CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

Small Scale Energy from Waste Facilities: Case Studies

from DenmarkTorben Kristiansen (M.Sc. Civ Eng)

Ramboll Denmark A/STOK@ramboll.dk

www.ramboll.dk/wte

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

Outline of Presentation

1. Small Scale EfW in Denmark2. True/false statements about EfW?

– Small scale EfW expensive?– EfW causes excessive dioxin emission?– EfW discourages recycling?– Plume visibility is a public concern?– NIMBY?– Political/Public opposition

3. Two Case Studies: Sønderborg & AVV4. Conclusions

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

Small Scale EfW is attractive

1. Located close to point of waste generation.2. They generate jobs in the local community.3. Reduced land degradation and loss of land opportunities

to landfill.4. Limited traffic impact and require limited transport

distances5. Plant configuration can be adapted to local conditions,

e.g. coastal/inland and island conditions. 6. The possibility of supplying CO2 neutral heat7. Means to meet EU LD complementing recycling and MBT

Small scale mass burn EfW is attractive for the UK from a public perception point of view:

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

Mass Burn EfW – input/output

Res

idues

Was

tew

ater

Flue

gas

Electricity

Heat

Landfill

Recycling

Waste

Bottom ash

(Can be “wastewater free”)

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une1st EfW Plant Frederiksberg1903

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneEfW in Denmark (& Faroe Is)

No. Plant Location No of Lines

Total Plant Capacity (t/h)

1 Skagen. Skagen commune 1 2.0 2 Grenå. Grenå commune 1 2.5

3 Leirvik Inter-municipal Company, Hagaleiti, Faroe Is. 1 2.5

4 Rønne. I/S BOFA 1 2.5 5 Torshavn. Torshavnar Kommuna, Faroe Islands. 1 2.5 6 Vejen. Elsam A/S 1 4.3 7 Frederikshavn. Elsam A/S 1 5.0 8 Herning. EG. Jylland 1 5.0 9 Hammel. Hammel Fjernvarme A.m.b.a. 2 6.0 10 Svendborg. Svendborg kommune 1 6.0 11 Thisted. I/S Thyra 1 6.4 12 Hobro. I/S Fælles Forbrænding 2 6.9 13 Sønderborg. Sønderborg Kraftvarmeværk I/S 1 8.0 14 Aars. Aars kommune 2 8.5 15 Haderslev. Elsam A/S 2 9.0 16 Kolding. TAS I/S 1 9.2 17 Skanderborg. I/S RENO SYD 2 9.5 18 Horsens. Elsam A/S 2 10.0 19 Slagelse. I/S KAVO 2 10.0 20 Hjørring. AVV I/S 2 12.0 21 Næstved. I/S FASAN 3 17.0 22 Nykøbing. F I/S REFA 3 17.0 23 Holstebro. Elsam A/S 2 18.0 24 Hørsholm. I/S Nordforbrænding 4 19.0 25 Esbjerg. L 90 Måde 1 24.0 26 Aalborg. I/S Reno-Nord 2 31.0 27 Aarhus. Århus kommunale Værker 3 31.2 28 Odense. Elsam A/S, Fynsværket 3 32.0 29 Roskilde. I/S KARA 3 34.0 30 Copenhagen. I/S Amagerforbrænding 4 48.0 31 Copenhagen, Glostrup. I/S Vestforbrænding 4 83.0 TOTAL 60 482.0

Case studies

Copenhagen

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneWhy is Mass Burn EfW applied in

Denmark?1. In 1989 the municipalities in Denmark were assigned with the

obligation to provide suitable treatment/disposal for all types of waste generated. This led to the establishment of several EfW plants and the extension of existing plants throughout Denmark.

2. EfW is in Denmark supported by fiscal and legislative measuresthat include: i) power generation incentives, ii) disincentives for landfilling via a higher tax on landfill, iii) priority for supply to district heating from EfW over all other energy sources, and iv) reduced waste tax if producing both heat and power from EfW

3. Efficient powers to direct waste, which ensures the necessary waste supply.

4. Integrated national energy efficiency policy that prioritises reduced reliance on fossil fuel, decentral CHP, compulsory use of communal district heating systems, priority for sale of “green” energy etc.

