Factors influencing the development of Small Scale Energy from Waste Kathryn Warren and Inge Johansson IEA Task 36! IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. 1
Agenda Personal Introduction IEA Task 36 Setting the scene Small Scale EfW Case studies Drivers and Barriers Conclusions 2
A personal hello Principal Technical Consultant @ Ricardo Energy & Environment 85 staff (UK based) 10 years of waste management experience Waste derived fuels, EfW technologies, renewable heat, biomass Waste procurement, waste strategy Industrial symbiosis, resource efficiency International Energy Agency Task 36 Integrating energy recovery into solid waste Chartered Waste Manager MSc Sustainable Waste Management 3
IEA Bioenergy Provides an international forum for sharing information and developing best practice on Technology development Non-technical barriers and issues Regulatory and legislative issues Produces authoritative information on key strategic issues affecting deployment http://www.ieabioenergy.com/ Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Canada Croatia Denmark European Commission Finland France Germany Ireland Italy Japan Korea Netherlands New Zealand Norway South Africa Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States 4
Task 36: Integrating Energy Recovery into Solid Waste Management Focus on: Integration of energy into modern solid waste management with a focus on thermal conversion. Aims to: Collate research and policy information and case study material to produce best practice guidelines for policy makers 5
Introduction 2004 IEA Task 36 Review of small scale Waste to energy conversion systems Focussed on technology and economics of small scale EfW Reported on commercial availability 2015 IEA Task 36 updating report to examine other drivers and barriers that can impact on small scale EfW: Legislation Public perception Policy Financing Outputs 6
Background Large EfW facilities tended to be developed in proximity to major urban areas. Small scale EfW viable alternative when the volume of waste, transportation costs or public opposition rule out largescale EfW, small-scale technologies can offer smaller communities in rural, semi-urban or remote areas an alternative to landfill. The challenge for small scale systems is to effectively meet emissions limits and regulations while dealing with the higher specific capital costs that small scale systems often face. 7
Current situation (<100,000 ktpa) Small scale EfW plants are not uncommon. but the presence of small scale EfW plants varies significantly between different countries. Japan at least 60% of waste incineration plants are understood to be small scale Italy 48 EfW facilities in Italy which treat MSW, and of which 19 have a treatment capacity of < 100,000 tonnes/year. Netherlands only have two small scale EfW plants UK 13 small scale EfW facilities, with a combined capacity of 798,000 tonnes 8
Average size of EfW plants (ISWA, 2013). 9
Case%Studies% 10
Exeter Energy Recovery Facility Devon County Council 11
Exeter Drivers and development Drivers for Devon County Council: 1. To reduce waste being sent to landfill, thus driving the management of this residual waste up the waste hierarchy Landfill tax bill of 11, by 2013/13 2. To meet Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets 3. To recover energy from waste The EfW facility was developed as an outcome of a Waste Management strategy: to ensure targets were met to provide certainty of future costs 12
Exeter Energy Recovery Facility Opened in 2014 in Exeter, Devon South West of England 60,000 tpa, single line, oscillating kiln Operated by Viridor Viridor manage Devon s waste disposal and treatment services for Devon County Council Waste delivered directly to the facility, or via a waste transfer station Predominantly household waste, small amount of C&I waste No pre-sorting of waste Currently no export of heat, A project is underway to try and achieve heat export via a proposed district heating network 13
Skövde Värmeverk Combined Heat and Power Plant 14
Skövde Värmeverk Drivers and Development Skövde - small municipality with 53,000 inhabitants in central-southern Sweden. Residual waste was transported to the EfW plant in Linköping (180 km away). Drivers: carbon dioxide tax which was introduced in Sweden in 1991, tax continues to increase landfill tax, introduced in 2000 a landfill ban for combustible wastes came in to force in 2002. The municipality decided to build a small scale EfW plant, mainly because waste was the most economic fuel alternative for the district heating production. The city s district heating scheme was fuelled by biomass and fossil fuels until 2005. 15
Skövde Värmeverk Combined Heat and Power Plant 60,000 tpa Moving grate combustion plant opened in 2005 Treats MSW from the municipality of Skövde as well as three surrounding municipalities The facility also treats approximately 12,000 tonnes of waste per year which is won via other public procurement contracts Waste is also imported waste from Norway and also from Malta. Drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels both for district heating and process heat to a nearby Volvo factory. Reduction in transport of residual waste outside of the area. Skövde has one of the lowest fees for district heating in Sweden. 16
Comparison Location of plant Exeter, UK Skövde, Sweden Plant size (tonnes/ 60,000 60,000 annum) Start of operation 2014 2005 Owner Private company: Viridor, the facility reverts back to Devon County Council upon expiry of the associated contract Public company: Skövde Värmeverk AB (100% owned by the municipality of Skövde) Types of waste received Municipal solid waste (99%), Commercial and industrial waste (1%) Municipal solid waste (50%), Commercial and industrial waste (47%), Hazardous waste (3%) Type of process Combustion (Oscillating kiln) Steam data (bar/ C) 40/390 16/215 Exported electricity 26.8 4 (GWh) Exported heat (GWh) 0 168 Investment cost 63m 33m Combustion (Moving grate) 17
Drivers%and%barriers% 18
Drivers and Barriers: Policy and Legislation Fiscal and regulatory measures in order to encourage EfW development... but do not give Small Scale EfW any advantages over the large scale plants all plants become more cost viable as an alternative to landfill. UK - the uncertainty on future landfill tax increases encouraged investment in alternative technologies which are often at a smaller scale. These policy drivers were attributed as being the main drivers for the development of the Exeter Energy Recovery Facility. Similarly, policy drivers were also instrumental in the development of the Skövde Värmeverk CHP plant, in the form of energy and carbon taxation. Energy taxation in Sweden has had a significant effect on what fuels are used in the district heating systems since heat from fossil fuels has been heavily taxed 19
