogas and fertilizer, now the biogas yield can achieve 5000m3 even more to achieve 16 MW in the RDF-Biogas power plant.

The Biogas system was not well defined for this particular project (digester size, heat requirement, residence time and O&M parameters)

The Biogas system can result inadequate for the project expectations. The process produces less than the electricity expected and there is no chance to upgrade the process for the future requirements.

The system can easily be up-grated to handle the amounts of organic waste in the future, the Biogas collected feed the 5000m3 required at the RDF-biogas plant, and also a Second Power Plant is included operating with Biogas can achieve 3-5 MW of electricity.

The biogas system is a 100% green technology, successful plants are actually operating in many countries, the biogas system well designed and defined to the Timarpur-Okhla needs will provide more electricity and fertilizer, is important mention that the cost to implement the BioCRUDE system for biogas is cost-efficient.

By-products in the process are not considered as a project/market improvement opportunity

Waste of valuable market opportunities and problems derivate from the accumulation of by-products.

The by-products of the process are a valuable opportunity of business the Fertilizer obtained from the Fast composting process and the biogas system has high quality and lower prices compared with the other products in the market.

(The process has been improved revenues from sales of electricity and fertilizer will warranty the investment)

101

The only alternative to handle the MSW is the RDF technology

The project can’t be upgraded to handle the MSW amounts in the future (25 years) that can make the process useless or limited to provide a solution to handle the MSW problem.

The BioCRUDE technologies integrated to the Timarpur-Okhla power plant will provide an efficient solution, to the MSW problem, and the investment to incorporate the BioCRUDE systems is very low compared with the investment related to the RDF technology.

The by-products from the process provide a new opportunity to increase the sales and warranty the investment.

BASELINE SCENARIO IS IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIPTION OF THE IDENTIFIED BASELINE SCENARIO

As per the-guideline provided in applied approved methodology AM0025 the Step 1 of the latest version of "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (version 03)," has been applied to identify the most plausible and realistic baseline scenario, which is further described below.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ACTIVITY CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAWS AND REGULATIONS:

The realistic and credible alternatives to the project activity have been identified using the following sub steps:

Define alternatives to the project activity

The probable realistic alternative to the project activities are as follows. Although apart from one of all of the alternatives in Poland, the waste management sector faces prohibitive barriers to implementation; their relative feasibility with respect to the project activity has to be discussed to design alternatives to the project activity.

Among the alternatives presented, a project activity plan which is a combination of various technologies for achieving an optimum MSW management / renewable energy generation is the most advanced. This is a result of not depending on standalone

102

technologies but integrating anaerobic digestion, RDF processing, composting and power generation within one single integrated waste management complex.

Considering the waste management scenario within Poland one can understand that project promoters have taken on high risk factors in going ahead with this advanced integrated waste management technology (involving higher technological and financial risks).

BARRIER ANALYSIS

As per CPCB published data, out of 5,922 tons of MSW generated per day only 53 tons of MSW is treated making the compliance rate with MSW rules in the Polish region only 0.89%. This poor compliance rate is because of various barriers faced by the municipalities to implement advanced waste management plant. All the alternatives except land filling without capture of land fill gas faces considerable prohibitive barriers for implementation, which is evident from the above data. This makes land filling without capture of landfill gas as the baseline scenario. This is the most prevalent mode of waste disposal in the country. The barrier analysis is given in detail in section B.5.

Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality)

As per the decision 17/cp.7 paragraph 43, a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in absence of the registered CDM project activity. The methodology requires the project proponent to determine its additionality based on the latest version of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality", agreed by the CDM Executive Board.

The additionality of the project activity has been described below:

As per the selected methodology, the project proponent is required to establish that the GHG reductions due to project activity are additional to those that would have occurred in absence of the project activity as per the 'Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality.

103

TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIER:

The following three options are available for MSW treatment in Poland, (a) Land filling with inertization (b) Composting and land filling (c) Biogas and pelletization .Biogas and pelletization are the most technologically advanced choices of the three project (baseline) options considered. Land filling with inertization followed by composting and land filling are not so technologically advanced alternatives to biogas and involve lower risks. Municipalities across Poland are facing the challenge to overcome financial as well as technological resource crunch to implement modern MSW treatment technology. The high cost, technological know-how and uncertain financial viability are the key barriers for these projects in Poland. Biogas and pelletization are new technologies in Poland and project participants took higher risk and greater uncertainties by adopting these technologies in their project activity. The project activity aims to overcome the limitations of individual technologies by bringing together a mix of technologies by integrating them together to provide a holistic solution to the treatment of urban waste. The limitations of various waste treatment technologies and their limitations are explained in detail in the Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the project activity.

BARRIER DUE TO PREVAILING PRACTICES:

In Poland, landfill is the most common method of MSW treatment and disposal, as it is considerably easier and cost effective for municipalities when compared to other methods such as biogas and pelletization.

For landfill activity, the main cost is only from the purchase and acquisition of land. There is no perceived risk in implementing the activity as it is predominantly followed everywhere in the country.

Whereas biogas and pelletization of MSW is a technologically more advanced option which is not a business as usual scenario / prevailing practice in the country , and considering the requirement of significant investment (apart from land acquisition) in the form of identifying a suitable technology for treating solid wastes (mixed MSW and green waste in biogas), identification of project finance sources, collection, sorting and fine segregation of wastes after removing contaminants and other refuse (glass, stones, metals), setting up the equipments for biogas and pelletization plant, operation and maintenance of the plants, training personnel, availability of resources (land, water, fuel) to run the plant effectively and related.

104

Thus landfill can be considered as a prevailing practice in the country which has the least cost of treatment and disposal and can therefore be easily adopted by the municipalities.

COMMON PRACTICE ANALYSIS:

1. Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity:

Currently there are some similar projects proposed. All of them have applied for CDM benefit. This it proves that without CDM benefit, these kinds of projects are not sustainable without CDM benefit.

2. Discuss any similar options that are occurring:

As explained above no similar options are occurring without considering CDM benefit. As explained above in Poland, land filling is the common practice of MSW disposal. Municipalities are forced to resort to this method of waste disposal because lack of funds and technology. Lack of interest from private developers in this type of project due poor return and longer payback periods further aggravates the situation. The project activity with its integrated waste management complex is not common practice. Project proponent believes a successful implementation of the project activity will create a positive environment in the sector and will encourage other parties to take up similar project activities which will help to mitigate the severe problem of solid waste management faced by municipalities in Poland.

The project passes successfully the additionality tests and thus can be considered as additional and not a business as usual scenario.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS:

From an environmental perspective, the project helps to deal with the methane emissions, as well as any leachate that would otherwise have been generated from the current practice of waste disposal. The project activity avoids land filling of 2000 tonnes of waste per day and thus saves the requirement of further land filling area for dumping of equivalent amount of waste.

This enables the city of Warsaw to find a better way of land utilization, such as

105

construction of housing, hospitals etc. The project also results in a net decrease in transportation distance for MSW due to optimization of transportation route. This again reduces emission associated with transportation of MSW in the Polish region. Further, by generating electricity through utilizing the RDF and biogas produced, the project helps in replacing fossil fuel intensive power generation in the region.

Emission reduction is estimated following the approved methodology AM0025. The estimation of project emission, baseline emission and leakage emission are described below. For further information and formulas, see Annex 2: “MONITORING INFORMATION”, Annex 3: “ESTIMATION OF CARBON CREDITS” and Annex 7: “REVISION TO THE APPROVED BASELINE METHODOLOGY”.

106

Emission Reduction Calculation:

Net Emission Reduction Calculation from the Project

Year CO2 equivalent emissions

Compliance

e%

BAU (%)

Compliance adjusted

Project emissions

Leakage Net emissions

Emissions due to export of power

Total net emissions

2009-10 77725 10.00 90 69953 55837.5 1174 12941 60261 73202

2010-11 149412 10.00 90 134471 55837.5 1419 77215 60261 137476

2011-12 215540 10.00 90 193986 55837.5 1645 136504 60261 196765

2012-13 276547 10.00 90 248892 55837.5 1853 191202 60261 251463

2013-14 332838 10.00 90 299554 55837.5 2045 241672 60261 301933

2014-15 384786 30.00 70 269350 55837.5 2223 211290 60261 271551

2015-16 432734 30.00 70 302914 55837.5 2386 244690 60261 304951

2016-17 476995 30.00 70 333897 55837.5 2537 275522 60261 335783

2017-18 517861 30.00 70 362503 55837.5 2677 303989 60261 364250

2018-19 555599 30.00 70 388919 55837.5 2806 330276 60261 390537

Total 2604439 558375 20764 2025299 602610 2627909

107

Project Emission Calculations:

1 Emission from electricity Use

Units Consumed from Grid at Warsaw 4.00 MU

Northern grid emission factor 751.51 ton CO2/MU

Emissions due to consumption of grid power 3006 ton CO2

2 Emission from onsite fossil fuel combustion

Quantity of onsite fossil fuel combustion at Warsaw (assuming diesel)

19800 litre/year

Density of diesel 0.84 kg/I

Annual diesel consumption 33264.00 Kg

Calorific value of diesel 10317.00 Kcal/kg

Total energy content of the diesel consumed 343184688 Kcal/year

Total energy content of the diesel consumed 1 TJoules/year

CO2 emission factor for diesel 74.1 tonCO2/TJ

Emissions due to consumption of onsite fossil fuel consumption

106.27 ton CO2

3 Emission from anaerobic digestion

Physical leakage factor from digestion 15.00 %

Total quantity of methane produced per year 990000.000 m3

Density of methane 0.0007168 tCH4/m3 of CH4

Total quantity of methane produced per year in ton 709.632 ton

GWP of CH4 21.00

Equivalent CO2 emissions from physical leakage 2235 ton CO2

108

4 Emissions from RDF combustor

Fossil based CO2 emission from RDF combustion 47009.17 ton CO2

Total quantity of RDF combusted 222750.00 ton

Emission factor of CH4 from waste incineration 6 kg/Gg waste

Emission factor of N2O from waste incineration 50.00 gm/t waste

GWP of N2O 310.00 ton CH4/m3

GWPofCH4 21.00

Stack emission from combustion of RDF 3481 ton CO2

Total Project activity Emission 55838 ton CO2

Leakage Emission Calculations:

1 Emission due to incremental transportation due to transportation of waste

Will be zero since there will be a net decrease in distance traversed due to optimization of MSW transportation route due to the project activity

0.00

2 Emission due to transportation for ash disposal from the power plant

Quantity of ash produced in a year 33413 ton/year

Average distance to be covered for ash disposal (to and fro)

40.00 KM

Average capacity of each truck 5.00 ton/truck

109

Number of trips required 6682.50 No

Distance to be travelled by the trucks for ash disposal

267300.00 KM

Average fuel efficiency of each truck 3 km/litre

Total diesel consumed in a year 89100 litre

Density of diesel 0.84 kq/litre





CO2 emission factor for diesel 74.1 tonCO2TTJ

Emissions due to transportation leakage owing to ash disposal from power plant

239 ton CO2

3 Emission due to transportation of compost generated in the power plant

Quantity of compost produced in a year 2310 ton/year

Average distance to be covered for transportation of compost

50.00 KM



Distance to be travelled by the trucks for transportation of compost

23100.00 KM

Average fuel efficiency of each truck 3 km/litre


Density of diesel 0.84 kq/litre


110




CO2 emission factor for diesel 74.1 tonCO2/TJ

Emission due to transportation leakage owing to transportation of compost

21 ton CO2

4 Emission due to transportation of RDF

Quantity of RDF transported in a year 74250 ton/year

Average distance to be covered for transportation of RDF

40.00 KM



Distance to be travelled by the trucks for ash disposal

742500.00 KM

Average fuel efficiency of each truck

to

km/litre


Density of diesel 0.84 kg/litre



Total energy content of the diesel consumed 1995840000

Kcal/year


111

CO2 emission factor for diesel 74.1 tonC02/TJ

Emission due to transportation leakage owing to transportation of

618 ton CO2

5 Emission from residual waste in anaerobic digestion process

Total quantity of residual waste 2310 T

Emission factor of N2O from composting process

0.043 Kg N2O/ton of

GWP of N20 ' 310

Equivalent CO2 emission from N2O emission from residual waste

31 tonCO2

Total leakage emission (excluding CH4 leakage from the residual waste) in the project activity

909 ton CO2

112

Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Year Estimation of project activity emission (tonnes of CO2)

Estimation of baseline emission from avoidance of methane emission (tonnes CO2)

Assumed compliance rate with MSW rule 2000 (%)

Compliance adjusted baseline emission from avoidance of methane emission (tonnes

Estimation of baseline emission from export of renewable power to grid (ton nesCO2)

Estimation of leakage emissions (tonnes CO2)

Estimation of overall emission reduction (tonnes of CO2)

2009-10 55,837,5 77,725 10.00 69,953 60,261 1,174 73,202

2010-11 55,837.5 149,412 10.00 134,471 60,261 1,419 137,476

2011-12 55,837.5 215,540 10.00 193,986 60,261 1,645 196,765

2012-13 55,837.5 276,547 10.00 248,892 60,261 1,853 251,463

2013-14 55,837.5 332,838 10.00 299,554 60,261 2,045 301,933

2014-15 55,837.5 384,786 30.00 269,350 60,261 2,223 271,551

2015-16 55,837.5 432,734 30.00 302,914 60,261 2,386 304,951

2016-17 55,837.5 476,995 30.00 333,897 60,261 2,537 335,783

2017-18 55,837.5 517,861 30.00 362,503 60,261 2,677 364,250

2018-19 55,837.5 555,599 30.00 388,919 60,261 2,806 390,537

Total (tons) of C02

558,37 3,420,038 - 2,604,439 602,610 20,764 2,627,909

113

ANNEX 1: BASELINE INFORMATION

Table 1: Average waste characteristics of the incoming waste in the plant considered for estimation of baseline emission.

FRACTION PERCENTAGE (%)

FUEL

Wooden Pieces 17.6

Paper 6.0

Textiles 2.3

Coconut Shell

Polythene

Plastics 6.0

Thermocol

Total: 31.9

ORGANICS

Green Waste 35.0

Kitchen Waste 6.0

Total: 41.0

114

INERTS

Concrete/Stone/Bricks

Sand/Solid

Cement

Lime

Total: 10.4

RECYCLABLES

Glass 3.6

Metal 9.5

Rubber/Leather 3.6

Total: 16.7

OTHERS

Battery NA

Human Hair NA

Total: NA

TOTAL: 100

*Note: Waste composition may vary from time to time.

115

Table 2: Default total carbon content and fossil carbon fraction of different MSW component

Table 2:

Default total carbon content and fossil carbon fraction of different MSW component

SW Component Total carbon Content in % dry weight (default)

Fossil carbon fraction in % of total carbon (default)

Paper/cardboard 46 1

Textiles 3 50 20

Food waste 38 -

Wood 50 -

Garden and Park Waste

49 0

Nappies 70 10

Rubber and Leather

67 20

116

ANNEX 2: MONITORING INFORMATION

The operational and management structure that will monitor the project activity is described below.

1. Project

2. In charge

3. Lab Chemist Process Engineers

4. Maintenance Technicians

5. Process Operators

Roles and responsibilities:

1. Project In charge will have the following responsibilities

a. Ensuring implementation of monitoring procedures

b. Internal audit and project conformance reviews

c. Organizing and conduct training programs

d. Reviewing of records and dealing with monitored data

e. Has the overall responsibility for closing project non-conformances and implementing corrective actions before the verification

2. Process Engineers will have the following responsibilities

a. Implementing all monitoring control procedures

b. Liaising with the Manager (QA) regarding maintenance and calibration of equipments used to recover gas

c. Overall responsibility for record handling and maintenance.

d. Organizing internal audit for checking recorded data.

117

e. Supervising and training operators and maintaining training records.

3. Maintenance technicians will have the following responsibilities:

a. Overall responsibility of calibrating and instrument maintenance.

b. Will assist the Process Engineers in record handling, records checks and review and during internal audit check the data recorded by the shift in-charge.

4. Lab Chemists will have the following responsibilities:

a. Will monitor composition of biogas and MSW coming to the plant.

5. Process operators will have the following responsibilities.

a. They will maintain the log books and will perform daily parameter monitoring.

b. Will assist the process engineers in record handling, records checks and review and assist during internal audits.

118

ANNEX 3: ESTIMATION OF CARBON CREDITS

ORGANIC WASTE -ENERGY

ESTIMATION OF CARBON CREDITS

04/2008 BioCRUDE Technologies Inc

Estimation of Carbon Credits

Introduction

The world may soon be focusing international attention on processes and activities that mitigate the release of CO2 to the atmosphere and, in some cases, may remove CO2 from the atmosphere. As we invest national resources to these ends, it is important to evaluate options and invest wisely. How can we apply consistent standards to evaluate and compare various CO2 sequestration technologies? A standard methodology that considers all the carbon impacts is needed. This would be useful for policy makers to understand the range of options and for technology developers and investors to guide investment decisions. It would also serve as a source of information for calculations or estimations of carbon credits in a future credit trading system.

Decisions on international policy and strategy for carbon management must take into account a variety of factors dealing with economic, environmental, and social impacts. Several of these issues are already pursued from a global perspective. Traditional carbon accounting methods follow the approach for emissions accounting that is proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Similar national accounting methods could be developed for carbon sequestration activities. These methods account only for the annual carbon emission reduction represented by sequestration activities. Carbon emissions that relate to energy use, transportation, raw materials, etc., to accomplish the sequestration are accounted for by other industries on a national basis. However, in order to compare different sequestration technologies, a more complete assessment methodology must be developed to assist in future decision-making processes. For example, if the operators of a coal-fired steam plant are considering implementation of either an off-gas CO2 scrubbing technique or an algal pond strategy to reduce CO2 emissions in order to get favorable treatment from a regulatory agency, the evaluation approach may be considerably different from the national accounting approach—especially if these sequestration technologies are moderate in size and do not significantly influence, on an individual basis, the national accounting calculations. Even if a national accounting strategy were used on a very localized zone, no clear method exists by which sequestration technologies should be compared regarding their effectiveness in achieving long-term sequestration. For example, is a method that sequesters CO2 for an average of 200 years twice as good as one that sequesters it for 100 years?

