Biowaste Management in Norway Frame conditions and status

Transcription

1 Biowaste Management in Norway Frame conditions and status Alytus 8 April 2010 Henrik Lystad Vice Manager Waste Management Norway

2 Waste Management Norway Avfall Norge Interest organisation for the Waste sector in Norway, with main focus on the municipalities Founded in 1986, current name from 2006 Covers 95% of the population through public members 7 man-years in the secretarite Board, R&D board and 7 working groups 2

3 Main activities Working groups Influencing Power Competence Communciations Research and development Member involvement and organisational issues Collection and recycling Incineration Biological treatment Landfilling Hazardous waste Communication Legal issues 3

4 International Engagements Close relations with Nordic Countries 4 Avfall Sverige (S) RenoSam(DK) European Composting Network, ECN ISWA Municipal Waste Europe ( New EU-members/Developing countries

5 Norway Population 4,7 mio Area: km 2 Pop. density: 15 km -2 Agric.: 3% - forest: 30% Not EU member EEA member (European Economic Area) ->Contributions like Norway Grants 5

6 Municipality structure and waste regulation Household waste is responsibility of municipality System Collection (tender) Treatment (both) 433 Municipalities Intermunicipal cooperation through regional waste companies is the solution in many regions Commercial waste is responsibility of waste owner Number of inhabitants Fewer than and more 35 Number of municipalities 6

7 Waste Management Waste treated at waste facilities: 3,8 million tonnes Increasing amounts until Economic slowdown Increased amounts of contamiated soil Governmental aim to separate growth (GDP) from waste generation 75% recycling Reduce landfilling Treat residual waste in Norway

8 Waste management before 1990 Landfilling and incineration, Initial source separation of paper/cardboard and glas Mechanical sorting projects (MBT) without success 8

9 Source separation of biowaste Started in the early 1990 s driven by a: Ban on landfilling of biowaste Communicated in the 90 s legally established in 2001 Residual waste still allowed if a source separation regime was established Landfill tax: ca 35 /t -> ca 55 /t (NOK 455) for degradable waste 9

10 Fertiliser act organic fertiliser Since 1998 Regulates the quality of compost, digestate and sewage sludge Obligatory internal quality control system Controlled by Food safety authority 10

11 Result of 1st landfill ban Source separation in regions with landfilling and no incineration Approx 60 % of the population started source separation A new composting industry 11

12 Systems of source separations 50/50 between paper bags & biobags Two chamber waste trucks dominating Source separation normally part of an integrated collection scheme Based on a survey

13 Collection of residual waste with and without biowaste sorting 13 Collection of residual waste With biowaste source separation No biowaste sorting Every week 8 % 77 % Every 2nd week Between every day Every 4th week Other system 46 % 23 % 5 % 0 % 35 % 0 % 5 % 0 %

14 Collected amounts Norway statistics ( t biowaste 65 kg/inhab*y (that have source separation) Survey Average 67 kg/inhab*year More in regions where napkinds and/or garden waste is included System All 67 With napkinds 96 With garden waste 85 Only kitchen waste 50 Average collected biowaste kg/inhab*y 14

15 Collection trends Expected to rise substantially since Oslo has started source separation and surrounding municipalities are planning the same 15

16 Composting in Norway Around 30 plants built Turned windrows Static piles Closed reactors Starting problems Waste quality Stability Odors 16

17 Waste quality 17

18 Stability and odors Different waste quality than expected Reduced capacity Reduced stability Odors!!!! 18

19 Today a success story Lessons learned Working techologies High and low tech Little odor problems Stable output of compost with high and regulated quality to the market 19

20 Compost market Agriculture is not the most important customer High end market: Soil producers Green sector (landscapers etc.) From bulk to bags (Florist chains, IKEA) 9 % 33 % Organic farming Private bulk market Internal use 4 % 13 % 40 % Conventionell agriculture Landscaping etc. 20 Based on a study from 2000

