the northern european approach to (practically) zero waste...-> bio-waste solutions, material...

MARCH 2016

THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE 1

Torben Kristiansen, Vice President Waste & Contaminated Sites, COWI A/S Denmark

Northern European Approach to practically zero waste

2016 Macao International Environmental Co-operation Forum & Exhibition

MARCH 2016


1. Introduction

1. Introduction

2. "Zero landfill": An approaching reality in Northern Europe

3. Example: Waste management in Denmark

4. Integrated Waste management – Which elements are critically important, - and where are the "battle fields"?

5. How can waste management technologies best be used? – And how can they best be organized?

6. Prospects of the future Northern European / EU Waste Management – Concluding remarks

7. Questions

Outline of presentation

3

The "zero landfill" scenario: How this is approaching a reality in Northern Europe

2. The zero landfill approach in Northern Europe

› Landfilling is unacceptable: Lack of land, environmental risk, public opposition, loss of development opportunities, high dependency on limited groundwater resource,

› Resource efficiency: Loss of material and nutrient resources into landfills and incinerators -> bio-waste solutions, material recovery (Circular Economy) & energy recovery

› More than 100 years of using "advanced waste treatment": Waste-to-energy, AD, source separation & recycling, composting.

› New emerging technologies: e.g. enzymatic treatment and sorting of residual (REneScience)

› Strong regulatory and policy approach: EU and national policies, directives, laws and regulations for Circular Economy, Rare Earth Minerals, Resource Efficiency, Material supply safety for EU industry, landfill taxes/levies, standards for recycled aggregates etc.

MARCH 2016

THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE

4

› 5.7 million inhabitants

› 43,000 sq km

› 5 Regions

› 98 Municipalities:

› Responsible for management of all waste

› Provide MSW collection/disposal services

› Organise treatment capacity

› Issue instructions on treatment and disposal of all waste

› Co-operates in Inter-Municipal Waste Management Associations on Waste Treatment and Disposal

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

C&D waste

Industrial waste

Commercial waste

Household waste

Recycling

WtE

Landfill

1.9 mill.

2.4 mill.

2.2 mill.

2.7 mill.

Total waste generation 2011: 9.2 mill. tonnes

Example: Waste management in Denmark 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark

MARCH 2016


5

Treatment and disposal of municipal & commercial waste

Now: › Around 25 Inter-Municipal Waste Associations/Companies

Associations owned by Municipalities and operated as independent "utilities" having boards with elected councilors

› All member municipalities are represented in the Boards

Future: › Reduced number of associations (mergers in progress)

› More involvement from private sector

Recycling:

› Major part by private enterprises, however also some Public Waste Associations are involved

Collection and transport

› > 80 % household waste collected by private contractors

› Almost all commercial waste collected by private contractors

Example: Waste management in Denmark 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark

380 km

MARCH 2016


State tax

Tipping fees

Typical total costs for a household: 300 – 350 Euros/year. 6

Euro/tonnes 1987 1993 1998 2014

Energy from Waste

(combined heat and

power

5 21 28 44

Energy from Waste

(heat recovery only)

35

Landfill Disposal 5 26 45 64

Recycling/Sorting/

Composting/AD

0 0 0 0

Euro/tonnes 2012

Incineration 17

Landfill Disposal 49

Anaerobic Digestion 80

Composting garden waste 45

Tax on waste = less landfill + more recovery 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark

MARCH 2016


Source: Renosam 2006, www.renosam.dk

More 100 years ago: Dumps are a health threat

4. Integrated waste management

MARCH 2016


http://www.renosam.dk/

Waste treatment HK (2014), AUS, EU/EEA & USA

Incineration Landfilling


SEPTEMBER 2015


53

44

63

13

2

-

34

54

37

USA2013

AUS2011

HK2014

Ref: US EPA 2013: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf

CEWEP/EUROSTAT: http://www.cewep.eu/information/data/graphs/m_1415 AUS Dept of Env: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/nwp/reporting/national-waste-generation EPD HK: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/data/stat_treat.html

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2013_advncng_smm_fs.pdf



http://www.cewep.eu/information/data/graphs/m_1415

http://www.cewep.eu/information/data/graphs/m_1415

http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/nwp/reporting/national-waste-generation








http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/data/stat_treat.html

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/data/stat_treat.html

Most effective way to achieve landfill diversion targets?

9

Source: European Commission 2006

2016

2009

2006

Northern European success towards zero landfill. Torben Kristiansen

High use of WtE Limited or no use of WtE


Integrated Waste Management

10

IWM is critically important for the success of any multi-streamed waste management system for the purpose of meeting particular environmental, economic, resource or carbon policies.

Integrated waste management is the art of being well-organised and successful in waste management and is supported by a number of enabling mechanisms such as:

1. Fiscal incentives (waste tax, tax on natural resources, tax on carbon emissions, incentives for green energy, etc.)

2. Regulation and enforcement (permitting, licensing, reporting, audits, waste data reporting systems, access to district heating networks, access to power supply etc.)

