Solid Recovered Fuel Regional Assessments West of England ... · Solid Recovered Fuel Regional Assessments West of England and Dorset Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Solid Recovered Fuel Regional Assessments

West of England and Dorset

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Prepared by: Amaya Arias-Garcia, Jennie Gleeson Authorised by: Paul Stevenson

Severn House 1-4 Fountain Court Woodlands Lane Bradley Stoke Bristol BS32 4LA

Tel 01454 284450 JER7656 Fax 01454 284499 Revision: 02 Email [email protected] January 2009

This report has been produced by RPS within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk

RPS Planning and Development Ltd. Registered in England No. 02947164 Centurion Court, 85 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4RY A Member of the RPS Group Plc

Planning & Development

RPS Planning & Development i January 2009 JER7585

Contents

Contents..............................................................................................................i

1 Introduction and Background ...................................................................1

2 Refuse Derived Fuel Potential ...................................................................2

2.1 Scope .........................................................................................................2

2.2 SRF and RDF .............................................................................................2

2.3 SRF Production and Utilisation................................................................5

2.4 Existing SRF Producers............................................................................5

2.5 Existing SRF Users ...................................................................................6

2.5.1 Industrial ...........................................................................................6

2.5.2 Energy Generation Companies.........................................................7

2.5.3 Dedicated SRF Plant ........................................................................8

2.6 Potential for biomass co-combustion and replacement ........................8

2.7 Considerations for Utilising SRF ........................................................... 10

2.7.1 SRF Potential ................................................................................. 10

2.7.2 Technical considerations associated with SRF ............................... 11

2.7.3 Market research.............................................................................. 11

2.7.4 Experience with SRF in the EU....................................................... 12

2.8 Transport and Carbon emissions .......................................................... 13

2.9 Environment Agency position on the storage of SRF[3] ....................... 14

2.10 Economic Assessment........................................................................ 15

3 Data Gathering Methodology...................................................................17

3.1 Identifying potential SRF end-user facilities ......................................... 17

3.2 Industrial Users SRF Capacity: Methodology ....................................... 18

3.2.1 Method 1 - from EUETS (and WIMBY) data: .................................. 18

3.2.2 Method 2 - from Heat-Map data:..................................................... 20

RPS Planning & Development ii January 2009 JER7585

3.2.3 Direct replacement with SRF - calculations..................................... 21

3.2.4 CHP potential for SRF - calculations............................................... 21

3.2.5 Methodolgy – Public Sector Medium Heat Users ............................ 23

4 Identified Facilities ...................................................................................26

4.1.1 Industrial SRF Users....................................................................... 26

4.1.2 Medium Heat Users ........................................................................ 30

5 Conclusions and recommendations.......................................................32

5.1 Conclusions............................................................................................. 32

5.2 Limitations............................................................................................... 32

5.3 Main Findings .......................................................................................... 33

5.4 Recommendations for further exploration ............................................ 34

6 References ................................................................................................37

RPS Planning & Development iii January 2009 JER7585

Tables Table 1: SRF Classifications ...................................................................................................................4 Table 2: UK SRF production and Use.....................................................................................................6 Table 3: Biomass Generation Plants.......................................................................................................9 Table 4: Biomass/ fossil fuel costs/ gate fees, CV, ROC eligibility and WID requirement ....................10 Table 5: Potential Carbon Emissions from transport.............................................................................14 Table 6: CO2 emissions of SRF during preparation and combustion....................................................14 Table 7: Energy Calculations Method (EU-ETS and WIMBY Data) ......................................................19 Table 8: Energy Calculations Method (Heat Map Data)........................................................................20 Table 9: Potential CHP Quality Index....................................................................................................22 Table 10 Potential Industrial SRF Users – West of England and Dorset ..............................................27 Table 11: Identified Potential Heat Users - West of England and Dorset .............................................30 Table 12: Site Summary........................................................................................................................33 Table 13: Potential SRF Tonnage .........................................................................................................34

Figures

Figure 1 – Diagram of SRF production with not dedicated plant.............................................................3 Figure 2 – SRF & Paper sludge feeding to the boiler............................................................................13 Figure 3 – MBT economic balance........................................................................................................16 Figure 4 – Typical winter 7 day heat demand and supply profiles ........................................................24 Figure 5 – Typical summer 7 day heat demand and supply profiles.....................................................24

RPS Planning & Development iv January 2009 JER7585

Acronyms

C&I – Commercial and Industrial

CEN – European Committee for Standardization

CHP - Combined Heat and Power

CHP – Combined Heat and Power

DCC - Dorset County Council

EfW – Energy from Waste

EUETS – European Union Emissions Trading Scheme

HM – Heavy Metals

MBT – Mechanical Biological Treatment

MHT – Mechanical Heat Treatment

MSW – Municipal Solid Waste

NCV – Net Calorific Value

OBC – Outline Business Case

SRF – Refuse Derived Fuel

RFO – Recovered Fuel Oil

ROCs – Renewables Obligation Certificates

SLF – Secondary Liquid Fuels

SRF – Solid Recovered Fuel

TSs – Technical Specifications

WML – Waste Management License

WLP – Waste Local Plan

RPS Planning & Development 1 January 2009 JER7585

1 Introduction and Background

Turning waste into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) or Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) is one of the options

available for waste treatment that both reduces the volumes of waste sent to landfill whilst

simultaneously recovering embodied energy from the waste material – generally referred to as energy-

from-waste (EfW). SRF is a more refined version of RDF (explained in more detail in Section 1.2);

however, for simplicity, as SRF is the term used by Defra, we will refer to both materials as SRF in the

rest of this document.

In order to meet the challenges of the waste sector, Defra is stimulating the market for SRF as it is

recognised it offers:

• an alternative to solid fuels for selected energy intensive industries, as well as

• the possibility of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation.

There is a third option, that of burning the SRF to generate electricity. However, Defra wishes to

promote the most environmentally responsible / energy efficient option(s) available, and for non-major

power plant (MPP) generation, CHP is recognised as offering better overall energy return compared

with electricity-only.

In order to meet the requirements of the Outline Business Case (OBC) guidance document, councils

must provide fundamental evidence to bidders that CHP potential has been examined by the Authority.

The assessments should demonstrate that the pre-procurement preparations give the market every

encouragement to bid a CHP solution if the market sees this to be a viable and cost-effective

approach.

Making use of the electricity generated from CHP is seldom a problem. Electricity is versatile and can

either be used direct or fed into the National Grid. Heat energy is not so versatile and, in order to be

utilised effectively, one needs to be located near to a heat-consumer (or “sink”); ideally a large, 24/7

non-seasonal sink. One-way of achieving this is to utilize the waste heat from the EfW facility in an

industrial process or a community / commercial heating scheme. Another is to de-couple fuel

production from fuel use because some heat users with existing heat capacity will consider taking a

prepared fuel onto their sites but not untreated MSW.

In recognition that CHP may not be achievable in the traditional configuration of CHP, where the heat

source is linked by pipe to a heat user on an adjacent site, the councils require an assessment of the

potential of SRF utilisation within the study area and adjacent industrial zones.

In the UK’s Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation, published in June 2008, the government

expressed the support for the use of SRF announcing a number of initiatives including among others

the identification, region by region, of industrial energy intensive users with existing heat loads in

order to expand SRF fuel demand. This report links the identification of the industrial energy intensive

users to the potential for SRF utilisation and the identification public sector energy users.


2 Refuse Derived Fuel Potential

2.1 Scope

This report considers the possibility of using a SRF, which has been produced from Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) by Mechanical Biological or Mechanical Heat Treatments (MBT/MHT).

The study involved identifying potential users of SRF within 25 miles of the boundaries of the West England and Dorset.

