Chemical Engineer Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Transcription

1 Waste-to to-energy in the U.S. and Trends for the Future Jesse Miller Chemical Engineer Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Tuesday, August 9,

2 Presentation Outline ORCR Atiiti Activities Status of WTE Industry Project Development Advanced Technologies Energy Recovery Website Plants Funding Options Technologies and Risk Location Federal Policies i Current Projects Air Emissions / GHG Profile Renewable Portfolio Standards Recent History / Flow Control 2

3 ORCR Activities 3

4 ORCR Waste-to to-energy Program Summary ORCR is not currently undertaking any rulemaking regarding biomass. There has been no legislative mandate which would cause WTE to climb the priority list within ORCR. However, ORCR still believes that the use of biomass for energy production is an important element of the total U.S. energy picture. ORCR recently posted a new Energy Recovery from Wastes website located at: 4

5 Status of WTE Industry in the U.S. US Types of Plants and locations Air Emissions Recent History WTE Set-backs 5

6 Types of Waste-to-Energy Thermal Treatment Systems There are currently zero operating large scale pure MSW-fed gasification plants and pyrolysis units in the U.S. Total Modular 86 WTE Plants Operating in the US U.S. (63 MB + 16 RFD + 7 modular = 86 total) 7 operating U.S. plants Handles small volume of MSW Refuse Derived Fuel 16 operating U.S. plants MSW is pre-shredded Mass Burn 63 operating U.S. plants No pretreatment of MSW 6

7 States with Operating WTE Plants in the U.S. Florida - 11 facilities New York - 10 facilities Minnesota - 9 facilities Massachusetts - 7 facilities 7

8 Mass Burn Plants Mass burn (WTE) plants are designed to be highly reliable with consistent operation They typically operate at about 25% efficiency (Coal plants, by comparison, typically operate at 35% efficiency) WTE plants run constantly, and experience very little down time due to the decreased efficiency WTE plants reduce waste volume by 90% and the remaining residual ash goes to a landfill 8

9 WTE Additional Information Total Daily Design Capacity 94,216 TPD Total Annual Capacity million tons The 2010 Energy Recovery Council publishes a Directory of Waste-to-Energy to Plants. This Directory lists the following information for each facility: Trash Capacity Energy Capacity Project Start-Up date Technology Air pollution control systems Owner/Operator 9

10 Air Emissions Today s large and small MWCs operate under the following regulations which control hazardous and priority pollutants: Large MWCs Part 60, Subparts Eb & Cb Units with an individual capacity greater than 250 tons per day Small MWCs Part 62, Subparts AAAA & BBBB Units with an individual capacity of 250 tons per day or less All facilities have Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to monitor NOx, SOx, and CO. Periodic manual stack testing is required to demonstrate compliance with emission standards for particulate matter, mercury, and lead. 10

11 Air Emission Reductions since 1990 The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 resulted in eventual EPA regulation that significantly decreased the emissions from MWCs Pollutant Percent Emissions Emissions Reduction in (tpy) (tpy) Emissions Dioxin a 4, % Mercury % Cadmium % Lead % Particulate 18, % HCl 57,400 3,200 94% SO 2 38,300 4,600 88% NOx 64,900 49,500 24% a- grams per year, toxic equivalent quantity (TEQ) 11

12 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fuel CO2 (pounds per megawatt hour) Coal 2249 Oil 1672 MSW 1344 Natural Gas 1135 WTE plants emit less carbon dioxide emissions than oil and coal fired plants because 55% of MSW is considered biogenic. According to EPA s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent would be prevented for each ton of mixed MSW combusted as opposed to being landfilled. d 12

13 A picture is worth a thousand words Pictures provided by Nilabh Narayan Mechanical Engineer for Hennepin County Department of Environmental Engineering g Services 13

14 Hennepin County, MN - Ariel View 14

15 WTE Set-backs No new WTE facility has been built since Why?? Flow Control Financing Environmentalist Opposition Flow Control Flow control is the authority needed by a municipality to direct its generated solid wastes and associated tipping fees to a facility chosen by the community, e.g., the local lwte facility. The 1994 Carbone Supreme Court decision essentially deemed this authority illegal because it restrained commerce. The Oneida-Herkimer decision in 2007 basically reversed the Carbone decision. 15

