Evaluation of the Dutch and Finnish situation of energy recovery from biomass and waste

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the Dutch and Finnish situation of energy recovery from biomass and waste Ronald de Vries KEMA, Ronald Meijer KEMA, Lassi Hietanen VTT Energy, Elina Lohiniva VTT Energy, Kai Sipilä VTT Energy Technology Review 99/2000

2 Evaluation of the Dutch and Finnish situation of energy recovery from biomass and waste Ronald de Vries, KEMA Ronald Meijer, KEMA Lassi Hietanen, VTT Elina Lohiniva, VTT Kai Sipilä, VTT National Technology Agency Technology Review 99/2000 Helsinki 2000

3 Tekes Your contact for Finnish Technology Tekes, the National Technology Agency of Finland, is the main financing organisation for applied and industrial R&D in Finland. The funds for financing are granted from the state budget. Tekes primary objective is to promote the competitiveness of Finnish industry and the service sector by technological means. Activities should lead to diversified production structures, increased production and exports, and create a foundation for employment and social wellbeing. Tekes supports applied and industrial R&D in Finland to the extent of some two billion Finnish marks, EUR 360 million, annually. The Tekes network in Finland and overseas offers excellent channels for cooperation with Finnish companies, universities and research institutes. ISSN x ISBN Cover: Oddball Graphics Oy Page layout: DTPage Oy Printers: PainoCenter Oy, 2000

4 Foreword Finland and the Netherlands consider the use of different types of waste for energy production as a very important area for development. However, the present situation in the field of waste to energy differs greatly in these two countries. The differences make information and experience exchange between the two countries meaningful. From that point of view the Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment (Novem) and the National Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes) decided to cooperate and signed a cooperation agreement in January This report was prepared within the context of the cooperation agreement to evaluate the waste to energy situation in these countries and define areas of collaboration. The Dutch contribution to the project was done in the framework of the programme Energy Recovery from Waste and Biomass (EWAB), which is financed by the Dutch Department of Economic Affairs (DGE). The Finnish contribution was done in the framework of the Waste to REF and Energy Technology Programme. The Dutch part of the work was carried out by KEMA and the Finnish part by the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT Energy). This report contains the management summary, which briefly describes the country specific situations and recommendations. Appendix 1 contains the VTTreport and Appendix 2 contains the KEMAreport. Tekes and Novem would like to thank the working group for their contribution. Tekes, the National Technology Agency of Finland

5 Contact information NOVEM Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment BV Catharijnesingel 59 P.O. Box RE UTRECHT Tel. (030) Contact person ir. Kees Kwant k.kwant@novem.nl Tekes National Technology Agency of Finland Kyllikinportti 2 P.O. Box HELSINKI Tel Contact person Dr. Helena Manninen helena.manninen@tekes.fi KEMA Utrechtseweg 310 P.O. Box 9035 NL6800 ET ARNHEM, The Netherlands Tel Contact person Ronald de Vries KPS/SEN r.devries@kema.nl Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT Biologinkuja 35 P.O Box 1601 FIN02044 VTT, Finland Tel Contact persons Prof. Kai Sipilä kai.sipila@vtt.fi Mr. Lassi Hietanen lassi.hietanen@vtt.fi

6 Contents Foreword Abbreviations 1 Introduction Project objective Available information Methods of reporting 2 2 Countryspecific situations Finland The Netherlands Comparison of Finnish and Dutch Waste Management Policy 8 3 Recommendations for the dutch/finnish cooperation Characterisation, classification and quality control of fuels Waste management Conversion technologies Operation experiences Overview of recommendable projects The Finnish situation The Dutch situation 15 4 Epilogue 17 Appendix 1 Evaluation of energy recovery for biomass and waste in Finland 19 Appendix 2 Evaluation of energy recovery for biomass and waste in the Netherlands 63 Tekes Technology Reviews 113

7 Abbreviations A Mtoe J MWh PJ T AOO BLA BFB CFB CHP EWAB FDI LAP MSWI NLG FIM Novem PEC RDF REF RES SFS Tekes VFG VROM VVAV annum 40,61 PJ Joule 106 * 3,600 Joule Joule Tonne (1,000 kg) Dutch Waste Deliberation Organ Dutch Directive on emissions to the air Bubbling Fluidised Bed Circulating Fluidised Bed Combined Heat and Power Energy Recovery from Waste and Biomass (Novemprogramme) Food and Drinks Industry Dutch National Waste Management Plan Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Dutch Guilder ( Euro) Finnish Mark ( Euro) Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment Primary Energy Consumption Refuse Derived Fuel Recovered Fuel; fuel produced from combustible dry solid waste, separated at source from municipalities and enterprises Renewable Energy Sources Solid recovered fuel Quality control System National Technology Agency of Finland Vegetables, fruit and garden waste Dutch Department for Housing, Regional Development, and the Environment Dutch Waste Processing Association

