municipal solid waste to energy. ahmed gaber.pdfmsw value from an energy perspectve 7 • each ton...

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy

The Egyptan Case

May 2014

Ahmed H Gaber

Prof of Chemical Engineering, Cairo University, and

Chairman, Chemonics Egypt Consultng

Acknowledgment

The presentaton is based on a study conducted by Chemonics Egypt Consultng

for the PPP Unit, Ministry of Finance, Egypt. The study was fnanced and

managed by the Internatonal Finance Cooperaton (IFC), World Bank Group.

Study fnal report has been submited in October 2012

2

Presentaton Overview

• Waste to Energy Ratonale

• MSW Energy Recovery Optons

• Analysis of W2E Deployment Scenarios

• Implementaton Consideratons and next steps

3

Waste To energy RatonaleMSW Treatment and Disposal ChallengesDiverse Urban Center Characteristcs Require Diverse WTE SolutonsMSW VALUE FROM AN ENERGY PERSPECTIVEW2E Technology DiversityW2E is about Waste Management not Energy Producton

4

MSW Treatment and Disposal Challenges

Current MSW management systems need to be upgraded and expanded, to deal with increased capacity and reduce economic, health, social and environmental impact.

5

Source: “Country Profle on Solid Waste Management Situaton In Egypt”, Regional Solid Waste Exchange of

Informaton and Expertse Network in Mashreq and Maghreb countries, July 2010

9%3%

5%

84%

Reported MSW Treatment and Disposal

Composted

Recycled

Landflled

Open Dumped

T o t a l D a i l y W a s t e G e n e r a t o n f r o m I d e n t f e d U r b a n C e n t e r s , 1 0 0 0 t / d

2 0 1 2 2 0 2 5

Diverse Urban Center Characteristcs Require Diverse WTE Solutons

6

6 %8 %

1 3 %

7 3 %

D istribu t o n o f U rb an C enters in W aste G en erat o n T ie rs

T ier 1

T ier 2

T ier 3

T ier 4

1.2 1 0.8 0.6

1.81.2 1 0.8

Urban Center Tier Classifcaton

Current Waste Generaton Rate (kg/capita/day)

2025 Waste Generaton Rate (kg/capita/day)

Developed a Mult-ter model for urban centers to diferentate according to waste generaton rates.

Diferent urban centers have diferent characteristcs in terms of:

Size of urban center, relatve distance and potental for agglomeraton of waste from nearby centers, access to desert land within distance for treatment

and/or disposal, availability of land for transfer staton and/or material recovery facility near source of MSW.

MSW Value from an Energy Perspectve

7

• Each ton of MSW can generate between 150-550 kwat.hr

• At a total current waste generaton from identfed urban centers of 14 Million tons

MSW/year, W2E has potental to generate between 250 – 900 Mega Wat.

• At a projected waste generaton of 25.6 Millions tons MSW/year in 2025, W2E has

potental to produce between 400 - 1.600 Mega Wat.

W2E Technology Diversity

8Source: “Energy from Municipal Solid Waste: What is the current perspectve?”, Confederaton of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, November 2010

A European Perspectve

Growth Potent. Status of Technology Form of Energy Where in Europe? Current Signifcance Route

Yes,

Regional

Mature Power,

Heat

Throughout ooooo WtE from residual MSW (incineraton with energy recov)

Regional Mature/

Being proven

Power, Fuel replacer Denmark, Italy, Austria, Sweden,

Estonia, Finland, UK

ooo Incineraton of RDF, SRF derived from MSW & CDM in Cement kilns,

power plants etc

yes Proven/

developing

Biogas Power Italy, Estonia, Belgium, Denmark,

France, UK

o Anaerobic Digeston from source-separated organic MSW

Regional

yes

Proven/

developing

Biogas,

Power

Italy, Estonia, France o Anaerobic Digeston from Sorted organic fracton of MSW

Yes

Regional

Proven Power subsidised Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium oo Incineraton of Waste derived Biomass (eg wood)

Yes,

Regional

Mature Power,

Biogas

Throughout

Western Europe

oo Landfll Gas Extracton

? Developing Power, Syngas Few o Gasifcaton & Pyrolysis

تطور ادارة الخلفات الصلبة البلدية فى الدول التقدمة

9

• من عملية التطور الموضحة 5 أو رقم 4وصلت معظم الدول المتقدمة إلى المرحلة رقم

تتمشى وتتسق مع الخطط القومية لنتاج الوقود السائل فى بعض 6بالجدول. المرحلة رقم

.الدول

• أجبرت اللوائح والدوات القتصادية فى الدول المتقدمة البلديات على التحول إلى تكنولوجيات