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneDistrict Heating in Copenhagen

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

True/False statements about EfW?1. Are small-scale EfW plants much more

expensive than large scale EfW plants?2. Does EfW contribute significantly to dioxin

emissions posing a threat to public health?3. Does EfW discourage recycling?4. Plume visibility5. NIMBY6. Political/public opposition

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneIs Small-Scale EfW expensive?

Standard plant: EU WID, semi-dry FGT, SNCR, CHP

Energy sale revenues are often higher for smaller plants due to better supply/demand balance

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneHow expensive is it?

Treatment cost per tonne of waste incinerated

020406080

100120140160

Denm

ark

Swed

en

Portu

gal

Great

Brit

ain

Switz

erlan

dNe

ther

land

s

Germ

any

£/

ton

ne

Source: Waste incineration in Denmark, Rambøll for RenoSam, Oct. 2005

DK: Cost of incineration: approx. £65/t. Revenue from sale of energy: approx. £45/t = Treatment cost: approx. £20/t

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneDioxin emission sources in Germany

1990 1994 2000Metal extraction and processing 740 220 40Waste incineration 400 32 0.5Power stations 5 3 3Industrial incineration plants 20 15 <10Domestic firing installations 20 15 <10Traffic 10 4 <1Crematoria 4 2 <2Total emissions, air 1,200 330 <70

Emissions per yearin g TU (toxicity units)

Source: German Federal Environmental Agency Study, Sept. 2005: WasteIncineration — A Potential Danger? Bidding Farewell to Dioxin SpoutingData for the year 2000 are estimates by the Federal Environmental Agency

If the energy produced by incineration were generated using traditional power stations, there would annually be 3 more tonnes of toxicant and 5,000 more tonnes of dust particles in the air

33% 0.7%

5.8%

0.1%

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Greece

Ireland

UK

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Finland

France

Luxembourg

Belgium

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Netherlands

Denmark

Landfill Recycled/composted Incineration Other

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Nethe

rland

sDe

nmar

kSw

eden

Fran

ceSw

itzer

land

Germ

any

Italy

Aust

riaNor

way

Portu

gal

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mGre

at B

ritai

nHun

gary

kg/ca

pit

a

Source: DEFRA 2004

Those applying EfW are also those most successful in recycling!

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneThose applying EfW are also those

most successful at recycling!

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Nethe

rland

sDen

mar

kSw

eden

Fran

ceSw

itzer

land

Germ

any

Italy

Aust

riaNor

way

Portu

gal

Spai

nBe

lgiu

mGre

at B

ritai

nHu

ngar

y

kg

/ca

pit

a

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Greece

Ireland

UK

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Finland

France

Luxembourg

Belgium

Austria

Germany

Sweden

Netherlands

Denmark

Landfill Recycled/composted Incineration Other

Source: ISWA Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste: Energy from Waste – State-of-the-Art Report, Statistics 4th Edition January 2002.

kg in

cine

rate

d/ca

pita

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

unePlume visibility – A concern?

The visible plume consists of water vapour only. There are no real environmental impacts associated with the white water vapour plume. Plume suppression causes a significant environmental impact while

addressing a cosmetic issue, as plume suppression requires the combustion of conventional fossil fuels, which is associated with well-known environmental impacts and reduces the thermal efficiency of the

EfW plant.

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneNIMBY (not in my back yard)

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

unePolitical opposition?

• Minister of Environment Ben Bradshaw states: “.. energy from waste should have a clearer role to play in obtaining environmental value from some of our waste resources”. It is better to burn than to bury

• Energy from waste can reduce our dependency on foreign fuel suppliers and can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases

• Dioxin emissions from modern EFW plant are very small compared with other common environment sources such as domestic gas cookers and even fireworks

• Energy from waste is not likely to account for more than 25% of the municipal waste stream by 2020 nationally, compared to 9% now

• Major challenge: Public opposition

In Defra’s ‘Review of England’s Waste Strategy – A Consultation Document’ (February 2006):

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

unePolitical opposition?

Reduction

Re-use

RecoveryRecycling

CompostingEfW

Disposal

EU Waste Policy. The Story behind the Strategy

Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, Brussels, 21.12.2005, COM(2005), 666 final

Impact Assessment on the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste and the immediate implementation measures. Brussels (not dated)

Life-cycle & env. impact approach:

‘Recycling is a very attractive and popular solution for waste management but it is not necessarily always the most favourable way to manage waste.’

‘If it seems clear that is it more environmentally efficient to incinerate a material to recover energy than it is to recycle it, then that is the option that should be taken.’