8 1 Introduction 1.1 Project objective The objective of this project is to define areas of collaboration based on an analysis of the feasibility of introducing Finnish technologies in the Netherlands and vice versa, in combination with Dutch biomass streams on one hand and Finnish waste streams on the other hand. The outcome of the project has resulted in recommendations for further technical and economical improvement of the energy efficiency and production from biomass and waste in both countries. This has resulted in a number of new project proposals to be considered in the nearest future. Novem and Tekes have ordered KEMA and VTT to perform the analysis with the help of countryspecific inventories and exchange of information. The result will be used as input for discussions in the framework of the cooperation agreement between Netherlands Agency and the Environment (Novem) and the National Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes). The current situation and megatrends in Finland regarding energy recovery from biomass and waste are quite different compared to the situation in the Netherlands. The distinction between both situations can be focused on the fact that: In Finland the use of biomass to energy will be increased from 19% of Primary Energy Consumption (PEC) to 24% (from 240 PJ/a to 365 PJ/a) by Residues from forest industry account today for more than 50% of the use of biomass and forest residues in CHP plants will be the major source of increase. The share of waste originated fuels (combusted according to the EU Waste incineration Directive) will be increased from 8 PJ/a (0,2 Mtoe/a) to 20 PJ/a (0,5 Mtoe/a) by the year 2005 mainly based on CHP cofiring technologies. In those units sourceseparated, qualitycontrolled recovered fuel (REF) will be used, also increasing the material recycling. In the Netherlands waste to energy technologies are improved to a relative high standard especially concerning the low emissions. Mixed MSW (approximately 5 Mton/a) is incinerated in modern mass burn plants with relatively highcondensed power production efficiency. In 1998 more then 23 PJ/a energy was recovered. The Dutch government has planned to achieve 45 PJ/a primary energy saving, by means of to waste incineration in The utilisation of biomass as a sustainable energy carrier is just starting. In the short term, energy production from biomass is expected to increase significantly in the Netherlands. In 2000 roughly 3 PJ/a energy from biomass (primary energy input) will be applied for heat and power production. The Dutch Department of Energy has planned to apply 6 PJ/a in 2007 and 30 PJ/a in Integration of both situations will offer an opportunity to evaluate the different details and to come to specific recommendations. The objective of the project was focused on answering the following questions: Which technologies used in Finland are suitable and feasible for thermal treatment of biomass (and waste) streams in the Netherlands, and result in advantages compared to the existing Dutch situation Which technologies used in the Netherlands are suitable and feasible for thermal treatment of waste (and biomass) streams in Finland, and result in advantages compared to the existing Finnish situation. 1.2 Available information The available information consists of literature, inventories, and state of the art studies related to concrete project realisations, focused on three important topics: availability of biomass and waste thermal conversion and flue gas cleaning technology from biomass/waste to energy concepts economical and fiscal circumstances. 1

9 1.3 Methods of reporting Both contributions of VTT and KEMA have been reported separately in two documents, which are enclosed, to the underlying management summary. The management summary briefly describes the countryspecific situations and offers an outlook to the next ten years (chapter 2). Chapter 3 nominates project proposals to work out the recognised recommendations. Appendix 1 contains the VTTreport: the assessment with respect to process Dutch biomass in the Dutch situation with the help of Finnish applications. Appendix 2 contains the KEMAreport: the assessment with respect to process Finnish waste (REF I, II and III) in the Finnish situation with the help of Dutch applications. These reports have been structured according to the following phasing: Phase Description Performer 1 Inventory of the specific situations per country A. The specific waste and biomass streams (types and quantities) B. The types of destinations (energy recovery, reuse, disposal, etc.) C. The state of the art of technologies D. Countryspecific conditions (policies, emission legislation, financial measures for support, etc.) 2 Comparison between biomass/waste streams and technologies A. Which Dutch biomass streams are suitable to process (in the Netherlands) with the help of technologies applied in Finland? B. Which Finnish waste streams are suitable to process (in Finland) with the help of technologies applied in the Netherlands? 3 Technology transfer; an assessment of the economical feasibility: A. Referring to the (in phase 2.a.) proposed combinations between Dutch biomass streams and technologies from Finland B. Referring to the (in phase 2.b.) proposed combinations between Finnish waste streams and technologies from the Netherlands 4 Second opinion on phase 3 A. KEMA assesses VTT s assignment B.VTT assesses KEMA s assignment VTT & KEMA VTT KEMA VTT KEMA KEMA VTT 2