تحويل المخلفات إلى طاقة، ومكّنتها من ذلك في نفس الوقت. فمثلً، كان التحول من الدفن

الصحي هدفا واضحا للتعليمات الخاصة بسياسات التحاد الوروبي التي فرضت قيودا صارمة

.على كمية المواد العضوية التي يُسمح بدفنها

• يمضى التطور في تكنولوجيات تحويل المخلفات إلى طاقة قُدُما إلى مزيج آخر من المنتجات

.جنبا إلى جنب مع تحقيق مستويات أعلى من الكفاءة والستدامة

• يتحمل المواطنون والحكومات فى الدول المتقدمة تكلفة عالية لتحقيق أهداف السياسات

الموضوعة الخاصة بالمخلفات الصلبة البلدية، (المتوسط العام فى أوروبا هو:

€1 /family/day).

الرحلة تكنولوجييا الععالججة والتخللص

1 • مقالب مفتوحة

2 • مدافن صحية

• ارهاصات التدوير الولي

3 • )حرق بدون استعادة طاقة )الجيل الول

• مدافن صحية

• مزيد من التدوير

4 • )حرق مع استعادة طاقة )الجيل الثاني والجيل الثالث

• مدفن صحى مع استعادة طاقة

• )معالجة ميكانيكية بيولوجية ) مع استعادة طاقة

• الفصل عند المنبع - صناعة مستقرة للتدوير

5 معالجة حرارية متقدمة

)حرق مع استعادة طاقة )الجيل الرابع•

)تغويز وانحلل حراري ) مع استعادة طاقة•

تطبيق مفاهيم القتصاد الخضر في صناعة التدوير•

6 تكنولوجيا متقدمة لتحويل المخلفات إلى طاقة

• تحويل المخلفات الصلبة البلدية إلى وقود سائل..ومزيد من التطوير

للمرحلة الخامسة

W2E is more about Waste than Energy

• There are cheaper and more scalable routes compared to W2E for energy generaton.

• MSW management , a paid service, needs a new, sustainable treatment model.

• We started with the assumpton that W2E can maximize value extracton from MSW, reduce costs, and build a sustainable treatment model that also contributes to natonal energy generaton.

10

MSW ENERGY RECOVERY OPTIONSoverview of MSW management Mechanical Biological TreatmentThermal TreatmentHybrid Biological/thermal Sanitary Landfll with Gas Producton W2E Scenarios

11

Municipal Solid Waste Management

12

Household

s

Urban

Centers

MSW collecton system

Site 1: Transfer Staton or

Material Recovery Facility

10 km

30 km

Site 2: Treatment Site

50 km

Strong Informal

Sector RolePotental Sites for Energy Recovery

Potental Sites for Material Recovery

Site 3: Disposal Site

Recyclables

MSW management is a Supply Chain Problem

W2E: Mechanical Biological Treatment

• In MBT technologies, organic and residual fractons are separated before treatment to optmize energy/material

recovery

• The residual fracton is converted to Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) that is used as an alternatve fuel in the cement

industry.

• The organic fracton can be converted to compost aerobically, requiring large land. Alternatvely, the organic fracton

can be anaerobically digested to produce biogas and digestate, a soil conditoner, with smaller land requirements.

• The reject from both processes is landflled.

• MBT technologies are lower cost, have high land requirements

• Supply Chain Consideratons: Sortng at Transfer Staton vs. Sortng at Treatment Facility

13

W2E: Mechanical Biological Treatment

14

Household

s

Urban

Centers


Site 1:Transfer Staton or

Material Recovery Facility

10 km

30 km

50 km

Strong Informal Sector Role


RDF Producton

Site 2: Treatment/Material Recovery Facility

Site

Residual Fracton

Biotreatment

Aerobic Compostng/

Anaerobic Digeston

Organic Fracton

Reject

Material Recovery Facility can be integrated with Transfer Staton or with Disposal Site depending on

land availability

RecyclablesRecyclables

Electricity

Electricity

W2E: Thermal Treatment

Direct extract of energy from waste via three potental routes:

Combuston: mass burn of mixed MSW to generate electricity with advanced emissions treatment system.

