epa pacific environmental conference
DESCRIPTION
WTE Options in the PacificTRANSCRIPT
Developing a 21st Century Energy From Waste Facility –
An Island PerspectiveMarc J. Rogoff, Ph.D.
Outline
• What Is Energy From Waste (EfW)?
• What Are The Steps in Conducting Feasibility Analysis?
• Case Study in American Samoa
2
My Career Background
• Education– Ph.D., Resource Development– MBA, Finance
• Resource Recovery Program Administrator (4 Years)
• Solid Waste Management Consultant (25 Years)
• University Institute of Government (4 Years)
3
Our Global Challenges• Today, we face numerous environmental & economic challenges:
– Population growth and associated waste disposal needs– Global warming– Dependence on fossil fuels
• There is a common solution for all of these challenges: Energy from Waste (EfW) provides:
– Safe, economic waste disposal– Greenhouse gas reduction– Renewable energy
4
Overdependence on Imported Fuels
5
Over 70% in 2009
A Growing Waste Problem• In the US an increasing amount
of trash is buried in landfills:– Waste generation has
increased by over a third in the past 25 years in the U.S. alone.
– Recycling efforts have not been able to keep pace with the increased generation of trash.
• The EU has addressed waste disposal with a directive that requires reduction of landfilling raw garbage
151.6
14.5
245.7
58.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
1980 2005
MSW Generation
Recycling Recovery
Proliferation of MSWMunicipal Solid Waste in U.S. (in millions of tons)
6
Why Choose EfW ?• Clean power: The US EPA has stated that EfW plants are a “clean,
reliable, renewable source of energy” that “produces electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.”
• Less dependence on imported fuels: For every ton of waste processed in a EfW facility, we avoid the need to import 1 barrel of oil or mine one quarter ton of coal.
• Net Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction: For every ton of waste processed in a EfW facility, almost one ton of GHG is avoided.
• A safe and effective solution for managing local trash generation: Less reliance on landfills and long distance shipping of trash preserves valuable land and resource with minimal disturbance to surrounding neighborhoods.
7
EfW Worldwide
U.S
.
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Ave
rage Ita
ly
U.K
.
Irela
nd
Japa
n
Taiw
an
Sing
apor
e
Chi
na
U.S.89 EfW facilities 29 million TPY
Western Europe388 EfW facilities
62 million TPY
Asia301 EfW facilities
48 million TPY
EfW
Recycling/Composting
Landfill
• EfW is used extensively worldwide– 780 EfW facilities; 140 million tons per year (TPY)
8
Islands and EfW
9
EfW Benefits For Islands
• Preserve limited land for future generations• Decreasing dependence on fuel imports by
using a renewable indigenous fuel• Minimize groundwater contamination• Use of solid residues (ash or slag) to add to
land surface • Utilization of recovered metals, ash and low
pressure steam (by-product of EfW in ecoparks created around EfWs.
10
EfW Technologies
• Traditional– Mass Burn– Refuse Derived Fuel
• Alternative – Thermal – Biological
Metal: 50 lbs
Power: 400 to 560 kWh
Ash: 10% of original volume
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): 2000 lbs
EfW is a specially designed energy generation facility that uses household waste as fuel and helps solve some of society’s big challenges
11
Typical Mass Burn Facility
12
Refuse Derived Fuel Systems
Smaller Modular Facilities
14
•Pre-Fabricated at Factory•Modules Can Be Added
Steps in the Process
15
Loading of Combustion Chamber450 degrees – air starved condition
Secondary Combustion 1200 degrees C
Steps in the Process
16
Energy Recovery in Waste Heat Boiler,Turbine Generator, Chiller, Heat Exchanger
Bottom Ash
430 to 650 kwh/Ton of Waste
Air Emission and Process Control
17Designed to Meet EPA and EU Standards
SCADA Operator Control
THERMAL(Plasma Gasification)
MRF
Reactor (Gasifier)
Syngas
Slag
Heat Source
MSW• power generation by various means
• other uses in manufacturing
cooling water blowdown
Air, O2 or steam
Air Lock
Emission Treatment
18
BIOLOGICAL (Anaerobic)
MRFAnaerobic Reactor
Biogas
Compost
MSW
Water Mixing
Filtrate Water
• boiler fuel
• power generation
Treatment
Heat Source
MSW
Steam
Sludge
19
BIO-CHEMICAL (Hydrolysis)
MRF Hydrolysis Reactor
Fermenter Distiller
Acid
MSW
Sewage sludge
Gasifier
Biogas
lignin
Ethanol production
Wastewater
20
PROCESS SUMMARYProcess
Pre-Processin
gBy-Product Product
Commercial
Readiness
PyrolysisPyrolysis HighHigh Char/Ash/Char/Ash/Tar/Oil Tar/Oil Syngas/OilSyngas/Oil YesYes
GasificationGasification Med.Med. Ash/SlagAsh/Slag Syngas/CharSyngas/Char YesYes
Anaerobic Anaerobic DigestionDigestion Med./HighMed./High
FiltrateFiltrateWaterWater
Biogas, Biogas, Compost Compost YesYes
HydrolysisHydrolysis HighHigh Waste water, Waste water, ashash EthanolEthanol NoNo
Aerobic Aerobic DigestionDigestion Med./HighMed./High NoneNone CompostCompost YesYes
Plasma Plasma GasificationGasification Claims LowClaims Low Slag/ Slag/
BlowdownBlowdown SyngasSyngas NoNo
21
PROS / CONS
Process Advantages DrawbacksPyrolysis / Pyrolysis / GasificationGasification
Potential for high power Potential for high power production, high production, high conversionconversion
Untested, possibly high Untested, possibly high O&M costs, ash disposalO&M costs, ash disposal
Biological (aerobic & Biological (aerobic & anaerobic)anaerobic)
Proven, “low” tech. Proven, “low” tech. Emissions less of a Emissions less of a concern.concern.