10 2 Countryspecific situations 2.1 Finland Definitions Waste. Waste is a material or subject, which the owner has disposed or is attending to dispose of or is obliged to dispose of. All waste materials starting with primary production, except logging residues left in the forest; MSW, construction and demolition waste, commercial waste, etc. Biomass. Wood, bark, forest residues, saw dust, etc. Combined heat and electricity generation based on locally available fuels accounts for the bulk of bioenergy production in Finland. Multifuel boilers fired with peat, wood fuels, coal and natural gas are widely used in Finland. Cogeneration is the natural choice in Finland since both heat and electricity are required in industrial as well as in municipal energy production. The electricity capacity of woodfired CHP is MW e. Most of heat is produced in combined heat and power plants (CHP) or, in small towns, in district heating plants producing only heat. About 60% of the houses in Finland are connected to the districtheating network. Utilisation of wood biomass in the industry is very high, accounting for 48% of its fuel consumption. The largest producer and user of woodbased energy is the forest industry, which gets its woodbased fuels at a competitive price in connection with raw material procurement or as byproduct of processing. In the s, most power plant boilers in the pulp and paper industry were changed to fluidisedbed boilers, either bubbling or circulating. This made it possible to use wet fuels (up to 65% moisture content as main fuel and up to 80% for secondary fuels), and consequently, the use of bioenergy (and also process sludges, etc.) began to grow. The high share of bioenergy in Finland is mainly due to the low fuel price of industrial forest residues (equal to coal price) and CHP, which makes power production competitive to largescale coal fired plants. Recently, the Finnish government launched a Promotion program on renewable energy (Ministry of Trade and Industry, publication 1/2000). In the Kyoto target 2010 and the vision for 2025, bioenergy will play a key role for additional investments. In Figure 2.1 the existing, targeted and projected volumes are presented for various sources of RES. In the future, the key measure is to increase the production of forest residue fuels with integrated harvesting methods and the utilisation in industrial and municipal Bioenergy total Industry District heat Domestic use Primary energy, increase for RES Electricity production by RES > 2010 Increase 1995 > 2010 Mtoe Mtoe Mtoe Mtoe % MW TWh % 4folds. 45 % Hydro power(<10mw) % Wind power folds Solar energy PV Solar heat folds. 20folds Heat pumps folds. Total % Share of primary energy consumption 18.1% 21.3 % 22.1 % 27 % Share of electricity production 30 % 27 % 27 % 31 % Figure 2.1. Targets for renewable energy sources in Finland. 3

11 Mtoe Aims for bioenergy utilisation in Finland for year 2010 and vision for year 2025 Domestic use District heating Industry Increase 2,8 Increase 5,25 6 Basic year Visio 2025 Figure 2.2. Bioenergy targets in Finland (including also waste/ref). CHP production in multifuel high steam value fluidised bed boilers. In Figure 2.2 the bioenergy targets are presented. The target is to increase 2,8 Mtoe/a (114 PJ/a) the bioenergy consumption, which includes 0,5 Mtoe/a (20 PJ/a) REFs. Out of the 2,3 Mtoe/a of bioenergy, wood fuels are dominating, spent cooking liquours and forest residues are the key sources of additional production. Shortrotation forestry and annual crops are considered too expensive in order to be competitive in modern multifuel CHPboilers. Waste management in Finland is based on sourceseparation of waste in order to produce raw materials for material recycling and for the production of REFs. The share of REF is about 1% of PEC and it will be increased to 5% of PEC by the year 2005 (1,5 million ton/a). Today, most of the waste is still landfilled, but this will change dramatically in the future due to the new Directive on landfills, meeting the situation in the Netherlands today. The average landfill gate fee is today approximately Euro 50/ton, the landfill tax is Euro 15/ton, and the gate fees are going to rise in the future. Because of the existing districtheating network system, the new wastetoenergy plant could have difficulties in finding customers for the heat produced and even the site of the plant due to the public acceptance in Finland. This is the reason why cofiring in the existing CHP plants will be the major strategy for low gate fee REF utilisation. Cocombustion of REF in fluidisedbed boilers and gasification with additional fuel gas cleaning connected to existing boilers are the main technologies. Today, t/a waste is cocombusted/cofired in Finland. There is only one massburn incinerator in Finland. This Turku incinerator has a capacity of tons and produces about 15 MW of district heat. Today, REF and pulp and paper mill sludges are cocombusted in Finland (usually < 30% REF mixed with peat, bark, sawdust, coal) in over 50 grate /BFB/CFB boilers and cofired in the Lahti CFBgasifier. When the new EU Directive on waste incineration comes into force, many of these usually small waste to energy plants must reconsider the use of REF due to the investments needed for flue gas cleaning/measurement costs. Some existing plants could probably continue using REF I as cofuel, when the new EU Directive on waste incineration will come into force. For REF III additional investments are needed. Special cases are the 30 BFB/CFB boilers burning today primary and secondary sludges of the pulp and paper industry. For new investments, the EU Directive will not increase the investments significantly. 4