Drivers and Barriers: Economics Capital costs of an EfW facility do not increase linearly with plant capacity. and so there are undoubtedly benefits in larger plants: more efficient use of land reduced unit costs higher energy efficiency Cost of access roads, weighbridges, development costs and engineering design. Operational costs are also higher for a smaller plant: Emissions measurements quality assurance and instrumentation and control Devon County Council highlighted the difficulties in not being able to benefit from the economies of scale of a larger facility. 20
Gate fee vs Operational Capacity (UK) Local Partnerships, 2014 21
Financial incentives for small scale? There are some financial incentives which make small scale facilities more attractive. Most gasification and pyrolysis technologies are based on modular designs and are often smaller than conventional combustion facilities. Examples - Energos EfW plants in Norway, Germany and the UK, with capacities ranging from 30,000 80,000 tonnes per annum Whilst advanced thermal technologies may not benefit from economy of scale they are sometimes eligible for financial subsidies. In the UK, growth in recent investment in this technology has been due primarily to the UK Government s Renewables Order (RO). 2x Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) per MWh for Advanced Conversion Technologies Conventional EfW receives none. 22
Drivers and Barriers: Heat and Energy Demand Sweden - a driver for small scale EfW plants: need for an economic fuel for district heating production heat source needs to be within reasonably close proximity to the heat network. Skövde facility was sized to be able to run on full load (without the need of chillers) during summer, when the heat demand is low. High tax CO2 was also a driver - unrealistic to invest in district heating production from fossil fuels. In countries where there is less demand for heat, or no established district heating infrastructure, small scale facilities may not be as attractive as the loss of economy of scale cannot be offset by the sale of heat. 23
Drivers and Barriers: Geography Small scale EfW facilities have been developed on Isle of Man, Shetland Isles and The Faroe Islands Lack of landfill capacity on smaller islands. Desire to be self-sufficient in managing waste by developing a local solution Opportunity for district heating Conversely, communities on islands or other remote locations may oppose EfW, even at a small scale, due to perceived negative impact on environment and tourism 24
Drivers and Barriers: Public Acceptance and Planning Sweden: More years of experience of EfW in Scandinavia and therefore the public are more accepting of this technology. UK: gaining public acceptance for some large scale EfW facilities has often been challenging many facilities delayed by ongoing and determined public opposition Small Scale at Exeter ERF was an advantage: created a connection with the public and the waste that they generate Easier to sell concept to stakeholders at planning and in public engagement. Small scale not always advantageous in public procurement: This was the case with the Exeter facility, for which the authority had a considerable challenge demonstrating value money, and it is thought 25 would have been unaffordable if it had been smaller.
Drivers and Barriers: Technical Issues Generally concluded that Smaller Scale EfW plants have lower net efficiency ~ 20-24% net electrical Larger plants can achieve net electrical efficiency of 30-31% Most thermal treatment technology is proven at small scale but limited track record and reliability of some technologies Smaller site footprints can be a challenge Exeter challenge in managing day-to-day waste inputs as bunker only has 3 day capacity reduces the operational flexibility of the facility on a day-to-day basis. A larger bunker size would have been preferable, but this was constrained by the physical size of the site. 26
Conclusions Policy - decision to develop facilities on a small scale are more relevant to local politics and situation. Costs Operational and capital costs are higher but there are often other drivers which take precedence over economics alone. Incentives: Financial incentives, and energy and resource drivers may further drive the development of smaller scale EfW facilities using Advanced Conversion Technologies. Geography can be a driving factor for small scale EfW, but in many cases there are additional drivers. Public Acceptance: treatment of waste close to the point of generation, the generation of jobs in the local community, and lower transport distances, all serve to increase the public acceptance of such facilities. Technical issues are not deemed to be a specific barrier. Technologies deployed at small scale are established, and include conventional combustion facilities such as moving grate and oscillating kilns, and Advanced Conversion Technologies 27
Acknowledgements Wendy Barratt, Devon County Council Dale Unsworth, Devon County Council Niranjan Patel, Local Partnerships Carl-Johan Andersson, CEO Skövde Värmeverk AB IEA Bioenergy Task 36 Ricardo Energy & Environment 28
How can IEA Task 36 help? 29
Key themes for next three years A. Developments in the circular economy and smart waste management and the way these impact energy recovery from waste. B. Trends on the processing of waste into specific fuels ( solid recovered fuels and/or refuse derived fuels ) C. Trends on the conversion of waste into chemicals or liquid fuels as part of the thermal conversion process D. Policy and legislative issues, including (1) transboundary shipment of waste and (2) restrictions on energy from waste in individual countries E. Challenges for the integration of energy into waste management in developing economies F. Trends in the production and use of commercial and industrial waste for energy 30
Thank you Kathryn Warren, Principal Technical Consultant Resource Efficiency and Waste Management Ricardo Energy & Environment kathryn.warren@ricardo.com 07837 293929 http://www.ieabioenergytask36.org/ www.ee.ricardo.com 31