Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Energy from Waste As An Energy and Environmental Management System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Energy from Waste As An Energy and Environmental Management System"— Presentation transcript:

1 Energy from Waste As An Energy and Environmental Management System
Purpose of this meeting is: 1. For us to introduce the modern WTE industry - Its history - Its public service role - Its current technology - Its current environmental performance - Its unique environmental benefits 2. For us to understand Green-e - Its purpose - Its criteria - Its methods for determining eligible sources 3. OVERALL PURPOSE: To discuss our belief that WTE contributes to an overall reduction in environmental impacts from power production, and that it should therefore be considered to be consistent with Green-e’s goals. 1

2 Energy – from – Waste IS Sustainable Development
Modern Energy - from - Waste (EfW) Provides Three Functions: Reduce GHGs, PM 2.5 and air toxics. EfW Solid Waste Disposal Renewable Energy

3 Presentation Outline International Activity
Increased use of Energy-from-Waste Regulations that are driving this behavior Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Balance Solid waste management and renewable energy Greenhouse gas reduction Other sustainable attributes Message EfW is growing in Europe, Asia and the USA The European Union Landfill Directive is smart “pollution prevention” policy – by avoiding landfilling of MSW - they are avoiding GHG and air toxic emissions while maximizing energy recovery. Lifecycle analysis is recommended for sustainability analysis

4 I. International – The use of EfW is increasing due to focus on energy and climate change.
Location Existing Facilities New Facilities (a) RFPs/ Expansions (b) Plans (c) Europe 388 (2003) 44 56 --- USA 89 (2006) 3/5 China 67 (2005) TBD 400 In construction or operation. USA expansions include Florida (Lee and Hillsborough), Minnesota (PERM, Olmstead, Poke Douglas). Others are also in motion. The 67 facilities manage 1.5 % of MSW. The 400 larger facilities are to manage 30 % of MSW by 2030.

5 I. International – The European Thematic Strategy
The European Commission and European Union have adopted an integrated program for a healthy local and international environment Four Priorities Climate Change Biodiversity Health Resource Use Seven Strategies Air Quality Marine Environment Sustainable use of resources Waste prevention and recycling Pesticides Soil Quality Urban Environment

6 I. International Activity – Specific EU Legislation “EfW and Landfills are subject to stringent regulations” EfW (2000/76/EC) Creates emission limits and operating standards for energy-from-waste facilities These standards can be credited for large reductions in emissions from EfW facilities Landfills (99/31/EC) EU Landfill Directive requires a reduction in landfilling of biodegradable waste Specific goal is to reduce emissions (CH4) that contribute to greenhouse effect and to reduce impact on human health

7 International – Worldwide Experience “EfW is compatible with Recycling”
Composting Landfill Energy-from-Waste is used extensively worldwide 780 EfW facilities; 140 million tons per year (TPY) U.S. 89 EfW facilities 29 million TPY Western Europe 388 EfW facilities 62 million TPY Asia 301 EfW facilities 48 million TPY

8 I. The EU Integrated System is in Lancaster County
Refuse Frey Farm Landfill 57,000 11% Waste-to-Energy Facility 266,200 52% Recyclables 186,400 tons 37% Recycled

9 Ferrous recovery contributes 3% to the overall County recycling rate.
I. Lancaster County’s Integrated System “Evidence that WTE and Recycling are Compatible” WTE has supported recycling efforts, not competed with them. Ferrous recovery contributes 3% to the overall County recycling rate. % Materials Recycled WTE began operating

10 II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance – “2005 data shows that 88
II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance – “2005 data shows that 88.3 % of non-recycled MSW is landfilled with 38.5 % being from out-of-state” Management Option Million Tons MSW Percent Landfill 21.6 88.3 EfW 2.9 11.7 Total 24.5 100 Origin Million Tons MSW Percent In-State 15.1 61.5 Out-of-State 9.4 38.5 Total 24.5 100 Does not identify waste shipped out of state NJ is about 55 % and NY is 40 % of out-of state waste 22 of 45 landfills have LFGTE

11 II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and Energy WTE generates clean renewable energy and promotes independence from fossil fuels Increased EfW and decreased landfilling generates significant extra renewable energy Each Ton of MSW managed by EfW avoids 1 barrel of oil or 0.25 ton of coal on an electrical energy generating basis EfW generates more power than any landfill option by processing each ton in about 1-hour using controlled combustion. The anaerobic breakdown of MSW in a landfill is not controlled and occurs in a 50 to 100 year period.

