Market opportunities for waste derived fuels and process heat


Published on

AEA's Kathryn Warren presents at an event hosted by Envirolink at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull.

This year’s Landfill Tax rise to £64 per tonne plus disposal charge means that sending waste to landfill is becoming an uneconomical option. In a climate where customers are looking to get the best deal possible on their waste disposal costs, recycling and waste companies are under pressure to find alternatives to landfill. Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) offers a potential to utilise the combustible fraction of waste as a fuel within the energy, combined heat and power (CHP) and cement industries.

This event provided an introduction to SRF markets in the UK and Europe; testing standards and protocols; best practice refinement equipment; the perspectives of endusers and case study examples.

Kathryn's presentation looked at the "Market opportunities for waste derived fuels and process heat"

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This needs updating at the end
  • Significant quantities of residual waste will remain, even after waste reduction and recycling has been taken into account. This could be processed in conventional EfW facilities, or processed further into SRF. Wood waste also represents a significant quantity of potential fuel, if poor segregation from mixed C&I and C&D waste can be overcome. Natural wood resources may also be a future energy source, as quantities remain after traditional uses are taken into account. Dry agricultural residues are also a potential, although have a wider range of traditional uses and are seasonally dependent.
  • Fuels need to be manufactured to a specification to enable the following benefits : Consistent properties that can be defined and used in contracts making the material a tradable commodity; Physical and biological stability that makes longer term storage possible and can even out imbalances between the constant supply of waste and the seasonal demand for energy; and An opportunity to manage the properties of the fuel to achieve optimum performance from the energy technology. Each combustion or ATT technology will have its own feedstock requirements, which will specify the CV, particle size, and moisture content. Manufacturers of WDF will need to understand and adhere to these feedstock requirements.
  • We have mapped 83 waste sites in total: 63 MBT/MRF sites; 7 Waste wood sites; 13 Clinical waste sites. 78 (94%) of the waste site mapped have point heat loads within a 20 mile radius. 263 potential heat customers were identified with total heat load of about 7.9GW Considering which sites would be able to accommodate EfW plant, we limited this to large and medium industrial sites and established district heating schemes. The total heat load of the sites in these three categories amounts to approximately 6.75 GW th of capacity, representing 170 individual sites, excluding any double counting
  • A scoring and suitability assessment was applied to the different industrial sectors. This included factors such as grade of heat and site compatibility A range of sites were selected to model the potential viability of importing WDF to displace existing fossil fuel usage. Three possible options were considered: Sites only suitable for heat only boilers Sites suitable for CHP and/or heat only boilers Sites already with gas fired CHP but which can convert to EfW CHP
  • Market opportunities for waste derived fuels and process heat