Gasifcaton: Heat waste with low oxygen content to generate high quality gas. Diferent processes for Electricity generaton exist.

Pyrolysis: Heat waste in absence of oxygen to generate variable % of gas, liquid and solid. Diferent processes to generate electricity exist.

15

W2E: Thermal Treatment

16

Household

s

Urban

Centers


Site 1: Transfer Staton

10 km

30 km

50 km



Thermal Treatment

Combuston

Gasifcaton

Pyrolysis

Ash and

ResidualsRecyclables

Recyclables

Electricity


Site

W2E: Hybrid Biological/Thermal

17

Household

s

Urban

Centers


Site 1:

Transfer Staton

10 km

30 km

50 km



RDF Producton and

Incineraton


Site

Residual Fracton

Biotreatment

Anaerobic Digeston

Organic Fracton

Reject

RecyclablesRecyclables

Electricity

Electricity

W2E: Sanitary Landfll with Gas Recovery: Bioreactor Landfll

18

Household

s

Urban

Centers


Site 1:

Transfer Staton

10 kmSite 3: Disposal and Energy Recovery

50 km


Recyclables

Electricity

Bioreactor Landfll

Electricity Generaton

Biogas

Waste to Energy Scenarios

1A. MBT with Compostng and RDF (ofsite use) integrated with Transfer Staton

1B. MBT with Compostng integrated with Material Recovery Facility and RDF producton (ofsite use)

2A. MBT with RDF (ofsite use) and Anaerobic Digeston and onsite Electricity Generaton integrated with Transfer Staton

2B. MBT with Anaerobic Digeston and onsite Electricity Generaton integrated with Material Recycling facility RDF producton (ofsite use)

3- MBT with Anaerobic Digeston, RDF producton, and onsite Electricity Generaton integrated with Material Recycling facility

4A. Direct combuston at Contour 10 Km

4B. Direct combuston at Contour 30 km

4C. Direct combuston at Contour 50 km

5- Gasifcaton at Contour 30 Km

6- Pyrolysis at Contour 30 km

7- Bioreactor Landfll with LFG energy producton

19

Analysis of WTE Deployment ScenariosDecision Making MethodologyRanking Evaluaton Results Tipping Fee AnalysisConclusions

20

Decision Making Methodology

21

Two types of analysis:

• Weighted Criteria Evaluaton Analysis: Each scenario is evaluated, primarily qualitatvely,

against environmental, social and technical criteria to provide a subjectve but holistc

evaluaton of feasibility.

• Tipping Fee Analysis: Building on a conceptual design and the internatonal experience, an

estmate of tpping fee for each scenario, with a sensitvity analysis, provides an objectve

fnancial evaluaton of feasibility through tpping fees.

Weighted Criteria Evaluaton Analysis

22

• Conceptual design results and internatonal experience used to evaluate each scenario against criteria in

the following domains:

1- Feedstock domain: suitability of technology to the local feedstock.

2- Technology domain: suitability of technology to deployment in the local Egyptan context.

3- Environmental domain: Impact of technology on the environment.

4- Social domain: Impact of technology on society.

• Rankings of criteria by study team with inputs from the Egyptan Technical Commitee on W2E.

• Ranking of scenarios against criteria to develop an overall score for each scenario.

Technology

Maturity

Local Experience

Expansion Flexibility

Local Manufacturing

Shock Load Performance

Scale Flexibility

Shutdown duraton

Load on Public Utlites

Feedstock

Efect of Moisture Content

Efect of hazardous contaminants

Flexibility in using Biomass from

other Sources

Feedstock Quality Risk

Environmental

Impact at low Regulaton

Diversion of waste from landfll

Net energy balance

Carbon Emissions

SocialPublic Acceptance

Jobs created

Evaluaton Criteria

23

Scenario Evaluaton Results: Rankings

24

MBTThermal

Overall Normalized Scores of WTE Scenarios

63.3465.74

61.72

66.95

56.64 55.76 54.91

Prepared by Chemonics Egypt-Draf

Normalized Scale from 1-100. Higher Score indicate beter performance

25Environmental Domain Performance


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Impact at low Regulaton Carbon Emissions Diversion from Landfll Energy Balance


26

Technology Domain Performance


Global Maturity Local Experience ComplexityExpansion fexibility Local manufacturing potental Shock Loads SensitvityScale Flexibility Maintenance Shutdown Duraton Load on Public Utlites


Tipping Fee Analysis

27

• Based on a conceptual level design of each scenario, tpping fee was estmated according to the assumptons in

Annex 1.