12 A: DECENTRALIZED MODE Recycled fuel REF volume 1 Mt/a 0.5 Mtoe/a Effective material recycling vs mixed waste massburning Seinäjoki Rovaniemi Oulu Kajaani Kuopio Jyväskylä 5 large units á t/a, 80 MW pa/unit t/a 11 medium size á t/a, 40 MW Pa /unit t/a 5 small units, mono streams á t/a MW t/a Investments totally: units + REFstations = Mmk, 300 Meuro Gata fee below landfill or massburning Sales income: power and heat = h = 80 %, massburning typically power 20 % pa Pori Valkeakoski Savonlinna Rauma Lappeenranta Lahti Naantali Kotka Helsinki B: CENTRALIZED MODE 3 massburning units Investments Mmk, 400 Meuro. Helsinki, Tampere ja Oulu? Mixed waste instead of REF, no heat benefit Figure 2.3. Strategy for energy recovery of waste in Finland. Reliable operation of the boilers requires REF with a low content of noxious constituents and impurities, efficient sourceseparation and an appropriate production process. These requirements also support the recycling of materials. The new SFS standard Solid recovered fuel. Quality control system defines the procedure and requirements by which the quality of REF, produced for energy production from sourceseparated waste, can be controlled. The standard includes methods for sampling and quality control of REF production. The standard defines three different classes (REF I, REF II, REF III) and limit values for REF. The standard is officially accepted and its use is starting in trade of REF. The governmental aim of 70% recovery of waste by 2005 can be reached up to 50% on material recycling based on existing technologies, volumes and price levels. Energy recovery of waste should cover minimum 20% units of the 70% recovery target. The strategy for meeting the year 2005 targets for energy recovery of waste in Finland is presented in Figure 2.3. About 10 existing industrial cofiring will continue with minor modifications, and additionally 20 cofiring investments are needed. Some of these investments will be cogasification plants. If the landfill targets for 2005 are to be fulfilled, the investment decisions on cofiring units should be made by The Netherlands Definitions Waste. The Department for Housing, Regional Development and the Environment (VROM) has defined waste as all kind of substances, preparations or other products, of which a holder himself wants to disposes of. Even if a holder has the intention of disposal or is forced to disposal, the substance is considered as waste, Dutch Law of Environment, Article 1.1, waste products. Biomass. The Dutch government considers biomass as a renewable fuel from organic origin, including organic waste, residues from agriculture and energy crops, as well as the organic part of waste. During the last ten years waste incineration in the Netherlands is improved to a high standard, considered from several angles: waste incineration covers roughly 5 MIO ton of combustible waste per annum, mainly coming from municipalities; the average tariff amounts Euro /ton household waste the eleven installations all operate on an average level of full load hours per annum almost each installation produces electricity at an average value of at least 22% (net) efficiency the avoided primary fossil has increased to a level of at least 23 PJ/a (Figure 2.4). 5

13 Avoided primary fossil fuel (in PJ) waste incineration digestion landfill gas wood combustion Figure 2.4. Development of avoided primary energy by energy recovery from biomass and waste in the Netherlands. This situation has developed due to some important policy measures: introduction of source separation as a result of a preferred sequence of waste management, called: The Ladder of Lansink (1979). This implies: first of all waste prevention, then applications of (material) reuse. Energy recovery must receive a higher priority above landfill regarding the remaining waste streams. introduction of very severe emission standards (BLA) implemented by the Dutch legislation in the early 90 s. Of course these measures were supported by funding programs (EU, Dutch: Novem/EWAB, Department of Energy (Senter) and other parties) to improve the technical performance of Dutch waste incinerators. Additional measures (late 1990s) obliged companies to manage their own industrial environmental plans. This resulted in an increasing market introduction of relative homogeneous waste streams. Moreover a tax on disposal of combustible waste towards landfill was introduced: medio 2000: Euro 70/ton concerning waste with a density lower then 1.1 ton/m 3. In excess over the 5 MIO ton of waste (4 million tons of municipal waste, 1 million ton of industrial waste) that is annually combusted an additional 2 MIO of combustible industrial waste streams are currently available in This implies that the waste incineration capacity in the Netherlands cannot cover the produced amount of waste. This is one of the reasons why several monostreams (demolished wood, paper reject, vegetables fruit and garden waste (VFG) and others) currently receive attention from: power plants (initiatives are taken to cofire, 900 kton in 2000) waste traders / processors (increasing export of RDFpellets and waste wood) Currently, several considerations are topic of the Dutch waste policy development. First: how to improve the energy recovery from waste. Secondly: how to meet CO 2 targets aiming to reduce the greenhouse effect. Thirdly: how to control the emissions from waste as well as biomass to energy concepts. In general, biomass streams receive an increasing attention from different parties, because of the possibilities of tax revenues and other stimulating measures. In particular the Dutch coalfired power stations and the Dutch goverment recently have agreed to reduce CO 2 emissions to a very challenging extend, namely 3 Mton CO 2 reduction annually. This agreement has defined in the framework of the Dutch Climate Memorandum. The improvements in source separation, classification and certification, aiming to create welldefined waste and biomass streams, might be one of the most important developments, to be expected in the Netherlands for the next ten years. In addition, the Dutch CO 2 targets will lead to an increasing demand for biomass (or biofuels in general); this has already resulted in inventories about biomass and waste availability (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). The level of this demand will be related to the effectiveness of joint implementation programs, which should result in further technology development, application as well as improved plant economics. As a result of a Novem Road Map Study (Task 1, Formats for biomass and waste) more specific information has been gathered and summarised in a draft report. This document contains the most recent information about availability and contractability. The Dutch CO 2 targets (6 PJ/a in 2007 and 30 PJ/a in 2020) related to biomass and waste are illustrated in Figure 2.5. Other renewable energy sources (wind, sun, etc) are also included. 6

14 Table 2.1. Biomass and RDF streams in the Netherlands (Novem, 9916; AOO/VVAV, 1998). Stream Potential Available Contractable Wood Agricultural Manure Chicken litter Cattle/pig litter Sludge RDF Waste from FDI VFG Other kton db/a PJ/a Kton db/a PJ/a PJ/a GWh/a (7632) (1490) (77) (19) Total Table 2.2. Several waste streams in the Netherlands (GAVE, 1999). Stream Available Contractable industrial waste shredder waste paper/plastic rejects residues demolition waste Kton db/a PJ/a PJ/a GWh/a ? ? Total ,0 Avoided promary energy (PJ) 250,0 200,0 150,0 100,0 50,0 Others Heat pumps Sun Wind Bioenergy Waste 0, Figure 2.5. Dutch CO 2 targets with outlook to