Potential SRF users considered included facilities with existing infrastructure to use SRF as a

fuel directly and those with the potential to develop a treatment process. More specifically the

following categories were searched:

� Energy intensive industrial users

� Public sector energy users

� Co-firing with biomass

An economic assessment of utilising this fuel is also provided in Section 2.10.

2.2 SRF and RDF

Residual waste can be treated thermally either directly in an EfW facility, or after some pre-

treatment technology MBT/MHT.

There are three generic outcomes of the pre-treatment technologies:

• To produce a homogenous feedstock (SRF/SRF) for dedicated thermal treatment. Examples include the Isle of Wight and Manchester.

• To produce a homogenous feedstock (SRF/SRF) for distributed thermal treatment, i.e. not tied to dedicated plant (Figure 1). Examples include: East London and Leicester City.

• To stabilise (reduce biodegradability of) waste for brown-field restoration/landfill. Examples include Lancashire and Cambridgeshire.


Figure 1 – Diagram of SRF production with not dedicated plant

Source: Defra 2008 [7]

SRF and RDF are fuels produced from non-hazardous Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and

Commercial and Industrial (C&I) wastes. The term SRF is commonly used in place of RDF, it

is however important to distinguish between the two.

SRF is a refined form of RDF, intended for use in energy recovery facilities, which has been

produced to meet a standard as detailed below. Production of SRF from non-hazardous waste

is a growing industry in Europe and thus, in 2006 the European Committee for Standardization

(CEN) published a set of Technical Specifications (TSs) for the production and trade of SRF.

CEN/TS 15359 Solid Recovered Fuels – Specifications and Classes, prescribes a

Specification Template and a Classification System (

Table 1) where:

1. the economical parameter is the net calorific value (NCV),

2. the technical parameter is chlorine content and

3. the environmental parameter is mercury content.

The Standards will be fully completed by 2010. [9]

The standards were set out to facilitate trade, regulation & auditing, stakeholder confidence,

ease of communication and enhanced resource efficiency. As a result the certification is a

declaration of what is to be or has been supplied, through a suite of standards which gives

traceability from raw material to the end user and ensures those using the standards are

specifying and classifying in the same way This gives confidence to customers that they know

what they are getting and have an audit trail of its origin and source.


Table 1: SRF Classifications

Source: European Committee for Standardization [12]

The input waste can be: production specific waste, municipal solid waste, industrial waste,

commercial waste, construction and demolition waste and sewage sludge.

According to industry figures, SRF has the potential to make a significant contribution to a

diverse energy portfolio. The UK alone has the potential to produce around 9 Million tonnes of

SRF each year, the equivalent of 6 million tonnes of coal. [11]

SRF also represents an interesting route to the development of CHP infrastructure. Some of

the benefits of SRF fired CHP are:

• the facilitation of an easier planning process,

• increased overall energy efficiency,

• flexibility of location, volume, security of supply, price and

• the possible development of supply chain for waste wood disposal and co-firing.

Any facility burning SRF is required to comply with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID).


2.3 SRF Production and Utilisation

In general, a MBT facility will convert 50% of black bag/residual waste to SRF. The typical

NCV for SRF is 15 MJ/kg, equivalent to 4.2 MWh/t. For a facility treating 25 tonnes per hour

of MSW, approximately 12.5 tonnes per hour of SRF would be produced. Assuming a load

factor of 80%, the amount of SRF generated in a year at this rate would be 87,500 tonnes.

The maximum heat available from the EfW facility would approximately be 40 MW. The

available heat would depend on the type of technology and electricity production if any.

Similarly, a facility with a heat load of 5MW and operating at 90% utilisation throughout the

year would require approximately 16,000 tonnes of SRF per year to generate its heat demand.

2.4 Existing SRF Producers

A number of MBT facilities exist across the UK, those, which are known or expected to

produce SRF specifically, and its destination, are identified in Table 2. This represents

possible competition for the utilisation of SRF produced in the areas under consideration.


Table 2: UK SRF production and Use

SRF producer Location SRF Produced Facility using the SRF Status

Frog Island East London 90,000 Cemex Operational

Jenkins Lane East London

90,000 Castle Cement Ineos Chlor

Operational

Dumfries and Galloway Scotland

20,000 TBC Operational

Cumbria 75,000 N/A Contract Negotiation Expected to be operational by

2011

Shanks (Ecodeco)

Pontyfelin Industrial State Pontypool 60,000 N/A Planning granted,

construction plans in dicussion

Biffa (Ball mill) Leicester 35,000 Castle Cement Operational

Biffa (Island Waste Services)

Forrest Park, Isle of Wight

30,000 Energos gasification plant

Operational

Entsorga Brook lane - Westbury 30,000 Lafarge cement works Westbury

Construction

Slough Heat & Power (Fibre fuel)

Slough 100,000 Slough Heat & Power Operational

MREC Port Talbot 35,000 MREC Operational

Merseyside Huyton Park 50,000 TBC – currently landfilled Operational

Yorwaste North Yorkshire TBC Scarborough Power Pyrolysis

Operational

Sterecycle (autoclave) Rotheram TBC TBC – output to AD or CHP

Operational

TBC Rugby 150,000 Cemex Rugby Operational 2009

Total 765,000

2.5 Existing SRF Users

2.5.1 Industrial

Currently, the main industrial user of SRF in the UK is the cement industry. Three companies

dominate the manufacture of cement in the UK: Lafarge, Cemex and Castle Cement, all of

which currently use a form of SRF in at least one of their facilities. Buxton Cement, the fourth

UK cement operator, has only one site in Derbyshire.


The British Cement Industry’s Carbon Strategy encourages the use of waste as fuel, however

this is not limited to MSW SRF and there will be competition from other fuels such as

secondary liquid fuels and shredded tyres.

The main producer of SRF in the UK is Shanks. In 2008 Shanks provided 100,000 t to the

cement industry. It has the capacity to produce 200,000 tpa.

Lafarge Cement is the largest UK cement operator and could provide a potential outlet for

SRF. MSW SRF is to be trialled at the Lafarge Cauldon in Staffordshire, which is already

partly fuelled by waste tyres and recovered fuel oil.

Cemex have submitted a planning application (August 2008) for an MBT plant to produce a

brand of SRF called ‘Climafuel’. The facility would have a capacity of 300,000 tonnes and

provide 60% of the fuel required for Cemex Rugby. At the time of writing, Cemex do not have

contracts for the waste in place. Cemex currently import SRF for their plants in Rugby,

Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire. In November 2008, Cemex announced the closure of the

Barrington plant. The production of the plant will be taken up by other Cemex UK operations.

Further focussed communication with the cement industry is recommended.

The use of SRF in paper mills is well established in Europe, however there are only a few

large-scale (integrated) paper mills in the UK. The Scandstick UK paper mill uses a proportion

of their self-generated waste as a fuel on site, with the remainder being sent to Cemex,

Ketton. A number of paper facilities have been identified in this report as representing possible

opportunities for SRF utilisation. Further focussed communication with the paper industry is

also recommended.

2.5.2 Energy Generation Companies

Novera Energy was granted planning permission to build a gasification plant in Dagenham,

East London in 2006. The plant is to be located at the Ford Motor Company site and will

receive SRF produced from Shanks’ Frog Island MBT plant.

Scottish and Southern acquired Slough Heat and Power in early 2008. The plant is fuelled by

wood and fibre fuels, a large proportion of which are locally sourced. The wood is supplied

from sawmills, chipped demolition wastes and pallets, forestry enterprises, and dedicated

wood crops. The plant is the largest dedicated biomass facility in the UK.

In 2006 Scottish and Southern Energy Ltd and E.On expressed an interest in utilising SRF

potentially produced by the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA).

