4th-generation Waste Incineration Dr. K. D. van der Linde Amsterdam Waste & Energy Enterprise ECOTECH, Amsterdam May 14, 2003 Introduction Aim of this presentation is to present a first introduction into a new generation of waste incineration. Current status and overview of the possible impact in Europe will be given. It is presented to you by the waste treatment of the city of Amsterdam. 1

INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction 2. Europe 3. The Netherlands 4. Amsterdam 5. Concept of Installation 6. New generation of waste incineration 7. Conclusion 2

Society Society Exhaust Air Waste Water Water Raw materials Waste This sheet is presenting society as an input-output system. When considering reuse or recovery we create internal loops in society. However the physical Conservation of mass implies automatically that everything we take from nature will sometime, somehow, sooner or later be returned to nature. Waste

Society Closing the loop Exhaust gas Air Waste Water Water Energy Raw materials Generally the order of preference in waste management is: Prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, incineration, land filling The function of a Waste-Incineration is often seen as an end-treatment of waste, nearly comparable with land filling. As shown in the sheet it is however NOT an end-treatment which brings material back to nature. It is really a form of recovery-process aimed at extracting as much as possible “value” out of the waste. Energy as well as material are recovered. As for other recycling processes it is the amount and quality of material and energy that is saved that determines the ranking of the process. In current regulation it is tried to make a distinction between recycling, recovery or disposal without judging the “graded differences” between them. Of course the battle over where to draw the line will be endless. It would be best if the grade of recycling or grade of recovery would be used to rank processes. WTE Waste

Waste is a RENEWABLE ! Organic Sustainable Waste = ENERGY Richer than most RAW MATERIALS Waste Fired Power Plant Waste is a RAW MATERIAL ! Richer than most ORES. The organic components in normal household waste contribute to about 50% of the energy content of the waste. So 50% of the recovered energy is of biological origin and is GREEN ENERGY. The other 50% is recovered energy from fossil origin. Inert Material in waste is now only limitedly seen as a valuable resource. With new processes it can be separated to many high quality products. Organic Sustainable Waste = ENERGY

2. The Waste Market in Europe Total waste in EU: 1300 million ton/year Municipal Solid Waste: 182 million ton/year (14%) MSW per capita: 490 kg/year Numerical overview of the waste production: Waste production per person in Europe varies from about 450 to 650 kg per person per year. Even with optimal separation at the source this will lead to about 250 to 500 kg mixed-residual waste per person per year. From 370 million people this results in 95 to 180 million ton per year only from households. Including similar waste streams from trade, offices and alike, current figures show 182 million ton per year identified as Municipal Solid Waste.* *European Commission: "Waste prevention and Recycling Thematic Strategy”: Total waste generation in EU = 1.3 billion t/year, equals 3.5 ton/year per capita. (excluding agricultural waste). Of this MSW is about 14% (182 MTon/year), equals 500 kg/year per capita. 3

Classification of household-waste mixed in bag or container 242 Green-rests, Garden 120 big items, re-building materials 72 Paper 68 Glass 22 Metals, electrical 6,3 Small Chemical Waste 1,7 Total collected 532 (in kg/j per person) Overview of Dutch waste production per person per year. This is quite comparable with the EU average: The annual MSW generation currently stands at ca. 550 kg per capita (=average across the EU). The OECD estimates that MSW generation will reach 640 kg/capita/in 2020. So, according to the OECD, MSW generation in the OECD region will increase by 43% from 1995-2020 reaching 640 kg per capita. Less recent figures - under the 5th EAP - show a target of an annual MSW generation of 300 kg/capita (= which was the EU average for 1985). 12

Market forces Market liberalisation Under-capacity for incineration Changing regulation: Classification of treatment Classification of waste Residues CO2-Reduction Europe Public awareness 12

