STATUS AND TRENDS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION IN EUROPE

Transcription

1 STATUS AND TRENDS OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION IN EUROPE WINFRIED SIX ORGANIC WASTE SYSTEMS ISWA Beacon Conference on Biological Treatment Perugia, Italy, MAY 10-12, 2006

2 WHAT IS THE STATE-OF-THE-ART OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF THE ORGANIC FRACTION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN EUROPE?

3 DETERMINATION OF CAPACITY CRITERIA HOUSEHOLD ORGANIC WASTE OR EQUIVALENT MORE THAN 10% HOUSEHOLD ORGANIC SOLID WASTE > 3000 T PER YEAR MINIMUM SIZE DESIGN CAPACITY USED UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE TOTAL CAPACITY FOR BIOWASTE, BUT ONLY DIGESTION CAPACITY FOR RESIDUAL WASTE PLANTS NOT ELIMINATED IF OPERATION STOPPED PLANTS AT LEAST UNDER CONSTRUCTION (ONLY PROGNOSIS FOR YEAR 2006)

4 CAPACITY IN EUROPE 124 PLANTS IDENTIFIED IN 13 COUNTRIES T/YEAR CAPACITY IN 2006 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PERIOD INCREASE AVERAGE SIZE PLANTS/YEAR KT/Y 13 KT/Y KT/Y 21 KT/Y KT/Y 43 KT/Y 10.4

5 CUMULATIVE CAPACITY ANNUAL CUMULATIVE <1990 CAPACITY (TON/YEAR).

6 AVERAGE SIZE OF PLANTS ANNUAL SIZE AND NUMBER OF PLANTS IN EUROPE < # OF PLANTS INSTALLED ANNUALLY AVERAGE CAPACITY INSTALLED ANNUALLY NUMBER OF PLANTS.

7 AVERAGE CAPACITY POLAND UK ITALY CAPACITY PER COUNTRY GERMANY PORTUGAL FRANCE AUSTRIA DENMARK SWEDEN FINLAND TOTAL CAPACITY AVERAGE CAPACITY SWITZERLAND NETHERLANDS BELGIUM SPAIN TOTAL CAPACITY

8 CAPACITY PER MILLION INHABITANTS AND PERCENTAGE OF POTENTIAL THEORETICAL CAPACITY 10, , ,00 7, PERCENTAGE. 6,00 5,00 4,00 3, CAPACITY, 2, ,00 0 0,00 POLAND UK ITALY FINLAND SWEDEN DENMARK AUSTRIA FRANCE PORTUGAL GERMANY SWITZERLAND NETHERLANDS BELGIUM SPAIN Capacity per million inhabitants % of potential

9 ANALYSIS OF INSTALLED CAPACITY MESOPHILIC (35-40 C) VERSUS THERMOPHILIC (50-55 C) DRY (> 15 % DS) VERSUS WET (< 15 % DS) TWO PHASE (ACIDIFICATION + METHANIZATION) VERSUS SINGLE PHASE (COMBINED) CODIGESTION (SOLID WASTE + OTHER SUBSTRATE) VERSUS SOLID WASTE DIGESTION (ONLY WASTE) MIXED OR RESIDUAL WASTE (NO SEPARATE COLLECTION) VERSUS BIOWASTE (SEPARATE COLLECTION OF ORGANICS)

10 MESOPHILIC VERSUS THERMOPHILIC CUMULATIVE (TON/YEAR) % THERMO % MESO % OF TOTAL 0 till MESO THERMO % MESO % THERMO

11 MESOPHILIC VERSUS THERMOPHILIC 65% MESOPHILIC VS 35% THERMOPHILIC IN 2006 LAST 2 YEARS: 44% THERMOPHILIC 96% OF THERMOPHILIC PLANTS ARE DRY FERMENTATION ONLY 1 DRY SYSTEM OPERATES MOSTLY MESOPHILICALLY

12 WET VERSUS DRY CUMULATIVE (TON/YEAR) % WET % DRY % OF TOTAL till WET DRY % WET % DRY

13 WET VERSUS DRY DRY 57%, WET 43% IN : 60% WET 34% DRY LAST 2 YEARS: 54% DRY

14 ONE VERSUS TWO-PHASE CUMULATIVE (TON/YEAR), % TWO % ONE % OF TOTAL till ONE TWO % ONE % TWO

15 ONE VERSUS TWO-PHASE 87% ONE-PHASE VS 13% TWO-PHASE LAST 3 YEARS: 16% TWO-PHASE

16 SINGLE FEEDSTOCK VERSUS CODIGESTION % SOLID WASTE CUMULATIVE (TON/YEAR) % CODIGESTION % OF TOTAL 0 till SOLID WASTE CODIGESTION % solid waste % codigestion

17 SINGLE FEEDSTOCK VERSUS CODIGESTION 93% ONLY SOLID WASTE VS 7% CODIGESTION LAST TWO YEARS: 6% CODIGESTION CODIGESTION WITH ENERGY CROPS (CORN)

18 BIOWASTE VERSUS RESIDUAL WASTE CUMULATIVE (TON/YEAR) % RESIDUAL WASTE % BIOWASTE % OF TOTAL till BIOWASTE RESIDUAL WASTE % biowaste % residual