21 Home composting A method to divert biowaste from residual waste and landfills Norwegian statistics: 3-4 % Nordic Ecolabel for insulated home composting bin for kitchen waste 21

22 Garden waste Increasing amounts Increased service for inhabitants or changing habits among citizens? Collection at recycling stations Some have streetside collection 22

23 Sewage slugde Total t dry matter 58 % used on land Continuos work to improve quality upstreams Source detection Quality controll within regulation 23

24 Newer development Landfill ban 2: since 7/2009 Experience with 1st landfill ban: Source separation does not remove all biowaste in residual waste Similar to existing ban in Sweden, Austria and Germany 24 On degradable waste - TOC 10 % (OM 20 %) Approx 1 mio tonnes of waste to be diverted Incineration, Biological treatment and recycling Treatment capacity under planning/construction Transsissional period Massive export to Sweden! Little impact on source separation of household waste

25 Waste and climate scenarios with biowaste Klimagassutslipp per kilo avfall ved avfallshåndtering Beste case for biogassproduksjon fra våtorganisk avfall 0,0 Biologisk behandling; biogass med drivstoffproduksjon (98% virkningsgrad i oppgraderingsprosessen, 87% erstatningsgrad i motor) Biologisk behandling; biogass med elproduksjon (35% virkningsgrad, 100% utnyttelsesgrad) Biologisk behandling; biogass med el- OG varmeproduksjon (35% elvirkningsgrad, 50% varmevirkningsgrad, 100% utnyttelsesgrad for begge) (varme erstatter fjernvarmemiks) Biologisk behandling; biogass med el- OG varmeproduksjon (35% elvirkningsgrad, 50% varmevirkningsgrad, 100% utnyttelsesgrad for begge) (varme erstatter olje/ el) Biologisk behandling; biogass med varmeproduksjon (85% virkningsgrad, 100% utnyttelsesgrad) (erstatter fjernvarmemiks) Biologisk behandling; biogass med varmeproduksjon (85% virkningsgrad, 100% utnyttelsesgrad) (erstatter olje/ el) kg CO2-ekv/ kg avfall -0,2-0,4 Våtorganisk Våtorganisk Våtorganisk Våtorganisk Våtorganisk Våtorganisk Fuel production elproduction el- and heat (replacing el and district heating mix) el- and heatproduksjon (replacing el and oil/el) Heat production (replacing el and district heating mix Heat production (replacing oil/el) Biogas used for vehicle fuel Most environmental friendly among treatment alternatives for biowaste fraction AND Best alternative among biofuels Source: Avfall Norge/Østfoldforskning

26 New wave of source separation climate driven Oslo case plastic packaging and food waste Keeping the two bin system with colored bags and optical sorting 26

27 Biogas potensial in Norway Source: Østlandsforskning

28 Gas in history and future? Capacity Biogas Natural Gas Town Gas Time 28

29 Use of biogas in Norway - Landfills Flaring and electricity production Reduction of methan leakage to atmosphere most important task, commercial use gives incentives to capture as much gas as possible, but: Long distance to possible customer, low quality and volume Use of collected gas 29 % GWh GWh, used Elekcticity 40 % % Heat 21 % % Flared 39 % % Efficiency Sum 100 % %

30 Use of the gas at waste water treament plants and waste facilities Use of produced biogas GWh Prosent (%) Electricity 32,3 18 Heat 94,2 53 Flared 33,7 19 Upgraded 3,0 2 No specified use 16,2 9 Sum 179,3 100 % 30

31 FREVAR/ IVAR/Bekkelaget: Upgrading to bio methane Use as fuel Tax exemption gives economical room, but for how long Whole new value chain to be established! Best suited for vehicle fleets in the beginning (busses, waste trucks) Feed in to the natural gas grid Other purposes 31

32 Thank you for your attention! Please contact me for questions: 32 Henrik Lystad Tel: +47/ Mobile: +47/