MSW Treatment State of the Art Gualtieri

8/14/2019 MSW Treatment State of the Art Gualtieri

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/msw-treatment-state-of-the-art-gualtieri 1/33

MSW TreatmentState of the Art

Stefano Gualtieri

Kozany5th May 2009



5th May 2009 - SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT - MSW Treatment State of the Art 2

Suez EnvironnementResults 2008

• EMPLOYEES

65 382

•CONSOLIDATED REVENUES

€ 12,4 Billion

Turnover by geographical areaThe diversity of SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT’s

international positions is the result of a

selective strategy aimed at seizing

opportunities for profitable growth.

Employees by geographical area65,000 employees, 30,000 of whom

Are in France (75,000 including

AGBAR employees

Turnover by activitySUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT’s business is based on two

balanced activities: a solid and growing European

base as well as an international platform geared

towards profitable and growing markets.

SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT IS THE SOLE

PLAYER OF GLOBAL SIZE DEDICATEDSOLELY TO THE ENVIRONMENT.




WASTE KEY FIGURES

More than 400,000 industrials and commercial clients

42 millions tons of waste treated

1,024 waste treatment and reuse/ recovery/ recycling

sites, including :

252 sorting centres

116 composting platforms

146 open landfills

133 hazardous waste platform

48 non-hazardous Energy from Waste units

11 hazardous Energy from Waste units

9 medical waste treatment sites

312 transfer stations


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/msw-treatment-state-of-the-art-gualtieri 4/335th May 2009 - SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT - MSW Treatment State of the Art 4

WASTE KEY FIGURES

SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT

Operates All Types of WasteManagement Systems

(No Proprietary Technologies)


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/msw-treatment-state-of-the-art-gualtieri 5/335th May 2009 - SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT - MSW Treatment State of the Art 5

INTRAKAT & SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENTCooperation




Table of Contents

• What strategy for MSW Treatment

• EU Packaging Directive 94/ 62/ EC

• Segregated Collection / Sorting P lant

• EU Landfill Directive 1999/ 31/ EC

• Energy from Waste (EfW)

• Mechanical, Biological Treatment (MBT)

• European Trends

• Conclusions




What strategy for MSW Treatment

Regulation :

Waste Frame Directive (Hierarchy)

Packaging Directive

Landfill Directive

National Legislation

Tools :

Separate collection & sorting

plant

Mechanical Biological Treatment

Energy from Waste

Landfill

OUTLETS :

Recycling (metals, glass, paper, …)

Agriculture (compost, …)

Industry accepting SRF

Energy from Waste (Recovery)

Landfill

Drivers:1. Regulation2. Outlets3. Proven Technology

4. Cost efficiency / Affordability



Packaging

Directive 94/62/EC




EU Pack ag in g Di r ect iv e

•a minimum of 50 % by weight of the packagingwaste has to be recovered

•Within this general target:

- a minimum of 25 % by weight of the

totality of packaging materials contained inpackaging waste has to be recycled

- with a minimum of 15 % by weight for

each packaging material (Metals, Paper, Glass,Wood, Plastics, …)




Segr egat ed Col lect ion

•The target of the Packaging Directive can only bereached with a segregated collection

•After this collection a sorting plant is necessaryto clean and separate the different fractions

•The ratio of segregated collection in WesternEurope is between 20 and 45% of MSW weight

•Typically 70 - 80 % of the segregated collectedwaste are recycled. The balance has to be treated(EfW, Landfill)



LandfillDirective1999/31/EC




100

0

75

50

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

1995 Date 5 Y 8 Y 15 Y

Bio fraction of MSW allowed to be landfilled

EU Landfill Directive




How t o ach ieve EU Land f i l l D i rect i ve Targ e t

•Energy from Waste divert:± 100% biodegradable waste diversion

•Mechanical Biological Treatment:as a minimum stabilises biodegradablefraction prior to landfilling



Energy from Waste

(EfW)




Ef W Ar eas o f f ocu s

•EfW is an Integrated recovery stand alone solution

•Low dependency on external OUTLETS

•Proven technology (600 EfW worlwide)

•Strong Energy Production (500 to 600 kWh/t MSW and possibility to

use the heat) – Waste Frame Directive = Recovery (R1)

•Renewable Energy

Ef W A f f




Ef W Ar eas o f f ocu s

•Material Recovery− Ferrous & Non Ferrous (5%)

− Bottom ash after sorting for Sub-base Road

Construction (20%) – depending on the national legislation (the case inGermany – France – Netherlands – Belgium – Luxembourg forbidden in Italy)

•Small Residue in landfill: 3 % Fly ash to be stabilized(Germany: Salt Mine as a recovery material)

•High Capital Investment Cost compared with landfill

•Limited operational cost due to the Energy Production

•The higher is the plant the lower are the global costtreatment

S E i t




Suez EnvironnementRecent EfW Projects - Kirklees (UK)

•390 000 people•136 000 t•70 GWh/a

S E i t




Suez EnvironnementRecent EfW Projects – Zorbau (Germany)

•Merchant plant•300 000 t/a•448 GWh/a

Suez Environnement




Suez EnvironnementRecent EfW Projects – Isle of Man

•70 000 people•60 000 t/a

Suez Environnement




Suez EnvironnementRecent EfW Projects – Argenteuil (Paris)

•510 000 people•200 000 t•120 GWh/a•Heat supplier



Mechanical Biological

Treatment (MBT)

MBT OUTLETS!




MBT OUTLETS!

± 50%

DRY fraction

MSW Trommel SRF-like ± 5 - 10 %

CO2 + H2O

Fine Fraction (High organic content)

Aerobic maturation

± 10 - 20 %Refining Stabilised

Residue

± 10 - 20 %

Compost

± 5 %Recyclables (Metals)

Mech an ical Bio log ical Tr eat m ent




Mech an ical Bio log ical Tr eat m ent Ar eas o f fo cu s

• A complex process with succession of treatment steps (high operation cost)

• Difficulties to manage large quantity of waste

• MBT Plant itself has a Lower Capital CostInvestment than EfW but this is no longer the

case if a dedicated SRF Plant is taken intoaccount and has no interest if this Plant is anEfW!





High dependency on w aste composition & external outlets

SRF: ± 50%

Co combustion (Cement Kiln or Power Plant) at additional cost

EfW at cost of an EfW

Landfill

Stabilised Reject in Landfill: ± 10 – 20 %

Compost: 10 – 20 %

Agricultural reuse depends on National legislation

Spain & France allow it but under very stringent standards

Forbidden in Germany, Belgium, ItalyOdours & Dust require a specific management

Note: 1. Often sustainability of outlet market is not in the hand of the

public sector. In case of co combustion it is necessary to convinceIndustry and their neighbours to accept it.

2. Any Waste Treatment requires long term investments and securedoutlets for end products / residues, which is difficult to achieve with MBTtreatment.

Mech an ical Bio log ical Tr eat m ent Ar eas o f f ocu s





MBT is a Pre Treatment solution and not a endsolution

Global cost depend on external constraints and

In particular on Landfill taxes and cost

High Landfill taxes lead to more complex

treatment to find alternative outlets (refining

compost for example) but this complexity has a

cost


Suez Environnement




Suez EnvironnementRecent MBT Projects – Crobern (Germany)

300 000 t/a of MSW & CIW

Suez Environnement




Suez EnvironnementRecent MBT Projects – Montpellier (Fr)

173 000 t/a MSW

Suez Environnement




Suez EnvironnementRecent MBT Projects – Bruchsal Germany

100 000 t C&IW (no biological treatment)

European Trends (Eurosat)




European Trends (Eurosat)

A practical example BELGIUM





Similarities with Greece

•Population: 10,5 Million people•Annual Waste Production: 5 Mt/a






MSW Mt/a in Belgium - Treatment Evolution

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Landfill EfW Recycling Composting

Trends:•Landfill decrease due to the implementation of taxes and a landfill ban law in the North

•Incineration remain a way of treatment (note in Belgium, Incineration has increaseddue to the incineration of C&I Waste – not included in the graph)•Segregated Collection and sorting allows to increase the recycling and composting(very few MBT plant because there is no specific market for SRF in Belgium)

CONCLUSIONS




•Treatment Strategy is highly influenced by local

regulations which can be more stringent than EUDirective (e.g. Germany with landfill “ban”)

•Taxes are also a strong driver (UK 40 £/t and 72 £/t

in 2013, Netherlands 100 €/t)•To achieve EU Directives:

Segregated Collection is needed

For the rest of MSW, there is not “one” uniquesolution

•Trends: Large quantities are managed at more

efficient cost on EfW

SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT




SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT

Thank you for your attention

Documents

MSW Treatment State of the Art Gualtieri