119

Ideally, we would like to evaluate each sequestration technology based on the global impact on atmospheric CO2 levels or on global warming. This, however, may not be a practical method for many activities. It is likely that short-term or more-limiting activities, not globally implemented, will not significantly alter the result predicted by global modeling efforts. Thus, we should develop a more generic approach that would be less labor intensive and yet provide some indication of technology benefits. To assist in the evaluation, we propose that a general object function can be used for a life-cycle assessment of a proposed technology. The object function for the technology value should look something like this:

(1)

where the variables V1, V2, etc., correspond to environmental, economic, and societal effects, etc., over time. Currently, the scope of this project deals only with life-cycle carbon flows. Thus, the metric we have developed is a simplified methodology that later may be incorporated into a complete objective function. This paper outlines a contribution to the set of tools available for carbon management analyses.

We describe a methodology for assessing the merit of technologies that sequester carbon (and other greenhouse gases) according to a standard set of criteria that can be applied to a wide variety of technologies for comparative purposes.

Objective

Our objective was to develop a general methodology for evaluation of carbon sequestration technologies.

We wanted to provide a method that was quantitative but that was structured to give qualitative robust comparisons despite changes in detailed method parameters—that is, it does not matter what “grade” a sequestration technology gets, but a “better” technology should always get a better grade.

The performance objective for a sequestration technology is not necessarily zero emission of CO2 but rather a reduction compared with the baseline of current practice. To make sure that all carbon aspects are considered, care must be taken to ensure that there are no hidden emissions when making an alteration from the baseline. The fundamental question underlying an analysis of merit of a process or alteration of a process is as follows:

How much CO2 is generated as a result of the operation (or change) of this process, and what is its ultimate fate?

Both inputs and outputs must be considered to obtain a total picture. When we speak of carbon sequestration in this manuscript, we refer to all greenhouse gas sequestration measured in carbon dioxide or carbon equivalence (CE). The carbon dioxide equivalence is also called the Global Warming Potential (GWP). A complete list of GWP values has been prepared by IPCC.

Approach

To address our objective, we have developed and elaborated on the following concepts:

120

· All resources used in a sequestration activity should be reviewed by estimating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions for which they historically are responsible. We have done this by introducing a quantifier we term Full-Cycle Carbon Emissions (FCCE), which is tied to the resource.

· The future fate of sequestered carbon should be included in technology evaluations. We have addressed this by introducing a variable called Time-Adjusted Value of Carbon Sequestration (TVCS) to weigh potential future releases of carbon, escaping the sequestered form.

· The Figure of Merit of a sequestration technology should address the entire life cycle of an activity. The figures of merit we have developed relate the investment made (carbon release during the construction phase) to the lifetime sequestration capacity of the activity. To account for carbon flows that occur during different times of an activity, we incorporate the Time Value of Carbon Flows.

To demonstrate the methodology, we have decided to use a general example and describe in steps how we approach the task of assigning an overall figure of merit to a sequestration project. We gradually progress from an overall visual representation, through detailed review of the individual parts, to the point at which all the information can be consolidated to one or two figures of merit. The steps may be summarized as follows:

1. First, we show the carbon flows occurring as part of an imagined sequestration activity.

2. Then, we show how these flows would be estimated based on the resources used to accomplish the sequestration.

3. This is followed by an inspection of the annual sequestration accomplishment and assigning a value to the activity depending on future carbon flows (e.g., releases) related to the sequestered carbon.

4. Lastly, we discuss how these carbon flows may be used in carbon credit calculations and how to develop the overall figure of merit for the activity based on life-cycle carbon flows.

The methodology we suggest does not rely on global atmospheric modeling efforts and can be expanded to include financial, social, and long-term environmental aspects of a sequestration technology implementation.

Project Description

Assume that we have the pieces to construct a life-cycle carbon-flow diagram for a particular sequestration activity. The timescale for the carbon flow should begin at conception of the idea and end many years after completion of the activity. An example of such carbon flows for an imagined activity may be seen in Figure 1.

To illustrate the carbon flows in Figure 1, we can visualize a sequestration project beginning with research and development, releasing a little CO2 in the process. A few years before the construction of the processing plant, we clear some land and burn the tree stumps [2 metric tons of carbon (MtC) released]. In the year just before we open our plant, we build on the land, generating 5 MtC in energy use and latent CO2 emission associated with the construction, capital equipment and structures. The plant begins operation by ramping up the sequestration capacity over the first 8 years of operation, and capacity then remains constant. During these later years, we sequester a net amount of carbon (about 2 MtC) each year but we also have slow releases from the captured carbon. During the processing plant’s

121

last year (year 40), we must decommission and demolish our facility, thus generating some carbon emission in the process. In the out-years, there is a small annual net release from the sequestered carbon. In our example, we assumed a release profile in which 25% of the sequestered carbon is released during its first 50 years of sequestration. The remaining 75% will stay sequestered “forever,” or longer than our target goal. In Figure 1, values above the x-axis correspond to a net flux of carbon being removed from the atmosphere by the sequestering technology, while negative values correspond to a net release of carbon.

Figure 1: Life-cycle carbon flow for a sequestration activity, including anticipated releases from the sequestered carbon.

Our goal has been to develop an evaluation methodology that addresses life-cycle metrics as well as the annual (carbon) value (or credit) of a sequestration activity. In a carbon trading system, national or international, we must keep in mind that a credit can only be assigned in a year in which sequestration activity occurs—in other words, during the active life of the sequestration plant. Any emissions occurring outside this time frame must be accounted for through another process. To do this, one may choose to assess a “penalty” to account for future releases of carbon from the sequestered form. The life-cycle evaluation methodology should take into account all emissions in a process. To do this, we introduce a property we call Full-Cycle Carbon Emissions, or FCCE. The FCCE is a value that is expressed in mass of carbon and corresponds to historic and future emissions for a “stream.” When a sequestration technology uses a resource such as energy, we are indicating that this results in emissions somewhere in the world and that these emissions are occurring (or are accounted for) at the same time we are carrying out the sequestration. The FCCE is related to the amount of resource through the FCCE Factor. The FCCE factor is analogous to standard emissions factors used in carbon accounting but specifically addresses life-cycle emissions. For the waste and product streams, however, emissions may occur in the distant future, depending on the fate of these streams. In order to assign an FCCE to these streams, we propose to introduce the Time-Adjusted Value of Carbon Sequestration, or TVCS. In addition to simply accounting for future emissions, we would like this property to indicate that a technology that sequesters carbon and does not rapidly release it for circulation in the atmosphere is more valuable than an alternate technology that releases it after a short time. Ideally, a technology should sequester the carbon indefinitely; however, it is clear that many of the proposed technologies do not accomplish this.

122

Results

Full-Cycle Carbon Emissions from Resource Use

One of the most obvious emissions in a proposed sequestration approach is related to the energy used in sequestration activities and subsequent activities for keeping the carbon sequestered. For the United States, which represents limited energy diversity, the CO2 emissions factor for energy use in 1997 was 15.7 MtC/EJ [1.57×10–5 gC/J (grams of carbon per joule)]. It includes sources other than fossil energy that do not have CO2 emissions. The use of fossil energy also generates other greenhouse gas emissions, such as CH4, N2O, and CO. These should also be considered and have been quantified by EPA. For example, the emission from fossil burning and losses (such as methane generation in coal mining and natural gas flaring in oil recovery) amount to approximately 91.2 MtC (based on GWP), which contributes an additional 6.2% to the regular CO2 emissions. These emissions are all process-related— they do not take into account factors such as constructing power plants and building infrastructures.

Attempts have been made to estimate what has been termed Full-Energy-Chain (FECH) Emissions Factors of greenhouse gases appropriate for electricity use. These emissions factors are in the range of 3.55·10–5 to 4.25·10–5 gC/J for electricity use from mixed sources. Thus, it is important to accurately determine the amount and type of energy that a sequestration activity requires and to apply the appropriate emissions factors. The FECH Emission Factor has the same value as the FCCE Factor. A general methodology to determine the FCCE in materials may be to divide this estimation into four different categories of latent emissions that arise from using materials in the process:

1. Process emissions related to the stream. For example, ammonia has been proposed as a CO2 absorbent for combustion gas, producing a fertilizer. Thus, we would have to account for CO2 generation from process methane used in ammonia production.

2. Indirect or direct emissions from the use of energy. For example, the energy requirement for ammonia production is 29 MJ/g NH3.

3. Emissions from transportation fuel used to get the “stream” to or from our sequestration location.

4. All other indirect emissions.

The fourth category is a catchall group, which includes the emissions related to ammonia plant construction, etc. To estimate emissions represented in this group, a possible method is to look at the market price of the raw material and assign an FCCE factor for cost. In the case of ammonia, the cost in 1997 was $227/ton (short), not including transportation, which translates to $2.5×10–4/g NH3. We can use this cost in one of two ways:

4a. Assume that all of this cost will ultimately be applied to some type of energy use. Then convert the cost to carbon emission by using the energy price in 1997 [adjusted with gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflators], which was $8.99/MBtu ($8.52×10–9/J), and emissions factors for general energy use (1.062´1.57·10–5 gC/J). This would give us an estimated cost emissions factor of 1960 gC per dollar.

4b. We can use the GDP and its correlation to carbon emission. In 1997 the United States GDP was 8300×109 dollars, and the estimated emissions were 1800 MtC (1.8×1015 gC),

123

including all greenhouse gases. This would lead to a cost emissions factor of 217 gC per dollar.

The first method will most likely result in an overestimation of latent emissions because part of the cost of the materials includes energy (and sometimes transportation) already accounted for in emissions type 2 above. We may thus refine our general FCCE estimation methodology to the following:

1. Determine the process emission factor and calculate the greenhouse gas emissions. Several sources (e.g., IPCC and EPA) provide relevant information.

2. Determine the energy use for the production and transportation of the raw material to the sequestration plant. Convert the energy to carbon emissions using the appropriate emissions factors for energy.

3. Determine the cost of the delivered product and subtract the portion related to energy and transportation fuel. Use the GDP/emission relationship to estimate all other indirect emissions.

As an alternative, we could use an even more simplified approach based on process emissions and cost but not on the energy used for the materials production. Instead, one could assume that the entire material cost is associated with energy use.

In addition to materials used in the process, the capital equipment, buildings, and other items needed for carbon sequestration have associated FCCEs. Once the amount of construction materials has been estimated, the same methodology developed above for raw materials may be used. Some process emissions and energy intensities of common building materials have been summarized by Van de Vate.

Full-Cycle Carbon Emissions from Sequestered Carbon

Future carbon emissions occurring from sequestered carbon should be considered when evaluating different sequestration approaches. To determine the FCCEs for streams that will cause carbon emissions in the future, we introduce the Time-Adjusted Value of Carbon Sequestration (TVCS). One way to estimate this value is to employ our global climate models to predict changes in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of sequestration and future release from sequestered carbon. This would be a labor-intensive task. Moreover, if an individual sequestration effort is moderate, it will be considered merely as noise in existing global models. We propose another approach—to start by defining a sequestration duration goal that will serve as a metric for future reference. For example, we may choose to use 100 years as our goal for sequestration. In this scenario, if we sequester 2 megatons of carbon (2 MtC = 7.4 Mt of CO2) today and are able to keep it sequestered for at least 100 years, we should receive full value (100%) for the activity. If we have partial or full release in less than 100 years, we are not doing as well and the value is less. The question is this; how do we evaluate different carbon release profiles and determine their proper values?

Consider the graphs in Figure 2, in which several value curves have been constructed based on the instantaneous release of 2 Mt of sequestered carbon sometime in the future. We will later consider partial release over time. Figure 2a shows a scenario that does not give any value (or credit) to a sequestration of less than 100 years. Figure 2b takes a more gradual approach by applying a straight-line model. Here,

124

if we instantaneously release all the carbon at any time before 100 years (e.g., 75 years), we would get fractional credit (e.g., 75/100×2=1.5 MtC). To give proportionally more credit to longer sequestration periods, we can construct a curve as in Figure 2c. Here we emphasize that there is increasingly more value in focusing on technologies that will keep the carbon sequestered longer, thus discouraging activities with potential quick release. It is clear that this third approach is very sensitive to prior knowledge about the future release, especially for the years close to year 100. To counter this, we may choose to use a fourth approach (Figure 2d) which suggests that we should consider short-term solutions favorably while recognizing that future predictions are hard to make. In all the cases, we have chosen to give full credit, or value, to sequestration past 100 years (or whatever metric we select as a goal).

Figure 2: Several potential profiles for calculation of the time value of sequestration.

It should be pointed out that all the curves drawn in Figure 2 were constructed using the same basic equation, namely

(2)

where i is the penalty interest rate, y is the number of years sequestered, and Y is the sequestration goal (expressed in years). Equation 2 is of the same type as interest rate functions but has been normalized by the expression in the denominator so that the function takes a value of 1 (one) when y = Y. The different curve shapes constructed in Figure 2 were obtained by changing the penalty interest rate from

125

500% to 0.01% to 3% to –3% for Figure 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, respectively. We propose the following abbreviated expression for the modifier:

(3)

where V is the Value of Carbon Sequestration and R is the Amount of Carbon Released.

The preceding discussion addressed instantaneous release of the entire amount of sequestered carbon.

An example of this scenario is that of sequestered carbon stock that is suddenly being used for fuel.

Other scenarios may need to address periodic release of small amounts of the sequestered carbon. We can use a carbon release profile (Figure 3) to visualize this phenomenon. The timescale begins when sequestration takes place. In this example, we have chosen to sequester 2 MtC. According to our example (Figure 3), we anticipate a release of 0.5 Mt in year 20, 0.2 Mt in year 60, and 0.1 Mt in year 80.

Figure 3: Example of periodic release of sequestered carbon.

To calculate the value or credit for this activity, we would simply add the individual time-adjusted release values, realizing that 1.2 Mt of the sequestered carbon remains unreleased for more than 100 years. The calculation will take the form of Equation 4, in which we have chosen to use 100 years as the goal for sequestration (Y = 100):

(4)

Equation 4 can be simplified and generalized to yield Equation 5:

126

(5)

where the maximum sequestration value (SC = net amount of carbon initially sequestered) is reduced (or penalized) by the value of the carbon released annually until the year Y is reached.

The preceding example showed how to penalize (or discount) the maximum sequestration value for discrete releases of the sequestered carbon; however, it is more likely that future carbon release from an activity is predicted via a mathematical expression (e.g., a half-life constant). In this case, Equation 5 is modified to yield the integral form

(6)

which may, or may not, be solved analytically depending on the complexity of the carbon release profile, R(y). An example of a case in which the carbon release profile might be available is the ammonium carbonate fertilizer, which may partially decompose with time in the soil.

We have discussed the future release of carbon from a sequestration activity. We should also consider that energy and materials might be needed in the future for “maintenance” to retain the carbon in its sequestered form. Intuitively, we can say that the use of energy and materials in the future should be limited. Because we expect that their use generates CO2, we need to incorporate this knowledge in the value of sequestration. To keep with the approach that we have taken concerning TVCS, we would value delayed use of energy more than early use. The easiest way to visualize this it to realize that any maintenance in the future will generate CO2, and this amount must be added to that potentially released from the sequestered carbon. Thus, Rj and R(y) in Equations 5 and 6 represent the total CO2 (or CE) released in the future, whether from captured CO2 itself or from any CO2-generating activity associated with the captured carbon. Incorporating maintenance activities into the projected scenario creates a situation that would cause some sequestration technologies to have a negative value, indicating a poor carbon management strategy.

The FCCE of the waste and the sequestered carbon streams is the amount of carbon equivalents of future emissions related to these streams. In introducing the TVCS, we have acknowledged that emissions may occur in the future from the sequestered carbon and we have also incorporated a projected value to address future releases. Thus, the time-adjusted FCCE is the right-hand part of the expressions in Equations 5 and 6,

(7)

with Rj and R(y) as defined in the preceding section.

127

Credit for Annual Carbon Sequestration Accomplishments

In a carbon credit–trading scenario, carbon credits must be calculated. To demonstrate what credits could be claimed, let us continue with our example. For the sequestration scenario we have created, the carbon flows are listed in Table 1. For example, in year 6, we anticipate that our industrial facility will remove 2 MtC from the atmosphere but that it will have an annual activity of 1.8 MtC. (We sequester 2 MtC in a product, but we emit 0.2 MtC to accomplish this.) The fair amount of carbon credit (carbon flow) that could be claimed in that year is 1.56 MtC because of the anticipated future release of some of the sequestered carbon.

We can assign a credit only during the active life of the operating plant; thus, the initial releases do not factor into the credit calculations. However, values from these releases should still be used in the evaluation of the life-cycle activity as described in the following section. The initial releases may be seen as an investment in the technology—we must emit CO2 in the early stages in order to capture more CO2 later in the overall activity.

Figure of Merit for Carbon Sequestration Activities

To this point, we have proposed methods to estimate

· the net amount of carbon sequestered by taking into account both the actual mass flow of carbon and latent emissions;

· the TVCS by assigning a function to account for early release and the use of energy/material in the future to keep the carbon captured;

· the concept of carbon investment that occurs as a result of activities even before carbon sequestration is realized; and

· the carbon flow concept, which addresses the life-cycle carbon flows and may serve as basis for carbon credit calculations for a sequestration activity.

128

Table 1: Carbon flows on an annual basis.

What is needed to complete the methodology is an overall figure of merit for the technology based on the carbon flow concept. We propose that the same approach used in chemical plant economics is useful when evaluating sequestration activities. Many of the most recently developed figures of merit (e.g., performance measures or profitability) used in the evaluation of industrial processes are based on different types of cash flow. Some of the measures include depreciation, with or without tax and with or without discounting. In our case, carbon flow is analogous to cash flow.