• The Tipping Fee is calculated at Gate 1, Contour 10 km, and Gate 2, Contour 30 km.

• Sensitvity of results to:

1- Price of electricity in range of 0.4 – 0.8 EGP/Kwat.hr

2- BOT duraton in range of 20 – 30 years

3- CAPEX uncertainty for each scenario.

Tipping Fee Analysis: Sensitvity

28

0.4 0.5 0.600000000000001 0.700000000000001 0.8

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Sensitvity of Tipping Fee to Electricity Prices for W2E Scenarios

Scenario 2A

Scenario 2B

Scenario 3

Scenario 4A

Scenario 4B

Scenario 4C

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Tipping Fee in EGP/ton

Electricity Prices in EGP/kwat.hr


29

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tipping Fee Sensitvity to BOT duraton

30 years 25 years 20 years

Tipping Fee

EGP/ton


30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Tipping Fee Sensitvity to CAPEX Uncertainity

Base

Pessimistc

Optmistc

Tipping Fee

EGP/ton

Analysis Conclusions

• Pyrolysis and gasifcaton are currently infeasible but might become important in the future

• MRF Integraton improves fnancial feasibility

• Tipping fees are very sensitve to electricity prices, and relatvely insensitve to BOT duraton. Electricity price trajectory sets comparatve fnancial technology performance.

• There is a clear trade-of between land availability and tpping fee.

Thus: There is no one technological soluton. Detailed feasibility analysis should consider more than one technology.

31

S1, S7 S2,S3,S4

S1.B, S2.B

Use Regional Landfll

(with higher tpping fee)

S3, S4

Analysis Conclusions

32

Land Availability

Electricity Prices

Scenarios recommended under combinatons of diferent electricity and land availability levels.

High

High

Low

Low

Implementaton ConsideratonsURBAN CENTER TIER /TECHNOLOGY LOCATION MATCHINGPPP Potental Projects: Tier 1PPP potental projects: Tier 2Tiers 3 and 4 recommendatons

33

Locaton matchingS1 S2 S3 S4 S7

(only for regional

use)

Urban Tiers 1,2,3,4 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2,3,4

If Land available only at contour 10 Not Possible Not Possible Not Possible Possible Not Possible

If Land available only at contour 30 to

50 km

Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

If Land available only at contour 50 km

++

1B 2B Not Possible Not Possible Use regionally

Next Steps and Decisions RequiredAn Enabling Framework for W2EA Free Market for Waste

35

Next Steps and Decisions Required

36

• W2E technologies require an enabling framework to maximize their added value.

• W2E technologies can impact many sectors, not just the waste management sector: agriculture, renewable energy, transportaton, environment, scientfc research and waste water treatment. Framework must be explicitly linked to externalites and natonal strategic plans.

• W2E technologies planning is a local governance decision: governorates must be directly involved in planning.

• W2E technologies require service and product standards as well monitoring and regulaton processes.

Vision and Strategy

Energy Sector

Other Sectors

Planning

Sitng

Tipping Fees

Monitoring and Standards

Project Scale

An Enabling Framework for W2E Technologies

37

• Electricity Prices

• Environmental and Service

Standards

The long term objectve or problem to be solved in deploying one partcular

technology.

The locaton specifc features, partcularly land; roads and utlites, required

to deploy a partcular technology.

Regulatory requirements to deploy technology

Recommendatons for deployment.

The following fgures for each W2E technologies are based on the analysis done by the study team for W2E technologies assuming 1000 tons of

mixed MSW per day

Vision

Cement Sector: consumer of

RDF

Agricultural Sector: Consumer

of compost,

Supplier of Biomass

Thermal power statons:

potental consumers of RDF

Planning

More than 100

Feddanes at

Contour 30 km


Project Scale:

Allow expansion at all ter levels

S1: Compostng and RDF

38

• Standards for RDF and Compost

Creatng an atractve market for MSW by providing the cement sector with a solid fuel alternatve and agricultural

sector with compost.

All sites require access to high quality roads and utlites, including water,

diesel and electricity.