Although GMWDA opted to send their waste to Ineos Chlor, this shows the possibility and

rising interest in utilisation of SRF by power generation companies.


2.5.3 Dedicated SRF Plant

In October 2008 Ineos Chlor was given planning consent for the UK’s first dedicated SRF

burning facility. The facility will be located next to Ineos’ chemical works in Cheshire and is

expected to be operational in 2013. The plant will have a capacity of 850,000 tpa and will

produce 51MW heat and 100MW electricity, all of which will be used to power Ineos Chlor’s

chemical woks.

2.6 Potential for biomass co-combustion and replacement

Dedicated biomass energy generation plants represent an opportunity for MSW SRF,

replacing, for example, wood. The utilisation of SRF as an alternative to biomass could

potentially result in a reduction of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and therefore a

loss of income (SRF is typically 60% biomass content, see Table 4). The facility’s permitted

use and the negative cost of SRF compared to biomass fuels would need to be considered.

Table 3 shows existing and planned biomass facilities in the UK.

In August 2007 Eco Composting completed a planning application to Christchurch Borough

Council for the development of a BioEnergy Facility for the generation of electricity from

renewable resources using waste wood from existing wood processing operations and

coppice willow, including provision of new buildings, plant and landscaping. The application

was objected to at the time but perhaps a review of the current status of the application should

be considered if SRF production becomes a viable option.

RPS Planning & Development 9January 2009 JER7585

Table 3: Biomass Generation Plants

Current Location Feedstock Energy Number Comments

Stevens Croft Lockerbie, Scotland Wood 44 MWe 024 7642 4000 Unable to speak to appropriate individualSlough Heat and Power Slough, Berks Wood + fibre 50 MWe 01753 213 200 Unable to speak to appropriate individual

Wilton 10 Middlesbrough Wood 30 MWe 01624 212250 Steve Bishop Biomass Manager - Unable to contact

Eccleshall Biomass Eccleshall, Staffs Miscanthus 2 MWe 01785 851190 Due to having to be WID compliant they wouldn't

Grainger Sawmill Enniskeane, Ireland Wood 2 MWe 353 (0)23 22800 No contact madeBalcas Timber Enniskillen, NI Wood 2.5 MWe 028 66 323003 Unwilling to discussGoosey Lodge Northants Biomass 16 MWe No contact madeUPM Shotton Shotton, Wales Papermill sludge 20 MWe No contact made

EPR - Glanford Scunthorpe, N Lincs. Poultry litter 13.5 MWeEPR - Eye Poultry litter Eye, Suffolk 12.7 MWe

EPR - Westfield Fife, Scotland Chicken litter 9.8 MWeEPR - Thetford Thetford, Norfolk Chicken litter 38.5 MWe

EPR - Ely Ely, Cambridgeshire Straw 38 MWe

0845 105510 Michelle Jackson - Unable to contact

PDM Group Widnes, Cheshire Food residues 9.5 MWe 02476 393436 Mr Ratcliffe - Unable to contactTotal energy 308.5 MW

Planned

Port Talbot Port Talbot, Wales Wood 350 MWe 020 74095400Won't give information out over the phone, ifinterested in contracts need to register on the

website.

Balcas Invergordon, Scotland Wood 028 66323003 Unwilling to discussUPM Caledonian Irvine, Scotland Paper mill residues 50 MWe No contact made

RWE Innogy Stallingborough, Lincs. Wood 65 MWe 07899 792991 Kate Hill - Unable to contactTotal energy 465 MWe


2.7 Considerations for Utilising SRF

2.7.1 SRF Potential

The utilisation of SRF has significant potential within applications where heat demand is high and ideally not seasonal.

To date, SRF utilisation in the UK has been dominated by cement kilns and dedicated energy generation plants. However the statutory consultation of the Renewables Obligation Order 2009[2] proposed changes to the treatment of SRF under the Renewable Obligation to remove a barrier to the use of waste for energy recovery. In the Order, the Government proposed to remove the restriction whereby ROCs cannot be claimed for eligible biomass when co-fired in a fossil fuel power station alongside SRF.

In December 2008 Government response confirmed these benefits for SRF and the introduction of a minimum standard for SRF to avoid the benefits being available to untreated waste, which has not undergone the processes envisaged in the waste hierarchy. Benefits to the use of SRF include Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECAs) for SRF combustion equipment and neutrality for SRF.

Table 4: Biomass/ fossil fuel costs/ gate fees, CV, ROC eligibility and WID requirement

Source Cost (Gate Fee) per tonne CV (MJ/kg) ROC eligible WID required

Coal £25 35 No No

Forestry £15 to £22 Yes No Willow Not known

15-19 Yes No

Miscanthus grass Not known 17-19 Yes No Poultry litter £10 13.5 Yes Yes Straw £35 14.8 Yes No

Unprocessed mixed wood (£5) to (£30) If biomass content>90% Yes

Processed low grade wood Unknown – anecdotal evidence suggests that is a cost to user

If biomass content>90% Yes

Theoretical max C&I gate fee £(44) increasing to £(68) in 2010/111

If biomass content >90%

Theoretical max MSW gate fee £(194) increasing to £(218) in 2010/112

16

If biomass content >90%

Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) £(40) – (50) 11-15 If biomass content >90%[1]

Yes

Source: Defra 2008 [14]

1 Assuming high demand and prices are set according to the cost of alternative disposal. This assumes a landfill gate fee of £20 and landfill tax of £24 [now £32 2008], rising to £48 in 2010/11. 2 Assuming high demand and prices are set according to the cost of alternative disposal. This assumes a landfill gate fee of £20 and landfill tax of £24, rising to £48 in 2010/11 and LATS penalties at £150 per tonne.


2.7.2 Technical considerations associated with SRF

Whilst there are challenges to adopt SRF as a fuel in existing facilities, it is possible for SRF to

be used, replacing, for example, woody biomass or coal. The main driver for SRF utilisation is

the low production cost and its calorific value being similar to that of woody biomass.

The CV of SRF, hence its energy density, is low compared with fossil fuels. The combustible

organic fraction of solid fuels consists mainly of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.

Moreover, solid fuels contain moisture i.e. water, as well as some sulphur, chlorine and ash

components. Solid bio-fuels usually have high moisture contents, between 10 and 60 %, and

high oxygen content, thus low NCV, typically between 5 and 15 MJ/kg (1.4 – 4.2 MWh/t – i.e.

less than half that of coal)

Burning SRF would also require scrubbers to meet air pollution standards and would increase

maintenance levels. There is also a higher risk of corrosion and failure of the boiler super

heaters. [10]

They may contain high amounts of alkali metals (such as sodium (Na) and potassium (K)),

which during combustion react with chlorine forming alkali chlorides with low melting points.

The existence of alkali compounds in fuel ash is recognised to have an important role in

deposit formation and thus can cause technical problems related to slagging, fouling and

corrosion on areas with higher temperatures in the boiler.

In addition to alkali chlorides, heavy metals may also form compounds with very low melting

points. Heavy metals content of fuels needs to be strictly controlled.

2.7.3 Market research

Market research was conducted to find out the potential of SRF utilisation and the technical

problems presented by burning in industrial boilers and biomass technology providers

Boiler manufacturers, designers and suppliers were contacted regarding the technical

feasibility of burning SRF in installed boilers and their key requirements for upgrading the

current system to accept SRF as a fuel.

The burning of SRF with biomass, as carried out in many EU countries also has considerable

potential. Therefore, biomass producers and trade associations in the power generation

industry were also contacted to find out their involvement in promoting SRF in the power

sector.