Some odor. Lack of Some odor. Lack of market for compost, low market for compost, low conversionconversion
Plasma GasificationPlasma GasificationPotential for high power Potential for high power production, high production, high conversion conversion
Untested, possibly high Untested, possibly high O&M costs, safety O&M costs, safety concerns, slag market (?)concerns, slag market (?)
Bio-Chemical Bio-Chemical (Hydrolysis)(Hydrolysis)
Fuel production, sludge Fuel production, sludge processing processing
Untested, Treats only Untested, Treats only cellulosic part of wastecellulosic part of waste
22
Beyond The “HYPE”• Some companies that market the thermal technologies have had
dubious performance records with some plants operated abroad.
• Problems ranged from complete failures, to explosions, excess air emissions, continual process breakdown, discharges of contaminated liquids, false claims, and data validation.
– Verification of operating records & permitting conditions in other countries makes direct comparisons incomplete and risky.
• California, Hawaii, Arizona, and Washington have had problems with actual facilities or technical proposals.
23
Case Study of EfW Feasibility Analysis in American Samoa
24
American Samoa Power Authority
Similar Island Concerns
• Increasing cost of energy• Limited space due to topography for new
landfills• Increasing population growth• Improvements in solid waste management
25
Steps in Feasibility Analysis
26
Phase I – Feasibility Analysis Waste Stream Analysis Waste Disposal Practices Analysis Energy and Materials Market Study Analysis of Feasible Waste-to-Energy
Technologies Analysis of Potential Facility Sites
Review Permitting Requirements Risk and Legal Assessment Financial Analysis Develop Project Alternatives Go/No-Go Decision
Phase II – Procurement Select Project Alternative Select Site and Acquire Permitting Underway Market Contracts Concluded Waste Stream Guarantee
Develop Financing Plan RFQ/RFP Produced and Issued Contractor Selected Contract Negotiations Concluded Notice-to-Proceed
Phase III – Plant Construction Site Preparation Complete Final Design Equipment Ordered Building Constructed
Equipment Installed Testing and Startup Acceptance Testing Certificate of Completion
Phase IV – Plant Operations Service Fee Payment Annual Tipping Fee Adjustment
Annual Report (Optional) Facility Retesting (Optional)
Funded by DOI
EfW Building Blocks
1. Waste supply2. Energy markets and potential revenues3. Site – good logistics, permitable,
neighbors4. Landfill5. Contractor6. Capital7. Ability to finance8. Political will
27
Waste Composition Analysis
28
Two Weekly Sorting Programs – February and July, 2009
29
Detailed Components in Waste Stream
30
Top Ten Materials in Waste Stream
Material Type Tons Mean % Cum % Cardboard and Kraft 3,316 15.1% 15.1% Ferrous Cans 2,930 13.4% 28.5% Mixed Residue 2,927 13.4% 41.8% Yard Waste 2,010 9.2% 51.0% Diapers 1,027 4.7% 55.7% Fish Meal 925 4.2% 59.9% Food Waste 909 4.1% 64.1% Fish Waste 761 3.5% 67.5% Bag Film Plastic 749 3.4% 71.0% Boxboard 621 2.8% 73.8%
Total 16,174 73.8%
Preliminary Waste Composition Results – Feb 2009
31
Other Important Wastes
32
Waste Oil Tires
120,000 Gallons/Year 1,200 Tons/Year
33
34
EfW Plant Sizing
Assumptions Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Waste Growth (1.5%/Year) 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 WTE Downtime &10% 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 87 WTE Downtime @15% 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 87 88 89 91
Can American Samoa Serve As Regional MSW Disposal Hub?
35
Proposed Plant Siting
36
Tafuna Power Plant
3.5 Acre Parcel
Who Is Responsible For What ?(there is no set structure)
EfW Company Investors
Regulatory Agency
Design / Build Operate Company
Territory/ Federal
Agencies
ASPAGrant
PermitsContract
Financing
Owner
“Avoided cost” Payments
37
Energy Revenues/Deferred Costs
38
Year $ Per KWh
Fuel and Production Expenses
Total Operating Expenses
2003 0.097 0.124 2004 0.110 0.142 2005 0.141 0.175 2006 0.181 0.207 2007 0.180 0.211 2008 0.260 0.289
Other Revenues
• Process steam to industry• Process steam for district heating• Chilled water or air for central cooling• Desalinated water• Scrap metal recovered from bottom ash• Carbon credits• IRS Section 45 production tax credits• Treasury grant under ARRA
39
Financial Analysis
• Developed a Pro Forma Economic Model – Operating costs– Capital costs– Project revenues– User fees/customer charges– Grant/bond financing– Roadmap
40
Next Steps
• Conduct second waste sort• Finalize inputs to Pro Forma model• Finalize draft report• Regional market study?• Issue final report• ASPA Go/No-Go• Move onto procurement phase
41