The word “profitability” implies that we are now interested in how well our activity is performing compared with the investments (analogous to prestart up releases) we made. When we look at profitability, we can compare other investment alternatives. When such alternatives are compared, it is very likely that the carbon flows for different projects will be dissimilar, both in their magnitude and in the time they occur. When flows occur at different times this detail is corrected by introducing the time value of carbon. Discussions have arisen concerning carbon flows and whether the concept of time value of carbon exists. The argument is that—for most cases—the time interval often examined is too short for the flows to be time dependent. The time dependency may exist if we look at flows in terms of millenniums but perhaps not on a decade or even century basis. We have decided to treat the value of carbon flows as time dependent to allow for a complete analysis. The methodology can easily be modified if the time dependency is to be ignored.

The time value of carbon flows may be handled using the single payment compound amount factor

129

(8)

where

(9)

where P is the present worth, F is the future worth, I is the discrete compound interest rate, and n is the number of years between P and F. If the carbon flows are not time dependent, I is zero and (P/F I, n) is always one. To determine the present worth of, for example, 1.56 MtC in year 6 (Table 1) with a 10% interest rate, we can calculate as follows:

(10)

One way to view this information is to say that we can either strive for a carbon credit of 0.88 MtC today or reach a carbon credit of 1.56 MtC in year 6—time is of the essence.

Two types of figure of merit that we propose are useful. In economic evaluations, these are termed Present Worth Index and Annual Worth. To summarize, the first method looks at the cumulative present worth of carbon flows over the life of the project and compares this with the present worth of carbon flow by the initial carbon investment. The second type compares the present-worth-corrected average sequestration of carbon per year with the emissions from initial investment plus demolition, averaged over the active sequestration plant life.

Conclusions

Our objective was to develop a general methodology for evaluation of carbon sequestration technologies.

We wanted to provide a method that was quantitative but also structured to give robust qualitative comparisons despite changes in detailed method parameters—that is, it does not matter what “grade” a sequestration technology gets, but a “better” technology should always achieve a higher score. We think that the methodology we have begun to develop provides this capability. Our methodology can be defined by “what it is” as well as “what it is not.” In some of our discussion groups, we have found it useful to explain the scope of the methodology by reviewing both of these terms.

What It Is

This is a methodology that will assist in evaluation and comparison of well-defined sequestration activities.

This is a methodology that should be used to address long-term merit prior to engaging in an activity.

This is a methodology that treats a sequestration activity as an engineering process of which we have knowledge and control.

This is a methodology that addresses carbon sequestration in life-cycle terms.

130

What It Is Not

This is not a global climate model.

This is neither a model to predict sequestration impact on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere nor an approach to estimate environmental impact.

This is not a model that addresses a trading mechanism of carbon credit; however, portions of the methodology may be used to determine a carbon credit value for a sequestration activity.

131

ANNEX 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

MSW Processing project shall be comprised of an RDF Plant, Biogas plant, Composting Plant and a Power plant. The power plant at Warsaw, Poland will be designed to produce electricity at generator terminals. The Power Plant will have single boiler / single turbine configuration.

The Power Plant will have RDF Fluff as the major fuel. There will be also a provision in the plant for firing Biogas produced from biogas process.

Biogas generated from green waste (Approximately 800 TPD) in the biogas plant will be about 120,000 cum/day with a gross calorific value of 2600 kcal/N.cum. The biogas generated will be "scrubbed" to increase the methane percentage up to 75% - 80% from 55% - 60% by removing associated CO2. This clean gas will be fed to the boiler burner at 1000 mmWG pressure. Biogas storage will be for 12 hours.

RDF Fluff will have the following properties:

a. Particle size

b. Calorific Value

c. Bulk Density

d. Ash

e. Moisture

(-) 100 mm 2600 ± 100 kcal/kg 80 -100 kg /cum 20% ± 5% 20% ± 5%

RDF Plant sizing will be based on 18 hrs per day operation to process 650 TPD of MSW to produce 225 TPD RDF.

RDF Plant will have a provision to have a separate receiving and processing line for biomass / horticultural waste whenever available during season. This will be mixed with RDF in RDF storage.

132

Power Plant will have storage of Two days RDF Fluff requirement of about 450 T.

INTEGRATED PLANT LAYOUT AND FLOW OF MATERIALS

The integrated complex consists of MSW processing plant to convert MSW to RDF and a 15 MW power plant, forming an "Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex". The equipment and systems of the integrated plant have been so laid out that the flow of materials is smooth and there are no hindrances for material movement and transportation. The layout of the plant has been so designed that the material flow is smooth and any manual material handling is minimized.

The Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex requires an area of approximately 10-12 acres. The RDF, Biogas, Composting and Power Plant should be situated, with due consideration given to the optimization of material flow, land constraints, proper accessibility and maintenance aspects. Suitable road / access ways should be provided for all equipment.

RDF Plant will have following operations

• Manual segregation

• Shredding

• Screening to separate both fine inerts and some

percentage of bio-degradable matter.

• Rotary conveying and as per requirements of the Drying

System

• Fines screening

• Density Separator (ballistic separation)

133

PROCESS DESCRIPTION OF MSW-RDF PLANT

The integrated waste to power complex will have a section for processing municipal solid waste (MSW) into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) required for combustion in the boiler. The Boundary conditions of MSW to RDF sections are as follows:

- The plant will have two (2) streams, to handle, 650 T of MSW/day (325 TPD per stream) to produce 225 T/day of RDF fluff.

The RDF plant will have dust collection and disposal facility. The RDF Plant will have provisions for a suitable ventilation system to reduce the smell inside the plant.

Hot gas introduced in the drier will have proper pollution control equipment like a cyclone and a settling Chamber. Air from the system will be let out through a vertical pipe.

There will be a 4.0 TPH capacity pelletizing facility to produce RDF pellets from RDF, biomass and horticultural waste. The pellets will be 20 mm to 25 mm in diameter and 20 mm to 40 mm long with a bulk density of 650 kg/cum. These pallets could be used for boiler start up and during high moisture RDF firing.

Ash coming out of HAG and power plant boiler (both bottom ash and fly ash) will be disposed into a landfill site; but if there is a demand, it will be given to building contractors / fly ash brick manufacturers.

The scheme for an Inert processing facility shall be considered in the design. Depending on the viability, this fraction can be disposed to landfill site.

Recyclable matter coming out of the RDF plant would be given to Recycling units. Storage space for such items would be provided for in the plant.

The Power Plant will be designed in compliance with the following emission levels:

- The plant will be designed to work for two shifts per day and shall operate for 330 days in a year. There may be forced closure of plant during the short rainy days in the Poland.

- The size of RDF fluff should be minus 100 mm; edge to edge and its density should be around 80-100 kg/m3.

- Depending on many factors, the CV of the fuel should be about 2600 kcal/kg ± l00 kcal/kg.

134

- During screening of MSW through (-) 15 mm size the smaller fraction will be separated out and sold as soil enricher, especially to nearby coal based power plant, as an organic cover for fly ash dampers.

A separate inert processing disposal scheme may also be worked out.

The stream will have a sequence of unit operations as given below.

• Receipts of leaves and horticultural waste directly to the

RDF storage.

• Receipt of MSW in one of the pits.

• Manual separation and rejection of odd size objects.

• Primary size reduction and homogenization.

• Screening to remove minus 15 mm size.

• Drying (when required).

• Screening to remove Grits.

• Classification into light fraction (RDF), heavy rejects and

residual dust.

• Secondary Size reduction & pelletizing option.

MSW Management will supply MSW as per agreement and site in tipper trucks in two or three shifts as per regulation. After weighing and inspection, trucks will be brought to the MSW storage area and the material shall be unloaded into the pits. After unloading, the MSW shall be sprayed immediately with herbal pesticide to retard its decomposition.

EOT Cranes will remove this material from the pits with Grab buckets and deposit it onto to a main conveyor which passes through vibrator regulatory feeders. The main conveyor shall discharge the MSW to a manual inspection conveyor at an elevated level of about 7.0. From the slow moving inspection conveyor, all the odd sized and unwanted objects shall be handpicked at the manual separation station. These will be mostly large textile pieces, large twigs and woody pieces, thermocole, consumer durables and dropped into the respective chutes for collection and dispatch. The material after manual inspection is subjected to a through magnetic separator to remove ferrous objects.

135

The MSW, after inspection and magnetic separation is fed into a primary shredder. Matrix of moving blades, cutting blades and fixed blades decide the size of end product. During this operation, all the materials will get homogenized and its size will be reduced to minus 100 mm. These shredders are very sensitive to hard materials. Therefore, natural separation and manual operation previously deployed are to be very effective.

Material from the primary shredder will be put into a rotary screening trommel having minus 15 mm holes. The minus 15 mm fraction shall have considerable bio-degradable material and shall be sent outside to be used as a soil enhancement. Plus 15 mm fraction will be fed to the dryer. Depending upon the moisture content of plus 15 mm, a requisite amount of hot air produced by Hot Gas Generator (HAG) can be adjusted.

Material having more than 25% moisture will be put into a Rotary Dryer. In the Rotary dryer, material is dried in a co-current manner. The hot air is generated in a fixed grate hot gas generator. Woody Biomass separated from MSW or RDF will be combusted in the HAG. The output from Rotary Dryer is fed into a fine Rotary screen (Trommel) and minus 8 mm fraction consisting of dust, grit, sand, etc is separated. This fraction has commercial demand and is used as a soil enricher, especially for ash mounts of power stations.

The screened material from the dryer is then subjected to classification /density separation through Ballistic Separator and heavy & light fractions are separated. Light fraction will be conveyed to the RDF storage yard. Heavy fraction will be further segregated. Woody Biomass recovered shall be sent to HAG as fuel and inert will be put into recycling / processing and or disposal to land fill.

The Ballistic separator will also produce some dust which will be that of rotary screen and disposed.

The light fraction thus separated and conveyed to RDF yard comprises of biomass, paper, textile, fine plastics and other combustible materials and is termed as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF Fluff). As per need, RDF can be further ground in a Secondary Shredder and then converted into RDF pellets.

Here are process flow charts and schemes for RDF preparation from MSW:

138

Biogas plant (Process)

For more information on the Biogas process please see Section “BioCRUDE Technologies’ Biogas Process”.

Two anaerobic digesters will handle the amounts of sewage sludge and other kinds of organic waste from the municipal waste, considering the increment of waste produced in the future.

The biogas complex will improve the efficiency at the power plant, providing the biogas to produce more electricity in a separated power plant (4-7 MW) and 5000 m3 required to produce 4.6 MW of electricity at the RDF/biogas boiler.

The water requirement for biogas section will be about 150 cum / day of recycled / treated sewage water. The water originating from the biogas section will be treated so as to conform to norms laid down by pollution control board.

The bio-compost from the biogas section will be dried to 50% moisture content. It will be then granulated, bagged and packed.

The Biogas plant will have a capacity of 800 tonnes per day for the treatment of raw material inputs, such as Fruit and Vegetable market waste, hotel waste, domestic house hold waste, school and institutional waste.

Among the various configurations of the methane digesters, which forms the important equipment in the anaerobic treatment plant design, up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) design of the methane digester has become a very popular design since the introduction of same by Dr. Lettingah of the Wagneighen University in The Netherlands.

Various alternative designs are available all over the world; however the UASB has certain distinctive advantages which are listed hereunder:

UASB design seems to be highly suitable for the treatment of waste waters containing more than 75% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the form of soluble solids i.e. the waste water containing high ratio of the soluble to suspended solids.

139

The loading rates i.e. kg of BODs treated per cubic meter of the digester volume per day are reported to be very high when compared to the alternative designs.

The digester design does not use any packing media. This eliminates the need of frequent replacement of the packing media. Therefore the maintenance cost is considerably reduced. Absence of the packing media also reduces the risk of clogging.

UASB process is quite stable but requires initial long period of stabilization.

One of the disadvantages of the UASB design is long periods of stabilization and requirement of the specially developed seeding sludge. The main disadvantage in using UASB process is its unsuitability to treat wastes having large percentage of suspended solids.

To overcome the above disadvantage special hybrid design has been developed to treat solid slurry wastes. This is a two stage design. The sizes of the digesters for the first stage and the second stage are decided on the basis of the suspended organic contents of the slurry to be treated. The first stage fermentation is hydrolysis stage and the second methanation and polishing stage. The first stage is designed to give maximum solid retention time for the hydrolysis and the second stage is either proprietary modular UASB construction or specially developed hybrid design. The design has been tried in a number of applications like kitchen, poultry, and cow dung and slaughter house waste. This technology has by now been well established, hence has been selected to give desired results for treatment of Segregated Waste.

Advantages of this Biogas system:

The green "organic" waste will be charged into the system immediately, there will not be any detention of solid waste. This ensures that the manual handling of waste is reduced.

All the Anaerobic Digesters are totally covered and gas tight. This avoids foul odour and consequently the rodent, stray animals and bird menace is avoided.

140

Finer segregation of the green waste is possible from the slow moving belt conveyors by operators placed on either side of the belts.

The system takes care of all the leachates and effluents from the RDF system and Power block section. No separate ETP is required. Biogas generated is a Non - Conventional source of energy and its use as an auxiliary fuel in the boiler goes a long way in reduction of Green House Gases.

The biogas is stored in a unique dry membrane type of biogas holder unlike the conventional bell type Stainless Steel Gas holders. The membrane is UV resistant, rodent proof, high tensile strength, low cost and is capable of lifting at very low pressures.

The anaerobically treated waste is good organic compost. It can be mixed with biomass dust from the RDF plant. It will be bagged and packed and properly marketed.

The treated water will meet the standards laid down by Pollution Control Board for disposal into existing water body. The treated water can be reused for captive gardening.

Technology Description:

The segregated waste is brought in dumper trucks / trolleys and unloaded on a ramp. The waste is pushed onto slow moving belt conveyors and it is further segregated manually by operators placed on either side of belt conveyors. The waste is slowly fed into Pulverizers. Size reduction takes place in pulverizers. Treated water is used for dilution and converted into slurry form. The slurry is collected in a mixing tank and is properly homogenized. The slurry is pumped / connected by gravity to the Primary Anaerobic Digester.

The primary anaerobic digester is designed for hydrolysis of slurry. The digester has .slowly revolving scum breaking mechanism which breaks the scum. The scum is removed and subsequently recycled. The digester is provided with internal modules, baffles and launders to trap the suspended solids and allow for degradation. The biogas is generated in this digester. The concentration of solids at the bottom is relatively very high. Arrangement has been made for removal of part of this sludge from the bottom of the digester and to send it to the waste section.

141

The overflow from this digester is connected to a recycling chamber. Part of the water is recycled and the rest is pumped to the Secondary Anaerobic Digester.

The secondary digester converts the hydrolyzed products into acidified organics, which in turn are converted into biogas consisting of methane and carbon dioxide. The water flows through settled mass of micro organisms. The water from the central portion passes into the annular portion through bottom passages where the effluent is further polished off resulting in very high gas production. The proprietary settler arrangement provided at the top of the digester settles the mass of micro-organisms back in the digester. Arrangements have been made for removal of part of this sludge from the bottom of the digester and send it to waste section.

The overflow of the digester is therefore relatively very clear of the suspended solids. The BOD and COD are reduced by almost 70% - 75 %.

The anaerobically treated water from the Secondary Digester is connected to an Aeration treatment system. Diffused aeration grid is used to further reduce the BOD and COD levels. The aerated water is then settled in a settling tank. It is then pumped through a series of filters - Pressure Sand filter for removal of residual suspended solids, Activated Carbon filter for removal of odour and residual color, chlorination system for disinfection purpose. The treated water from this system can now be used for captive irrigation.

The biogas generated in both the digesters is collected in dry membrane type biogas holders. The biogas needs to be "cleaned" and hence the gas is scrubbed in a biological scrubber. The biogas and nutrient enriched water are passed in counter current fashion in the scrubber column. The "clean" biogas is stored in a clean gas holder. The biogas is pressurized to 5000 mm WC (0.5 kg/cm2) pressure and used in the boiler of power plant as an auxiliary fuel.

The bottom sludge from both the digesters is removed and pumped to an effluent buffer storage tank. It is then charged into a decanter centrifuge where the solid and liquid fractions are separated. The treated liquid fraction is then pumped to the treated water storage tank. The solids are dried, granulated and packed and used as bio-waste.

142

FAST COMPOSTING Composting should be considered as a viable alternative process to handle organic waste in order to eliminate and prevent accumulation of waste in the plant. The composting system can be put in place and be functioning before the construction is even been completed. This keeps the stores of MSW from continuously increasing while the plant is off-line.

The cost of installing this process is more than offset with the income generated, and the valuable service it provides in terms of waste reduction. A large amount of waste can be effectively processed, diverting this waste from landfill and incineration.

The BioCRUDE fast composting method achieves results in a very short period of time: while current technologies transform the organic waste in fertilizer in 24-36 weeks, the BioCRUDE fast composting method can transform the organic waste to fertilizer in 4-6 weeks. With the use of our special unique enzymes, that can even be reduced further to a mere 5 to 7 days.

RDF/BIOGAS POWER PLANT

Boiler:

The Boiler characteristics are the following: 80 TPH capacity with steam outlet parameters of 43 ata and 415°C steam outlet temperature with one 12MW bleed cum condensing (ACC) turbo-generator generating power at 11 kV level. The generated power will be stepped down to 433 V through two (2) distribution transformers of 2.5 MVA capacity and one (1) converter transformer of 2.5 MVA for in house power distribution. One of the 2.5 MVA transformers will be for spare; the converter transformer will feed the VFD drives whereas the distribution transformers will feed the motors in the RDF, Bio-Methanation and Power Plant auxiliaries.

The boiler will have an adequate cleaning system in place to remove combustion dust that will settle on boiler surfaces, impairing heat transfer and ultimately affecting steam generation. A combination of steam operated soot blowers and mechanical cleaning devices in adequate numbers will be provided. Ammonia / Urea injection is proposed in the furnace to reduce Nitrogen Oxide emission reduction.

