Small Scale Energy from Waste Facilities: Case Studies from Denmark

Transcription

1 Small Scale Energy from Waste Facilities: Case Studies from Denmark Torben Kristiansen (M.Sc. Civ Eng) Ramboll Denmark A/S

2 Outline of Presentation 1. Small Scale EfW in Denmark 2. True/false statements about EfW? Small scale EfW expensive? EfW causes excessive dioxin emission? EfW discourages recycling? Plume visibility is a public concern? NIMBY? Political/Public opposition 3. Two Case Studies: Sønderborg & AVV 4. Conclusions

3 Small Scale EfW is attractive Small scale mass burn EfW is attractive for the UK from a public perception point of view: 1. Located close to point of waste generation. 2. They generate jobs in the local community. 3. Reduced land degradation and loss of land opportunities to landfill. 4. Limited traffic impact and require limited transport distances 5. Plant configuration can be adapted to local conditions, e.g. coastal/inland and island conditions. 6. The possibility of supplying CO 2 neutral heat 7. Means to meet EU LD complementing recycling and MBT

4 Mass Burn EfW input/output Electricity Heat Bottom ash Recycling Landfill Wastewater Residues Flue gas Waste (Can be wastewater free )

5 1 st EfW Plant Frederiksberg1903

6 EfW in Denmark (& Faroe Is) No of No. Plant Location Lines 1 Skagen. Skagen commune Grenå. Grenå commune Leirvik Inter-municipal Company, Hagaleiti, Faroe 3 Is Total Plant Capacity (t/h) 4 Rønne. I/S BOFA Torshavn. Torshavnar Kommuna, Faroe Islands Vejen. Elsam A/S Frederikshavn. Elsam A/S Herning. EG. Jylland Hammel. Hammel Fjernvarme A.m.b.a Svendborg. Svendborg kommune Thisted. I/S Thyra Hobro. I/S Fælles Forbrænding Sønderborg. Sønderborg Kraftvarmeværk I/S Aars. Aars kommune Haderslev. Elsam A/S Kolding. TAS I/S Skanderborg. I/S RENO SYD Horsens. Elsam A/S Slagelse. I/S KAVO Hjørring. AVV I/S Næstved. I/S FASAN Nykøbing. F I/S REFA Holstebro. Elsam A/S Hørsholm. I/S Nordforbrænding Esbjerg. L 90 Måde Aalborg. I/S Reno-Nord Aarhus. Århus kommunale Værker Odense. Elsam A/S, Fynsværket Roskilde. I/S KARA Copenhagen. I/S Amagerforbrænding Copenhagen, Glostrup. I/S Vestforbrænding TOTAL Case studies Copenhagen

7 Why is Mass Burn EfW applied in Denmark? 1. In 1989 the municipalities in Denmark were assigned with the obligation to provide suitable treatment/disposal for all types of waste generated. This led to the establishment of several EfW plants and the extension of existing plants throughout Denmark. 2. EfW is in Denmark supported by fiscal and legislative measures that include: i) power generation incentives, ii) disincentives for landfilling via a higher tax on landfill, iii) priority for supply to district heating from EfW over all other energy sources, and iv) reduced waste tax if producing both heat and power from EfW 3. Efficient powers to direct waste, which ensures the necessary waste supply. 4. Integrated national energy efficiency policy that prioritises reduced reliance on fossil fuel, decentral CHP, compulsory use of communal district heating systems, priority for sale of green energy etc.

8 District Heating in Copenhagen

9 True/False statements about EfW? 1. Are small-scale EfW plants much more expensive than large scale EfW plants? 2. Does EfW contribute significantly to dioxin emissions posing a threat to public health? 3. Does EfW discourage recycling? 4. Plume visibility 5. NIMBY 6. Political/public opposition

10 Is Small-Scale EfW expensive? Energy sale revenues are often higher for smaller plants due to better supply/demand balance Standard plant: EU WID, semi-dry FGT, SNCR, CHP

11 How expensive is it? /tonne Treatment cost per tonne of waste incinerated Denmark Sweden Portugal Great Britain Switzerland Netherlands Germany Source: Waste incineration in Denmark, Rambøll for RenoSam, Oct DK: Cost of incineration: approx. 65/t. Revenue from sale of energy: approx. 45/t = Treatment cost: approx. 20/t

12 Dioxin emission sources in Germany Emissions per year in g TU (toxicity units) % 2000 Metal extraction and processing Waste incineration Power stations Industrial incineration plants <10 33% 0.7% Domestic firing installations <10 Traffic 10 4 <1 Crematoria 4 2 <2 Total emissions, air 1, <70 Source: German Federal Environmental Agency Study, Sept. 2005: Waste Incineration A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin Spouting Data for the year 2000 are estimates by the Federal Environmental Agency 5.8% If the energy produced by incineration were generated using traditional power stations, there would annually be 3 more tonnes of toxicant and 5,000 more tonnes of dust particles in the air

13 Those applying EfW are also those most successful in recycling! 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Greece Ireland UK Italy Portugal Spain Finland France Luxembourg Belgium Austria Germany Sweden Netherlands Denmark Source: DEFRA 2004 Landfill Recycled/composted Incineration Other kg/capita 0 Netherlands Denmark Sweden France Switzerland Germany Italy Austria Norway Portugal Spain Belgium Great Britain Hungary

14 Those applying EfW are also those most successful at recycling! kg incinerated/capita kg/capita Netherlands Denmark Sweden France Source: ISWA Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste: Energy from Waste State-ofthe-Art Report, Statistics 4th Edition January Switzerland Germany Italy Austria Norway 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Greece Ireland UK Italy Portugal Spain Finland France Luxembourg Belgium Austria Germany Portugal Spain Belgium Great Britain Hungary Sweden Netherlands Denmark Landfill Recycled/composted Incineration Other

15 Plume visibility A concern? The visible plume consists of water vapour only. There are no real environmental impacts associated with the white water vapour plume. Plume suppression causes a significant environmental impact while addressing a cosmetic issue, as plume suppression requires the combustion of conventional fossil fuels, which is associated with wellknown environmental impacts and reduces the thermal efficiency of the EfW plant.