3. Dutch scenario's 2012 Combustible Waste Total Waste Production MTon/year This slide is based on the Dutch National Waste Management Plan (LAP). This is a very comprehensive work based on many Life-Cycle-Analyses, and is the basis for the new legislation. The left graph shows the policy-prognoses for 2012 waste production. It is an optimistic estimate for the case that all planned measures are fully realised. It shows that from 66 MTon/year total waste generated by far the greater part is reused. This includes streams like paper, glass, metals, building demolishing materials, road reworking and many industrial waste streams. This is much similar to the existing 2002 situation because it assumes that all measures to compensate for economic growth are effective. Still it leads to an increase from the current 10,8 to 12 Million ton per year combustible waste. The right graph shows the existing incineration capacity, the optimistic and the pessimistic scenario for 2012 It can be seen that the existing capacity of 5 MTon/year is far less than the amount of combustible waste. Even with the capacities for sludge and hazardous waste added it leaves 4 MTon that go to landfill. In the optimistic scenario it is assumed that no land filling of combustible waste will be allowed and that there will be an extra capacity for 4 MTon/year to treat the combustible waste by co incineration and other R1 technologies. These are for example co-incineration in coal fired power plants or cement kilns.

Price differences EURO Landfill: 30,- to 50,- plus new “green-Tax” Compost: 50,- to 70,- Incineration: 70,- to 120,- Recycling: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land filling is of course by far the cheapest solution to get rid of waste. Composting is generally cheaper than incineration although the difference has decreased last years. For recycling costs vary very much according to what stream from what origin because of the great influence of composition and quality of the stream. Also logistical costs have great variation. 11

Dutch landfill costs Operating costs 30 - 50 €/ton Environmental tax 15 € /ton Tax combustible waste 55 € /ton Total 100 - 120 € /ton Dutch landfill costs are heavily taxed in order to promote other, better, technologies. Currently the interaction with German regulation allows for a huge “leak” of waste to German separation and landfills. This will automatically be finished in July 2005 when the transition period from 1993-2005 will end. Than a stop on land filling of combustable waste will be active. For the time being this frustrates the basis of the Dutch waste management philosophy as it leads to an export of 2 to 3 million tons of waste.

“Integral chain efficiency” Energy 30% WFPP Household Energy 30% WTE Household Material Household Separation (mechanical) Overall efficiency 30% 25% Percent of Mass 20% Conversion efficiency Digestion 5% RDF 40% Landfill recovery Energy 28% Energy 2% In waste management it is not the efficiency of the process-step that counts, but it is the efficiency of the entire chain that counts. It is obvious that for the stream with the highest quality an efficiency far above the average can be achieved. Good quality RDF can be burnt in a Coal-Fired Power Plant which should achieve easily 40% nowadays. But the other streams from separation that arrive can hardly be processed in an energy-efficient way. So processes that require pre-processing have to be assessed as an integral part of the chain, including all other streams coming from the separation process. The recovery should be judged according to the quantities (in percent) of the recovery, but also to the quality of the materials and the quality of the final use. Material

Maximise use out of waste 4. Amsterdam Mission of the AEB Maximise use out of waste Strategic aims Lowest tariff for the civilian Optimal environmental performance Technological innovations

Waste & Energy Enterprise Amsterdam Generations: 1917 : 150.000 ton/year, no flue-gas cleaning 1969 1969 : 500.000 ton/year, de-dusting 1993 : 800.000 ton/year, chemical cleaning 2006 : +500.000 ton/year, RECOVERY Local government owned, “commercial” operation Long term contracts Industrial scale 78,- Euro per ton Design in 1990 for € 90,- per ton Strict cost and time management: completed on time and in budget. Start in 1993 with € 75,- per ton Lowest price 1996 1997: € 65,- per ton Current 2003 price: € 78,- per ton 3

1st Incineration 1919-1969 5

AVI-Noord 1969-1993 6

Aerial picture (overview) Aerial picture of AVI-Amsterdam View from Northwest to southeast (June 2000) In front the harbour. 7