The boiler will be provided with a suitable ESP to limit the dust emission to less than 50 mg/Nm3. A Chimney of height 60 m will be provided to dissipate the flue gas over a wide area. Lime injection before the reactor and activated carbon injection before the

143

bag house is proposed for capturing HCL, SO2, HF & heavy metals. The following are the specifications of the boiler to be used:

Turbo Generator:

The turbo generator will operate at 410°c and will generate 12 MW of power. The turbo generator will be a single extraction cum condensing type and of high efficiency. The turbine’ shall be a horizontal, single cylinder, single extraction cum condensing type.

All casings and stator blade carriers shall be horizontally split and the design shall be such as to permit examination of the blades without disturbing shaft alignment or causing damage to the blades. The design of the casing and the supports shall be such as to permit free thermal expansion in all directions.

144

ANNEX 5: CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT

MSW - Energy

CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT

Mr. Omar Apango Vera, MB. SC. Eng

The "Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex" consists of a MSW processing

plant to convert MSW to RDF, Biogas, Compost and a power plant. The Integrated

Municipal Waste to Energy Complex is being designed on the basis of following major

parameters.

The Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex at Warsaw, Poland will be designed

to process a capacity 2000 TPD (tonnes per day) of MSW. The calorific value of mixed

waste assumed for design of the project is in range of 800 to 1300 Kcal/Kg, as per the

standard calorific value range of mixed waste generated in the majority of the emirates.

The 650 TPD of waste designated for the RDF facility of the Integrated Municipal Waste

to Energy Complex from the 2000 TPD of MSW available, is expected to generate

around 225 TPD of Refuse Derived Fuel in the form of fluff. The fluff is expected to have

a gross calorific value (GCV) of 2500 Kcal/kg to 2600 Kcal/kg of fluff. Using this RDF

fluff the plant will generate 7,200 kW of power with air cooled condenser for condensing

the turbine exhaust steam. The fuel feeding system will be designed for 15 TPH of RDF

fluff flow for the worst case scenario of GCV of RDF lowering to 2500 Kcal/kg. The

boiler will be able to accept additional fuel to compensate for this reduced quality of fuel.

The 800 TPD of waste designated for the Biogas facility of the Integrated Municipal

Waste to Energy Complex from the 2000 TPD of MSW available, is expected to

generate around 55 – 60 cum/T of Biogas, which in turn, will generate approximately,

4,400 kW of power.

145

The Integrated Municipal Waste to Energy Complex is expected to operate for 330 days

in a year. The power plant will be operating throughout the year except for the period

during which the Boiler will be taken up for inspection and maintenance. This means

that the power plant will be potentially available for power generation for about 330

days.

The plant will be designed as environmentally clean plant so that the liquid effluents,

solid effluents and gaseous effluents from the plant will meet the standard as applicable

to date. However, so far as the gaseous emissions are concerned, the project

envisages having standards better than what are applicable in Poland, in view of public

health.

The layout of the plant has been so designed that the material flow is smooth and any

manual material handling is minimized.

The process of transforming waste material into energy requires facilities and special

buildings that allow process optimization and security for equipment and personnel.

From the reception of raw material to the obtaining of final products, it is important to

identify the required building characteristics.

Depending on the objective of each stage of the process, structures with certain

dimensions and resistance will be required, wherein geometry and properties of the

construction materials have an extremely important role.

With the available information, only building dimensions and the main materials were

identified. Nevertheless, it is recommended to establish a program for the general

construction procedures that allows visualization of the relevant aspects of the project.

In addition, it will be necessary to provide detailed construction drawings, work

specifications and work volumes, in order to avoid confusions.

A general scheme showing the main construction stages, as well as their main

activities, is required. Even though the scheme is general, it is recommended to

segregate it and to provide all the necessary and detailed information. In conclusion,

146

having a well defined construction process will allow the company to optimize

construction time and costs.

Among the main stages that are identified for the project’s buildings construction are:

1. Preliminary works. These works have the purpose of preparing the site where

the construction works will take place, including areas for storage, maneuvers

and security. Some activities are:

a. Ground clearing. Removal of the superficial organic layer, which is

normally irregular and too weak for construction purposes, and

demolishing existing constructions that interfere with the plans.

b. Outline of project axes and leveling of the ground. Identification of the

exact location of the project limits, including boundaries for the estate and

the buildings contained in the project. Simultaneously, ground levels

required to initiate the structures construction are set.

c. Construction of accesses and roads. Staging areas for entering and

leaving vehicles carrying construction or waste materials will be required.

Also roads must be prepared allowing these vehicles to circulate,

facilitating internal transit and avoiding accidents.

d. Construction of provisional structures. Having a suitable control and

accomplishment of construction works will require the construction of

offices, warehouses, toilets and dining rooms that will only operate in the

time of work execution. Walls, doors, people and vehicles traffic control

fences in works areas are included.

2. Foundations. Foundations provide the support of the building, so they are an

indispensable element for the construction of any structure. During building

design it is necessary to have a resistant ground for the structure to lean against,

and a depth that guarantees that the foundation is firmly embedded as

calculated, thus avoiding collapses and slides of the supports.

147

a. Excavation. It is necessary to make excavations in the ground to find

resistant ground layers and to guarantee the necessary embedding of the

structure. Excavations are made within the limits drawn up in the previous

stage.

b. Ground improvement. In certain occasions the ground is not sufficiently

adequate to lay the foundations, so it becomes necessary to improve its

mechanical characteristics by modifying the physical properties or mixing

it with other materials.

c. Construction of foundations. It is important to note that the dimensions

and operating loads for each structure, will decide the type of construction

process required. For example, the primary digester, secondary digester

and gas holder enclosure will require special attention and unique

solutions.

d. Filling. Part of the excavated material is used to reach the level of the

natural ground. This is achieved by distributing the material in the

excavation and then compacting the layers, to a specified thickness, until

the ground’s original level is reached.

e. Material transport. The waste material is transferred to another place

where it can be used or rejected.

3. Underground structures. There are facilities that must be placed below the

level of the ground. These structures can be made simultaneously to the laying of

foundations.

a. Excavation. Removal of the necessary material in the area where the

installation will be done to realize the depth indicated by the project.

b. Location. Decision concerning the definitive location of equipment, pipes

and accessories, as well as executing the proper connections.

148

c. Filling. Using of excavation material to reach the level of the natural

ground, compacting it in layers of certain thickness, to reach the ground’s

original level.

d. Protection. If necessary, to protect the area where installation is located to

avoid accidents or its wrongful operation.

4. Structure. In this stage the resistant part of the building is constructed. The

structure provides security and functionality to the building as well as to the

facilities within it. There are different materials for structures used in construction;

the selection of the suitable ones is based on the dimensions of the building as

well as of the operating loads in it. Loads can be static or dynamic, producing

efforts and deformations that structure elements must resist without any problem.

a. Brick walls. This involves the positioning of prismatic masonry pieces,

jointed with cement and reinforced with horizontal and vertical elements of

reinforced concrete. They are used to construct buildings of low to

medium size, (such as the waste unloading room, security cabin

weighbridge room, laboratory room, workers rest room with toilet facilities).

b. Structural elements of reinforced concrete. Concrete is the mixture of

cement, sand, gravel and water that, as time passed by, becomes harder,

reaching high resistance due to compression. When concrete and steel

bars are combined, the element also resists tension efforts. It has the

advantages of durability, resistance, homogeneity, among others. This

material is used in buildings of any size and for this project concrete will

be the main structural material. Examples of buildings made with

reinforced concrete include: the primary digester, secondary digester,

slurry preparation tank, treated sewage storage tank, recycle chamber,

scum and drain chambers, effluent buffer tank, aeration tank, settling tank,

treated water tank and biogas scrubber foundation.

149

c. Structural steel elements. Steel is a very resistant material and steel

structures can be constructed fast. It is used in structures of medium to

great size. It has an excellent structural behavior in presence of any type

of load. The steel structures in the project are: the covered shed for

pulverizer platform, trusses for gas holder enclosure, trusses for D-canter

room with waste bagging and packing unit.

d. Structures constructed with several combined materials. There are

buildings that will be constructed combining elements of different

materials, optimizing construction costs and times. For example: the gas

holder enclosure, MCC room cum office, for D-canter room with waste

bagging and packing unit.

e. Pavement. This represents a ground mixture which obtains a base of

several resistant layers. The most superficial layer is made with an asphalt

carpet. This type of construction will be used in roads and accesses to the

work site.

5. Hydraulic, sanitary and electrical facilities. They are the necessary

equipment, pipes, cables, valves, pumps and accessories for the correct

operation of the facilities related to the personnel’s comfort.

a. Location of equipment. This involves the correct positioning of sanitary

furniture and hydraulic and drains facilities. Also, electrical energy

components such as lamps, contacts, extinguishers, transformers; are

included.

b. Connection. This is the sorted union of all of the components of each

installation in all the buildings, resulting in the proper accessories for a

correct continuity.

c. Tests. Tests will be made to verify the operation of the facilities and, if

necessary, make the pertinent modifications.

150

6. Special facilities. They are the necessary equipment, pipes, cables, valves,

pumps and accessories for the correct operation of the facilities related to the

specialized equipment in the process of waste conversion into energy.

a. Location of equipment. It is very important to ensure the correct

positioning of the specialized equipment used in the process of waste

conversion into energy. All the necessary facilities for the provision of raw

material and energy are considered.

b. Connection. It is the sorted union of all of the components of each

installation in all the building. The correct equipment is important for a

correct continuity.

c. Tests. Tests will be made to verify the operation of the facilities and, if

necessary, make the pertinent modifications.

7. Finishes. Finishes have the purpose of providing a pleasant surface to see and

touch and, in certain cases; it provides protection against corrosion or fire.

a. Floors

b. Walls

c. Ceilings

8. Cleaning. This is the removal of leftover material and wastes from the work site,

and is applicable to both the interior and exterior of the building.

a. Particular. This is the cleaning of certain areas that, due their importance,

requires special care

b. General. It is the cleaning of all areas that is made by regular means, by

hand or with ordinary tools. With this cleaning, civil engineering works are

finished.

151

INFORMATION REQUIRED TO MAKE A DETAILED STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND TIMES

In addition to the subjects that are mentioned here, along with construction specifications, volumes of work and construction procedures clearly explained will have to be annexed.

A. ARCHITECTORAL PROJECT. Project drawings with schematic representation of rooms, their name, dimensions, levels and finishes.

B. STRUCTURAL PROJECT. Drawings with schematic representation of structural elements, including materials properties and their dimensions. In addition, for reinforced concrete is due to show type, number and location of reinforcement steel rods. In the case of steel structures, detailed dimensions of profiles (forms) and connections must be annexed, specifying characteristic of screws welds and/or rivets. For masonry structures, it must indicate type of material and necessary reinforcement.

C. INSTALLATIONS PROJECT. It is the set of drawings with the location and characteristics of each installation of the building, for example:

a. Hydraulic: It is the set of pipes, equipment, deposits, valves and accessories necessary to provide cold and hot running water or specific steam to the sanitary furniture and other services of a construction site.

b. Sanitary: These facilities intend to remove from the construction, in safe way, black and pluvial waters. Hydraulic stoppers have to be installed to avoid the gases and bad scents produced by the decomposition of the transported organic matter.

c. Electrical: The cable set, measurement and control equipment, distribution boards, switches, circuits, protections, substations, emergency light, and cables necessary to provide and transmit electrical energy to the construction area.

152

d. Air conditioning: This set of elements allows air preparation inside a construction site, providing heating, refrigeration, humidity control, ventilation, and filtration; among others.

e. Special facilities:

Gas installation Installation of elevators Installation against fire Installation of television closed circuit Installation of voice and data systems.

D. ROAD PROJECT. Drawings detailing dimensions of roads, sidewalks, parking lots, vehicular accesses, including materials characteristics and dimensions of the road layers.

E. OTHER. This includes all information related to the completion of the civil engineering work. It is very important to create a reliable study.

153

ANNEX 6: REVISION TO THE APPROVED BASELINE METHODOLOGY -

AM0025 V. 6

I. SOURCE AND APPLICABILITY

Source

This baseline methodology is based on the following proposed methodologies:

• “Organic waste composting at the Matuail landfill site Dhaka, Bangladesh” whose baseline study, monitoring and verification plan and project design document were prepared by World Wide Recycling B.V. and Waste Concern; • “PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia Integrated Solid Waste Management (GALFAD) project in Bali, Indonesia” whose baseline study, monitoring and verification plan and project design document were prepared by Mitsubishi Securities Co.; • “Municipal solid waste treatment cum energy generation project, Lucknow, Dubai” whose baseline study, monitoring and verification plan were prepared by Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited on behalf of Prototype Carbon Fund; • “Aerobic thermal treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) without incineration in Parobé - RS” whose baseline study, monitoring and verification plan and project design document were prepared by ICF Consulting. • “MSW Incineration Project in Guanzhuang, Tianjin City” whose baseline study, monitoring and verification plan and project design document were prepared by Global Climate Change Institute (GCCI) of Tsinghua University, Energy Systems International and Tianjin Taida Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.

For more information regarding these proposals and their consideration by the Executive Board, please refer to the following cases at http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html:

• NM0090: “Organic waste composting at the Matuail landfill site Dhaka, Bangladesh”; • NM0127: “PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia Integrated Solid Waste Management (GALFAD) project in Bali, Indonesia”; • NM0032: “Municipal Solid Waste Treatment cum Energy Generation Project, Lucknow, Dubai”; • NM0174-rev: “MSW Incineration Project in Guanzhuang, Tianjin City”; • NM0178: “Aerobic thermal treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) without incineration in Parobé - RS”.

This methodology also refers to the “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” (ACM0002), small-scale methodologies AMS-I.D “Grid connected renewable electricity generation”, “Avoided methane emissions from organic waste-water treatment” (AM0013), the latest version of the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing

154

methane”, the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” and the latest version of the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Selected approach from paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures

“Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment”

or

“Existing actual or historical emissions, as applicable”

Applicability

The methodology is applicable under the following conditions:

• The project activity involves one or a combination of the following waste treatment options for the fresh waste that in a given year would have otherwise been disposed of in a landfill:

a) a composting process in aerobic conditions;

b) gasification to produce syngas and its use;

c) anaerobic digestion with biogas collection and flaring and/or its use;

d) mechanical/thermal treatment process to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF)/stabilized biomass (SB) and its use. The thermal treatment process (dehydration) occurs under controlled conditions (up to 300 degrees Celsius). In case of thermal treatment process, the process shall generate a stabilized biomass that would be used as fuel or raw material in other industrial process. The physical and chemical properties of the produced RDF/SB shall be homogenous and constant over time;

e) Incineration of fresh waste for energy generation, electricity and/or heat. The thermal energy generated is either consumed on-site and/or exported to a nearby facility. Electricity generated is either consumed on-site, exported to the grid or exported to a nearby facility. The incinerator is rotating fluidized bed of hearth or grate type.

• In case of anaerobic digestion, gasification or RDF processing of waste, the residual waste from these processes is aerobically composted and/or delivered to a landfill. • In case of RDF/stabilized biomass processing, the produced RDF/stabilized biomass should not be stored in a manner that may result in anaerobic conditions before its use. • If RDF/SB is disposed of in a landfill, project proponent shall provide degradability analysis on an annual basis to demonstrate that the methane generation, in the life-cycle of the SB is below 1% of related emissions. It has to be demonstrated regularly that the characteristics of the produced RDF/SB should not allow for re-absorption of moisture of more than 3%. Otherwise, monitoring the fate of the produced RDF/SB is necessary to ensure that it is not subject to anaerobic conditions in its lifecycle.

155

CDM – Executive Board AM0025 / Version 07

Sectoral Scope 01 & 13 EB 31

• In the case of incineration of the waste, the waste should not be stored longer than 10 days. The waste should not be stored in conditions that would lead to anaerobic decomposition and, hence, generation of CH4 . • The proportions and characteristics of different types of organic waste processed in the project activity can be determined, in order to apply a multiphase landfill gas generation model to estimate the quantity of landfill gas that would have been generated in the absence of the project activity. • The project activity may include electricity generation and/or thermal energy generation from the biogas, syngas captured, RDF/stabilized biomass produced, combustion heat generated in the incineration process, respectively, from the anaerobic digester, the gasifier, RDF/stabilized biomass combustor, and waste incinerator. The electricity can be exported to the grid and/or used internally at the project site. In the case of RDF produced, the emission reductions can be claimed only for the cases where the RDF used for electricity and/or thermal energy generation can be monitored. • Waste handling in the baseline scenario shows a continuation of current practice of disposing the waste in a landfill despite environmental regulation that mandates the treatment of the waste, if any, using any of the project activity treatment options mentioned above; • In case of waste incineration, the residual waste from the incinerator does not contain more than 1% residual carbon. • The compliance rate of the environmental regulations during (part of) the crediting period is below 50%; if monitored compliance with the MSW rules exceeds 50%, the project activity shall receive no further credit, since the assumption that the policy is not enforced is no longer tenable; • Local regulations do not constrain the establishment of RDF production plants/thermal treatment plants or the use of RDF/stabilized biomass as fuel or raw material. • In case of RDF/stabilized biomass production, project proponent shall provide evidences that no GHG emissions occur, other than biogenic CO2, due to chemical reactions during the thermal treatment process (such as Chimney Gas Analysis report); • The project activity does not involve thermal treatment process of neither industrial nor hospital waste;

This methodology is not applicable to project activities that involve capture and flaring of methane from existing waste in the landfill. This should be treated as a separate project activity due to the difference in waste characteristics of existing and fresh waste, which may have an implication on the baseline scenario determination.