15 2.3 Comparison of Finnish and Dutch Waste Management Policy A summary on headlines is presented in Table 2.3. More detailed information is given in the two enclosed reports. Table 2.3. Comparison of Finnish and Dutch waste management policy. Policy areas Finland The Netherlands Waste / biomass to energy targets 2000: waste incineration 0,5 PJ/a Cocombustion 4,8 PJ/a 2007: waste incineration 0 Cocombustion 20 PJ/a 2020: waste incineration 0 Cocombustion PJ/a 2000: waste incineration 30 PJ/a Cocombustion 3 PJ/a 2007: waste incineration: 40 PJ/a Cocombustion 18 PJ/a standalone biomass 30 PJ/a 2020: all options totalled 120 PJ/a Waste control organ Policy and Control instrument Financial instruments tax on fossil fuel tax on landfill CO 2 tax SO 2 tax Fee for renewable Energy Other Environmental legislation Air Water The Ministry of Environment The National Waste Plan until 2005 Finnish Act 861/97 on landfills, 1049/99* EU Waste Incineration Directive Yes Yes, 15 Euro/t Yes, indirect No Yes Investment subsidies for new technology For cocombustion of waste (<30% energy), not as severe as the future EU Directive on waste incineration, licences are determined by regional authorities. For waste incineration nearly the same as the future directive. For biomass the same/stricter as LCP directive. National legislation, licences are determined by regional authorities. Waste management by the AOO Until now: Medio 2001: Yes Yes, 70 Euro/ton No No Yes Investment subsidies by the TJP (ten year plan) by the LAP (National Waste Management Plan) More severe than the EUdraft directives A new Dutch standard is expected medio 2000 National legislation, licences are determined by local authorities Soil, reuse of ashes *harmonised already to EU Directives Legislation covering fertilisers, limits for cement/concrete use are defined by the producer of the materials. Fly ash & bottom ash are defined as hazardous/nonhazardous case by case, depending on the hazardous components in the ash. Leaching tests for reuse applications/landfilling. Building material decree and other legislation covering fertilisers 8

16 3 Recommendations for the Dutch/Finnish cooperation Based on the analysis of KEMA and VTT, Novem and Tekes have recognised recommendations for stimulating energy recovery from waste and biomass. In this respect the following major fields of interest have been recognised: Characterisation, classification and quality control of fuels Waste management (waste/biomass policy with regard to source separation and consequences for energy recovery and environment) Conversion technologies: standalone biomass and waste to energy concepts integrated concepts for biomass/waste utilisation by direct and/or indirect cocombustion landfill and digestion Public acceptance 3.1 Characterisation, classification and quality control of fuels The Dutch Standardisation Committee Solid Biofuels recently achieved progress with respect to: the introduction of a system of classification (Novem, 9904/9923: Standardisation of Solid Biofuels in the Netherlands and Working document biomass classification ), which covers clean biomass and specific waste streams such as RDF and chicken manure. Heterogeneous (household or demolition) waste streams are not included in this classification system a best practise list for characterisation of solid biofuels and ashes (by ECN, TNO and KEMA) the development of a central database called Phyllis managed by ECN and supplied with data from ECN, KEMA and TNO. The database is available at: //:www. ecn.nl/phyllis/ The improvement of the Dutch classification system is an ongoing activity. For the characterisation, classification and quality control of waste fuels, the main actions to be taken in Finland are: The national Finnish standard (SFS 5875) Solid recovered fuel. Quality control system was approved in the beginning of This standard will be adopted for fuel trade in the near future and there is a followup project carried out by VTT Energy. Contact person Juhani Juvonen (VTT Energy) Finnish Standards Association SFS is proposing that the SFS 5875 would be processed to a CEN standard. Contact person Juhani Juvonen (VTT Energy) Implementation and practical procedures of REF production and utilisation at the power plants, databank of REF. Contact person Antero Moilanen (VTT Energy) Proposal for the Finnish authority to define how to classify clean waste (untreated wood) according to the EU Waste Incineration Directive. Contact person Antero Moilanen, (VTT Energy) Development of sampling and analytical procedures of REF. Contact person Antero Moilanen, (VTT Energy) In Finland, a quality control manual for clean biomass exists/in use since Contact person Risto Impola, (VTT Energy) Recommendations It is recommended to organise knowledge exchange between the Finnish and Dutch country with regard to the characterisation of contaminated biomass or waste derived fuels, because: the scope of the Dutch Standardisation Committee is at present focused on biofuels and specific mono streams of waste the new Finnish standard (a quality control system) is focused on solid REFs. Learning points from the Netherlands towards Finland and vice versa can be exchanged. A workshop on the exchange of experiences and practices on characterisation, classification and quality control and procedures in Finland and the Netherlands could be organised. The aim is to get a better understanding between the theoretical aspects of classification and the experience with technical preconditions of various technologies in both countries. It enables the improvement of the existing procedures. Approximately 15 participants from each country could be invited, introducing the experience from the other country, including site visits (3 4 days) in both countries. 9