    1. 1. Kathryn Warren Senior Consultant Waste Management & Resource Efficiency 18th May 2012 AEASRF: Fuelling the Future
    2. 2. Agenda – all in 20 minutes! + A personal welcome + Setting the scene + Aims of our research + Methodology applied + Outcomes + What next? 2
    3. 3. A personal welcome + Senior Consultant @ AEA in Waste Management and Resource Efficiency + Focus on - waste derived fuel - EfW - waste procurement + Cardiff based - UK/US remit + Delivering EfW and organics procurement support for a number of private waste companies 3
    4. 4.
    5. 5. Setting the Scene 5
    6. 6. 6
    7. 7. Current Situation + Increasing landfill tax + Growth in MBT + Rise in SRF production + Zero waste policies + Financial melt down 7
    8. 8. The Energy Situation + Commitment to CO2 Reduction + Commitment to Renewable Energy + Ageing Nuclear Capacity + High gas and oil prices + Dwindling home production of oil and gas + Rising population + Equates to a potential Energy Crisis - Extracting energy from waste seen to be a positive contribution! - EfW, Biogas, Solid Recovered Fuels 8
    9. 9. Setting the scene Fuel inputs Energy outputs How much waste derived fuel is available? How much process heat do we use What are the current markets for in England? for WDF in the UK How does that compare with fuel How much energy could we available? recover from the UK waste stream How could industry use WDFs? What would be the economics of How would this work financially? using more WDF? What are the opportunities for Fossil Fuel Displacement?
    10. 10. Our approach
    11. 11. Review of Waste Derived Fuels + Top down approach: - Overall arisings - Potential WDF within overall arisings - WDF included RDF/SRF, Waste wood, forestry residues and agricultural residues 11
    12. 12. UK Waste arisingsWaste type Total (million tonnes)MSW 31.5C&I 67.3C&D 101.0Dry agricultural residues 13.3Forestry residues 7.8TOTAL 220.7 12
    13. 13. Potential WDF Tonnes available Energy potentialMaterial (Mt) (GJ)RDF/SRF from MSW and C&I 11,482,884 125,880,748(2015)Waste Wood (2009) 2,200,000 33,000,000Forestry Residues (2009) 1,987,000 18,677,800Agricultural Residues (2009) 3,012,000 54,216,000TOTAL 18,681,884 231,774,548 13
    14. 14. Current use of WDF - SRF + Estimated 800,000 already produced + A further 2.5 million tonnes from future MBT/MHT plants + Other than EfW, other predominant user is cement kilns + Finite capacity of cement kilns + Large quantities exported 14
    15. 15. Current use of WDF - wood + Markets for virgin untreated wood have increased, due to expansion of biomass heating + Markets for waste wood not developed in the same way + Examples of WID compliant biomass plants, but most still focussed on clean wood and biomass + Increasing exports of waste wood 15
    16. 16. Opportunities for fossil fuel displacement + Depends very much on energy conversion technology + Technologies are limited in the range of fuel types they can accept + Fuel quality, properties and composition need to be understood + Increasingly fuels are produced to a specification, as opposed to mass burn + Unlikely that most raw materials would be suitable for direct use in an energy recovery process 16
    17. 17. UK Heat Demand 17
    18. 18. Overall Heat Demand Sector GW Heat load Industrial 13.7 Domestic 147.8 Commercial Offices 4.6 Government buildings 3.3 Education 3.3 Health 1.3 Others 20.7 Total (all Sectors) 194.7 18
    19. 19. WDF and Heat mapping + Mapped sites producing waste using GIS + Calculated energy resource at each site, using assumed CV of waste type + Identified large single point heat loads + Sized potential EfW plants based on energy available and heat demand + Selection of sites analysed further for feasibility and costs 19
    20. 20. Heat mapping
    21. 21. Large Heat Users + 94% of waste sites mapped had point heat loads within 20 mile radius + Suitability refined to include only: - Large and medium industrial sites - Established district heating schemes + Total heat load of these sites estimated at 6.75 GWth 22
    22. 22. Heat demand by sector 23
    23. 23. Matching suitable technology Range of tonnage Size range of Maturity ofTechnology Type of waste used Technology Technology (tonnes/year) (MW) Heat only plant Mature 500 – 100,000 0.25 – 70 MWth (Combustion) technology CHP (standard 15,000 tonnes Mature 1 MWe steam cycle) upwards technology upwards Gasification and Development & 1 MWepyrolysis (Heat or 600 -100,000 Commercialisation upwards CHP)
    24. 24. Reference sites chosen Waste Feedstock ApproximateScale Sector Plant Location Available plant size (MW) within 20 mile radius. FoodSmall Heat only Y&H 1600 tonnes/yr 0.5 MWth ManufacturingLarge Engineering Heat only SE 39,000 tonnes/yr 11.5 MWth 6.5 MWth / 2.5Large Engineering CHP SE 39,000 tonnes/yr MWe CHP 7.5 MWth / 3.5Large Chemicals NW 50,000 tonnes/yr conversion MWe
    25. 25. Technical analysis results Small Heat Large Heat Large CHP Large CHP Only Only ConversionFeedstock throughput 1,600 39,000 39,000 50,000t/yrFeedstock consumption 215 5,250 5,250 6,160kg/hrEquivalent WDF thermal 4,250 104,000 104,000 132,000inputMWhthAnnual thermal output 3,400 83,200 46,800 59,400MWhthAnnual electrical output 0 0 18,700 23,800MWheNatural gas savings 380,300 9,286,400 5,223,600 9,953,000Nm3/yrImported electricity 0 0 18,700 -4,200savingsMWhe
    26. 26. Financial analysis results Small Heat Large Heat Large CHP £/year Only Only Large CHP ConversionTotal energy costs savings £181,000 £4,420,000 £4,980,000 £4,930,000 Total income from £46,900 £416,000 £318,000 £278,000 incentives Additional O&M £28,400 £698,000 £965,000 £940,000 Total financial benefit £199,500 £4,138,000 £4,333,000 £4,268,000 Simple payback years 6.4 5.7 7.2 6.0 Simple total financial benefit £2,710,000 £59,210,000 £55,260,000 £59,900,000 (20 years duration)
    27. 27. What are the barriers? 28
    28. 28. Project Development Barriers 1Barrier ImpactWaste • Increased combustion requirements – i.e higher temperatures, correctIncineration residence timesDirective • Requirement for flue gas treatment • Requirement for flue gas monitoring equipmentPlanning • Schemes will require planning permissionPermission • Higher requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) • Likelihood of public oppositionPermitting • A WID scheme will either be a Part A(1) scheme regulated by theRequirements Environment Agency or a Part A(2) regulated by the Local Authority • As the sites are importing waste – they will need to be compliant with waste permitting elements • Smaller sites may not currently require an environmental permitTechnology • There is a limited amount of technology available – particularly atAvailability smaller scales. • Technically possible to have smaller plant, but at a cost 29
    29. 29. Project Development Barriers 2Barrier ImpactTechnology • The cost of the equipment particularly the flue gas treatmentCost add significant cost (flue gas treatment c. £250,000 for smaller schemes). • Cost of this equipment is not linear – therefore making small schemes expensive.Operating • Cost associated with ongoing permitting/licensingCosts • Ash disposal costs.Site suitability • The site needs to have space to accept solid fuel, store in the appropriate manner (controlling odour etc). • On-site solutions only likely to be suitable for only larger industrial sitesFeed stock • EfW schemes would have a life span of 20 – 25 years - theresupply risk needs to be reassurance that the feedstock will be available over this period. 30
    30. 30. Tackling perception of EfW
    31. 31. So, what next? 32
    32. 32. What actions are needed? + More work with regulators to progress end of waste status for wider range of waste derived fuels? + Work with traditional fossil fuel users to explore opportunities for using waste derived fuels + Support to waste processors to understand fuel requirements? + Wider implementation of fuel standards? + WID – Why so expensive? + Learning from Europe and their use of WDFs? + Open debate and discussion …… 33
    33. 33. Any questions? I’m here all day …. Kathryn Warren Senior Consultant Waste Management & Resource Efficiency 07837 293929 34