16 NIMBY (not in my back yard)

17 Political opposition? In Defra s Review of England s Waste Strategy A Consultation Document (February 2006): Minister of Environment Ben Bradshaw states:.. energy from waste should have a clearer role to play in obtaining environmental value from some of our waste resources. It is better to burn than to bury Energy from waste can reduce our dependency on foreign fuel suppliers and can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases Dioxin emissions from modern EFW plant are very small compared with other common environment sources such as domestic gas cookers and even fireworks Energy from waste is not likely to account for more than 25% of the municipal waste stream by 2020 nationally, compared to 9% now Major challenge: Public opposition

18 Political opposition? Reduction Re-use Recovery Recycling Composting EfW Disposal EU Waste Policy. The Story behind the Strategy Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, Brussels, , COM(2005), 666 final Impact Assessment on the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste and the immediate implementation measures. Brussels (not dated) Life-cycle & env. impact approach: Recycling is a very attractive and popular solution for waste management but it is not necessarily always the most favourable way to manage waste. If it seems clear that is it more environmentally efficient to incinerate a material to recover energy than it is to recycle it, then that is the option that should be taken.

19 Public opposition? Public perception of EfW differs considerably from country to country! In Scandinavia there is a hundred years of experience with EfW and the public is well acquainted with the technology Good track record for operation and pollution abatement for decades Government policy and political parties have consistently and for decades supported EfW as a responsible and sustainable method of generating energy and managing waste Public ownership of plants via purpose-made cost-efficient non-profit companies is seen as a guarantee for protection of public and local interests Public acceptance that policy to minimise landfilling (incl. decade old ban on landfilling of biodegradable waste) requires recycling, composting and EfW.

20 Case Studies: Sønderborg & AVV Ownership Commissioning Supplier Capacity Energy Gate fee Sønderborg CHP Plant Owned by an inter-municipal waste management company (12 municipalities, 136,000 inhabitants), a cooperative district heating company and a power company Babcock Wilcox Vølund 8 t/h 233,000 MWh heat 193,000 MWh electricity EUR27 (DKK 200)/tonne I/S AVV, Hjørring Waste management company owned by five municipalities (90,000 inhabitants). Operates an EfW facility, a transfer station for hazardous waste, a composting plant for garden waste as well as 11 civic amenity sites and sanitary landfills receiving inert waste FLS miljø/abb 6 t/h 112,000 MWh heat 35,000 MWh electricity EUR22 (DKK 161)/tonne

21 Particularly interesting features of Sønderborg CHP Plant Sønderborg CHP Plant is an EfW facility integrated in a gas fired combined cycle plant. Electricity from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine. The steam turbine receives steam from both the EfW facility and from an exhaust boiler heated by the exhaust gas from the gas turbine. The heat produced is sold to the district heating network. Sønderborg CHP Plant is located close to residential areas and is commonly referred to as the mail box.

22 Particularly interesting features of I/S AVV I/S AVV provides recycling infrastructure, including a recycling shop. The shop has 260 customers per day and a turnover of EUR270,000 annually. I/S AVV achieves high recycling rates at 76 % against 65 % on a national level. I/S AVV operates a free advisory waste management service, which in 2004 visited 237 enterprises and citizens and a visitor s centre, which was visited by 2,800 people in I/S AVV is perceived by the public as one of many components of an integrated environmentally sound waste management system The EfW plant is operating with one of the lowest gate fees in Denmark at a rate of 15.5 per tonne (excl. taxes)

23 Conclusions: Small Scale EfW is a very viable scenario for residual waste 1. EfW is an environmentally sound treatment technology compared to the alternatives of MBT and landfilling 2. EfW does not undermine efforts to recycle. Countries applying EfW at a large scale are also the countries most successful in achieving high recycling targets 3. EfW is a critically important component of an integrated waste management planning based on the waste hierarchy 4. Emission of dioxin/furan from EfW is no longer an issue as the problem has been engineered into non-existence over the past 10 years. 5. As demonstrated in Denmark, small-scale EfW plants (<10 t/h) are very costefficient, they can be developed to suit particular local energy off-take demands, they comply with the proximity principle and they tend to a lesser degree to entice public protests and political anxiety. 6. Whilst there is economies of scale when constructing EfW plants, this effect is limited. Danish experience shows that a far more important issue is the ability to efficiently generate earnings from sale of heat and power and that a plant balanced to the local energy supply/demand situation is very important in this regard and works in favour of the small-scale plants.

24 Conclusions: Small Scale EfW is attractive to the UK: 1. There are weighty reasons why also the UK should embrace EfW, including small-scale plants, in its desire to reduce reliance on landfilling, increase recycling and achieve the ambitious landfill diversion targets. 2. Although power production only will generally yield competitive gate fees, there is scope for further reductions of the gate fees through the sale of the heat produced 3. Whilst the UK does not have a tradition for district heating networks, there may be a particular potential to introduce supply schemes for selected large heat consumers when focusing on small-scale incinerators and more manageable infrastructure solutions. Therefore, small-scale EfW plants are, and are likely to remain, a very viable scenario for residual waste treatment.

25 Download these informative books on EfW for free at: Thank you for your attention!