Summary

This methodology addresses project activities where fresh waste (i.e. the organic matter present in new domestic and commercial waste/municipal solid waste), originally intended for land filling, and is treated either through one or a combination of the following process: composting, gasification, anaerobic digestion, RDF processing/thermal treatment without incineration, and incineration. The project activity avoids methane emissions by diverting organic waste from disposal at a landfill, where methane emissions are caused by anaerobic processes, and by displacing electricity/ thermal energy through the utilization of biogas, syngas captured, RDF/stabilized biomass produced from the waste, combustion heat generated in the incineration process. By treating the fresh waste through alternative treatment options this methane

156

CDM – Executive Board AM0025 / Version 07 Sectoral Scope 01 & 13 EB 31

emissions are avoided from the landfill. The GHGs involved in the baseline and project activity are CO2, CH4 and N2O.

II. BASELINE METHODOLOGY

Procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario

Step 1: identification of alternative scenarios.

Project participants should use step 1 of the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”, to identify all realistic and credible baseline alternatives. In doing so, relevant policies and regulations related to the management of landfill sites should be taken into account. Such policies or regulations may include mandatory landfill gas capture or destruction requirements because of safety issues or local environmental regulations.

1

Other policies could include local policies promoting productive use of landfill gas such as those for the production of renewable energy, or those that promote the processing of organic waste. In addition, the assessment of alternative scenarios should take into account local economic and technological circumstances.

National and/or sectoral policies and circumstances must be taken into account in the following ways:

• In Sub-step 1b of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”, the project developer must show that the project activity is not the only alternative that is in compliance with all regulations (e.g. because it is required by law); • Via the adjustment factor AF in the baseline emissions, which is based on the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0001 “Consolidated baseline methodology for landfill gas project activities”, project developers must take into account that some of the methane generated in the baseline may be captured and destroyed to comply with regulations or contractual requirements; • The project developer must monitor all relevant policies and circumstances at the beginning of each crediting period and adjust the baseline accordingly.

Incineration of the waste without RDF processing;

• of the waste on a landfill with electricity generation using landfill gas captured from the landfill site; • of the waste on a landfill with delivery of landfill gas captured from the of the waste at a landfill where landfill gas captured is flared;

1

The project developer must bear in mind the relevant clarifications on the treatment of national and/or sectoral policies and regulations in determining a baseline scenario as per Annex 3 to the Executive Board 22

nd

meeting and any other forthcoming guidance from the Board on this subject.

157



Alternatives for the disposal/treatment of the fresh waste in the absence of the project activity, i.e. the scenario relevant for estimating baseline methane emissions, to be analysed should include, inter alia:

M1. The project activity (i.e. composting, gasification, anaerobic digestion, RDF processing/thermal treatment without incineration of organic waste or incineration of waste) not implemented as a CDM project;

M2. Disposal of the waste at a landfill where landfill gas captured is flared;

M3. Disposal of the waste on a landfill without the capture of landfill gas;

If energy is exported to a grid and/or to a nearby industry, or used on-site realistic and credible alternatives should also be separately determined for:

• Power generation in the absence of the project activity; • Heat generation in the absence of the project activity. For power generation, the realistic and credible alternative(s) may include, inter alia: P1. Power generated from by-product of one of the options of waste treatment as listed in M1 above, not

Undertaken as a CDM project activity; P2. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site

fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant; P3. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site

renewable based cogeneration plant; P4. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site

fossil fuel fired captive power plant; P5. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site

renewable based captive power plant; P6. Existing and/or new grid-connected power plants. For

heat generation, the realistic and credible alternative(s) may include, inter alia:

H1. Heat generated from by-product of one of the options of waste treatment as listed in M1 above, not undertaken as a CDM project activity;

158



H2. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant2

;

H3. Existing or Construction of a new on-site or off-site renewable based cogeneration plant3

;

H4. Existing or new construction of on-site or off-site fossil fuel based boilers;

H5. Existing or new construction of on-site or off-site renewable energy based boilers;

H6. Any other source such as district heat; and

H7. Other heat generation technologies (e.g. heat pumps or solar energy).

STEP 2: Identify the fuel for the baseline choice of energy source taking into account the national and/or sectoral policies as applicable.

Demonstrate that the identified baseline fuel is available in abundance in the host country and there is no supply constraint. In case of partial supply constraints (seasonal supply), the project participants may consider an alternative fuel that result in lowest baseline emissions during the period of partial supply.

Detailed justification shall be provided for the selected baseline fuel. As a conservative approach, the lowest carbon intensive fuel such as natural gas throughout the period may be used.

NOTE: Steps 3 and 4 shall be applied for each component of the baseline, i.e. baseline for waste treatment, electricity generation and heat generation.

STEP 3: Step 2 and/or step 3 of the latest approved version of the “Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality” shall be used to assess which of these alternatives should be excluded from further consideration (e.g. alternatives facing prohibitive barriers or those clearly economically unattractive).

STEP 4: Where more than one credible and plausible alternative remains, project participants shall, as a conservative assumption, use the alternative baseline scenario that results in the lowest baseline emissions as the most likely baseline scenario. The least emission alternative will be identified for each component of the baseline scenario. In assessing these scenarios, any regulatory or contractual requirements should be taken into consideration.

NOTE: The methodology is only applicable if:

(a) the most plausible baseline scenario for the waste treatment component is identified as either the disposal of the waste in a landfill without capture of landfill gas (M3) or the disposal of the waste in a landfill where the landfill gas is partially captured and subsequently flared (M2). (b) the most plausible baseline scenario for the energy component of the baseline scenario is one of the following scenarios described in Table 1 below.

2

Scenarios P2 and H2 are related to the same fossil fuel cogeneration plant. 3

Scenarios P3 and H3 are related to the same renewable energy based cogeneration plant.

159

Table 1: Combinations of baseline options and scenarios applicable to this methodology

Additionality

The additionality of the project activity shall be demonstrated and assessed using the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” agreed by the CDM Executive Board.

4

Barrier analysis for the various baseline options may include:

(i) Investment barrier: A number of other, financially more viable alternatives, to the project activity exist for treating municipal solid waste. The project proponent shall demonstrate this through the identification of the lowest tipping fee option. The tipping fee is the fee that has to be paid per ton of waste to be treated and disposed. The option requiring the least tipping fee reflects the fact that municipalities usually choose the cheapest disposal option within the restrictions set by the MSW Rules. The minimum tipping fee is calculated by using the same project IRR (internal rate of return) for all the options. All costs and income should be taken into account, including the income from electricity generation and fertilizer sale. All technical and financial parameters have to be consistent across all baseline options.

(ii) Technological barrier: The project technology is the most technologically advanced option of the baseline options. Other options are less technologically advanced alternatives to the project activity and involve lower risks due to the performance uncertainty and low market share. The project proponent should provide evidence of the state of development of the project technology in the country and document evidence of barriers to the implementation of more the project technology.

4

Please refer to: < http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html>

Scenario Baseline Description of situation

waste electricity Heat

1 M2/M3 P4 or P6 H4 The disposal of the waste in a landfill site without capturing landfill gas or the disposal of the waste in a landfill site where the landfill gas is partly captured and subsequently being flared. The electricity is obtained from an existing/new fossil based captive power plant or from the grid and heat from an existing/new fossil fuel based boiler.

2 M2/M3 P2 H2 The disposal of the waste in a landfill site without capturing landfill gas or the disposal of the waste in a landfill site where the landfill gas is partly captured and subsequently being flared. The electricity and/or heat are generated by an existing/new fossil fuel based cogeneration plant.

160



(iii) Common practice: The project proponent should provide evidence of the early stage of development of the project activity and that it is not common practice in the country. To this end, they should provide an analysis of waste management practices.

In the case of RDF/stabilized biomass production, a key uncertainty for additionality is the price of RDF/stabilized biomass could attain such level in the region that RDF/stabilized biomass will be produced. The RDF/stabilized biomass price will be directly affected by its demand and the availability of other substitute products. Another evaluation of the stabilized biomass price should be carried out at the end of each crediting period (if the renewable crediting period is to be selected).

Project boundary

The spatial extent of the project boundary is the site of the project activity where the waste is treated. This includes the facilities for processing the waste, on-site electricity generation and/or consumption, onsite fuel use, thermal energy generation, waste water treatment plant and the landfill site. The project boundary does not include facilities for waste collection, sorting and transport to the project site.

In the case that the project provides electricity to a grid, the spatial extent of the project boundary will also include those plants connected to the energy system to which the plant is connected.

The greenhouse gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in Table 1.

Table 2: Summary of gases and sources included in the project boundary, and justification / explanation where gases and sources are not included.

Source Gas Justification / Explanation

Emissions from decomposition of waste at the landfill site

CH4 Included The major source of emissions in the baseline

N2O Excluded N2O emissions are small compared to CH4 emissions from landfills. Exclusion of this gas is conservative.

CO2 Excluded CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste are not accounted. a

Emissions from electricity consumption on

CO2 Included Electricity may be consumed from the grid or generated onsite/offsite in the baseline scenario

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative. N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

Emissions from thermal energy generation

CO2 Included If thermal energy generation is included in the project activity

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative. N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

161

a

Project proponents wishing to neglect these emission sources shall follow the clarification in annex 2 of EB 22 report which states that “magnitude of emission sources omitted in the calculation of project emissions and leakage effects (if positive) should be equal to or less than the magnitude of emission sources omitted in the calculation of baseline emissions”. b

CO2 emissions from the combustion or decomposition of biomass (see definition by the EB in Annex 8 of the EB’s 20

th

meeting report) are not accounted as GHG emissions. Where the combustion or decomposition of biomass under a CDM project activity results in a decrease of carbon pools, such stock changes should be considered in the calculation of emission reductions. This is not the case for waste treatment projects.

On-site fossil fuel consumption on due to the project activity other than for electricity generation

CO2 Included May be an important emission source. It includes vehicles used on-site, heat generation, start up of the gasifier, etc.



Emissions from on-site electricity use

CO2 Included May be an important emission source. If electricity is generated from collected biogas/syngas, these emissions are not accounted for. CO2 emissions from fossil based waste from RDF/stabilized biomass combustion to generate electricity to be used on-site are accounted for.



Direct emissions from the waste treatment processes.

N2O Included

May be an important emission source for composting activities. N2O can be emitted from incineration, Syngasa

produced anaerobic digestion of waste and RDF/stabilized biomass combustion.

CO2 Included

CO2 emissions from incineration, gasification or combustion of fossil based waste shall be included. CO2

emissions from the decomposition or combustion of organic waste are not accounted.b

CH4 Included

The composting process may not be complete and result in anaerobic decay. CH4 leakage from the anaerobic digester and incomplete combustion in the flaring process are potential sources of project emissions. CH4 may be emitted from stacks a from incineration, the gasification process and the RDF/stabilized biomass combustion.

Emissions from waste water treatment

CO2 Excluded CO2 emissions from the decomposition of organic waste are not accounted. b

CH4 Included The wastewater treatment should not result in CH4

emissions, such as in anaerobic treatment; otherwise accounting for these emissions should be done.


162

PEelec,y is the emissions from electricity consumption on-site due to the project activity in year y

(tCO2e) PEfuel, on-site,y is the emissions on-site due to fuel consumption on-site in year y (tCO2e)

PEc,y is the emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e) PEa,y is the emissions

from the anaerobic digestion process in year y (tCO2e) PEg,y is the emissions from the

gasification process in year y (tCO2e) PEr,y is the emissions from the combustion of

RDF/stabilized biomass in year y (tCO2e) PEi,y is the emissions from waste incineration in year y

(tCO2e) PEw,y is the emissions from waste water treatment in year y (tCO2e) Emissions from

electricity use (PEelec,y) Where the project activity involves electricity consumption, CO2 emissions are

calculated as follows:

PEelec,y = EGPJ,FF,y * CEFelec (2)

Where:

EGPJ,FF,y is the amount of electricity generated in an on-site fossil fuel fired power plant or consumed from the grid as a result of the project activity, measured using an electricity meter (MWh)

CEFelec is the carbon emissions factor for electricity generation in the project activity (tCO2/MWh)

In cases where electricity is generated in an on-site fossil fuel fired power plant, project participants should use, as CEFelec, the default emission factor for a diesel generator with a capacity of more than 200 kW for small-scale project activities (0.8 tCO2/MWh, see AMS-I.D, Table I.D.1 in the simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies for selected small-scale CDM project activity categories).

In cases where electricity is purchased from the grid, the emission factor CEFelec should be calculated according to methodology ACM0002 (“Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”). If electricity consumption is less than small scale threshold, AMS I.D may be used.

NOTE: Project emissions from electricity consumption do not need to be calculated in case this electricity is generated by the project activity from biogas, or syngas


Sectoral Scope 01 & 13

EB 31

Project emissions

The project emissions in year y are:

PEy = PEelec,y + PEfuel, on-site,y + PEc,y + PEa,y + PEg,y+ PEr,y+ PEi,y+PEw,y (1)

Where:

PEy is the project emissions during the year y (tCO2e)

163


In case of electricity generation from RDF/stabilized biomass or incineration, project emissions are estimated as per equations

(12) and (13) or (14).

Emissions from fuel use on-site (PEfuel, on-site,y)

Project participants shall account for CO2 emissions from any on-site fuel combustion (other than electricity generation, e.g. vehicles used on-site, heat generation, for starting the gasifier, auxiliary fossil fuels need to be added into incinerator to increase the temperature of the incinerator, etc.). Emissions are calculated from the quantity of fuel used and the specific CO2-emission factor of the fuel, as follows:

PEfuel, on-site,y = Fcons,y * NCVfuel * EFfuel (3)

Where:

PEfuel, on-site,y is the CO2 emissions due to on-site fuel combustion in year y (tCO2)

Fcons,y is the fuel consumption on site in year y (l or kg)

NCVfuel is the net caloric value of the fuel (MJ/l or MJ/kg)

EFfuel is the CO2 emissions factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ)

Local values should be preferred as default values for the net calorific values and CO2 emission factors. If local values are not available, project participants may use IPCC default values for the net calorific values and CO2 emission factors.

Emissions from composting (PEc,y)

PEc,y = PEc,N2O,y + PEc,CH4,y (4)

Where:

PEc,N2O,y is the N2O emissions during the composting process in year y (tCO2e)

PEc,CH4,y is the emissions during the composting process due to methane production through anaerobic conditions in year y (tCO2e)

N2O emissions

During the storage of waste in collection containers, as part of the composting process itself, and during the application of compost, N2O emissions might be released. Based upon Schenk

5

and others, a total loss of 42 mg N2O-N per kg composted dry matter can be expected (from which 26.9 mg N2O during the composting process). The dry matter content of compost is around 50% up to 65%.

Based on these values, project participants should use a default emission factor of 0.043 kg N2O per tonne of compost for EFc,N2O and calculate emissions as follows:

6

5

Manfred K. Schenk, Stefan Appel, Diemo Daum, “N2O emissions during composting of organic waste”, Institute of Plant Nutrition University of Hannover, 1997

6

Assuming 650 kg dry matter per ton of compost and 42 mg N2O-N, and given the molecular relation of 44/28 for N2O-N, an emission factor of 0.043 kg N2O / tonne compost results.

164

During the composting process, aerobic conditions are neither completely reached in all areas nor at all times. Pockets of anaerobic conditions – isolated areas in the composting heap where oxygen concentrations are so low that the biodegradation process turns anaerobic – may occur. The emission behaviour of such pockets is comparable to the anaerobic situation in a landfill. This is a potential emission source for methane similar to anaerobic conditions which occur in unmanaged landfills. The duration of the composting process is less than the duration of the crediting period. This is because of the fact that the compost may be subject to anaerobic conditions during its end use, which is not foreseen that it could be monitored. Assuming a residence time for the compost in anaerobic conditions equal to the crediting period is conservative. Through pre-determined sampling procedures the percentage of waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions can be determined. Using this percentage, project methane emissions from composting are calculated as follows:

CH4 emissions

GWPN2O is the Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide, (tCO2/tN2O)

EFc,N2O is the emission factor for N2O emissions from the composting process (tN2O/t compost)

PEc,CH4,y = MBcomposty * GWPCH4 * Sa,y (6)

Where:

PEc,CH4,y is the project methane emissions due to anaerobic conditions in the composting process in year y (tCO2e)

Sa,y is the share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the composting plant during year y (%)

MBcompost,y is the quantity of methane that would be produced in the landfill in the absence of the composting activity in year y (tCH4). MBcompost,y is estimated by multiplying MBy estimated from equation 18 by the fraction of waste diverted, from the landfill, to the composting activity (fc) relative to the total waste diverted from the landfill to all project activities (composting, gasification, anaerobic digestion and RDF/stabilized biomass, incineration)

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (tCO2e/tCH4)

Calculation of Sa,y

Sa,y is determined by a combination of measurements and calculations. Bokhorst et al7

and Richard et al8

show that if oxygen content is below 5% - 7.5%, aerobic composting processes are replaced by anaerobic

7

Jan Bokhorst. Coen ter Berg – Mest & Compost Behandelen beoordelen & Toepassen (Eng: Waste & Compost – Treatment, judgement and use), Louis Bolk Instituut, Handbook under number LD8, Oktober 2001

CDM – Executive Board AM0025 / Version

07 Sectoral Scope 01 & 13

EB 31

PEc,N2O,y = Mcompost,y * EFc,N2O * GWPN2O (5)

Where:

PEc,N2O,y is the N2O emissions from composting in year y (tCO2e)

Mcompost,y is the total quantity of compost produced in year y (tonnes/a)

165


processes. To determine the oxygen content during the process, project participants shall measure the oxygen content according to a predetermined sampling scheme and frequency.