The retrofit of a gas boiler, to accept SRF, would present a technical challenge as it would

need to comply with WID standards, which state that fuel must be combusted at 850˚C for a

minimum of 2 seconds. The cost of modification is likely to deem this unviable, however it is

being considered by some companies. Boiler manufacturers confirm that retrofitting oil or gas

fired boilers presents several problems. Storing and firing SRF in the boiler would require

increased space within the plant room and boiler combustion chamber.


A grate fired boiler would require enhanced mixing and as mentioned before sufficient

residence time at high temperatures and low total excess air[6]. As a result, the output of the

boiler would be scaled down. In order to achieve the same thermal output as an oil or gas fired

boiler of equivalent capacity, the combustion chamber volume for an SRF burner would need

to be three times larger.

UK biomass manufacturers are concerned about mixing SRF with other biomass fuels, mainly

because of the WID. Industrial boilers burning wood or straw would be closely monitored for

emissions and high chlorine content in the fuel and this would be a concern for the boiler

equipment manufacturer. In addition boiler manufacturers claim that the plastics in SRF

reduces control of the flame hence reduce the heat generated inside the boiler. More

importantly, the presence of chlorine can result in corrosion. A number of boiler manufacturers

can design dedicated solid fuel burners but consistent fuel characteristics (i.e. SRF

classification) would be required. They believe that the standardisation of SRF would be

helpful in designing a combustion system for SRF use.

2.7.4 Experience with SRF in the EU

Despite the technical challenges the co-combustion of SRF with peat, wood pellets or other

biomass material has gained interest in many European countries.

SRF which contains plastics and paperboard from packaging materials generally has a higher

net calorific value, often from 15 to 25 MJ/kg (4.2 – 7.0 MWh/t). Such SRF can function as a

support fuel, improving ignition, contributing to more stable combustion and superior burn out

of low-grade biofuels (and also of peat). However, as commented, most SRFs contain

considerable amounts of sodium and chlorine, some potassium, and similar amounts (but

different species) of heavy metals when compared to solid fossil fuels and biofuels.[5]

• Finland: In Finnish energy production, SRF is co-combusted with wood and peat. It has

been found that the co-combustion of SRF increases maintenance requirements of boilers

and hence operational cost. Furthermore, feeding requirements and flue gas cleaning

systems would also require additional investment to enable emissions to be closely

monitored. [8]

• Greece: with Rheinish brown coal in 600MWe units.

• Germany: an EU funded project ‘RECOFUEL’ demonstrated the co-combustion of SRF

with brown coal in two commercial scale pulverised fuel boilers at RWE Power’s power

plant site in Weisweiler. The pre-trial focussed mainly on fuel handling, conveying and

feeding issues while monitoring the burning and changes in emissions. The SRF content

was varied between 2% and 8.5% and with a heating value of 25.4 MJ/kg is almost double

that of Rheinish brown coal. The SRF was added with an existing paper sludge handling

system as shown in Figure 2. The test result showed no significant operational problems,

and a small increase in power production was seen due to the higher heating value of


SRF/coal mixture. There were no changes in flue gas emissions and the amount of un-

burnt fuel in the wet bottom ash was negligible. There were small changes in NOx and CO,

which could be attributed to the brown coal quality. [4]

Figure 2 – SRF & Paper sludge feeding to the boiler.

Source: RWE Power, cited in Kakaras et al, 2005[4]

The use of SRF as a fuel has also been successfully implemented for food manufacturers

Pfanni. The SRF combustor has a thermal capacity of 49.5MWh/yr, and a throughput of

95,000 tonnes/yr. The power generation includes 22,500MWh/yr which is exported to the local

grid and 14,400MWh which is used by Pfanni.

The Finnish paper company Stora Enso also successfully co-incinerates SRF at their plant in

Anjalankoski plant. The facility has a SRF burning capacity 135 000 t/a. The facility is one of

10 SRF co-incineration plants in Finland.

2.8 Transport and Carbon emissions

The production of SRF is often situated long distances from potential users. Whilst the SRF

market may grow as the need for alternative, greener and cheaper fuels increases, the

transport implications should be given due consideration. The transport of SRF raises

concerns over cost, noise, visual impact of increased traffic and carbon emissions. Table 5

indicates the carbon emissions from transportation.


Table 5: Potential Carbon Emissions from transport

Tonnage Tonnage /

Truck gCO2/t/km km Total Kg CO2

SRF 20,000 10 44 50 44,000

SRF 20,000 10 44 100 88,000

SRF 20,000 10 44 200 176,000

The emissions shown in Table 5 are calculated based on the following assumptions:

• Low emission (Euro 3-4) - 20t - 44 g CO2/t/km SETAC Code of life-cycle inventory best practice. ISBN 1-88061105809. (Data provided by Scania, Sweden)

• Half load due to return journey;

• Maximum distances of 50, 100 and 200 km

• 20,000 tonnes; and

• MSW collection mileages are not included.

It should be noted that CO2 emissions from the preparation and transportation of SRF are

minor when compared to emissions from its combustion (Table 6). For instance, the

combustion of 20,000 tonnes SRF would generate 12,728 tonnes CO2, whereas its

preparation then transportation over 100 km would generate 404 tonnes, equivalent to 3% of

its total C “footprint”.

Table 6: CO2 emissions of SRF during preparation and combustion

Step Kg CO2eq /t SRF* Kg CO2eq/ t waste* Kg CO2eq / 20,000t SRF

SRF Preparation 15.8 9.5 316,000

SRF Combustion 636.4 381 12,728,000

Coal Combustion 2,500 - 50,000,000

Source: *CRPE 2005

As the carbon emissions vary depending on the type of coal an average of 2.5 kg CO2/kg coal

has been used. Comparatively the emissions from the mining and transport of coal are

assumed to be negligible.

2.9 Environment Agency position on the storage of SRF[3]

The Environment Agency (EA) considers that SRF is waste and remains waste until it is

burned as fuel and the energy is recovered. SRF intended for combustion can be stored for up

to 3 years under the terms of a Waste Management Licence (WML). If SRF is to be stored for

longer than 3 years then a Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) permit is required. This is

also the case if the intention changes from recovery (i.e. use as a fuel) to disposal (i.e. landfill)

once the waste has been in storage for 12 months. Where SRF is to be stored under a WML,


in anticipation of additional capacity becoming available for its use, the EA would expect to

see clear evidence that this will be on stream and able to accept the SRF within the 3 year

time limit.

Any plant burning SRF must meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive or

have appropriate justification for derogation. Waste used to make SRF can only be counted

towards landfill diversion targets once the SRF has been burnt for energy recovery as at any

stage before this the SRF could still be sent for disposal i.e. to landfill.

The EA does not regard long-term storage of waste as a desirable or sustainable option. SRF

must be stored in a way that minimises risk to the environment and human health. The EA

anticipates SRF storage facilities would need to be fully enclosed with a controlled

atmosphere, have proper handling facilities to ensure the SRF remains retrievable and

useable as a fuel. The SRF itself would have to be suitable for storage under these

conditions.

The EA will not object to import or export of SRF as a short-term market solution when this is

for legitimate recovery purposes. In addition to compliance with shipment rules and facility

permits they would expect the importer/exporter to use Best Available Techniques (BAT) in

transport, handling and energy recovery processes. In the case of import it would also be

expected to receive justification that insufficient UK-derived SRF is available to meet

demand.[3]

2.10 Economic Assessment

An economic assessment of the use of SRF should take into consideration the following:

• Incoming “Gate fee” for the MBT

• Capex and Opex costs (split pro-rata per tonne of SRF over the lifetime of the SRF facility)

• Transport of SRF from the MBT to the combustion facility

• Sales value from [or gate fee to] the combustion facility

The SRF production facility would receive a gate fee from the local authority to accept and

process the waste. This would be less than the cost of disposing of the waste to landfill

(currently around £70-80/t).