17 In the near future, cooperative work could be done towards a CEN standard for wastederived fuels, based on joint experience in both countries. Project proposals Definition of the clean wastederived wood that will be out of the scope of the EU Waste Incineration Directive. The definition will be carried out nationally, and at least the Ministry of the Environment in Finland is waiting for proposals from industry and research for defining clean and waste wood. In Finland, the economical value of waste wood will strongly depend on the definition clean and waste wood. Today the value of clean wood is about FIM 25/MWh, but it is calculated that if this wood is incinerated according to the waste incineration directive, the value will be about FIM 25 MWh. The difference is more than FIM 200/t. In the Netherlands, the Nordic way to define the clean and waste wood is important, because a lot of wood waste is nowadays transported to Scandinavia to be combusted there. If the wood is combusted in the Netherlands, the difference in flue gas measurement costs or flue gas cleaning costs are about the same in both cases. However, the question is: Is the clean waste derived wood considered wood waste or wood? This can be of great influence if the seven large coalfired power plants in the Netherlands must cut their CO 2 emissions by 40% without cutting the electricity production. The concentrations of different substances (heavy metals, S, Cl, N, etc.) differ between wildstock and socalled waste wood. In this project, it should be defined, which components are essential and to be considered when defining whether the wood is clean wood or waste wood (12 heavy metals considered in waste incineration directive, Cl, fuel properties, etc.). What are the limit values and maximum percentages for the harmful substances to be accepted? It should also be considered whether the heavy metals given in thedirective should be included when defining the wood waste. How the sorting and practical categorization of clean and waste wood should be performed? 3.2 Waste management In Finland the major developments in the near future are The Finnish National Waste Plan by 2005 and the landfill directive (already implemented to the Finnish legislation) will mean in practice that 1.5 million t/a waste to energy processes is needed by 2005 (today approximately t/a). It is estimated that up to 4 5 million ton/a of combustible waste (2 million tons of MSW and commercial waste, 2 3 million tons of process waste and sludge from industry) is still disposed today in Finland. In Finland, the waste management is based on sourceseparation of waste ensuring the minimum material recycling requirements. There is no intention of building mixed waste massburn incineration plants. In the longer term there may be a need for one massburn waste incinerator for contaminated technical waste (shredder waste ( t/a), cable insulation waste (5 000 t/a), PVC waste (5 000 t/a), tyre and rubber waste ( t/a), nitrogencontaining waste ( t/a), waste containing fire retardents ( t/a)). Because there already is a network, which is controlled by power companies based on CHP, there is no room for traditional waste incineration plants generating district heat. The gate fee on landfilling combustible waste is today Euro /ton including the tax (Euro 15/ton), the expected EU level will be Euro 75/ton. The number of fluidisedbed boilers under the waste incineration directive depends on the scope of future EU Waste Incineration Directive, and the number is still open concerning pulp and paper industry. There may be a need for development/investment of the economical/ efficient flue gas cleaning systems for existing fluidisedbed power plants combusting REF. For the new boiler systems fulfilling the EU Directive requirements, the investments will not exceed the foreseen cost level. Two of such boilers are under construction. For the clean biomass in Finland In 1999, the Government launched the promotion for renewable energy with a target to increase the use of bioenergy by 50% by 2010 (+ 114 PJ, including 20 PJ REF). The additional biomass will mainly come from forest residues for industrial and municipal CHP markets. Some existing oilfired boilers will be changed to solid biomass district heating boilers. For the new CHP investments, the driving forces are the replacement of the existing boilers in the industry with bigger units and higher steam values. The power produced must be competitive on the liberalised common Scandinavian market, where the present price (May 2000) is 2 Eurocents/kWh. This calls for high reliability and no risk for the investments. Typically new investments will be postponed under these preconditions of low profitability. There are no premium prices for the power produced from biomass, except tax revenues of Euro 1,5/MWh fuel. Waste management in the Netherlands, definitely will alter due to major developments A number of the eleven existing mass burning plants consider to expand their processing capacity. Important precondition set by the Dutch Government concerns the temporary prohibition of building new (municipal) waste incinerators/incinerators based on 10

