Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The Economic drivers for regional Waste Management collaboration Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Economic drivers for regional Waste Management collaboration Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA)"— Presentation transcript:

1 The Economic drivers for regional Waste Management collaboration Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA)

2 Trends in Waste

3 43 MT 20 MT Landfill Current System C+D Recycling 9 MT C+I 8 MT Kerbside 5 MT AWT 1 MT

4 80 MT 20 MT Landfill 2020 System C+D Recycling 22 MT C+I 23 MT Kerbside 6 MT AWT 9 MT

5 Organic Waste vs. Other Wastes 22 MT Waste 1.3 MT Plastic bags Tyres Computers Printer Cartridges TV CDL Household paint Oil Cigarette butts 10.5 MT Organics Methane Climate change

6 Targets StateYearMSWC&IC&D NSW202270% 80% VIC201365%80% WA201550% (Metro) 30% (Other) 55%60% ACT2015Over 80% SA201570%75%90% QLD202065% (23% now) 60% (18% now) 75% (35% now) NTNo target TASIn development

7 Focus on the Right Waste Streams 7 CDL: 600,000 t (16 billion containers) Tyres 280,000t Plastic bags: 20,700t (3.92 billion bags) Computers: 25,000t Printer Cartridges: 5000t TV: 15,000t Paint: 77,400t Cigarette butts: 15,000t Oil: 93,000t Landfill Organics + Textiles Plastic Stones etc. 22 MT 18.7 MT

8 Local Government Must Focus on the Right Materials for Recycling Diversion rate from landfill $ Cost per tonne Plastic bags Fluoro tubes batteries Cigarette butts textiles ORGANICS AWT metals cardboard Public place E waste Kerbside containers mattresse s CD’s C+I MRF material C+D MRF material Glass Returned food

9 Comparative Landfill Levies

10 Comparative Landfill gate fees

11 GrantFunding up to2014 funding rounds Organics collection systems (councils)$1.3 mFebruary October Community recycling centres$250 kFebruary August Resource recovery facility expansion$1 mFebruary Illegal dumping: clean-up and prevention$150kFebruary Love Food Hate Waste$70kFebruary November Organics infrastructure$5 mMarch Major resource recovery infrastructure$1 mMarch Litter$ EOIApril WLRM Grant Funding

12 All options are compared to a base case (the Opportunity Cost). If the base case is cheap, options are limited $189/t OR $190 / t Landfill Processing

13 All options are compared to a base case (the Opportunity Cost). If the base case is cheap, options are limited $189/t OR $80 / t Landfill Most processing of mixed waste will be uneconomic based on existing landfill gate fees (except for Armidale landfill) Processing

14 Opportunity cost of landfill – most rural landfills do not include full costs

15 Landfill – Full life calculator Post closure remediation Post closure Monitoring Asset replacement Depreciation Landfill gas

16 Council 3 LF = $60 Council 2 LF = $190 Council 1 LF = $90/t Bio Hub Plus transport $30/t $10/t $30/t Opportunity cost of landfill = average local disposal cost (MSW $90/t) + transport tonnes ($20-30/t) x total tonnage Understanding the opportunity cost Some minor streams

17 Generic model of processing Processing 100% x ($100) Gate Fee < 50% or else? Mixed rubble Glass fines Composites Textiles etc Plastic 4% Oil 1% Timber 20% Steel 4% Aluminium 1% $190 / t 100% P+C 20% $120/t

18 Commodity Values Waste StreamCost per tonne ($/t) Aluminium$1500 Cardboard$140 Mixed paper$150 Glass (sorted)$72 Steel$120 PET$300 PP$350 HDPE$300 Polystyrene$600 Compost$20 Bio Char$? Lead Acid Batteries$700 Electricity$0 Timber$-15 Low grade compost$-15 E-Waste$0 Mattresses$-25 per mattress Oil, paint, drums, tyres, fluorescent tubes, gas bottles $0 (until 2017)

19 $ /t $ 200/t $0/t $100/t ? ? $?

20 MBT 100 Organics 50 0 LandfillComposting Anaerobic Digestion PyrolysisGasification Biological / mechanical Thermal OPTIONS Technology Options Only medical waste Incineration Technology Risk Increasing gate fee

21 Technology Risk

22 First Council decision - Household Bins?  94% households have garbage bin  90% have recycling bin  Only 50% households have a green bin  But < 2% put food in it

23 FOGO and 360 Composting of organic waste? ~23% ~ 65%

24 A view from afar:  Armidale needs some landfill life  Large Bioreactor will become a vacuum cleaner  Armidale needs parts of BIOHUB that are economically feasible today  composting, C+I /C+D sorting, Pyrolysis?  The economics unclear to me  Model the options before any decision – incl landfill costs

25 MRA Consulting Mike

26 There is an UNLIMITED market for organics - the only question is the price Compost is a push market NOT a pull market Price it to give it away? Markets for Organics =$10/m3 sale price here =$9/t gate fee premium here

27 Are the key to technology selection and local government choice NSW < 500m fully enclosed enclosed receival >2000m open air VIC (source Blue Env’t) Buffers t/yrStatic pile Open windrow Continuou s aeration Enclose d In- vessel m , ,

