Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants The percepti on of Waste-to-Ene rgyWASTECON 2009 Dr. Ella StenglerLong Beach CEWEP - Managing Director
CEWEPConfederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants CEWEP represents about 380 Waste-to-Energy plants across Europe, 88% of the European market. They thermally treat household and similar waste, that remains after waste prevention, reuse and recycling by generating energy from it. This is how they replace fossil fuels, such as coal, used by conventional power plants.
Waste-to-Energy in Europe Finland 1 0.05• Waste-to-Energy Plants in Europe operating in 2007 Norway (not including hazardous waste incineration plants) 20 0.9 Sweden• Thermally treated household and similar waste Estonia 30 4.5 Latvia Denmark 29* 3.5 Lithuania Ireland United Kingdom 20 4.4 Netherlands Poland 11 5.8 Germany 1 0.05 Belgium 67 17.8 16 2.6 Czech Republic Luxembourg 3 0.4 Slovakia 1 0.1 Data supplied by CEWEP members 2 0.2* unless specified otherwise Austria Hungary France Switzerland 8 1.6 1 0.4 Romania 130 12.3 28 3.6 Slovenia Italy 51 4 Bulgaria Portugal Spain 3 1 10 1.8 Greece* From Eurostat to give an estimate only, as co-incineration plants are included. * Data for 2006 used as data for 2007 are not yet available.
What we did … Making alliances: Coalition of European Associations tackling main concerns raised by NGOs Waste Management in user-friendly language A little humour goes a long way All available on www.cewep.eu
Communication approach Transparency and open dialogueWith the press • all emission results • consistent, persistent • press briefings, press releasesWith the neighbours • ombudsman • all emission results first to neighbours • involved in new initiativesWith the general public • through media • brochureWith the authorities • face-to-face contacts Recommendations from Tom De Bruyckere’s • road shows presentation on ISVAG WtE Plant, Belgium at the CEWEP Congress 2008
Communication approachInformation In countries where people are familiar with WtE (e.g. long tradition in Scandinavian countries) perception much better than in countries without WtE-> Information is essential…. Some facts and figures ….
Treatment of MSW in Europe > 40% of Municipal Solid Waste across the EU 27 is still landfilled, although landfill gases (methane) contribute significantly to global warming (methane equals 25 times CO2 in mass). Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in the EU 27 in 2007 Source: EUROSTAT
Waste HierarchyThe 5step waste hierarchyin the European WasteFramework Directive helpsto achieve sustainablewaste management,placing prevention at thetop and disposal (such aslandfilling) as the leastfavoured option.
WtE hand in hand with Recycling The Member States who have most successfully reduced dependence on landfill have done this by combining: • material recycling • biological treatment (composting and anaerobic digestion) • and Waste-to-Energy Proving that WtE goes hand in hand with Recycling.
Treatment of MSW in the EU 27 in 2007Source: EUROSTAT
WtE: cleanly and safelytreating your waste Sophisticated filtering devices minimise the emissions into the atmosphere by blocking the pollutants, originating from the waste, such as heavy metals. The Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC introduced the most stringent emission limit values applied to any single industry in Europe.
WtE plant (MVR) Hamburg,operating Best Available Techniques (BAT)
Lisbon UniversHealth studies of Preventive M itys Institute edicine: waste incinerat ion "does not impact on dioxin blood levels of nearby resid ents" of Waste-to-Energ y plants www.sciencedir ect.com UK Committ ee of Carcino “any potentia genity: l risk of canc residency nea er due to r to municipa waste inciner l solid ators was exc low, and prob eedingly ably not mea by the most m surable odern epidemiologi cal technique http://www.ad s” visorybodies.d k/Coc/munipw oh.gov.u st.htm
Health studiesThe Scientific Advisory Council of the Federal Medical Association(Germany) investigated potential health risks caused by emissions ofWaste-to-Energy Plants, concluding: “The evaluation conducted shows that currently operating Waste-to-Energy Plants, which are conform to the technical standards, cause very marginal health risks which can therefore be classified as negligible health risks for the population living in the vicinity of Waste-to-Energy Plants”Source: German Medical Journal 90, edition 1 / 2, 11th of January 1993,p. 45-53, Publications
WtE: Contributing to climateprotection WtE plants replace fossil fuels, such as coal, which would have been used by conventional power plants to produce the energy which is generated by WtE plants. This is how they save CO2 emissions and reduce Europe’s dependence on limited fossil fuel resources.