3. Standards supporting markets for recovered materials (compost, recycled aggregates, end-of-waste products etc.)

4. Good organisational structure (public/private) and clear roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders (waste generators, authorities, transporters, recyclers/treatment plants etc.)

5. Integration of relevant sector policies: Waste – energy – environment - resources

4. Integrated waste management and the battle field of SWM

MARCH 2016


The "battle fields" in IWM

11

In Northern Europe / EU the typical battle fields are:

1. Municipal/public waste utilities vs. private contractors/PPP operators

2. National/regional government vs. local government/municipalities

3. Established technologies (WtE/MBT) vs. emerging technologies (AD, Enzymatic treatment, single stream recovery technologies etc.)

4. Waste sector vs. energy sector (access to market, cost of recovered energy)

5. Waste/energy sector vs. agricultural sector (quality of bi-products to farmland, access to bio-waste, alternative fuel markets etc.)

6. Municipality vs. small commercial/retail (freedom of choice, waste flow control)

7. As energy becomes fossil-free, WtE will become "dirtier"


MARCH 2016


..winners and loosers..

SEPTEMBER 2015 THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE

12


Winners Loosers

Private waste contractors get more market access

(Some) Municipal loss of waste flow control

Waste producers enjoy lower tariffs for some services

Municipality stuck with non-profitable services

Investors can buy/build waste infrastructure for profit

Public loss of control of waste infrastructure incl. treatment capacity

Increased market for waste collection contractors (multiple waste streams, longer haulage)

Higher entry barrier for new technologies/solutions for special waste streams due to loss of flow control

Lowest gate-fee facilities (incl. haulage) increase volume

Higher gate-fee facilities (incl haulage) loose volume due to "waste tourism"

Big (economies of scale) Small / local solutions

Technical approaches to "zero waste"

13

5. How can technologies best be used?

› Material recovery:

› Source separation of recyclables

› Co-mingled collection + central sorting

› Reuse/repair

› Clean /dirty MRFs

› Volume reduction /bio-stabilisation:

› MBT / Bio-drying

› Nutrient recovery:

› Aerobic - Composting

› Anaerobic/AD + nutrient recovery

› Enzymatic nutrient recovery

› Energy recovery:

› Mass burn to energy

› RDF/SRF fuel substitution

› AD/biogas/landfill gas/fuel production MARCH 2016


14

5. – And how can infrastructure and services best be organised?

› Revenue from sale of energy, recyclables, compost etc?

› Cost of disposing residues, rejects etc?

› Capital costs (conditions of financiers)

› Risk premiums (Commercial conditions/risk profile)

› Non-profit/profit?

› Dividends to shareholders?

› Taxation, VAT, green levies

› Build up of capital/residual value?

› Lean staffing/mechanisation

› Fixed/variable costs

› Operational robustness

› Design strategy (low O&M or Capex?)

› Market conditions, supply/demand

Gate fees vary greatly in Europe. Why?

Source: RenoSam 2006, Denmark

MARCH 2016


15

6. Concluding remarks

› Large scale landfilling is unsustainable. Northern European practice of only 3-8% to landfill sets the trend (need better and more comparable waste statistics)

› Increased pressure from resource, carbon and energy policies result in push for closed loops for materials and nutrients. Energy recovery from remaining residual waste only

› Less need for WtE capacity in Northern Europe. Need to define "recycling quality"

› As energy supply becomes fossil-free (wind, solar, hydro etc.), energy from waste will be less desirable as it changes classification from "clean" to "dirty" energy.

› Continued liberalization of the waste market, less direct waste flow control and more indirect control via regulation, tenders and fiscal tools. More emphases on truly integrated waste management: We must be even better organized and regulation will be more complex!

› More cross-sectoral approach: waste – energy – agriculture – resources (the biomass fight etc.)

› Benchmarking and push for lower waste tariffs to balance profits in liberalized market

Prospects of the future Northern European / EU Waste Management

MARCH 2016


Thank you!

Torben Kristiansen, M.Sc. Civ. Eng

Vice President Solid Waste

COWI A/S, Denmark

[email protected]

www.cowi.com/waste

+45 29162522

16

COWI is a leading European and global consulting group providing state-of-the-art services within engineering, environmental science and economics.

COWI has more than 6,500 employees worldwide including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Spain, Belgium, UK, Greenland, Turkey, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, India, South Korea, China, USA, & Canada.

9 JUNE 2011 Northern European success towards zero landfill. Torben Kristiansen

7. Questions?

MARCH 2016


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cowi.com/waste

SEPTEMBER 2015 THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE

17

the northern european approach to (practically) zero waste...-> bio-waste solutions, material...

Documents