18 grate firing due to the opinion of the Government that the efficiency of grate firing is subject for improvement (today net efficiency up to approximately 22%). There is a shortage of incineration capacity (approximately 2 million tons/a), mainly industrial waste (packaging, contaminated wood, plastics, shredder waste). This demands a strategic approach. At present, the market forces are determining the destinations of these waste streams. In 2001 the LAP (National waste plan) will be launched including the policy and guidelines for extension of waste to energy capacity. Until that, temporary prohibition seems to be continued for new investments in mass burning plants. Three parties are involved; power plants, waste owners (from collection to disposal), municipal waste incinerators, all having their own interest in the current waste and biomass market. The gate fee of landfilling combustible waste is somewhat equal to or higher than the gate fee at the municipal waste incinerators due to considerable tax level (landfill tax NLG 142/ton); this will certainly stimulate energy recovery from biomass and combustible waste on the short term. The Dutch situation for the biomass There are several biomass streams (wood, VFG, manure, etc.) that are of interest in the Netherlands. To be able to define the best technologies for these streams, Finnish technologies and experiences should be studied/considered for utilising sustainable energy from these streams. In this respect the Dutch policy aims to achieve an improvement of 10% in energy supply from renewable sources by The contribution of biomass must be significant. The Dutch financial and fiscal instruments aiming to create a level playing field for sustainable energy is still improving to a level, which should be acceptable and attractive for future investors. Currently, only cofiring (or gasification and cofiring the produced fuelgas) of biomass seems to be feasible enough to initiate investments directly, e.g., the Amer project (Euro 1 400/kW e ). There are some exceptions, standalone installations: Cuyk (scale 30 MWe; BFB; η e = 30%; only power; Euro 2 000/kW e ) realised by an energy company which can trade the value of the sustainable power Schijndel (1 MWe; grate fired boiler, CHP; Euro 4 000/kW e ) private investment, feasibility not very promising (small scale, high level of investment, low CHP efficiency). Recommendations In the Netherlands the national waste plan will be updated under the LAP 2001 and in Finland the regional waste plans will be updated by the end of When the master plans are prepared, a joint seminar is proposed for the authorities for the exchange of information and policy aspects. Novem and Tekes will arrange the technical and economical input data and future role of new technologies. When the authorities wish, special meetings can be arranged for special issues of mutual interest. Under the master plans, the largest cities and the industrial companies can be involved in performing case studies or prefeasibility studies in both countries, independently. When these studies indicate a mutual interest, special meetings can be arranged. Novem and Tekes will inform each other about the publicfunded case studies. KEMA and VTT can inform authorities, Novem and Tekes about the possibilities and cost savings, which can be achieved when implementing new technologies for processing waste to energy and material recovery. Novem and Tekes will exchange the information about the role of advanced waste management policies on the national and European greenhouse gas reduction potential and costs. For clean biomass: Similar to the approach of the Dutch LAP, a strategic shortterm plan could stimulate the expansion of sustainable energy from biomass in the Netherlands. The question is to which extend standalone bioenergy plants should be recommended/realised in comparison to cofiring/cogasification, taking into account possible measures in the area of energy improvement. Make a ranking in the Netherlands on the most attractive biomass streams. Make a specific Dutch plan for selecting the best technical and economical types of energy conversion technologies/utilities, starting with the most attractive biomass streams. This must be done in the short term to offer a reliable outlook on longterm energy saving targets. If up to 1,5 million ton/a wood chips will be imported by 2010, special attention should be made for selecting the technologies and business concepts, most attractive for this fuel. Project proposals (Finland) A study of the need for one massburn waste incineration plant in Finland for technical waste (shredder waste t/a, cable insulation waste t/a, PVC waste t/a tyre and rubber waste t/a, nitrogencontaining waste t/a, waste containing fire retardants ( t/a). The reason of this kind of need is the upcoming landfill requirements by The quantities of contaminated materials vary in different locvations of the country. According to the new legislation, different kinds of contaminated materials should not be mixed in the landfills. In practice, there should be a number of small landfills with small capacities for these waste streams. It may be more economical to have one incinerator for these waste streams. 11

19 Some Finnish companies (Kuusakoski, Metalliyhtymä, Muoviteollisuusliitto) have brought up the need of a wastetoenergy plant for these special waste streams. The study should cover the quantities and qualities of these waste streams, technologies, suitable location, economical facts, and, together with the Ministry of the Environment, requirements of thelegislation. The goal would be to achieve, for example, a handling fee of FIM 150/t for these waste streams. 3) Cofiring: direct or indirect (gasification and cofiring the fuel gas) thermal processing of specific biomass streams and monostreams of industrial waste at existing power plants (Amer, Helsinki gasification concept with dry gas cleaning). The cofiring key technology has been recognised as very important in order to achieve the CO 2 target agreed in the framework of the Climate Memorandum. Recommendations 3.3 Conversion technologies In Finland, the key technologies for waste to energy will be 1) Cocombustion of clean waste in the existing fluidisedbed boilers of the industry with improved flue gas cleaning for dust and NO x. For 50 boilers in the pulp and paper industry, reconsideration of improved flue gas cleaning investments is expected in 2006, or only clean biomass will be used outside the EU Waste Directive. For the new investments, low additional costs are expected for meeting the new emission limits of the EU Waste Incineration Directive. 2) Cogasification with additional dry gas cleaning will be an attractive alternative for processing industrial and household REF III fuels. It can be implemented at the existing coalfired PC boilers and fluidisedbed boilers when the top level availability of the main boiler is required. In the Netherlands, the key technologies for biomass and waste to energy will be 1) Mass burning (most suitable for largescale waste incineration and biomass combustion) in grate fired boilers: the power production efficiency should be increased; a desired level of 30% net at the new generation municipal waste incineration plants is considered in addition, some of the existing municipal solid waste incineration plants might be subject to repowering by a new boiler and steam turbine concept the steam reheating concept (recently developed and patented by KEMA for biomass and waste plants) and/or a combined grate and CFB concept offer challenging perspectives with regard to energy improvement 2) New fluidisedbed boilers for specific biomass streams and monostreams of industrial waste in industry and cities, either standalone or integrated with a municipal waste incinerator or a co fired power plant. Optional study tour can be arranged in Finland, including site visits to power plants and manufacturers. This study tour should be organised for investors and operating companies and engineering companies with special interest in BFB / CFB technology. Assessment of efficient waste and biomass conversion technologies on standalone and integrated concepts as a result of the latest insights of KEMA. In the Netherlands the existing MSWIs could be reviewed on possibilities for improvement of electrical efficiencies. In general, the future concept of the MSWI should be examined. Definition of the interest of the players, which determines the scope of the studies in the Netherlands. Life Cycle Cost Analysis for managing the economical priority of various (integrated) concepts. The question could be raised, to which extend factors like scale, fuel and process characteristics will determine the economical priority. Outcome of this is a comparison of the input data and overall conditions in both countries in order to exchange knowledge and finally find the best practical means of technology. Fuel flexibility in various technologies for biomass and waste. This demands a certain standardisation of technologies, which enables investors/operators to apply the proposed methods of fuel standardisation/characterisation in practice. Development and improvement of standards for new technologies is very recommendable. Technical assessment on the experience with emphasis on process design should be carried out in both countries (for the gasification mainly based on Lahti/Amer experience). Laboratoryscale experiments will give additional information for classifying fuels for various new technologies. Cofiring of specific waste streams influences the ash properties, the reuse possibilities has to comply with landfilling criteria. Finnish companies will learn from Dutch experience on reuse and landfilling practices when the new type of ashes from waste cofiring and cogasification will be in market within the next few years. Practical solutions should be selected and licensed. Specific actions in this area will be worked out by VTT. Work on Biogas: To compare composting and anaerobic processes of biowaste and sludge. Landfill gas and an 12