16 WTE Set-backs Financing WTE facilities i require significant ifi upfront capital. Landfilling is the cheapest disposal option, and the U.S. has massive amounts of land. New technologies like gasification and pyrolysis are deemed high risk. Environmentalist opposition: They want the U.S. to move towards zero waste. They see WTE facilities as pollution emitters. Potential Environmental Justice siting issues 16

17 Project Development 17

18 Financing Facilities Municipal owner Private ownership Revenue bond financing 100% debt Construction and long-term Design-build-operate contractor Security: service agreement 18

19 What Public Sector Looks For Opportunity to become greener Low risk Proven technologies that meet environmental standards Technology performing as expected Predictable economics Avoided/marginal cost of disposal Community acceptance Work with the community; don t surprise them! 19

20 Project Funding Landfill disposal costs need to approach $100 per ton before WTE becomes economically viable It is more economically beneficial to pursue projects that produce fuel as opposed to electricity With the difficulties of securing the upfront capital, smaller projects are being pursued Developers are searching for creative ways to build facilities Typically, the most successful projects utilize federal tax incentives and state RPS programs. 20

21 Policies that Help Promote the Use of Renewables Tax Credits (part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) The Federal Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit The Federal Renewable Energy Investment Tax Credit State Renewable Portfolio Standards 37 States and DC have some sort of RPS 21 21

22 Renewable Portfolio Standards d (RPS) There is no RPS program in place at the national level State programs vary widely in terms of: Program structure Enforcement mechanisms Size and application Some states have a renewable electricity credit (REC) trading system that helps to achieve RPS mandates. This system allows electricity producers who generate renewable electricity to trade or sell certificates to those suppliers who do not utilize renewables. 22

23 Update on Maryland Renewable Energy Program May 17, 2011 Maryland Governor Martin O Malley signed legislation that placed waste to energy plants and refuse derived fuel facilities in the top tier of renewable energy sources on a par with solar, wind, and other renewables for purposes of Maryland s renewable energy portfolio. This will help Maryland reach its 20% renewables (of its total consumption) requirement by Legislation takes effect on October tb 1, Maryland is consequently looking for companies to invest in waste to energy t projects. 23

24 Statement from Governor Martin O Malley on his Decision i to Sign Senate Bill 690 After careful deliberation, I have decided to sign Senate Bill 690. Our State has an aggressive goal of generating 20% of our energy from Tier 1 renewable sources by 2022 and we intend to achieve that goal through as much in-state energy generation as possible. This will require a diverse fuel mix including onshore and offshore wind, solar, biomass including poultry litter, and now waste-to-energy if we are to realize our 20% goal 24

25 Additional Federal Assistance Programs In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded $564 million worth of grants for biorefinery yprojects The 2008 Farm Bill gave $1 billion to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to allocate toward project development of biofuels through various programs The 2012 Farm Bill is projected not to contain such funds. 25

26 What Does This Mean? States will have to work with developers to find creative ways to utilize MSW as a feedstock, and to divert it from going g to landfills. Maryland s decision could motivate other states to follow suit. 26

27 Advanced d Technologies 27

28 Technologies and Risk Alternative Risks/Liability Risk Summary Mass Burn/WaterWall W Proven commercially ill Very Low Mass Burn/Modular Proven commercially Low RDF/ Dedicated Boiler Proven commercially Low RDF/ Fluid Bed Pyrolysis Proven technology; limited U.S. commercial experience Previous failures at scale, uncertain commercial potential; Gasification i Limited i operating experience at only small scale Moderate High High Anaerobic digestion, mixed-waste composting, and chemical decomposition are other options that some communities are pursuing. 28

29 Current Projects GeoPlasma St. Lucie, FL Renewable WTE Project Plasma converter system that generates a syngas Feedstock: MSW and tires Capital cost: $125 million The City of Newburgh, NY plans to save as much as $14 per ton on its waste disposal by sending it instead to a soon-to-be-built biomass gasification plant in Montgomery, NY Taylor Biomass Energy will use a biomass gasification system to generate syngas. 29

30 Questions???? Jesse Miller (703)