Investment per ton related to the design- capacity of Dutch Waste Incineration AVI-Amsterdam 10

5. CONCEPT OF THE EXISTING INSTALLATION Horizontal grate 4 draw boiler semi dry Spray Absorber Acid + neutral washer Electro Dynamic Ventury No waste water 14

Boiler 15

Flue gas Cleaning 16

Recycling of residues Input 1 ton Bottom ash 230 kg Road construction Iron 20 kg trade Metals Non-Ferrous 5 kg trade fly-ash 13 kg filler in tarmac Salts (gas cleaning) 12 kg landfill 1000 kg 12

PROJECTS Increasing Energy-output Decreasing residues + Reuse District heating Second economiser Decreasing residues + Reuse Salt recovery Bottom ash washing Reducing maintenance Increase throughput Sewage sludge incineration 21

6. New generation in Waste incineration Historical waste incineration “generations”: 0 Open air incineration 1st 1900 oven 2nd 1960 dust removal from flue gas 3rd 1985 chemical cleaning of flue gas In this presentation we outline a new step: 4th 2006 recovery of energy and materials

Why new generation ? Historical development of public awareness: newly identified needs lead to a new technical concept. So now recovery is the “next logical step”.

Energy-potential in Waste Waste in EU: 182 MTon/year x 10 MJ/kg x 30% Electricity: = 550 PJ / year = 150 TWh / year = 17.300 MW-continuous = 8 % of total EU-production Avoided CO2 = 60 million Tons per year The present available technologies can generate electricity with an efficiency of net >30%. When this is applied to all combustable waste nearly 8% of all electricity from power plants can be generated from waste. A Waste Fired Power Plant (>30%) achieves this efficiency using a conventional grate to incinerate the waste, and uses high steam parameters and intermediate steam reheating. 2

4th-generation Incineration: HE-WTE Cost must go down Reliable, proven technology Energy Optimisation to the max !! Leap from 22% to >30% Material reuse to the max !! Fe, Al, Cu, Gypsum, CaCl2, Washed bottom ash = N1 quality building material Washed fly ash = inert 44

HR-AVI project Systematic approach to optimise recovery Using proven technologies in new combination Energy efficiency from 22% to >30% Now in contracting phase

135 bar 335°C 130 bar 480°C 14 bar 190°C 13 bar 320°C x 2 1 Superheater 0,03 bar 25°C Reheater Sketch steam reheating Superheated steam 440-480°C Steam pressure 125-130 bar Steam reheating after HP-turbine Extra economiser

3e 2e 1e Evaporator Superheater Economiser 2 3 4 terti secu Prim 1st 2nd 850°C 3rd 650°C SSH 1 180°C 4th a Ketelas 1 Ketelas 2 Bodemas ECO Sketch Boiler design - Large 1st draw: Height >20m, Flue-gas velocity < 3m/s - Large 2nd and 3rd-draw - Super-heater: Flue-gas velocity < 2,5 m/s - Second Economiser after fabric filter - Flue-gas recirculation (primary and secondary air) The boiler design has been really optimised to minimise the problems encountered in conventional waste incinerators.

Investments AVI + HR-AVI Year 1993 2003 Capacity (Ton/Year) 800.000 500.000 Investment: (Million €) Incineration 190 150 Flue-gas Cleaning 170 100 Energy production 60 70 + Total 420 320 Total project costs (including civil, engineering etc.) split over main parts of the installation. 9

HR-AVI extension sketch Rudolf DAS

7. CONCLUSION COST, can/must go DOWN SIMPLE process, do it OPTIMAL Environmental efficiency, use al SYNERGY Efficiency > 30% instead of 22% 49

Recovery is the new Rule It was WI: Waste incineration It is WTE: Waste To Energy It will be WFPP: Waste Fired Power Plant When efficiency greater than 30%