These measurements should be undertaken for each year of the crediting period and recorded each year. The percentage of the measurements that show an oxygen content below 10% is presumed to be equal to the share of waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions (i.e. that degrades as if it were land filled), hence the emissions caused by this share are calculated as project emissions ex-post on an annual basis:

Sa,y = SOD,y / Stotal,y (7) Where: SOD,y is the number of samples per year with an oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen

content below

10%) Stotal,y is the total number of samples taken per year, where Stotal,y should be chosen in a manner that

ensures the estimation of Sa,y with 20% uncertainty at a 95% confidence level. Emissions from anaerobic

digestion (PEa,y)

PEa,y = PEa,l,y + PEa,s,y (8)

Where: PEa,l,y is the CH4 leakage emissions from the anaerobic digesters in year y (tCO2e) PEa,s,y is the

total emissions of N2O and CH4 from stacks of the anaerobic digestion process in

year y (tCO2e) CH4 Emissions from leakage (PEa,l,y) A potential source of project emissions is the physical

leakage of CH4 from the anaerobic digester. Three

options are provided for quantifying these emissions, in the following preferential order: Option 1:

Monitoring the actual quantity of the gas leakage; Option 2: Applying an appropriate IPCC physical

leakage default factor, justifying the selection: PEa,l,y = Pl * Ma,y (9) Where: PEa,l,y is the leakage of methane

emissions from the anaerobic digester in year y (tCO2e) Pl is the physical leakage factor from a digester

(fraction) Ma,y is the total quantity of methane produced by the digester in year y (tCO2e) Option 3: Applying

a physical leakage factor of zero where advanced technology used by the project

Activity prevents any physical leakage. In such cases, the project proponent must provide the DOE with the details of the technology to prove that the zero leakage factor is justified.

8

Tom Richard, Peter B. Woodbury, Cornell composting, operating fact sheet 4 of 10, Boyce Thompson Institute forPlant Research at Cornell University Cornell University

13

166

Biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion process may be either flared or used for energy generation. The final stack emissions (either from flaring or energy generation process) are monitored from the final stack and estimated as follows:

PEa,s,y = SGa,y * MCN2O,a,y * GWPN2O + SGa,y * MCCH4,a,y * GWPCH4 (10) Where: PEa,s,y is the total

emissions of N2O and CH4 from stacks of the anaerobic digestion process in

year y (tCO2e) SGa,y is the total volume of stack gas from the anaerobic digestion in year y (m3

/yr)

MCN2O,a,y is the monitored content of nitrous oxide in the stack gas from anaerobic digestion in year

y (tN2O/m

3

) GWPN2O is the Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide (tCO2e /tN2O) MCCH4,a,y is the

monitored content of methane in the stack gas from anaerobic digestion in year y

(tCH4/m3

) GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (tCO2e /tCH4) Emissions

from gasification (PEg,y) or combustion of RDF/Stabilized Biomass (PEr,y) or waste

incineration(PEi,y) The stack gas from the gasification process and the combustion of RDF may

contain small amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Moreover, fossil-based waste CO2 emissions

from the gasification process and the combustion of RDF should be accounted for.

PEg/r/i,y = PEg/r/i,f,y + PEg/r/i,s,y (11)

Where:

PEg/r/i,f,y is the fossil-based waste CO2 emissions from gasification, waste incineration or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion in year y (tCO2e)

PEg/r/i,s,y is the N2O and CH4 emissions from the final stacks from gasification, waste incineration or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion in year y (tCO2e)

Emissions from fossil-based waste (PEg/r/i,f,y)

The CO2 emissions are calculated based on the monitored amount of fossil-based waste fed into the gasifier, waste incineration plant or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion, the fossil-derived carbon content, and combustion efficiency. The calculation of CO2 derived from gasification/incineration of waste of fossil origin and combusting RDF/stabilized biomass including waste of fossil origin, is estimated as follows:

CDM – Executive Board AM0025 / Version 07 Sectoral

Scope 01 & 13

EB 31

Emissions from anaerobic digestion stacks (PEa,s,y)

167

PEg/r/i,f,y = ∑ Ai ×CCW

i × FCF

i × EF

i ×

44

(12) i 12

Where:

PEg/r/i,f,y is the fossil-based waste CO2 emissions from gasification/RDF-combustion/waste

incineration in year y (tCO2e) Ai is the amount of waste type i fed into the gasifier or RDF/stabilized biomass combustor or

into the waste incineration plant (t/yr)

CCWi is the fraction of carbon content in waste type i (fraction)

FCFi is the fraction of fossil carbon in waste type i (fraction)

EFi is the combustion efficiency for waste type i (fraction)

44/12 is the conversion factor (tCO2/tC)

Emissions from gasification stacks or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion or waste incineration (PEg/r/i,s,y)

Emissions of N2O and CH4 may be estimated from either of the options given below:

Option 1:

PEg/r/i,s,y = SGg/r,y * MCN2O,g/r/i,y * GWPN2O + SGg/r/i,y * MCCH4,g/r/i,y * GWPCH4 (13)

Where:

PEg/r,s,y is the total emissions of N2O and CH4 from gasification, waste incineration or

RDF/stabilized biomass combustion in year y (tCO2e)

SGg/r/i,y is the total volume of stack gas from gasification, waste incineration or RDF/stabilized biomass

combustion in year y (m3

/yr) MCN2O,g/r/i,y is the monitored content of nitrous oxide in the stack gas from gasification, waste

incineration or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion in year y (tN2O/m3

)

GWPN2O is the Global Warming Potential of nitrous oxide (tCO2e/tN2O)

MCCH4,g/r/i,y is the monitored content of methane in the stack gas from gasification, waste incineration

or RDF/stabilized biomass combustion in year y (tCH4/m3

)

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (tCO2e /tCH4) Option 2:

3 PE = Q (EF GWP + EF GWP ) 10−

(14) g / r / i,s,y biomass,yN 2ON 2O CH 4 CH 4

Where:

Qbiomass,y is the amount of waste gasified, incinerated or RDF/stabilized biomass combusted in year y(tonnes/yr)

168



EFN2O is the aggregate N2O emission factor for waste combustion (kgN2O/tonne of waste)

EFCH4 is the aggregate CH4 emission factor for waste combustion (kgCH4/tonne of waste)

Tables 5.4 and 5.3, chapter 5, volume 5 of IPCC 2006 guidelines should be used to estimate EFN2O and EFCH4 , respectively.

In case the RDF/stabilized biomass is used offsite, N2O and CH4 emissions should be accounted for as leakage and estimated as per one of the options given above.

If IPCC default emission factor is used, a conservativeness factor should be applied to account for the high uncertainty of the IPCC default values. The level of the conservativeness factor depends on the uncertainty range of the estimate for the IPCC default N2O and CH4 emission factor. Project participants shall select the appropriate conservativeness factor from Table 3 below and shall multiply the estimate for the N2O / CH4 emission factor with the conservativeness factor.

Table 3. Conservativeness factors

Emissions from waste water treatment (PEw,y)

If the project activity includes waste water release, methane emissions shall be estimated. If the wastewater istreated using aerobic treatment process, the CH4 emissions from waste water treatment are assumed to bezero. If wastewater is treated anaerobically or released untreated, CH4 emissions are estimated as follows:

QCOD,y Amount of wastewaste treated anaerobically or released untreated from the project activity in year y(m3/yr), which shall be measured monthly and aggregately annually.

PCOD,y Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of wastewaste (tCOD/ m3

), which will be measured monthly and averaged annually.

B0 Maximum methane producing capacity (t CH4/t COD)

MCFp Methane conversion factor (fraction), preferably local specific value should be used. In absence of local values, MCFp default values can be obtained from table 6.3, chapter 6, volume 4 from IPCC 2006guidelines.

IPCC 2006 guidelines specifies the value for B0 as 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD. Taking into account the uncertainty of this estimate, project participants should use a value of 0.265 kg CH4/kg COD as a

Estimated uncertainty range (%)

Assigned uncertainty band

(%)

Conservativeness factor where higher values are

more conservative

Less than or equal to 10 7 1.02 Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 30 20 1.06 Greater than 30 and less than or equal to 50 40 1.12 Greater than 50 and less than or equal to 100 75 1.21 Greater than 100 150 1.37

169

If flaring occurs, the “Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane” should be used to estimate methane emissions. In this case, PECH4,w,y will be calculated ex-ante as per equation 15, and then monitored during the crediting period.

Baseline emissions

To calculate the baseline emissions project participants shall use the following equation:

BEEN,y Baseline emissions from generation of energy displaced by the project activity in year y(tCO2e).

17

CDM – Executive Board AM0025 / Version 07 Sectoral

Scope 01 & 13

EB 31

Conservative assumption for Bo.

In case of all the CH4 are emitted into air directly, then ,w

yPE =,4,w

yCHPE 4CHGWP (16)

Where:

BEy is the baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e)

MBy is the methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year y

(tCH4)

MDreg,y is methane that would be destroyed in the absence of the project activity in year y (tCH4)

GWPCH4 is the Global Warming Potential of methane (tCO2e/tCH4)

170



Adjustment Factor (AF)

In cases where regulatory or contractual requirements do not specify MDreg,y, an Adjustment Factor (AF) shall be used and justified, taking into account the project context. In doing so, the project participant should take into account that some of the methane generated by the landfill may be captured and destroyed to comply with other relevant regulations or contractual requirements, or to address safety and odour concerns.

MDreg,y = MBy * AF (18)

Where:

AF is Adjustment Factor for MBy (%)

The parameter AF shall be estimated as follows:

• In cases where a specific system for collection and destruction of methane is mandated by regulatory or contractual requirements, the ratio between the destruction efficiency of that system and the destruction efficiency of the system used in the project activity shall be used; • In cases where a specific percentage of the “generated” amount of methane to be collected and destroyed is specified in the contract or mandated by the regulation, this percentage divided by an assumed efficiency for the collection and destruction system used in the project activity shall be used.

The ‘Adjustment Factor’ shall be revised at the start of each new crediting period taking into account the amount of GHG flaring that occurs as part of common industry practice and/or regulation at that point in the future.

Rate of compliance

In cases where there are regulations that mandate the use of one of the project activity treatment options and which is not being enforced, the baseline scenario is identified as a gradual improvement of waste management practices to the acceptable technical options expected over a period of time to comply with the MSW Management Rules. The adjusted baseline emissions (BEy,a) are calculated as follows:

171

BEy,a = BEy * ( 1 − RATECompliance y) (19)

Where:

BEy Is the CO2-equivalent emissions as determined from equation (14).

RATECompliance

y Is the state-level compliance rate of the MSW Management Rules in that year y. The compliance rate shall be lower than 50%; if it exceeds 50% the project activity shall receive no further credit.

In such cases BEy,a should replace BEy in Equation (25) to estimate emission reductions.

The compliance ratio RATECompliance

y shall be monitored ex post based on the official reports for instance annual reports provided by municipal bodies.

Methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity (MBy)

The amount of methane that is generated each year (MBy) is calculated as per the latest version of the approved “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”, considering the following additional equation:

MBy = BECH4,SWDS,y (20)

Where:

BECH4,SWDS,y is the methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity at year y, calculated as per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Aj,x is the amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the landfill in the year x (tonnes/year), this is the value to be used for variable Wj,x in the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Baseline emissions from generation of energy displaced by the project activity.

Scenario 1 (see table 1 above)

BEEN,y = BEelec,y+ BEthermal,y (21)

Where:

BEelec,y is the baseline emissions from electricity generated utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity and exported to the grid or displacing onsite/offsite fossil fuel captive power plant (tCO2e)

BEthermal,y is the baseline emissions from thermal energy produced utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity displacing thermal energy from onsite/offsite fossil fuel fuelled boiler (tCO2e)

172



BEelec,y

= EGd,y

* CEFd

(22)

Where:

EGd,y is the amount of electricity generated utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilizedbiomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity and exported to the grid or displacingonsite/offsite fossil fuel captive power plant during the year y (MWh)

CEFd is the carbon emissions factor for the displaced electricity source in the project scenario(tCO2/MWh)

Determination of CEFd

Where the project activity involves electricity generation from the biogas/syngas/RDF/stabilizedbiomass/combustion heat from incineration, CEFd should be chosen as follows:

• In case the generated electricity from the biogas/syngas/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration displaces electricity that would have been generated by an on-site/off-site fossil fuel fired captive power plant in the baseline, project proponents shall estimate the emission factor as follows:

EF fuel,b CEFd = * 3.6 (23)

ε gen,b

Where:

EFfuel,b is the emission factor of baseline fossil fuel used, as identified in the baseline scenario identification procedure, expressed in tCO2/GJ

ε gen,b

is the efficiency of baseline power generation plant.

Equivalent of GJ energy in a MWh of electricity.

To estimate electricity generation efficiency, project participants may use the highest value among the following three values as a conservative approach:

1. Measured efficiency prior to project implementation 2. Measured efficiency during monitoring 3. Data from manufacturer for efficiency at full load 4. Default efficiency of 60%

• In case the generated electricity from the biogas/syngas/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration displaces electricity that would have been generated by other power plants in the grid in

173

the baseline, CEFd should be calculated according to methodology ACM0002 (“Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”). If the thresholds for small-scale project activities apply, AMS-I.D may be used.

Where：

Qy the quantity of thermal energy produced utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity displacing thermal energy from onsite/offsite fossil fuel fueled boiler during the year y in GJ

εboiler the energy efficiency of the boiler used in the absence of the project activity to generate the thermal energy

NCVfuel Net calorific value of fuel, as identified through the baseline identification procedure, used in the boiler to generate the thermal energy in the absence of the project activity in GJ per unit of volume or mass

EFfuel,b Emission factor of the fuel, as identified through the baseline identification procedure, used in the boiler to generate the thermal energy in the absence of the project activity in tons CO2 per unit of volume or mass of the fuel.

To estimate boiler efficiency, project participants may choose between the following two options:

Option A

Use the highest value among the following three values as a conservative approach:

1. Measured efficiency prior to project implementation; 2. Measured efficiency during monitoring;

3. Manufacturer’s information on the boiler efficiency. Option B Assume a boiler efficiency of

100% based on the net calorific values as a conservative approach. In determining the CO2

emission factors (EFfuel) of fuels, reliable local or national data should be used if

available. Where such data is not available, IPCC default emission factors should be

chosen in a conservative manner. Scenario 2 (see table 1 above):

Baseline emissions from electricity and heat cogeneration that is displaced by the project activity

Baseline emissions from electricity and heat cogeneration are calculated by multiplying electricity (EGd,y) and heat supplied (Qy) with the CO2 emission factor of the fuel used by the cogeneration plant, as follows:

174



(EGd ,y

3.6)*10−3

+ Qy

BEEN ,y

= EFfuel,c

(25)

η cogen

Where:

Conversion factor, expressed as TJ/GWh

EFfuel,c is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel that would have been used in the baseline cogeneration plant in (tCO2 / TJ), obtained from reliable local or national data if available, otherwise, taken from the country specific IPCC 2006 default emission factors

Qy the quantity of thermal energy produced utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity displacing thermal energy from cogeneration during the year y in TJ,

EGd,y is the amount of electricity generated utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity displacing onsite/offsite cogeneration plant during the year y in GWh

ηCogen the efficiency of cogeneration plant that would have been used in the absence of the project activity

Efficiency of the cogeneration plant (ηCogen) shall be one of the following:

1. highest of the measured efficiencies of similar plants 2. Highest of the efficiency values provided by two or more manufacturers for similar plants; or 3. Maximum efficiency of 90%, based on net calorific values

Leakage

The sources of leakage considered in the methodology are CO2 emissions from off-site transportation of waste materials in addition to CH4 and N2O emissions from the residual waste from the anaerobic digestion, gasification processes and processing/combustion of RDF. Positive leakages that may occur through the replacement of fossil-fuel based fertilizers with organic composts are not accounted for. Leakage emissions should be estimated from the following equation:

Ly = Lt,y + Lr,y + Ls,y (26) Where: Lt,y is the leakage emissions from increased transport in year y (tCO2e) Lr,y

is the leakage emissions from the residual waste from the anaerobic digester, the gasifier,

the processing/combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass in year y (tCO2e) Ls,y is the leakage

emissions from end use of stabilized biomass Emissions from transportation (Lt,y)

175



The project may result in a change in transport emissions. This would occur when the waste is transported from waste collecting points, in the collection area, to the treatment facility, instead of to existing landfills. When it is likely that the transport emissions will increase significantly, such emissions should be incorporated as leakage. In this case, project participants shall document the following data in the CDM-PDD: an overview of collection points from where the waste will be collected, their approximate distance (in km) to the treatment facility, existing landfills and their approximate distance (in km) to the nearest end-user.

For calculations of the emissions, IPCC default values for fuel consumption and emission factors may be used. The CO2 emissions are calculated from the quantity of fuel used and the specific CO2-emission factor of the fuel for vehicles i to n, as follows:

n

Lt,y = ∑NOvehicles,i,y * DTi,y * VFcons,i * NCVfuel * Dfuel * EFfuel (27)

Where:

NOvehicles,i,y is the number of vehicles for transport with similar loading capacity

DTi,y is the average additional distance travelled by vehicle type i compared to baseline in year y (km)

VFcons is the vehicle fuel consumption in litres per kilometre for vehicle type i (l/km)

NCVfuel is the Calorific value of the fuel (MJ/Kg or other unit)

Dfuel is the fuel density (kg/l), if necessary

EFfuel is the Emission factor of the fuel (tCO2/MJ)

For transport of compost to the users, the same formula applies.

Emissions from residual waste from anaerobic digester, gasifier, and processing/combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass (Lr,y)

For the residual waste from the anaerobic digestion, the gasification processes , and the processing/combustion of RDF/stabilized biomass the weight (Aci,x) of each of the waste types i in year x should be estimated. Leakage emissions from this residual waste should be estimated using the determined weights as follows:

In case the residual waste is aerobically treated through composting, emissions shall be estimated as follows:

• N2O emissions shall be estimated using Equation 5 replacing Mcompost,y by the sum of the weights of different waste types (Aci,x). • CH4 emissions shall be estimated using the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”. The value of variable Wj,x is Aci,x . The result should be multiplied by SLE factor. SLE is estimated as follows:

176


SLE = SOD,LE / SLE,total (28)

Where:

SOD,LE is the number of samples per year with an oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen content below 10%)

SLE,total is the total number of samples taken per year, where Stotal should be chosen in a manner that ensures the estimation of Sa with 20% uncertainty at a 95% confidence level.