20 aerobic process gas combined with other power production. In Finland, Valmet has developed the Urban Mill concept, where paper and board fibre could be separated and recycled at the REF/RDF plant. If the development in Finland will be successful in the near future, a prefeasibility study is proposed to be carried out at a Dutch massburn site. The aim is to remove the fibre by a dedicated separation system and, respectively, the waste intake to the integrated plant can be increased with constant waste fuel feed to the boiler. When the gate fee income will increase with constant power input, the profitability of the existing operator can be improved. Recommendations Organizing a closed workshop in Helsinki on public acceptance of waste to energy for the Finnish executives. The topics would be: CO 2 advantages (of power and heat) The introduction of the EU Waste Incineration Directive and the translation to practical solutions Environmental benefits and cost effectiveness of various options of waste management Reliable wastetoenergy concepts provide an valuable chain in the life cycle of products towards disposal. Additional project proposal A study of the use of VFG in a fluidisedbed power plant. The quantity of VFG (vegetable, food and garden waste) is about million t/a in the Netherlands, depending on the qualities of VFG. It can be estimated that at least t/a VFG could be separated/taken apart from this stream, which is today collected for composting. This fraction could consist of more garden waste and less vegetable and food waste. The first calculations of the economy of this kind of energy use of VFG in fluidisedbed power plants are very positive, as the gate fee of this stream is high (compared to Finnish gate fees) and the fuel properties are close to those of wood and bark. Hence, the reliability ought to be good, and the Finnish suppliers are familiar with fuels of different moisture content and quality. During the preliminary study carried out by Kema and VTT, discussions between Kema and a Finnish boiler supplier were carried out and preliminary budget offers were given for a CFB plant burning VFG. Utilisation possibilities, fractioning/separation of different VFG streams and possibilities for the utilisation of VFG with different technologies should be studied. Public acceptance With regard to wastetoenergy concepts, the Dutch have a lot of experience in public perception, information of public discussions and opinions of media as well. In Helsinki, the Dutch solutions of waste to energy receive attention right now. Utilising the Dutch experience by knowledge exchange would be very useful. Moreover, the CO 2 advantages of utilising waste as an energy carrier could be a useful PR instrument (to which extend waste incineration contributes to reduce the greenhouse effect). It could help Finns to achieve more public acceptance in relation to all kind of wastetoenergy concepts, which are recognised as cost effective and efficient as well. 3.4 Operation experiences Exchanging operational experiences certainly will stimulate introduction of typical Dutch waste to energy applications in Finland. The VVAV could play a key role in the explanation of Dutch experiences in the waste sector. The experience on the fluidisedbed boilers could be transferred to the Netherlands. In provincial cities in Finland and pulp and paper industry the whole energy system (electricity & heat) is based on the reliability of fluidisedbed boilers. (All the boilers of pulp and paper industry are fluidised.bed boilers). Recommendations The Dutch power plant operators and managers could visit the Finnish power plants in CHP plants in pulp and paper industry and heat alone production. Approximately 15 persons, 3 4 days. Vice versa the most active investors and operational engineers could pay a 2 4 dayvisit to the existing MSW incinerators and coutilisation plants in the Netherlands for exchange of experience. Occupational health aspects Exchange of measurement results concerning the microbiological measurements in processing the waste and wastetoenergy plants. Measurement and analysing methods should also be compared. Recommendations Make an inventory of the current state of affairs around occupational health aspects. Results of recently organised workshops and examinations can help to define common interests of both the Finnish and Dutch parties concerned. 13