Once the material is processed and the fuel is created then the facility would have to pay for

transport to the combustion facility, which is likely to charge a gate fee for accepting the fuel.

Gate fees for similar treatment options can vary substantially – both across and within regions.

For example, spot and contract gate fees can differ depending on spare capacity and local

market conditions. Gate fees at newer facilities for some treatments may differ substantially

from those for existing infrastructure.


Figure 3 provides a generic economic model based on WRAP figures for gate fees and

technology supplier’s figures for operational cost. The diagram shows the income revenue for

the MBT operator in green and the cost in red. It should be noted that the figure for SRF user

gate fee in Figure 2 is lower than the figure presented in Table 4. The figures for Table 4 are

directly taken from “Waste Wood as Biomass Fuel” published by Defra in April 2008 while the

figures here presented are from dialogue with UK stakeholders during the Resource Recovery

Forum SRF event in November 2008.

Figure 3 – MBT economic balance

There are a number of risks associated with treatment technologies, the most notable of

which are planning risks and the risk that the technology will not achieve the performance

levels claimed by the technology providers. This could threaten the availability of markets for

the products as the products would not meet the specification for end use and end up in

Landfill. Most users will require an SRF produced consistently to a given specification.

MBT

SRF

Transport£10 - £15 /

tonne

Residual Gate fee

£53 / tonneOperational £10 - £35 / tonne

SRF UserGate fee

£20 - £30 / tonne

Capex£42 - £100 / tonne


3 Data Gathering Methodology

3.1 Identifying potential SRF end-user facilities

The aim of this study was to assess the potential for SRF utilisation whilst maximising the

energy recovery efficiency of waste treatment plants through the use of either direct fuel

replacement or CHP. The investigation has aimed to identify facilities according to the

following criteria:

• High intensive energy users which could replace current fossil fuel usage

and when possible recover the heat generated from the combustion of SRF

(methodology presented in sections 3.21 and 3.2.2)

• Public sector medium energy users as potential candidates to accept the

waste heat generated by a near by SRF facility (methodology presented in

section 3.2.5)

Energy intensive industries such as cement, chemicals, metal, food and drink and paper

and pulp manufacture are required to reduce their carbon emissions to comply with European

targets. As such they are considered suitable for SRF utilisation. In order to identify facilities

with potential to utilise SRF publicly available information was searched, including the

European Union Trading scheme (EUETS) allocation list, the Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) industrial heat map and the Environment Agency’s pollution

inventory.

In addition to these high-energy users, public sector medium energy users (universities,

prisons and hospitals) have been identified as possible heat users from a CHP facility.

Medium energy users were identified using internet searches within the given areas.

It was initially proposed to search a 25 mile radius from a county specific, defined epicentre,

being either the geographic or demographic centre. However, upon review it was felt that this

method could exclude a significant number of potential SRF users. Furthermore, the

demographic centre and the identified users could be positioned at opposite boundary

extremes. Taking this in to account, the search was performed based on a 25-mile radius

from the boundary of each Region under consideration to capture all possible users. This

would allow for clusters of potential SRF/heat users to be identified and in turn facilitate the

sitting of MBT or dedicated SRF burning facilities in the future.

The identified potential SRF and heat users were mapped using GIS software to show the

location relative to the county boundary. Due to the size of the documents the maps are

provided electronically in pdf format with this report.


3.2 Industrial Users SRF Capacity: Methodology

For this study, several sources of publicly available information were searched, including the

European Union Trading scheme (EU ETS) National Allocation Plan list, Defra’s industrial

heat map and the Environment Agency’s pollution inventory.

The heat load of the potential SRF users has been taken either from the industrial heat map,

where available, or calculated based on emissions from the EU-ETS allocation and in-house

experience as described in Section 3.

• The most promising companies identified are those with a theoretical maximum solid fuel

replacement of over 100 kt SRF/yr

• The second most promising companies (between 0-100 kt SRF/yr) and

• Those with either missing data or which are unsuitable have a value of 0

Table 7 and Table 8 describe the methodology applied to all the large “point-source” CO2

emitters/ energy consumers, to calculate the following:

• Total fossil-fuel energy consumption (results presented in blue column in Table 10).

• Low-temp process energy (results in pink column in Table 10).

• Electricity consumption – for thermal and non-thermal applications (results in grey column in Table 10).

In order to calculate the above, one of two calculation methods were applied depending on the

data available (CO2 emissions or heat load) as described in the following sections

3.2.1 Method 1 - from EUETS (and WIMBY) data:

The total tonnes CO2 emissions per year are provided

The industrial/ commercial or public sector can, usually, be identified.


Table 7: Energy Calculations Method (EU-ETS and WIMBY Data)

To estimate How

1 Fossil fuel consumption for low temp applications

1.1 CO2 emissions resultant from burning fossil fuel

• For each site, the total CO2 emissions3 are known. • Typical % contribution from batch/ raw material (known as “process CO2”)4 so can subtract this figure from the total is known • Residue = on site burning of fossil fuels

1.2 Annual consumption of fossil fuels (as MWh/y).

• The typical fuel split for each sector5 in known • The CO2/kWh emission factor for each fuel (standard factors6) is known • From this, MWh/y of fossil fuel can be estimated

1.3

Fossil fuel end-use split: (1) High temp, >400°C (unlikely to lend itself to CHP heat) (2) Low temp, <400°C (likely to lend itself to CHP heat)

• For each sector, the typical split between “high temp” and “low temp” thermal processes can be estimated. (This is an important differentiation - heat from CHP will be applicable to “low-temp” uses but not to “high-temp” heat-requirements.)- Industrial split based on Carbon Trust (CT)7, augmented by RPS’ industrial experience8.- Non-industrial split also based on CT. All will have zero “high-temp” use.

1.4 Total site fossil fuel consumption for low temp applications • Calculated from above

2 Electricity consumption

2.1 MWh/y of electricity consumed for thermal uses

• Some industries use electricity for heating/ thermal purposes. A lot of these are for general space heating of these are specific low temp processes or. Others (such as electric arc melting or electric boost melt of glass) are sector specific. • For each sector, can make rough estimate based in sector knowledge9

• Calculate electricity consumption for thermal applications, based on:

- the above rough estimation and - the fossil fuel thermal figure (generated in 1.2)

2.2 MWh/y of non-thermal use • The typical thermal vs non-thermal energy split (CT data– consolidated) is known • Knowing the total fossil fuel + elec thermal use, can calculate the non-thermal electricity use

2.3 Total site electricity consumption Add 2.1 and 2.2 above

Note: Better resolution for these estimates can be obtained by splitting sectors down further into sub-sectors. For some very large point-source emitters site by site estimates could be calculated.

3 Extracted from DEFRA’s EU ETS or EA’s WIMPY web-sites 4 This was calculated and used by RPS for a similar study for WAG/Carbon Trust Wales and Northern Ireland DETINI on Devolved Admins energy and CO2 emissions. The proportion of process energy for each sector has been used directly for this WID SRF analysis 5 Extracted from DUKES (http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystatistics/dukes08.pfd) 6 For gas = 0.194 kgCO2/kWh, oil = 0.275 (basket average, individual oils vary from 0.25 – 0.29), solid = 0.31 (basket average, individual solid fuels vary from 0.30 – 0.33) 7 www.carbontrust.co.uk 8 These splits have already been used for the Irish Energy Study (2007/8) – split into approx 12 specific end-uses. Data has been used directly for this WID SRF analysis. 9 No site is likely to be average – mot will either be zero or well above. Good eg = space heating for buildings, either very little or all-electric


3.2.2 Method 2 - from Heat-Map data:

An (approximate) average thermal rating for the site (solely fossil fuel thermal rating)

Industrial/ commercial or Public Sector can usually be identified.