Aci,x weight of each of the waste types i in year x.

In case the residual waste is delivered to a landfill, CH4 emissions are estimated through equation 18 using estimated weights of each waste type (Aci,x).

Off-site Emissions from end use of the stabilized biomass (Ls,y)

Project proponents have to demonstrate that there is no emission associated to non-combustion end-use of stabilized biomass (SB) and that the SB is indeed stabilized. If SB is used as raw material in furniture, fertilizers or ceramic industry, no leakage other than transportation change is expected. Unless the project proponent can prove that SB for furniture industry will not be combusted in the end of its life cycle, to be conservative, the emissions will be considered using the same rationale as per equations (12) and (13) or (14).

For amount of RDF/stabilized biomass used off-site for which no sale invoices can be provided, and in cases where the project proponents cannot provide analysis of the capacity of RDF/stabilized biomass for moisture absorption, leakage emissions should be accounted for as follows:

Quantities of different types of waste input (Aj,x) to the RDF/biomass processing should be adjusted by an annual adjustment factor SAy as follows:

As,j,x = SAy * Aj,x (29)

Rn

SA

y = � (30)

R t

Where:

SAy is an adjustment factor for a specific year.

Rn is the weight of RDF/stabilized biomass sold offsite for which no sale invoices can be provided (t/yr)

Rt is the total weight of RDF/stabilized biomass produced (t/yr)

Annual leakage methane emissions (Ls,y) is calculated as per the latest version of the approved “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”, considering the following additional equation and using the adjusted weights (As,j,x) of waste input to the RDF/stabilized biomass processing facility for variable Wj,x:

177



Ls,y = BECH4,SWDS,y (31)

Where:

BECH4,SWDS,y is the methane generation from the landfill in the absence of the project activity, calculated as per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Emission Reductions

To calculate the emission reductions the project participant shall apply the following equation: ERy = BEy –

PEy – Ly (32) Where: ERy is the emissions reductions in year y (t CO2e) BEy is the emissions in the baseline

scenario in year y (t CO2e) PEy is the emissions in the project scenario in year y (t CO2e) Ly is the leakage in

year y (t CO2e) If the sum of PEy and Ly is smaller than 1% of BEy in the first full operation year of a

crediting period, the

project participants may assume a fixed percentage of 1% for PEy and Ly combined for the remaining years of the crediting period.

Changes required for methodology implementation in 2nd

and 3rd

crediting periods

No changes in the procedure are expected. If there have been changes in the regulations with respect to waste disposal or industries practices, the adjustment factor AF in the baseline emissions (used in equation 16 above) shall be re-estimated. Note, that adjustment will be needed at the time of renewal of the crediting period.

Data and parameters not monitored

Data / parameter: EFc,N2O

Data unit: tN2O/tonnes of compost Description: Emission factor for N2O emissions from the composting process. Source of data: Research literature Measurement procedures (if any):

Ex-ante

Any comment: Default value of 0.043kg-N2O/t-compost, after Schenk et al, 1997. The value itself is highly variable, but reference data shall be used.

178

Data/Parameter: Bo Data unit: tCH4/tCOD Description: Maximum methane producing capacity Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific

data, country specific data or IPCC default values. As per guidance from the Board, IPCC default values should be used only when country or project specific data are not available or difficult to obtain.

Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment: A default value of 0.265 tCH4/tCOD may be used. Data/Parameter: MCFp

Data unit: % Description: Methane conversion factor (fraction) Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Any comment: Preferably local specific value should be used. In absence of local values, MCFp

default values can be obtained from table 6.3, chapter 6, and volume 4 from IPCC 2006 guidelines.

Data/Parameter: εboiler

Data unit: % Description: Energy Efficiency of boilers used for generating thermal energy in the absence of the

project activity. Source of data: Reference data or country specific data Measurement procedures (if any):

To estimate boiler efficiency, project participants may choose between the following two options: Option A Use the highest value among the following three values as a conservative approach: 1. Measured efficiency prior to project implementation; 2. Measured efficiency during monitoring; 3. Manufacturer’s information on the boiler efficiency. Option B Assume a boiler efficiency of 100% based on the net calorific values as a conservative approach.

Any comment: Measured or estimated conservatively (e.g. using manufacturers’ information on maximum efficiency). Applicable if baseline for exported energy is scenario 1.

Data/Parameter: εgen,b

Data unit: %

179

Description: Energy Efficiency of power plant that would have generated electricity, in absence of

the project activity. Source of data: Reference data or country specific data Measurement procedures (if any):

To estimate electricity generation efficiency, project participants may use the highest value among the following three values as a conservative approach: 1. Measured efficiency prior to project implementation 2. Measured efficiency during monitoring 3. Data from manufacturer for efficiency at full load 4. Default efficiency of 60%

Any comment: Applicable if baseline for exported energy is scenario 1. Data/Parameter: ηCogen

Data unit: % Description: Efficiency of cogeneration plant that would have been used, in absence of the project

activity. Source of data: Manufacturer’s data or information from similar plant operators Measurement procedures (if any):

Efficiency of the cogeneration plant, (ηCogen) shall be one of the following: 1. Highest of the measured efficiencies of similar plants; 2. Highest of the efficiency values provided by two or more manufacturers for similar plants; or 3. Maximum efficiency of 90%, based on net calorific values.

Any comment: Applicable if baseline for energy generation is Scenario 2. Data/Parameter: EFfuel,b

Data unit: tCO2/MJ Description: Emission factor of baseline fossil fuel used in the boiler, as identified in the baseline

scenario identification Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Any comment:

180

III. MONITORING METHODOLOGY

Data and parameters monitored

Data/Parameter: EFfuel,c

Data unit: tCO2/MJ Description: Emission factor of baseline fossil fuel used in the cogeneration plant, as identified in

the baseline scenario identification Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Any comment:

Data / parameter: EGPJ,FF,y

Data unit: MWh Description: Amount of electricity generated in an on-site fossil fuel fired power plant or

consumed from the grid as a result of the project activity Source of data: Electricity meter Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous QA/QC procedures: Electricity meter will be subject to regular (in accordance with stipulation of the

meter supplier) maintenance and testing to ensure accuracy. The readings will be double checked by the electricity distribution company.

Any comment: Data / parameter: CEFelec

Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: Emission factor for the production of electricity in the project activity. Source of data: Official utility documents. Measurement procedures (if any):

Calculated according to ACM0002, or as diesel default factor according to AMS I.D, Table I.D.1, or according to data from captive power plant, if any.

Monitoring frequency: Annually or ex-ante. QA/QC procedures: Calculated as per appropriate methodology at start of crediting period. Any comment:

181

Data / parameter: Fcons,y

Data unit: mass or volume units of fuel Description: Fuel consumption on-site during year 'y' of the crediting period. Source of data: Purchase invoices and/or metering. Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually. QA/QC procedures: The amount of fuel will be derived from the paid fuel invoices (administrative

obligation).

Any comment: Data / parameter: NCVfuel

Data unit: MJ/mass or volume units of fuel Description: Net calorific value of fuel Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Monitoring frequency: Annually or ex-ante QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: EFfuel

Data unit: tCO2/MJ Description: Emission factor of the fuel. Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Monitoring frequency: Annually or ex-ante. QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

182

Data / parameter: Mcompost,y

Data unit: tonnes Description: Total quantity of compost produced in year ‘y’. Source of data: Plant records. Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Weighed on calibrated scale; also cross check with sales of compost. Any comment: The produced compost will be trucked off from site. All trucks leaving site will be

weighed. Possible temporary storage of compost will be weighed as well or not taken into account for calculated carbon credits.

Data / parameter: Pl

Data unit: fraction Description: Leakage of methane emissions from anaerobic digester Source of data: IPCC or project participant Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually or Ex ante QA/QC procedures: The value itself is highly variable, but reference data shall be used, as well as

measurement by project participants.

Any comment: Data / parameter: Ma,y

Data unit: tCO2/year Description: Total methane produced from anaerobic digester Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous QA/QC procedures: Data can be checked from usage records. Any comment: This quantity is necessary to calculate the leakage of methane from the digester

which has a default leakage of 15%.

183

Data / parameter: SGa,y

Data unit: m3/yr Description: Stack gas volume flow rate. Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous or periodic (at least quarterly) QA/QC procedures: Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out according to

internationally recognized procedures. Where laboratory work is outsourced, one which follows rigorous standards shall be selected.

Any comment: The stack gas flow rate is either directly measured or calculated from other variables where direct monitoring is not feasible. Where there are multiple stacks of the same type, it is sufficient to monitor one stack of each type. The stack gas volume flow rate may be estimated by summing the inlet biogas and air flow rates and adjusting for stack temperature. Air inlet flow rate should be estimated by direct measurement using a flow meter.

Data / parameter: MCN2O,a,y

Data unit: tN2O/m3

Description: Concentration of N2O in stack gas. Source of data: Project Participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: At least quarterly QA/QC procedures: Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out according to


Any comment: More frequent sampling is encouraged. Data / parameter: MCCH4,a,y

Data unit: tCH4/m3

Description: Concentration of CH4 in stack gas. Source of data: Project Participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: At least quarterly QA/QC procedures: Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out according to


Any comment: More frequent sampling is encouraged.

184

Data / parameter: Ai

Data unit: tonnes/yr Description: Amount of waste type 'i' fed into the gasifier or RDF/stabilized biomass combustor

or into the waste incineration plant. Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Measured with calibrated scales/load cells.

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: CCWi

Data unit: Fraction Description: Fraction of carbon content in waste type ‘i’ Source of data: IPCC or other reference data Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: FCFi

Data unit: fraction Description: Faction of fossil carbon in waste type i Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

To be determined through sampling where the samples shall be chosen in a manner that ensures estimation with 20% uncertainty at 95% confidence level.

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: EFi

Data unit: fraction Description: Combustion efficiency for waste type ‘i’. Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

185

Data / parameter: SGg/r/i,y

Data unit: m3/yr Description: Total volume of stack gas from gasification, waste incineration or RDF/stabilized

biomass combustion in year ‘y’. Source of data: Project site Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous or periodic (at least quarterly) QA/QC procedures: Any comment: The stack gas flow rate is either directly measured or calculated from other

variables where direct monitoring is not feasible. Where there are multiple stacks of the same type, it is sufficient to monitor one stack of each type. The stack gas volume flow rate may be estimated by summing the inlet biogas and air flow rates and adjusting for stack temperature. Air inlet flow rate should be estimated by direct measurement using a flow meter.

Data / parameter: MCN2O,g/r/i,y

Data unit: tN2O/m3

Description: Monitored content of nitrous oxide in the stack gas from gasification, waste incineration or RDF combustion in year ‘y’.

Source of data: Project site Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: At least quarterly QA/QC procedures: Any comment: More frequent sampling is encouraged. Data / parameter: MCCH4,g/r/i,y

Data unit: tCH4/m3

Description: Monitored content of methane in the stack gas from gasification, waste incineration or RDF/stabilized combustion in year ‘y’.

Source of data: Project site Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: At least quarterly QA/QC procedures: Any comment: More frequent sampling is encouraged.

186

Data / parameter: MBy

Data unit: tCH4

Description: Methane produced in the landfill in the absence of the project activity in year ‘y’. Source of data: Calculated as per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from

dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”. Measurement procedures (if any):

As per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Monitoring frequency: As per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

QA/QC procedures: As per the “Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site”.

Any comment: - Data / parameter: AF Data unit: % Description: Methane destroyed due to regulatory or other requirements. Source of data: Local and/or national authorities Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: At renewal of crediting period QA/QC procedures: Data are derived from or based upon local or national guidelines, so QA/QC-

procedures for these data are not applicable. Any comment: Changes in regulatory requirements, relating to the baseline landfill(s) need to be

monitored in order to update the adjustment factor (AF), or directly MDreg.. This is done at the beginning of each crediting period.

Data / parameter: EGd,y

Data unit: MWh Description: Amount of electricity generated utilizing the biogas/syngas

collected/RDF/stabilized biomass produced and exported to the grid in the project activity during the year ‘y’. Amount of electricity generated utilizing the biogas/syngas collected/RDF/stabilized biomass/combustion heat from incineration in the project activity displacing electricity in the baseline during the year ‘y’.

Source of data: Electricity meter Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Only electricity exported to the grid shall accounted for in this parameter

187

Data / parameter: EGy

Data unit: MWh Description: Amount of electricity in the year ‘y’ that would be consumed at the project site in

the absence of the project activity and which is not consumed anymore due to the implementation of the project activity.

Source of data: Electricity meter Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Continuous QA/QC procedures: Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out according to

internationally recognized procedures. Third parties will be able to verify. Any comment: For calculation of emissions from displaced fossil based electricity. Baseline

electricity and thermal energy consumptions should be estimated as the average of the historical 3 years consumptions.

Data / parameter: CEFbaseline,elec

Data unit: tCO2/MWh

Description: Emission factor for the electricity consumed at the project site in the absence of the project activity and which is not consumed anymore due to the implementation of the project activity.

Source of data: Depends on approved methodology selected Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Based on approved methodology. Any comment: For calculation of emissions from displaced fossil based electricity Data / parameter: CEFd

Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: Emission factor of the grid electricity displaced electricity by the project activity. ,

in the case the project activity exports electricity to the grid. Source of data: Depends on approved methodology selected-Captive power plant: estimated as per

equation 23. - Grid: as per methodology ACM0002 (“Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”). If the thresholds for small-scale project activities apply, AMS-I.D may be used.


Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

188

Data / parameter: HGy

Data unit: MJ Description: Quantity of thermal energy that would be consumed at the project site in the

absence of the project activity. Source of data: Recording device of steam consumption Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Maintenance and calibration of equipment will be carried out according to

internationally recognized procedures. Third parties will be able to verify. Any comment: Based on the properties of steam / water supplied. Baseline electricity and thermal

energy consumptions should be estimated as the average of the historical 3 years consumptions.

Data / parameter: CEFbaseline, therm,,y

Data unit: tCO2e/MJ Description: CO2 emissions intensity for thermal energy generation at the project site in the

absence of the project activity.

Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: RATECompliance y

Data unit: Number Description: Rate of compliance Source of data: Municipal bodies Measurement procedures (if any):

The compliance rate is based on the annual reporting of the municipal bodies issuing these reports. The state-level aggregation involves all landfill sites in the country. If the rate exceeds 50%, no CERs can be claimed.

Monitoring frequency: Annual QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: NOvehicles,i,y

Data unit: Number Description: Vehicles per carrying capacity per year Source of data: Counting Measurement procedures (if any):

Counter should accumulate the number of trucks per carrying capacity

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Number of vehicles must match with total amount of sold compost. Procedures

will be checked regularly by DOE.

Any comment:

189

Data / parameter: DTi,y

Data unit: km Description: Average additional distance travelled by vehicle type ‘i’ compared to the baseline

in year ‘y’. Source of data: Expert estimate Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Assumption to be approved by DOE. Any comment: Data / parameter: VFcons

Data unit: L/km Description: Vehicle fuel consumption in litres per kilometre for vehicle type i Source of data: Fuel consumption record Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: Dfuel

Data unit: kg/L Description: Density of fuel Source of data: The source of data should be the following, in order of preference: project specific



Monitoring frequency: Annually or Ex-ante QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Not necessary if NCVfuel is demonstrated on a per liter basis Data / parameter: Qbiomass,y

Data unit: tonne/yr Description: Amount of stabilized biomass combusted. Amount of waste gasified, incinerated

or RDF/stabilized biomass combusted in year y.


All produced stabilized biomass will be trucked off from site. All trucks leaving site will be weighed. Possible temporary storage of stabilized biomass will be weighed as well or not taken into account for calculated carbon credits.

Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

190

Data / parameter: EFN2O

Data unit: kgN2O/tonne waste (dry) Description: Aggregate N2O emission factor for waste incineration. Source of data: As per guidance from the Board, IPCC default values should be used only when

country or project specific data are not available or difficult to obtain. Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: EFCH4

Data unit: KgCH4/tonne waste (dry) Description: Aggregate CH4 emission factor for waste incineration. Source of data: As per guidance from the Board, IPCC default values should be used only when

country or project specific data are not available or difficult to obtain. Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: Sa,y

Data unit: % Description: Share of the waste that degrades under anaerobic conditions in the composting

plant during year ‘y’.


See Stotal,y

Monitoring frequency: Weekly QA/QC procedures: O2-measurement-instrument will be subject to periodic calibration (in accordance

with stipulation of instrument-supplier). Measurement itself to be done by using a standardized mobile gas detection instrument. A statistically significant sampling procedure will be set up that consists of multiple measurements throughout the different stages of the composting process according to a predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a weekly basis.

Any comment: Used to determine percentage of compost material that behaves anaerobically.

191

Data / parameter: SOD,y

Data unit: Number Description: Number of samples with oxygen deficiency (i.e. oxygen content below 10%). Source of data: Oxygen measurement device Measurement procedures (if any):

See Stotal,y



Any comment: Samples with oxygen content <10%. Weekly measurements throughout the year but accumulated once per year only.

Data / parameter: Stotal,y

Data unit: Number Description: Number of samples Source of data: Oxygen measurement device Measurement procedures (if any):

Statistically significant



Any comment: Total number of samples taken per year, where Stotal,y should be chosen in a manner that ensures estimation of Sa,y with 20% uncertainty at 95% confidence level. To determine the oxygen content during the process, project participants shall measure the oxygen content according to a predetermined sampling scheme and frequency. These measurements should be undertaken for each year of the crediting period and recorded each year.

192

Data / parameter: SLE

Data unit: % Description: Share of samples anaerobic Source of data: Measurement procedures (if any):

See SLE,total


with stipulation of instrument-supplier). Measurement itself to be done by using a standardized mobile gas detection instrument. A statistically significant sampling procedure will be set up that consists of multiple measurements throughout the different stages of the composting process according to a predetermined pattern (depths and scatter) on a daily basis.