WtE’s contribution to renewableenergy generationDirective on Energy from Renewable Sources (RES):Definition of biomass (Art. 2) comprises thebiodegradable fraction of industrial and municipalwaste renewable energy source
The RES Directive► 20% share of renewables in overall EU energy consumptionAmbitious targets: today 8.5% of energy is renewable.To achieve a 20% share by 2020 will require majorefforts across all sectors of the economy and by allMember States.
WtE’s contribution torenewable energy generation67,9% of the EU 27’s renewable energy sources comesfrom biomass and waste,12% of which is from municipal waste .WtE already supplies a considerable amount of renewable energy-> about 34 billion Kilowatt-hours (34 Terawatt-hours) reference year: 2006 (= ca. 50% of the total energy generation by WtE Plants as we assume 50% biodegradable part in MSW ) European Environment Agency, "Maximising the environmental benefits of Europe’s bioenergy potential", Technical report 2008 http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2008_10/en Electricity consumption @ 3500 kWh per household Heat consumption @ 16500 kWh heat per household, which is the average heat consumption of households in Dk and NL)
Share of renewable Energy from WtE asa % of total renewable energy forselected countries Assumption is that countries do achieve their binding target for renewable energy by 2020. Country 2006 2020 NL 14,3 4,4 BE 13,3 2,5 DK 12,5 6,3 DE 7,5 3,0 CZ 3,9 3,3 SE 3,7 4,7 UK 3,6 1,8 Decline of % contributed by WtE is because total renewable energy per country must grow much faster in order to meet the target.
tE e benefits of WCommunicate th• WtE helps to reduce both, dependence on landfill and limited fossil fuel resources• is a cost-effective and reliable renewable energy source• is an effective option to reduce GHG emissions• the technology (grate furnace) is robust and proven for decades of experience
Apropos robust and proven ….What about the “innovative” alternatives to WtE, such asgasification, pyrolisis, mechanical biological treatment(MBT) etc?Are they proven?Are they robust enough to take the residual heterogenouswaste?Can MBT avoid the non beloved “incineration”?Can MBT avoid landfilling?
MBTOne has to bear in mind that MBT is only a pretreatment.It does not work without landfilling or thermal treatment.Does this pretreatment have advantages- From an environmental point of view?- From a hygiene point of view? working conditions for employees?- From an economic point of view?Let’s have a look what the experts say, …from a country which gathered some appropriate experience
MBTGerman advisory council on the environment (SRU):2008 environment policy report10.2.4 Conclusions and Suggestions: “The mechanical-biological treatment of waste (MBT) has been established as complementary to incineration, but it is still fighting with the fulfillment of the edge conditions like security of disposal, conformity with current legislation and economics. Due to these open questions, further constructions of MBT plants are currently not advised. There are chances of this treatment when being enhanced to a material flow method before incineration or as an export technology”.The SRU is a scientific advisory board of the German Government to which itdelivers every 4 years an environment report.http://www.umweltrat.de/02gutach/downlo02/umweltg/UG_2008.pdf.
Desperate search for alternatives“Are there real alternatives to incineration for theremaining waste?”Negative public perception of waste incineration has lead tosearch desperately for alternative methods to treat thisremaining waste e.g. via gasification, pyrolysis or plasma.However, these treatment methods do not receive anygreater sympathy from the NGOs than traditionalincineration as can be seen, inter alia, in a study byGAIA. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) on “An industry blowing smoke: 10Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration are Not “Green Solutions”2009 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/BlowingSmokeReport.pdf
Serious alternatives toincineration?They mention a report by Fichtner Consulting Engineerswhere it is stated that “Many of the perceived benefits of gasification and pyrolysis over combustion technology proved to be unfounded.” The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatment in the UK, Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited, 2004, p.4
Communicate proven technology100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark:From Refuse Destruction Plants toHigh-technology Energy WorksBy Heron Kleis, Babcock & Wilcox Vølund and Søren Dalager, Rambøll (2004), p 48http://www.cewep.eu/statements/subdir/art249,234.html
and often even beautiful …… and in the city centre
Spot the Waste-to-Energy Plant! City of Monaco CEWEP
For more information on Waste to Energy: CEWEP Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants Boulevard Clovis 12A, B-1000 Brussels Tel. +32 2 770 63 11 Fax +32 2 770 68 14 firstname.lastname@example.org www.cewep.eu