Table 8: Energy Calculations Method (Heat Map Data)

Estimate How

1 Fossil fuel consumption for low temp applications

1.1 Annual consumption of fossil fuels (as MWh/y) • Multiply average annual thermal rating10 by 8766 (hours per

year)

1.2 Fossil fuel end-use split: (1) High temp, >400°C (unlikely to lend itself to CHP heat) (2) Low temp, <400°C (likely to lend itself to CHP heat)

• For each sector, estimate the typical split between high temp and low temp thermal processes (based on CT info augmented by RPS’ industrial experience – see earlier)

1.3 Total site fossil fuel consumption for low temp applications From above

2 Electricity consumption

2.1 MWh/y of electricity consumed for thermal uses • Identical logic as for EU ETS and WIMBY data

2.2 MWh/y of non-thermal use • Identical logic as for EU ETS and WIMBY data

2.3 Total site electricity consumption • Adding 2.1 and 2.2 above

In essence, once the average annual figure for heat load or CO2 emissions has been

established for a facility, the total fossil fuel, low temp consumption of fossil fuel, and electricity

demand (as described above) can be calculated or estimated. In addition, the theoretical

maximum direct replacement with SRF and the CHP potential – using SRF as the primary fuel

can be estimated, as described below.

For each sector, the information required includes

(1) CO2 emissions from high temp processes

(2) CO2 emissions from low temp processes

(3) CO2 emissions from batch/ raw materials

(4) Solid fuel content of fossil fuel mix – as %

(5) Gas content of fossil fuel mix – as %

(6) Oil-based fuel content of fossil fuel mix – as %

10 Extracted from DEFRA web-site: www.industrialheatmaps.co.uk


(7) Overall tCO2/MWh factor – calculated from above

(8) Typical thermal energy derived from electricity

(9) Thermal applications of all fuels, including some electricity – as %

(10) Non-thermal applications of all fuels– as %

This information was inputted into the database to determine the potential for SRF

replacement.

3.2.3 Direct replacement with SRF - calculations

The theoretical maximum direct replacement with SRF calculation was based on the

estimated site solid fuel consumption and the relative CV of solid fuel and SRF11. Currently,

this can only be used with any degree of confidence for large specific solid-fuel consumers,

including:

• power-stations,

• integrated steel works,

• cement works.

• iron cupola foundries 12.

However, according to DUKES data, there are several other industrial sectors that consume some solid fuel, namely:

• Paper & pulp – 10% of fossil fuel

• Bricks – 5-10% of fossil fuel

• Textiles, chemicals and “other” industries – up to 5%

For these latter sectors, the approximate weighted average fuel mix across the entire sector

has been taken and used in the tables. However, in reality a site’s solid fuel consumption will

be “all or nothing”; some sites will consume a lot of solid fuel, others none. For better

resolution, detailed (site by site) examination will be needed to identify the individual sites that

offer potential for SRF replacement.

3.2.4 CHP potential for SRF - calculations

Generally, process industries such as, food and drink, chemicals and engineering, all have a

reasonably high demand for both low-temp heat and for electricity. Typically, these are the

11 Taken as 4.17 MWh/t, approx half that of coal and other solid fuels 12 It is worth noting that data sources examined to date provided very little specific information on individual iron cupola operators. Many fall outside EU ETS or heat-mapping. Numerically, there are likely to be 10’s of individual foundry operators. Individually, they will be relatively small (but nonetheless worthwhile) potential SRF consumers.


main target groups for “traditional” gas-fired CHP units and there is no reason why the same

logic cannot apply to SRF fuelled CHP. Normally, the CHP unit is designed around the site’s

base heat-demand (excluding peak-demand) and electricity is either used on site or, if excess

generated, can be exported to Grid.

For an EFW plant, for every 100 kWh of input CV, one may reasonably expect around 20 kWh

of electricity and 30 kWh of useable heat (heat output can be higher, but may not be

necessarily utilised effectively). The SRF CHP potential has been calculated from the

following:

• Taking the estimated annual low-temp heat demand - MWh(th) - from above. [Note: this is not necessarily the same as the total heat demand]

• Divide by 8766 hours /y to generate CHP MW(th)

• Multiply by electricity output/ heat output (in this case 20% / 30%) to generate CHP MW(e)

• Using the estimated annual low-temp heat demand - MWh(th) – and multiplying this figure by total CV in / heat CV out (in this case 100% / 30%) to calculate incoming SRF CV.

• Dividing this SRF CV by 4.167 (MWh/t) to generate a realistic estimation of SRF tonnage consumed to generate Energy from Waste CHP

One can predict the likely CHP Quality index (QI)13, used by DEFRA and CHP QA, to assess whether the CHP unit would be “good quality”, i.e. with a QI >100.

Table 9: Potential CHP Quality Index

CHP unit size QI factor elec

QI factor heat

Elec out Heat out QI

< 25 MW(e) 370 120 20% 30% 110

> 25MW(e) 220 120 20% 30% 80

Given the nature of the units, it is unlikely that any of these EFW CHP unit would be

> 25 MW(e). Therefore, for the above scenario, the QI index would be >100 QI points and

the CHP unit would likely be considered “good quality”, thus benefit from full ROCs, the

proposed heat-ROCs, Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECA) and the benefits offered to EU

ETS and CCA reporting. [It is worth noting that a 25 MW(e) CHP unit would consume approx

260 kt/y SRF – using the above scenario.]

13 http://www.chpqa.com/html/notes.htm “GUIDANCE NOTE 10: Defining Good Quality CHP”


3.2.5 Methodolgy – Public Sector Medium Heat Users

The potential to use SRF as a fuel to provide energy services within existing and new

buildings is dependent on a number of factors, many of which are site specific. However, there

are general considerations which will affect the suitability of any site to use SRF, and which

applies to any solid fuel, these being:

(a) the economic efficiency of the plant in supplying the energy load, and

(b) a reasonably high and consistent year round base-load - ideally several 100s of kW

or, better, > 1 MW of demand capacity throughout the year.

The building use types considered in this report include hospitals, prisons and higher

education facilities, for the following reasons:

• Likelihood of existing or planned central energy supply facilities

• Heat loads likely to be in MWs

• Potential for year round base-load heat demand supplied from central hot water services

• Public sector based, and therefore offering reduced long term risk and the potential of access to lower cost finance

• Significant additional space heating demand during winter months

• Large sites with likely existing HGV access and therefore able to accept regular deliveries of solid fuel, perhaps with some modification

• Large sites with potential space available for fuel reception and storage.

It should be noted that additional (Public Sector and Commercial Buildings) facilities will exist

with the potential to accept heat from a CHP plant. Should this route be chosen, heat users

within a suitable distance of a proposed facility should be investigated in greater detail.

The application of heat only supply is considered for reasons of simplicity and the scale at

which SRF is likely to be used in this case, bearing in mind the base and peak heat loads in

question. Generation of electricity from SRF would require steam generating plant and a

turbine, as well as suitable equipment for handling/ making use of the electricity generated. In

effect, this would require the application of a small scale incinerator, which would be

economically inefficient at the scale of energy demand required for a plant to operate at full

output for most of the year (baseload).

Other methods of generating electricity using solid fuel at a scale below 10MW employing

advanced technologies such as gasification are not considered to be sufficiently commercially

viable. The lack of opportunity to generate electricity using SRF within these types of


applications effectively discounts the possibility of using absorption chillers to provide central

cooling, again due to the poor economics.

For each of the identified sites in Table 11 the area was measured using Promap. A

benchmark annual heat demand was then applied to calculate an approximate total heat

demand for that facility. It is assumed that 75% of the total annual heat load can be provided

by SRF, using an SRF boiler with a seasonal efficiency of 85%. SRF calorific value is

assumed to be 15 GJ/tonne.