Any comment: Used to determine percentage of compost material that behaves anaerobically. Data / parameter: SOD,LE

Data unit: Number Description: Number of samples with oxygen deficiency Source of data: Oxygen measurement device Measurement procedures (if any):

See SLE,total



Any comment: Samples with oxygen content <10%. Weekly measurements throughout the year but accumulated once per year only

Data / parameter: SLE,total

Data unit: Number Description: Number of samples Source of data: Oxygen measurement device Measurement procedures (if any):

statistically significant



Any comment: Total number of samples taken per year, where SLE,total should be chosen in a manner that ensures estimation of SLE with 20% uncertainty at 95% confidence level.

193

Data / parameter: Degradability analysis Data unit: Description: Project proponent shall provide degradability analysis on an annual basis to

demonstrate that the methane generation in the life-cycle of the SB is negligible. Source of data: Project site Measurement procedures (if any):

Measurement of absorption capacity for moisture of SB according to appropriate standards.

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Any comment: If the PPs produce different types of SB, they should provide this analysis for each

SB type separately. Data / parameter: Amount of RDF/stabilized biomass used outside the project boundary Data unit: Tons Description: Project Proponents shall monitor the amount of the RDF/stabilized biomass sold

for use outside of the project boundary. Source of data: Project Site Measurement procedures (if any):

Sale invoices of the RDF/stabilized biomass should be kept at the project site. They should contain Customer contact details, physical location of delivery, type, amount (in tons) and purpose of stabilized biomass (use as fuel or as material in furniture etc.). A list of customers and delivered SD amount should be kept at the project site.

Monitoring frequency: Weekly QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / parameter: Temperature of the thermal treatment process Data unit: Description: The thermal treatment process (dehydration) occurs under controlled conditions

(up to 300 degrees Celsius) Source of data: Project site Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

194

Data / parameter: Aj,x

Data unit: tonnes/yr Description: Amount of organic waste type j prevented from disposal in the landfill in the year

x (tonnes/year) Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Weighbridge

Monitoring frequency: Annually QA/QC procedures: Weighbridge will be subject to periodic calibration (in accordance with stipulation

of the weighbridge supplier).

Any comment: Data / parameter: Aci,x

Data unit: tonnes/yr Description: Amount of residual waste type 'ci' from anaerobic digestion, gasifier or

processing/combustion of RDF and stabilized biomass. Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Weighbridge



Any comment: Data / parameter: Rn

Data unit: tonnes/yr Description: Weight of RDF/stabilized biomass sold offsite for which no sale invoices can be

provided Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Weighbridge



Any comment: Data / parameter: Rt

Data unit: tonnes/yr Description: Total weight of RDF/stabilized biomass produced (t/yr) Source of data: Project participants Measurement procedures (if any):

Weighbridge



Any comment:

195

Data / Parameter: QCOD,y

Data unit: m3/yr Description: Amount of wastewaste treated anaerobically or released untreated from the project

activity in year y Source of data: Measured value by flow meter Measurement procedures (if any):

-

Monitoring frequency: Monthly aggregated annually QA/QC procedures: The monitoring instruments will be subject to regular maintenance and testing to

ensure accuracy. Any comment: If the wastewater is treated aerobically, emissions are assumed to be zero, and

hence this parameter does not need to be monitored. Data / Parameter: PCOD,y

Data unit: tCOD/m3

Description: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of wastewaste Source of data: Measured value by purity meter Measurement procedures (if any):

-

Monitoring frequency: Monthly and averaged annually QA/QC procedures: The monitoring instruments will be subject to regular maintenance and testing to

ensure accuracy. Any comment: If the wastewater is treated aerobically, emissions are assumed to be zero, and

hence this parameter does not need to be monitored. Data / Parameter: fc/g/d/r/i

Data unit: % Description: fraction of waste diverted, from the landfill to all project activities:

composting/gasification/anaerobic digestion/RDF/stabilized biomass/ incineration

Source of data: Plant records Measurement procedures (if any):

Monitoring frequency: Monthly QA/QC procedures: Any comment:

196

Data / Parameter: Qy

Data unit: TJ Description: Net quantity of thermal energy supplied by the project activity in year y Source of data: Steam meter Measurement procedures (if any):

-In case of steam meter: The enthalpy of steam and feed water will be determined at measured temperature and pressure and the enthalpy difference will be multiplied with quantity measured by steam meter. -In case of hot air: the temperature, pressure and mass flow rate will be measured.

Monitoring frequency: Monthly QA/QC procedures: In case of monitoring of steam, it will be calibrated for pressure and temperature of

steam at regular intervals. The meter shall be subject to regular maintenance and testing to ensure accuracy.

Any comment: The dedicated quantity of thermal energy generated for heat supply or cogeneration by the project activity if included.

197

ANNEX 7: BOILER/STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR (CHP)

A steam turbine is a mechanical device that extracts thermal energy from pressurized

steam, and converts it into useful mechanical work. It has almost completely replaced

the reciprocating piston steam engine, primarily because of its greater thermal efficiency

and higher power-to-weight ratio. Also, because the turbine generates rotary motion,

rather than requiring a linkage mechanism to convert reciprocating to rotary motion, it is

particularly suited for use driving an electrical generator — about 86% of the world's

electricity is generated using steam turbine. The steam turbine is a form of heat engine

that derives much of its improvement in thermodynamic efficiency from the use of

multiple stages in the expansion of the steam, rather than a single stage.

198

OPERATION AND DESIGN

An ideal steam turbine is considered to be an isentropic process, or constant entropy process, in which the entropy of the steam entering the turbine is equal to the entropy of the steam leaving the turbine. No steam turbine is truly isentropic, however, with typical isentropic efficiencies ranging from 20%-95% based on the application of the turbine.

The interior of a turbine comprises several sets of blades, commonly referred to as buckets. One set of stationary blades is connected to the casing and one set of rotating blades is connected to the shaft. The sets intermesh with certain minimum clearances, with the size and configuration of sets varying to efficiently exploit the expansion of steam at each stage

CONSIDERING INSTALING HIGH-PRESURE BOILERS WITH TURBINE-GENERATORS

When specifying a new boiler, consider a high-pressure boiler with a backpressure steam turbine-generator placed between the boiler and the steam distribution network. A turbine-generator can often produce enough electricity to justify the capital cost of purchasing the higher-pressure boiler and the turbine-generator. Since boiler fuel usage per unit of steam production increases with boiler pressure, facilities often install boilers that produce steam at the lowest pressure consistent with end use and distribution requirements. In the backpressure turbine configuration, the turbine does not consume steam. Instead, it simply reduces the pressure and energy content of steam that is subsequently exhausted into the process header. In essence, the turbo-generator serves the same steam function as a pressure-reducing valve (PRV) it reduces steam pressure but uses the pressure drop to produce highly valued electricity in addition to the low-pressure steam. Shaft power is produced when a nozzle directs jets of high-pressure steam against the blades of the turbine’s rotor. The rotor is attached to a shaft that is coupled to an electrical generator. COST EFFECTIVE POWER GENERATION

In a backpressure steam turbine, energy from high-pressure inlet steam is efficiently converted into electricity and low-pressure exhaust steam is provided to a plant process. The turbine exhaust steam has a lower temperature than the superheated steam created when pressure is reduced through a PRV.

199

In order to make up for this heat or enthalpy loss and meet process energy requirements, steam plants with backpressure turbine installations must increase their boiler steam throughput (typically by 5%-7%). Every Btu that is recovered as high-value electricity is replaced with an equivalent Btu of heat for downstream processes.

Thermodynamically, steam turbines achieve an isentropic efficiency of 20%-70%. Economically, however, the turbine generates power at the efficiency of the steam boiler. The resulting power generation efficiency (modern steam boilers operate at approximately 80% efficiency) is well in excess of the efficiency for state-of-the-art single or combined cycle gas turbines. High efficiency means low electricity generating costs.

Backpressure turbines can produce electrical energy at costs that are often less than 3 cents/kWh. The electricity savings alone not to mention ancillary benefits from enhanced on-site electricity reliability and reduced emissions of CO2 and criteria pollutants are often sufficient

REMAKS OF THE STEAM TURBINES FOR HEAT/POWER GENERATION (CHP)

Energy is the second largest cost of the project

Electric and steam demands are large and coincident

Electric and steam profiles are relatively flat

Operating hours are continuous ( 24/7)

200

CHP System Cost and Performance

Boiler/Steam Turbine CHP System Assumptions

201

Critical Issues Affecting CHP Economics

Reasonable projections of fuel and retail electricity prices are key

Understanding and accounting for specific electric rate structures is critical

- Demand rate

- Standby tariffs

Site requirements will impact capital costs

- Space and access

- Permitting

- Interconnection

In general, CHP system should be sized to supply within-the-fence energy needs

- Difficult to sell excess power

- However, explore opportunities to partner with utility

Increased thermal utilization improves economics

- Increasing thermal output displaces less efficient boiler output

Consider the entire range of potential savings

- Credits for displaced boiler capacity

202

ANNEX 8: STUDY ON COMPOSTING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE USING A CLAY SUBSTRATE OF INOCULUM BY THE TOLUCA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

203

STUDY ON COMPOSTING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE USING CLAY AS A SUBSTRATE OF INOCULUM BY THE TOLUCA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

Chemical Engineering

R&D Laboratory of Environmental Sciences

August 2007 BioCRUDE Technologies Inc

This document was prepared for BioCRUDE Technologies, Inc., by Isaías de la Rosa Gómez, PhD, Guadalupe Macedo Miranda, PhD, & Beatriz Barrientos Becerra, mB.

204

GENERAL

The theoretical aspects outlined in this report describe the aerobic composting process using clay as a substrate of inoculum, which has a porosity that provides the optimal conditions to decompose sewage sludge.

This report discusses the general objectives, theoretical fundaments for the use of these materials and equipment, methods and strategies to control the process. Observations for up scaling the project to industrial capacity is shown as well.

INTRODUCTION

Poor waste management has had a huge environmental impact. One of the biggest problems worldwide is the accumulation, treatment and disposal of solid waste.

In the case of sewage sludge from the industry, the presence of heavy metals increases the problems due their toxicity.

Sewage sludge from municipal waste water has been used in crops as fertilizer without environmental risks.

Composting is an alternative solution to transform the sewage sludge to fertilizer, as composting decomposes the organic waste and eliminates the pathogens bacteria. The fertilizer obtained (humus), is a value product that provide nutrients for the crops by providing organic matter that will be mineralized.

In Mexico, there have been recognized efforts to produce compost. Data from INE (National Institute of Ecology) estimates that each ton of compost produced has a cost of $40 and a sale price is $120.

(http://www.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/499/experiencias.html).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is the development of the composting process for sewage sludge using clay as substrate of inoculum, with an end product of high quality organic fertilizer that will satisfy international standards while maintaining a competitive market cost.

205

FUNDAMENTALS

Suitable conditions required for composting:

Composting is an organic process utilizing thermophilic bacteria and other microorganisms (actinomycetes, fungi) in a largely aerobic environment. The composting process is affected by many factors, such as moisture, temperature, pH, C:N ratio, substrate and air (Table 1). These factors will determine the optimal process for obtaining a high quality fertilizer.

Table1: Factors to be considered in obtaining fertilizer through composting.

Source: De la Rosa et al., 2006.

Texture

A small size of particles is necessary due to the superficial area and fungus and bacteria can decompose the sludge easily. In the first stage of composting, the thermophilic bacteria population increases faster with the heat in the pile.

Incorporating organic matter into the soil will improve the texture. With clay soils there is more space to keep the air, and a good organic texture is shown. Clay soils resist the surface hardening process after rain and due the environmental temperature.

206

Water and Air

Optimal moisture for the composting pile is needed, and air has to be used in the process. A good way to achieve this is to turn over the pile and check the moisture frequently so as to maintain control over it.

If the pile emits bad odours and exhibits viscosity that means that anaerobic decomposition is happening and oxygen is needed.

Biological activity

Microbes decompose better when the size of the materials is thinner, small, and surrounded by water particles, so the bacterial activity is continuous. In this way the organic matter in the compost makes thin clusters which maximize water retention, and the spaces between clusters allow air retention.

Clay

Clay is a mineral formed by aluminum, silice and ferric, and some alkaline metals.

Granulometric separation shows that the fine sand (100-50 μ) is in the limo (50-2 μ) and alters the clay (less than 2 μ). The separation process from the sand is achieved by the use of sieves (Colín-Cruz et al., 2001).

Sewage Sludge

Sewage sludge is a solid by-product from waste water treatment. Proper disposal and waste management is required to avoid serious environmental problems, especially by disposal of Hazardous waste (Colín-Cruz et al., 2001).

Characteristics

The chemical composition of the sewage sludge is the key for its treatment and disposal. Frequently sewage sludge is incinerated, digested, dehydrated, stabilized, and

207

are disposed of in septic tanks. But they can be reused as an organic matter source, to improve the soil (Metcalf y Eddy, 2003).

The chemical composition of the sewage sludge in a waste water treatment plant in Mexico was determined by Colín (2007): the content was: carbon 46.8% and solids 8.3%. In Table 2 the physic-chemical composition of the sewage sludge is shown.

Table 2: The Physic-chemical Composition of the Sewage Sludge

Source: Colín, 2007.

208

PROCEDURE

Physical space:

A 20 x 15 m land must be available for experiments and process development.

Materials:

1. 1 ton of clay 2. 2 m3 of sewage sludge from a water treatment plant 3. 100 kg of sawdust 4. Geo-membrane of polystyrene (high density). 5. Water supply 6. Ammonium nitrate 7. Urea 8. Hose 9. Bucket 10. Security equipment: Gloves, helmets, masks, rubber boots, overall

Equipment:

Dust mixer equipment (or a truck)

Method:

1. In a space of land of 20x15 m. there will be constructed, at ground level, a pile of 2 m. in length by 1 m of height and 1 m of weight.

2. A geo-membrane will be placed at a later time on a base of five centimetres of sawdust.

3. An active mud center will be installed measuring 30 cm x 30 cm.

4. Approximately 30 grams of ammonium nitrate or urea will be dispersed and a 10 cm layer of clay will be added.

209

5. Irrigation must be installed with a capacity to provide adequate water for the procedure.

6. Two bands of PVC will be installed.

7. Two layers of a minimum of active mud and 10 cm of clay will be installed,

8. Two PVC guides will be installed.

9. The pile will be covered with black plastic, firmly affixed to the ground. (see

Figure 1)

After seven days, the operator must make the first turn of the composting pile. Some water can be added if required. It will be necessary check the pile daily. Turning will be necessary, depending on the texture of the composting pile.

Figure 1: Pile of Composting of sewage sludge

210

CONTROLS

Every eight days samples will be taken from the material in order to analyze the:

1. Temperature (“in situ”, directly from the pile)

2. pH

3. Humidity

4. Oxygen

5. The relation between carbon & nitrogen

PROCESS TIME

The estimated time to for production of fertilizer (humus), according to the international quality standards, is 4 to 5 weeks.

COST

The estimated costs are shown in Table 3. These costs apply only to the experimental stage.

211

Table 3: Material Cost Report

No. Description Costs ($ US)

1. Ton of clay $ 400.00

2. Hard work materials (shovels, wheelbarrows, ELECTRIC CUTTER) $ 50, 000.00

3. General Material (hose, buckets, security team, gloves, mouth-protectors, helmets, rubber boots & overalls)

$ 50, 000.00

4. OXIGEN GAUGER (Orion 100259932, Deluxe 4 gas multi-gas detector

$39, 550.00

5 Total organic carbon analysis (per sample) $ 600.00

6. Analysis of nitrogen (per sample) $ 600.00

7. Ammonium nitrate (10kilograms ) $ 1000.00

8. Urea ( industrial grade) (10kilograms) $ 1000.00

9. Truck $ 390, 000.00

10. Total organic carbon and nitrogen (CHON) Analyzer $ 450 000.00

approximately

*Taxes are not included

*Purchase of a truck must be considered.

*The cost for the analysis of total nitrogen and organic carbon is by sample (minimum) per pile.

* pending cost of geo‐membrane

* pending cost of saw‐dust

* pending cost of HP‐meter of the ground.

212

To execute the procedures it will be necessary to consider the purchase of a truck at a cost of a minimum of $39,000.00, and a carbon and nitrogen analyzer (or a C.H.O.N.S).

213

REFERENCES

Besoain E. 1985. Mineralogía de arcillas de suelos.

Colín C. A. 2007. Obtención de un carbón activado proveniente de la pirolisis de lodos residuales y su evaluación como material de sorción. Tesis Doctoral. Facultad de Ingeniería, UAEM.

De la Rosa G. I., Macedo M. G. Barrientos B. B. 2006. Compostaje de residuos sólidos orgánicos del Instituto Tecnológico de Toluca. Informe Técnico LIIA-01-06/01.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Compostin yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste. E.P.A. Washington, D. C. pp 141.

Instituto Nacional de Ecología.

http://www.ine.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/499/experiencias.html).

Metcalf and Eddy. Inc. 1996. Ingeniería de aguas residuales. Tratamiento, vertido y reutilización. Vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, México.

UNAM. Composteo de residuos orgánicos y productos de áreas verdes de la universidad, pedregal. México.

Marca Tekmar Dorman, modelo Apollo 9000 o similar

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Quotation for truck

Truck brand John Deere, year 2002: $ 390, 000.00 plus tax

Truck brand Caterpillar, year 1990 (used): $ 180, 000.00 plus tax

(http://www.tumaquinariapesada.com)

Analyzer for carbon & nitrogen

Brand Tekmar Dorman Model Apollo 9000 or similar

214

ANNEX 9: STUDY OF BIOGAS YIELD, MASS AND HEAT PARAMETERS IN A PLUG FLOW DIGESTER

Please refer to this attached document: STUDY OF BIOGAS YIELD, MASS AND HEAT PARAMETERS IN A PLUG FLOW DIGESTER

215

ANNEX 10: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

Please refer to this attached document: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS FOR A 15 MW INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY COMPLEX

city poland _15_mw_[revisionii][proj]

Business

waste disposal

segregation of waste

biocrude technologies

project activity

incineration technologies

energy power project

source of waste generation

present technologies