12 II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and Energy Renewable energy from EfW reduces fossil fuel use

13 II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and GHG’s “ Pennsylvania’s MSW mass balance is yielding positive CO2 emissions” Option Million tons MSW Ton CO2E / ton MSW Million tons CO2E/Year EfW 3.0 - 0.78 - 2.34 Landfill 21.5 + 0.62 Total 24.5 --- Basis of calculations The ~ 3 million tons of MSW going to EfW is not going to a landfill in PA with energy generation – avoids ~ 2.34 Million tons CO2E (conservative, assumes all landfills have LFGTE) Remaining 21.5 million tons of MSW is going to landfills - all with LFG collection - 50 % with LFGTE and 50 % with flares. No vents only. EPA Lo of 100 M3 CH4 per megagram MSW and 45 % LFG % based on a lifecycle analysis.

14 II. Pennsylvania’s MSW Balance and GHG’s “ Increased Use of EfW will reduce GHG emissions”
Estimated breakeven point is about 10.5 million tons going to EfW and 13.5 million tons going to landfills

15 II. Background on GHG Emission Factors “ Each ton of MSW managed by modern EfW avoids about 0.78 Tons of CO2 when using conservative assumptions (45 % LFG collection with LFGTE)” Emission factors as Ton CO2E per Ton MSW for EfW and LFGTE 45 % LFG Collection Lifecycle Parameter EfW Landfill EfW vs. LFGTE Nonbiogenic 0.38 0.00 Avoided Fossil Fuel CO2 -0.56 -0.16 -0.40 Avoided Methane -0.70 Avoided Ferrous CO2 -0.06 Long Haul Mobile Source Process Total -0.94 -0.78 Avoided CO2E with a landfill with flare is 0.94 ton CO2E/Ton MSW

16 II. Background on GHG Emission Factors “Avoided fossil fuel CO2 information for Pennsylvania”
CO2 factor Energy Factors CO2 Factor Power Supply(EIA) Lb CO2 per Value Units Thermal % (lb CO2/MW As % Fossil Coal 1000 lb 2161 Btu/lb 10402 32 2214 88.5 Oil 3139 18300 1828 3.6 Gas 137 Btu/scf 1022 1425 7.9 The weighted average for avoided CO2 from fossil fuel combustion for electric power is: 2137 lbs CO2 / MW. A modern EFW facility generates 0.55 MW/ton which is equivalent to an avoided factor of 0.59 Ton CO2E per ton MSW.

17 II. Background on Emission Factors “Avoided methane information for Pennsylvania”
Parameter Value Units EPA Inventory Lo 100 M3 CH4 per Megagram MSW CH4 content 55 % volume CH4 Potential 1.4 Ton CO2E per ton MSW CH4 Recovery via LFG 45 % of total CH4 generated CH4 Oxidation 15 % of uncollected CH4 Emission Factor-Flare 0.70 Avoided Fossil CO2 (a) 0.15 Emission Factor - LFGTE 0.54 Average Flare/ICE 0.62 Based on same avoided fossil factor as EfW and use of an internal combustion engine for electrical energy production.

18 III. Environmental Aspects of WTE Nationwide WTE facility emissions have been dramatically reduced
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2002

19 III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - Dioxin WTE emissions now represent less than 1% of known dioxin inventory

20 IV. Environmental Aspects of WTE - Mercury WTE now represents less than 3% of U.S. man-made mercury emissions

21 III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - GHGs WTE reduces PM 2
III. Environmental Aspects of WTE - GHGs WTE reduces PM 2.5 Precursors and Air Toxics Fine Particulate EfW avoids SO2 and NOX emissions from fossil fuel combustion – these are precursors to ambient ammonium sulfate and nitrate, respectively. Landfill Emissions Avoids a variety of air toxics from landfills including ; - 46 constituents in EPAs AP42 - 25 of which are air toxics - nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) - methane – a potent greenhouse gas (23 time more potent that CO2)

22 III. Environmental Aspects of WTE – Land Use WTE reduces waste volume by 90% and reduces biological byproducts including LFG, organic leachate and pathogens. Land Use 10 cubic yards of MSW is reduced by 90 % to 1 cubic yard, thereby maximizing land committed to a landfill. An EfW facility uses significantly less land than a landfill over any time period. As an example – the EfW industry saves 25,000 acre-feet per year when comparing landfill area required for MSW versus combined ash. Combined Ash Disposal Stable and inert due to low pozzolanic properties & low carbon content. RCRA nonhazardous with very low metals leaching from landfills. Can be reused as landfill cover and other potential civil applications.

23 IV. Conclusion “EfW promotes a sustainable environment thru maximum recovery of electrical power and maximum avoidance of GHGs” Reduced use of landfilling reduces GHG emissions The EU Landfill Directive GROCC Lifecycle analysis using EPA’s model Energy-from-Waste maximizes renewable energy Avoids dependence on fossil fuels Promotes energy independence Energy-from-waste provides clean energy Controlled combustion and air pollution control processes Highly regulated industry with testing, continuous monitoring and reporting

Download ppt "Energy from Waste As An Energy and Environmental Management System"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google