Vision

Cement Sector: consumer of

RDF

Thermal power statons:

potental consumers of RDF

Waste Water Treatment

Sector: Supplier of Sludge for

digeston

Agricultural Sector: Consumer

of compost, Supplier of

Biomass

Planning

More than 60 Feddanes

at Contour 30 km

Subsidy Financing via

Tipping Fees


Project Scale

• Limit inital number of projects to 1-2 to test success

• Consider government Equity at 20% to encourage

investors

• Combine gates 1 and 2

S2: RDF and Anaerobic Digeston

39

• Standards for RDF and Compost

made from digestate

• IPP Regulatons and electricity prices

Creatng an atractve market for MSW by providing the cement sector with a solid fuel alternatve, the agricultural

sector with compost and the natonal grid with electricity.



IPP: Independent Power Providers

Vision

Energy Sector: Buyer of

Electricity

Agricultural Sector:

Consumer of compost,

Supplier of Biomass

Waste Water Treatment

Sector: Supplier of Sludge

for digeston

Planning

More than 60 Feddanes at

Contour 30 km


Tipping Fees


Project Scale


• Consider Government Equity at 20% to encourage

investors

S3: Hybrid Thermal/MBT

40

• Strict, independent environmental monitoring


Creatng an atractve market for MSW as an electricity source, and build the infrastructure for energy recovery from

all types of waste, while producing compost for the agricultural sector.




Vision

Energy Sector: Consumer

of Electricity


Supplier of Biomass

Planning

Preferably 10 Feddanes at

Contour 10 km


Tipping Fees


Project Scale


• Consider government Equity = 20% to encourage

investors

S4: Mass Burn Incineraton

41



Creatng an atractve market for MSW as an electricity source, and build the infrastructure for energy recovery from

all types of waste.

Site must have access to electricity grid.


Vision

Energy Sector

Agricultural Sector

Planning

Around 5 Feddanes

at Contour 10 km


Project Scale

• Small scale (50-100 tpd) pilot to build local capacity

• Consider government owned project

S5/S6: Gasifcaton and Pyrolysis

42



•Clear ongoing evaluaton of results.

Creatng an atractve market for MSW as a source of liquid fuel and electricity, and building capacity for future

conversion of all types of waste.

Site must have access to electricity grid.


Vision

Energy Sector:

Consumer of

Electricity


Benefciary of

Disposal Service

Planning

More than 100

Feddanes at Contour

50 km


Project Scale

S7: Bioreactor landfll

43


Upgrading the existng landflls and optmizing planned projects for energy recovery to develop a more value-

extractng disposal soluton for all types of waste.

Site requires access to high quality roads and to the electricity grid.

•Focus on planned landfll projects and upgrading accessible

landflls

•Encourage regionalizaton of landflls


A note on liquid fuels from MSW

• The study has focused on energy recovery from MSW in the form of solid fuel and/or electricity. Liquid fuel producton has not been considered because of low technology maturity and low market maturity

• Aside of the high technological risk, this soluton has the following atractve features:

– Liquid fuel product market is huge locally and internatonally

– Mobile units open the door for decentralized waste treatment and liquid fuel producton

– Liquid fuel producton by fast or fash pyrolysis has a strong potental to integrate other feedstocks: biomass, sludge and non hazardous industrial waste

• We strongly recommend providing incentves to atract the private sector to develop small scale facilites (10 – 100 ton MSW and/or agricultural waste per day).

• Incentves can include a tpping fee, public investment, purchasing agreements and access to academic research facilites

• The decision to scale-up and expand pyrolysis technology implementaton should be contngent on the results of the 10 – 100 ton facility.

• We recommend to develop a natonal strategy for biofuels development

44

Thanks

Thanks to my study team:

Eng. Aly el Tayeb

Dr Mohamed Aly

Economist: Aly Sheref

Eng. Ahmed Shouman

Eng Lames Swailam

45

Annex 1: Tipping Fee Analysis Assumptons

46

General Model Assumptons:

Infaton Rate 11%

Tax Rate 20%

Design Capacity (tons per day) 1,000

Operatng Days per year 365

Depreciaton Assumptons

Civil Works 3%

Electromechanical Works 7%

Rolling Stock 10%

Annex 1: Tipping Fee Analysis Assumptons

47

Financing & Discountng Assumptons

Debt

Debt Equity Rato 70%

Interest Rate on Loans 11%

Loan Repayment Period 5

Loan Grace Period

Equity

Risk Free Required Rate of Return 8%

Risk Premium (Politcal, Economic, and Industry) 6%

Risk Adjusted Required Rate of Return 14%

Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) 12%

municipal solid waste to energy. ahmed gaber.pdfmsw value from an energy perspectve 7 • each ton...

Documents