19 BIOWASTE VERSUS RESIDUAL WASTE IN 1998: 87% BIOWASTE VS 13% RESIDUAL WASTE IN 2006: 48% BIOWASTE VS 52% RESIDUAL WASTE LAST TWO YEARS: 33% BIOWASTE VS 67% RESIDUAL WASTE

20 SUPPLIERS 27 DIFFERENT SUPPLIERS 3 SUPPLIERS HAVE MORE THAN 15 PLANTS OF SAME SYSTEM: VALORGA, KOMPOGAS AND DRANCO LINDE: DRY AND WET SYSTEM + 10 OF EACH FIVE COMPANIES: > 2/3 OF PLANTS AND 70% OF CAPACITY 22 COMPANIES FOR 30% OF CAPACITY, 12 COMPANIES HAVE NOT SOLD A PLANT SINCE 2002

21 SUPPLIERS DIVERSITY IN SUPPLIERS - 6 COMPANIES WITH DRY TECHNOLOGY - 21 COMPANIES WITH WET TECHNOLOGY

22 DIVERSITY IN APPLICATION MIXED WASTE + BIOWASTE + RESIDUAL WASTE RESTAURANT WASTE - CORN - INDUSTRIAL ORGANICS AS ADDITIONAL FEEDSTOCKS MIXED/RESIDUAL WASTE: PARTIAL STREAM DIGESTION (20 TO 70% OF ORGANICS) AND FULL STREAM DIGESTION (100% OF ORGANICS)

23 FULL STREAM DIGESTION RESIDUAL WASTE METALS RDF BIOGAS PROCESS WATER WATER CO 2 DRY SORTING ANAEROBIC DIGESTION DEWATERING AEROBIC COMPOSTING / DRYING INCINERATION OR LANDFILL

24 PARTIAL STREAM DIGESTION RESIDUAL WASTE METALS RDF CO 2 WATER WATER DRY SORTING AEROBIC COMPOSTING DRYING % ANAEROBIC DIGESTION BIOGAS INCINERATION OR LANDFILL

25 DRANCO PLANT POHLSCHE HEIDE PARTIAL STREAM DIGESTION AND TUNNEL COMPOSTING WITHOUT WASTEWATER PRODUCTION

26 MAJOR DRIVING FORCES FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PRODUCTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY: VALUE UP TO 40 TO 50 EURO PER TON DIGESTED ODORS: 200X LESS ODORS TO BE TREATED IN THE BIOFILTERS COMPARED TO AEROBIC TREATMENT SURFACE AREA: TWO TO FOUR TIMES LESS SURFACE AREA NEEDED RECOVERY OF BOTH COMPOST AND BIOENERGY REDUCTION OF ORGANICS GOING TO LANDFILL (EU-DIRECTIVE)

27 OUTSIDE OF EUROPE LESS THAN 10% OF CAPACITY INSTALLED IN EUROPE EMERGING COUNTRIES: JAPAN, KOREA, AUSTRALIA, ISRAEL, CANADA BUT STILL RATHER LIMITED

28 CASE STUDY: BRECHT II FACILITY

29 DRANCO: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF SOLID WASTE

30 DRANCO BRECHT FACILITY LARGEST DIGESTION PLANT IN OPERATION ON BIOWASTE 2 UNITS: T/Y AND T/Y COMBINED INSTALLED POWER: 2MW SURFACE AREA: 2 HA 5 YEARS OF SUCCESFUL OPERATION ALL COMPOST CERTIFIED AND SOLD

31 OPERATION BRECHT II * FEEDSTOCK (T/Y) - BIOWASTE - OTHER TOTAL PRODUCTION OF BIOGAS - M³ BIOGAS (IN MILLIONS) - M³ BIOGAS/TON INCOMING - M³ BIOGAS/M³/DAY VOLUMETRIC CAPACITY USED 83% 83% 70% 81% - *2005 BASED ON 31 WEEKS

32 BRECHT II PLANT INPUT IN REACTOR & BIOGAS PRODUCTION -DRANCO PLANT BRECHT II tons Nm³/ton input Week (2003) - Total reactor input Biogas production

33 BRECHT II PLANT TONS FED & BIOGAS PRODUCTION TONS/WEEK TON t m³ week - tons fed biogas production per ton

34 RESULTS 5-YEARS CELEBRATION IGEAN-2 PLANT YEAR BIOWASTE TREATED BIOGAS PRODUCED BIOGAS PER TON ELECTRICITY PRODUCED (MWH) USE OF ENGINES (%) TOTAL AVERAGE

35 CONCLUSION STATE-OF-THE-ART CONSIDERABLE GROWTH : AROUND 30% OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF SOLID WASTE IS ANAEROBIC EXPERIENCED SUPPLIERS WITH VARIETY OF TECHNOLOGIES INTEGRATED IN VARIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES ACROSS MOST OF EUROPE AD OF SOLID WASTE HAS BECOME AN ESTABLISHED TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH AEROBIC COMPOSTING FOR EITHER BIOWASTE OR ORGANICS FROM MSW