By way of illustration, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the application of a 1.0 MW SRF heat-only

boiler in operation over typical winter and summer 7 day periods. The annual heat load is

10,000 MWh/yr, 60% of which is for space heating and therefore dependent upon external air

temperature, with the remainder attributable to year round hot water service demand. Peak

loads and full back up are provided by gas fired boilers. 70% of the total annual heat load is

provided by the SRF boiler in this case, which uses around 2,000 tonnes/yr of fuel.

Figure 4 – Typical winter 7 day heat demand and supply profiles

Source:RPS generated in EnergyPro

Figure 5 – Typical summer 7 day heat demand and supply profiles

Source: RPS generated in EnergyPro


The outputs from the analysis software above show that the SRF boiler has the potential to operate

essentially as baseload plant at full output during the winter months, with any demand reductions

being taken up through the use of a thermal store or reductions in boiler output, depending on which

will give the most economically advantageous outcome. During the summer, the boiler may be

allowed to operate at part load or again in conjunction with a thermal store, however the latter case

would result in the boiler being switched on and off for regular periods. In this case it may be better to

switch off the SRF plant and supply hot water from more flexible fossil fuel boilers. Each site will

experience its own specific heat demand profile and therefore the operating regime of the various

boiler plant will be determined by this.


4 Identified Facilities

4.1.1 Industrial SRF Users

Table 10 shows the facilities identified in the area, using the methodology described above.

The potential amount of SRF, assuming 5 % penetration and the total for the region is also

provided.


Table 10 Potential Industrial SRF Users – West of England and Dorset

Assume

Hours/y SRF CV Realistic CHP

4.17 5% 20%

Heat load MWh/t penetration 30%

Company Sector MWth

Relevant

Emissions

EUETS

Est total

fossil fuel

(MWh(th))

Est "low

T" fossil

fuel

(MWh(th))

Est elec

demand

(MWh(e)

Max theory

solid fuel

replace? (kt

SRF/y)

Realistic

uptake @

5% of max

(kt SRF/y)

CHP -

apprx

ktSRF/y

Total SRF

potential

(kt SRF/y)

Aberthwaw Power Station Energy 1,455 12,754,530 - - 3058.64 152.93 - 26.48

Uskmouth Power station Energy 1,436,111 4,632,616 - - 1110.94 55.55 - 186.46

Lafarge Aberthaw cement 372,355 748,703 - 211,173 161.59 8.08 - 173.82

Ibstock Brick Ltd Brickworks 26,355 117,161 30,832 39,054 2.81 0.14 - 95.13

Glatfelter UK Limited Paper and 24,000 106,692 106,692 121,198 2.56 0.13 - 60.96

ST REGIS PAPER CO LTD Paper and 6.50 56,979 56,979 64,726 1.37 0.07 151.36 151.58

Northcot Brick Ltd Brickworks 10,304 45,806 12,054 15,269 1.10 0.05 104.01 104.16

Hollingsworth & Vose Co Ltd Paper and 7,194 31,981 31,981 36,329 0.77 0.04 21.95 22.07

HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE Paper and 3.06 26,824 26,824 30,471 0.64 0.03 13.82 13.90

SUNDEALA LTD Paper and 1.48 12,974 12,974 14,738 0.31 0.02 13.11 13.18

ST REGIS PAPER CO LTD Pulp & 1.06 9,257 9,257 10,516 0.22 0.01 7.82 7.87

SSE Generation Ltd Energy 3,513 17,565 - - 0.00 0.00 21.93 21.97

Bridgwater Generating Plant Energy 4,115 20,575 - - 0.00 0.00 5.37 5.40

South Cornelly Power Station Energy 4,674 23,370 - - 0.00 0.00 17.59 17.61

Corus Steel Orb Steel - DS 6,666 32,984 - 1,736 0.00 0.00 8.28 8.29

Alpha steel Ltd Steel - EAF 9,538 46,707 - 72,518 0.00 0.00 14.82 14.82

PB Gelatins Food and 11,639 54,711 54,711 22,102 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

FLEET SUPPORT LTD. Services 16,585 85,490 85,490 - 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Wessex Water Sewage 28,000 140,000 - - 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Solutis UK Ltd Chemicals 60,108 282,546 282,546 150,912 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Celsa Manufacturing Steel - EAF 80,412 393,770 - 611,380 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Centrica Barry Power Station Energy 551,558 2,843,082 - - 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Seabank Power Limited Energy 2,778,204 13,891,020 - - 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

MILK LINK PROCESSING Food and 0.54 4,690 4,690 1,895 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

WESTBURY DAIRIES Food and - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Westbury Lafarge Cement Cement - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Cereal Partners (Nestle) Food and - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Royal Naval air station Services - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Inversek Paper and - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Ibstock Brick Ltd Brick - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

ASTRA ZENECA Chemical - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Terra Nitrogen (UK) Ltd Chemicals - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

AstraZeneca Avlon Works Chemicals 9.46 82,926 82,926 44,292 0.00 0.00 15.93 15.93

Tocris Cookson Ltd Chemicals - - - 0.00 15.93 15.93

Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd Chemical - - - 0.00 16.12 16.12

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL Education - - - 0.00 17.49 17.49

Praxair Surface Technologies Chemicals - - - 0.00 17.49 17.49

ROLLS-ROYCE PLC Automotive - - - 0.00 17.52 17.52

AIRBUS UK LIMITED Engineering - - - 0.00 23.03 23.03

AIRBUS UK LIMITED Engineering

& vehicles

- - - 0.00 25.23 25.23

FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Automotive 6.82 59,784 59,784 76,216 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

Abril Industrial Waxes Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 26.29 26.29

GEORGIA PACIFIC UK LTD Pulp & 0.00 - - - 0.00 27.71 27.71

Dalkia Utilities Services Plc Chemicals 5.65 49,484 49,484 26,430 0.00 0.00 28.55 28.55

INNOGY COGEN LTD Pulp & 0.00 - - - 0.00 29.22 29.22

Clariant UK Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 - 0.00


St Merryn Meat Ltd Food & 2.37 20,802 20,802 8,404 0.00 0.00 32.77 32.77

ROYAL AIR FORCE ST Services 4.69 41,095 41,095 17,526 0.00 0.00 32.79 32.79

Aberthwaw Power Station Energy - - - 0.00 32.85 32.85

DOW CORNING LTD. Chemicals 0.00 - - - 0.00 32.85 32.85

INNOGY COGEN LTD Chemicals 0.00 - - - 0.00 32.85 32.85

EUROPEAN VINYLS Chemicals 8.26 72,363 72,363 38,650 0.00 0.00 33.16 33.16

Cabot Carbon Ltd Chemicals 9.25 81,103 81,103 43,318 0.00 0.00 36.10 36.10

Laporte Performance Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 38.25 38.25

Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 42.30 42.30

Dow Chemical Co Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 45.32 45.32

Purolite International Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 53.30 53.30

Chickerhill Power Station Energy - - - 0.00 64.41 64.41

Royal Devon / Exeter Hospital Health - - - 0.00 77.53 77.53

Southwest metal Finishers Engineering

& vehicles

- - - 0.00 80.83 80.83

Ibstock Brick Ltd Brick - - - 0.00 107.21 107.21

DAIRY CREST Food and 8.90 78,017 78,017 31,518 0.00 0.00 109.83 109.83

Purton Carbons Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 114.29 114.29

Engelhard Sales Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 123.44 123.44

GLAXOSMITHKLINE Food and 2.99 26,210 26,210 10,589 0.00 0.00 126.13 126.13

Messier-Dowty Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,899 19,899 10,628 0.00 0.00 126.13 126.13