28 State Government Policies Waste Less, Recycle More WLRM) -$465.7 m funding - 4 years Statutory review of the Waste Regulations New Energy from Waste policy EPA requirements for a regional approach to waste management

29 Energy from Waste policies – VIC NSW WA Waste types  EFW Draft Policy Statement out for consultation  Ensures EFW:  achieves minimal risk of harm to the environment and human health; and  does not undermine higher order waste management options (such as avoidance, re-use, recycling)  biomass from agriculture  uncontaminated wood waste  recovered waste oil and tallow  waste from virgin paper pulp activities  landfill and biogas and;  coal washing rejects 

30 Processing Options 1. Biobin 2. Groundswell 3. Open Windrow 4. MAF 5. Gore 6. Biodegma 7. Shepparton cover 8. Biowise static pile 9. Remondis tunnels 10. Biomass tunnels 11. SAWT tunnels 12. Hot Rot 13. Biocell 14. Others including AD (which doesn’t work on FOGO or waste)

31 Operating Pyrolysis Facilities LocationCompany- Technology Began OperationFeedstockCapacity Syngas/ Waste heat utilisation Toyohasni City, JapanMitsui R MSW400 t/d8.7 MW Power Hamm, GermanyTechtrade2002MSW, Sewage Sludge353 t/dPower Generation Koga Seibu, JapanMitsui R MSW260 t/d4.5 MW Power Yarne Seibu, JapanMitsui R MSW220 t/d2.0 MW Power Nishiiburi, JapanMitsui R MSW210 t/d2.0 MW Power Izumo, JapanThide Environment2003 MSW, Industiral & Sludge 190 t/dPower Generation Kyoboku Regional, JapanMitsui R MSW60 t/d1.5 MW Power Burgau, GermanyTechnip/Waste Gen1988MSW, Sewage Sludge54 t/dPower Generation Ebetsu City, JapanMitsui R MSW40 t/d2.0 MW Power Arras, FranceThide Environment2004Household Wastes100 t/dIndustrial Stearn SingaporeEntech Renewable Ene1997 Food Processing Wastes 72 t/d4.0 MWt (as Steam) KoreaEntech Renewable Ene2006MSW60 t/dPower Generation Hong KongEntech Renewable Ene1990MSW58 t/dPower Generation (Partial list)

32 Operating Pyrolysis Facilities LocationCompany- Technology Began OperationFeedstockCapacity Syngas/ Waste heat utilisation Aalen, Germany (Pyrolisis/Gasification plant)PKA2001MSW70 t/d SNG as energy source Genting/Sri Layang, MalaysiaEntech Renewable Ene1998MSW (WDF)60 t/d6.9 MWt P.N.G.Entech Renewable Ene2003MSW40 t/dPower Generation Romoland, California, USAIES2007MSW40 t/d SNG as energy source Chung Gung Municipality, TaiwanEntech Renewable Ene1991MSW30 t/d2.3 MWt (Steam) KoreaEntech Renewable Ene2003MSW30 t/dPower Generatio Bristol, United Kingdom (Pyrolisis/Gasification plant)Compact Power2002 Clinical & Special Waste 24 t/dHeat for Autoclav AustraliaEntech Renewable Ene1996MSW (WDF)15 t/dPower Generation IndonesiaEntech Renewable Ene1998MSW (WDF)15 t/dPower Generation Chung Gung Municipality, TaiwanEntech Renewable Ene1992MSW (WDF)15 t/d2.3 MWt (Steam) PolandEntech Renewable Ene2004 Biohazardous Waste (WDF) 3.5 t/d5.6 MWt Scinopharm Corporation, TaiwanEntech Renewable Ene2002 Pharmaceutical Prod. Waste 15 t/d3.5 MWt PolandEntech Renewable Ene2004 Biohazardous Waste (WDF) 3.5 t/d5.6 MWt

33 Gasification / Pyrolysis - Key issues / risks Benefits:  Capable of being integrated with other processes such as output from MBT / PEF production;  Can often be developed progressively on a modular basis;  Small scale units can potentially be integrated into community CHP;  Their smaller scale makes them compliant with the proximity principle, and this can help in public perception and in gaining planning permission. Key issues / risks:  Often requires pre-processed fuel of consistent quality;  Many technologies yet to be fully proven at a commercial scale for MSW (‘bankability’ issues);  May suffer form the same negative perception as incineration;  Often more expensive (gate fee) than conventional incineration;  Proponents suggest technologies are more energy efficient, however this has not been proven to date. SLR Report

34 Organics in Household Waste Approx. 66%

35 Divert organics to composting This…To this

36 Composting - Windrow and Source Separated Organics Dulverton Waste Management Windrow; 20,000 t/yr $2mill; $60/t

37

38 Composting - Windrow and Source Separated Organics

39 Static Pile Composting: $10 million

40 MBT - SAWT – Elizabeth Drive: $50 million 60% recovery

41 Anaerobic Digestion - WSN – Arrow Bio $40 million: 60% recovery, energy

42 WSN – ArrowBio

43 Anaerobic Digestion. AnaeCo $20 million, energy

44 Anaerobic Digestion GRL $75 million: 60% diversion, energy

45 C+I sorting plants


Download ppt "The Economic drivers for regional Waste Management collaboration Mike Ritchie and Associates (MRA)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google