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

unePublic opposition?

• In Scandinavia there is a hundred years of experience with EfW and the public is well acquainted with the technology

• Good track record for operation and pollution abatement for decades

• Government policy and political parties have consistently and for decades supported EfW as a responsible and sustainable method of generating energy and managing waste

• Public ownership of plants via purpose-made cost-efficient non-profit companies is seen as a guarantee for protection of public and local interests

• Public acceptance that policy to minimise landfilling (incl. decade old ban on landfilling of biodegradable waste) requires recycling, composting and EfW.

Public perception of EfW differs considerably from country to country!

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneCase Studies: Sønderborg & AVV

EUR22 (DKK 161)/tonneEUR27 (DKK 200)/tonneGate fee

112,000 MWh heat35,000 MWh electricity

233,000 MWh heat193,000 MWh electricity

Energy

6 t/h8 t/hCapacity

FLS miljø/ABBBabcock Wilcox VølundSupplier

19981996Commissioning

Waste management company owned by five municipalities (90,000 inhabitants). Operates an EfW facility, a transfer station for hazardous waste, a composting plant for garden waste as well as 11 civic amenity sites and sanitary landfills receiving inert waste.

Owned by an inter-municipal waste management company (12 municipalities, 136,000 inhabitants), a co-operative district heating company and a power company.

Ownership

I/S AVV, HjørringSønderborg CHP Plant

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

•Sønderborg CHP Plant is an EfW facility integrated in a gas fired combined cycle plant.

•Electricity from both a gas turbine and a steam turbine. The steam turbine receives steam from both the EfW facility and from an exhaust boiler heated by the exhaust gas from the gas turbine.

•The heat produced is sold to the district heating network.

•Sønderborg CHP Plant is located close to residential areas and is commonly referred to as ‘the mail box’.

Particularly interesting features of Sønderborg CHP Plant

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneParticularly interesting features of

I/S AVV •I/S AVV provides recycling infrastructure, including a recycling shop. The shop has 260 customers per day and a turnover of EUR270,000 annually.

•I/S AVV achieves high recycling rates at 76 % against 65 % on a national level.

•I/S AVV operates a free advisory waste management service, which in 2004 visited 237 enterprises and citizens and a visitor’s centre, which was visited by 2,800 people in 2004.

•I/S AVV is perceived by the public as one of many components of an integrated environmentally sound waste management system

•The EfW plant is operating with one of the lowest gate fees in Denmark at a rate of ₤15.5 per tonne (excl. taxes)

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneConclusions: Small Scale EfW

is a very viable scenario for residual waste

1. EfW is an environmentally sound treatment technology compared to the alternatives of MBT and landfilling

2. EfW does not undermine efforts to recycle. Countries applying EfW at a large scale are also the countries most successful in achieving high recycling targets

3. EfW is a critically important component of an integrated waste management planning based on the waste hierarchy

4. Emission of dioxin/furan from EfW is no longer an issue as the problem has been engineered into non-existence over the past 10 years.

5. As demonstrated in Denmark, small-scale EfW plants (<10 t/h) are very cost-efficient, they can be developed to suit particular local energy off-take demands, they comply with the proximity principle and they tend to a lesser degree to entice public protests and political anxiety.

6. Whilst there is economies of scale when constructing EfW plants, this effect is limited. Danish experience shows that a far more important issue is the ability to efficiently generate earnings from sale of heat and power and that a plant balanced to the local energy supply/demand situation is very important in this regard and works in favour of the small-scale plants.

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

uneConclusions: Small Scale EfW is

attractive to the UK: 1. There are weighty reasons why also the UK should

embrace EfW, including small-scale plants, in its desire to reduce reliance on landfilling, increase recycling and achieve the ambitious landfill diversion targets.

2. Although power production only will generally yield competitive gate fees, there is scope for further reductions of the gate fees through the sale of the heat produced

3. Whilst the UK does not have a tradition for district heating networks, there may be a particular potential to introduce supply schemes for selected large heat consumers when focusing on small-scale incinerators and more manageable infrastructure solutions.

Therefore, small-scale EfW plants are, and are likely to remain, a very viable scenario for residual waste

treatment.

CIW

M 2

006

Con

fere

nce:

12–

16 J

une

HTTP://WWW.RAMBOLL.DK/WTE

Thank you for your attention!

TOK@RAMBOLL.DK

Download these informative books on EfW for free at: