16
NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE PROCESSING - CONVERSION NEWMOA Solid Waste Program Staff Workshop – May 11, 2017

New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    15

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE PROCESSING - CONVERSION

NEWMOA Solid Waste Program Staff Workshop – May 11, 2017

Page 2: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

Managing change

in a resource-

constrained world.

ORGANICS MANAGEMENT

WASTE RECOVERY

GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY

© RRS 20172

Page 3: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

3

CHANGE IN PAPER AND PACKAGING FROM 1990-2012

Page 4: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

MSW RECOVERY RATE (1960 – 2012)*

*Moore and Associates – April 2015

6.4% 6.6%9.6%

16.0%

28.5%

34.0% 34.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012

Page 5: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

5

THE U.S. WASTE AND RECOVERY SYSTEM

*US EPA defines Recovery Rate as Recycling and Composting. 65% of US population has curbside access.

C&D is accounted for separately.

25.4%*Avgrecycling rate

52.8%Landfill

12.9% Waste to Energy

MU

NIC

IPA

L S

OL

ID W

AS

TE

34.3%2013 US Recovery Rate*

8.9%Avgorganics recycling rate

ASPIRATION

Zero Waste

Circular Economy

Page 6: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

40% RECYCLABLE

30% COMPOSTABLE

10% CURRENTLY NOT

ABLE TO RECOVER

20% IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOVER

Page 7: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

ONLY ABOUT 70% OF

THE US WASTE STREAM

CAN CURRENTLY BE

RECYCLED OR

COMPOSTED.

PHOTO BY RECYCLED BEAUTY / CALLAWAYPHOTO.COM

Page 8: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

51%

CURRENT MAXIMUM FACILITY

RECOVERY

Page 9: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

40% RECYCLABLE

30% COMPOSTABLE

10% CURRENTLY NOT

ABLE TO RECOVER

20% IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOVER

Page 10: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

WASTE-TO-ENERGY PATHWAYS

10© RRS 2017

• Methane

• Compost

• Compost Tea

• Liquid Digestate

• Heat

• Power

• Refinement for

Transportation

THERMAL

COMBUSTION GASIFICATION PYROLYSIS

HEAT FUEL GASES(producer gas)

(CO + H2+CH4)

CHAR, GASES, AEROSOLS (syn gas)

• Heat, power, or combined heat & power (CHP)

• Boiler, steam turbine

• Co-fire with coal (all commercial)

• Burn gas for hot water/steam (commercial)

• Use in engine for CHP (pre-commercial)

• Catalytic conversion to alcohols, chemicals, synthetic diesel (development

• Torrefied wood for pellets, coal replacement

• Pyrolysis oil for boilers and power (early commercial)

• Specialty chemicals (commercial)

• Further refining for transportation fuels (development)

BIOCHEMICAL

DIGESTION

METHANE(CH4)

ETHANOL, BIODIESEL

FERMENTATION

TRANSESTERIFICATION

PRETREATMENT

Page 11: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

MASS BURN

REFUSE FUEL

GASIFICATION

PYROLYSIS/ GASIFICATION

ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC DIGESTION

Clim

ate

Cha

nge,

Hum

an

Hea

lth,

Ec

o T

oxic

ity

Low

High

CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

Page 12: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

PYROLYSIS/ GASIFICATION

GASIFICATION

MASS BURN

REFUSE FUEL

ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC DIGESTION

Seed

Fun

din

g, D

eb

t, Ins

ura

nce,

and

Pub

lic

Perc

ep

tion

Low

High

CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY: FINANCIAL RISK

Page 13: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY COMPARISON

FEEDSTOCKS PRODUCTS WASTES COMMERCIAL STATUS RISK FACTORS

Thermal - Mass Burn

Raw MSW with some

sorting (e.g. ferrous,

bulky)

Electricity or

Combined Heath

and Power

Ash and Stack

EmissionsWell established

Expensive, emissions,

ash is hazardous,

incomplete (60%

disp)

Thermal - RDF

Dry plastics and

cellulosic wastes (e.g.

paper, and wood)

Fuel Pellets

Process Waste, Ash,

Stack Emissions

(reduced)

Established, but uncertain

due to market risks

Processing equipment

upkeep,

fluctuating/low

energy prices

Gasification

Raw MSW with some

sorting (e.g. ferrous,

bulky)

Syngas, Synfuels Stack EmissionsFew to no commercial

scale installations in US

Scale up financial

risks, limited

conventional

financing options.

Pyrolysis

Dry plastics and

cellulosic wastes (e.g.

paper, and wood)

Diesel, Char, Oils,

and Energy

Stack Emissions,

Char and Ash

Few to no commercial

scale installations in US

Scale up financial

risks, limited

conventional

financing options.

Digestion

Yard waste and SSO.

Industrial organic

wastes.

Methane and

compost

Screened overs

(solid digestate)

and liquid disposal.

Both anaerobic and

aerobic (composting)

established.

AD is costly and both

types of digestions

encounter odor

concerns

13© RRS 2017

Page 14: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

TIMEFRAMES FOR ENGINEER/PROCURE/CONSTRUCT (EPC)

FEEDSTOCKS ENGINEER/PROCURE CONSTRUCT TOTAL TIME

Thermal - Mass Burn

Raw MSW with some

sorting (e.g. ferrous,

bulky)

48 months 36 months 84 months/ 7 Years

Thermal - RDF

Dry plastics and

cellulosic wastes (e.g.

paper, and wood)

36 months 36 months 72 months/6 Years

Gasification

Raw MSW with some

sorting (e.g. ferrous,

bulky)

36 months 30 months 66 months/ 6.5 Years

Pyrolysis

Dry plastics and

cellulosic wastes (e.g.

paper, and wood)

36 months 30 months 66 months/ 6.5 Years

Digestion

Yard waste and SSO.

Industrial organic

wastes.

24 months 24 months 48 months/ 4 Years

14© RRS 2017

Page 15: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES -OBSERVATIONS

15

• Developers Frequently Sell the “Silver Bullet” Solution

• Low Conventional Energy Pricing Severely Impacts Viability

• Absence of Carbon Monetization Also Impacts Viability

• Economies of Scale “Blind” Developers to Scale Challenges

• Flow Control Challenges Scaling

© RRS 2017

Page 16: New Technologies for Waste Processing - Conversion

PRESIDENT

734.646.3303

[email protected]

@JDLindeberg

JD LINDEBERG

16© RRS 2017