INVISTA (U.K.) LTD Chemicals 6.80 59,609 59,609 31,838 0.00 0.00 126.73 126.73

Unilever Ice Cream Food and - - - 0.00 262.77 262.77

Coors Brewers Food and - - - 0.00 - 0.00

Surface Technology Systems Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

R.F.BROOKES Food & 4.02 35,248 35,248 14,240 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

SOLUTIA UK LIMITED Chemicals 0.00 - - - 0.00 18.23 18.23

ROYAL ORDNANCE PLC Engineering 3.35 29,331 29,331 37,393 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

Yuasa Battery (UK) Ltd Chemicals 2.50 21,880 21,880 11,686 0.00 0.00 39.39 39.39

INTERBREW UK LTD Food & 0.00 - - - 0.00 64.64 64.64

ST REGIS PAPER CO LTD Pulp & 0.00 - - - 0.00 71.51 71.51

Trico Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 - 0.00

Sintec Keramik (UK) Ltd Chemicals 2.27 19,934 19,934 10,647 0.00 0.00 81.77 81.77

Hawker Ltd Chemicals 2.50 21,880 21,880 11,686 0.00 0.00 125.25 125.25

Davidstow creamery Food and - - - 0.00 - 0.00

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Services - - - 0.00 131.57 131.57

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Services - - - 0.00 220.88 220.88

NEDALO UK LTD Services - - - 0.00 256.34 256.34

Cogenco Ltd Food and - - - 0.00 342.42 342.42

SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN Energy - - - 0.00 - 0.00

TS41 (POWER RESOURCES Energy - - - 0.00 - 0.00

Cowes GT Power Station Energy - - - 0.00 - 0.00

SCOTTISH COURAGE – Food and - - - 0.00 - 0.00

AWE PLC Services - - - 0.00 - 0.00

AWE PLC Engineering - - - 0.00 - 0.00

HORLICKS FACTORY Food and - - - 0.00 - 0.00

ST REGIS PAPER CO LTD Paper and - - - 0.00 - 0.00

COOPER-AVON TYRES LTD Engineering - - - 0.00 - 0.00

MOD OC SSS Services - - - 0.00 -

Swindon pressings ltd Engineering - - - 0.00 -

Swindon pressings ltd Engineering - - - 0.00 -

Honda Manufacturing Engineering - - - 0.00 -

BAE land systems Engineering - - - 0.00 -

Rank Hovis Mill Food and - - - 0.00 -

Dairy crest ltd Food and - - - 0.00 -

Southampton Hospitals Health - - - 0.00 -


Morgan Electro Ceramics Chemical - - - 0.00 -

Koppers UK Ltd Chemical - - - 0.00 -

ESSO PETROLEUM CO LTD Refinery - - - 0.00 -

Exxon Mobil Chemical Ltd Chemical - - - 0.00 -

POLIMERI EUROPA UK LTD Chemical - - - 0.00 -

Laporte Performance Chemical 6.70 58,732 58,732 31,370 0.00 0.00 -

Resad Polymers Ltd Chemical - - - 0.00 -

Sigma-Aldrich Co Ltd Chemicals - - - 0.00 -

DAIRY CREST LIMITED Food and - - - 0.00 -

St Regis - Wansborough Paper and - - - 0.00 -

SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN Energy - - - 0.00 -

Surface Specialities Plc Chemical - - - 0.00 -

Gerber food and drinks Food and - - - 0.00 -

ROYAL ORDNANCE PLC Engineering - - - 0.00 -

Total 217.05 1,570.10


4.1.2 Medium Heat Users

Table 11: Identified Potential Heat Users - West of England and Dorset

Company Sector Postcode Footprint sq.m

Heat Use MWh/yr

Estimated Heat from

SRF MWh/yr

SRF Use MWh/yr

SRF Use tonnes/yr

Dorset County Hospital Hospital DT1 2JY 17,000 18,360 13,770 16,200 3,888 Alderney Hospital Hospital BH12 4NB 6,000 6,480 4,860 5,718 1,372 Axminster Cottage Hospital Hospital EX13 5DU 2,600 2,808 2,106 2,478 595 Berkeley Hospital Hospital GL13 9AD 2,250 2,430 1,823 2,144 515 Blandford Community Hospital Hospital DT11 7DD 3,600 3,888 2,916 3,431 823 Bridgwater Community Hospital Hospital TA6 5AH 3,000 3,240 2,430 2,859 686 Bridport Community Hospital Hospital DT6 5DR 3,500 3,780 2,835 3,335 800 Bristol Eye Hospital Hospital BS1 2LX 1,200 1,296 972 1,144 274 Bristol General Hospital Hospital BS1 6SY 5,500 5,940 4,455 5,241 1,258 Bristol Haemotology and Oncology Centre Hospital BS2 8ED 1,100 1,188 891 1,048 252 Bristol Homeopathic Hospital Hospital BS6 6JU 1,400 1,512 1,134 1,334 320 Bristol Royal Hospital for Children Hospital BS2 8BJ 2,700 2,916 2,187 2,573 618 Bristol Royal Infirmary Hospital BS2 8HW 8,500 9,180 6,885 8,100 1,944 Cardiff Royal Infirmary Hospital CF24 0SZ 15,000 16,200 12,150 14,294 3,431 Chard Community Hospital Hospital TA20 1NF 2,400 2,592 1,944 2,287 549 Chepstow Community Hospital Hospital NP16 5YX 5,000 5,400 4,050 4,765 1,144 Christchurch Hospital Hospital BH23 2JX 12,000 12,960 9,720 11,435 2,744 Clevedon Hospital Hospital BS21 6BS 400 432 324 381 91 Cossham Hospital Hospital BS15 1LF 1,800 1,944 1,458 1,715 412 County Hospital Hospital NP4 5YA 17,000 18,360 13,770 16,200 3,888 Crewkerne Hospital Hospital TA18 8BG 1,000 1,080 810 953 229 Fairford Hospital Hospital GL7 4BB 800 864 648 762 183 Frenchay Hospital Hospital BS16 1LE 50,000 54,000 40,500 47,647 11,435 Gosport War Memorial Hospital Hospital PO12 3PW 8,000 8,640 6,480 7,624 1,830 Grove Road Day Hospital Hospital BS6 6UJ 500 540 405 476 114 King's Park Community Hospital Hospital BH7 6JF 2,700 2,916 2,187 2,573 618 Lansdowne Hospital Hospital CF11 8PL 2,800 3,024 2,268 2,668 640 Nuffield Hospital Exeter Hospital EX2 4UG 1,800 1,944 1,458 1,715 412 Portland Community Hospital Hospital DT5 1AX 1,400 1,512 1,134 1,334 320 Royal Bournemouth Hospital Hospital BH7 7DW 30,000 32,400 24,300 28,588 6,861 Royal United Hospital Hospital BA1 3NG 54,000 58,320 43,740 51,459 12,350 Shackleton Hospital Hospital PO33 3DT 1,100 1,188 891 1,048 252 Shepton Mallet Community Hospital Hospital BA4 4PG 3,200 3,456 2,592 3,049 732 South Petherton Hospital Hospital TA13 5AR 1,800 1,944 1,458 1,715 412 Southmead Hospital Hospital BS10 5NB 45,000 48,600 36,450 42,882 10,292 St Anne's General Hospital Hospital BH13 7LN 5,300 5,724 4,293 5,051 1,212 St Cadoc's Hospital Hospital NP18 3XQ 20,000 21,600 16,200 19,059 4,574 St Christopher's Hospital Hospital PO16 7JD 2,000 2,160 1,620 1,906 457 St David's Community Hospital Hospital CF11 9XB 6,000 6,480 4,860 5,718 1,372 St Joseph's Hospital Hospital NP20 6ZE 5,000 5,400 4,050 4,765 1,144 St Leonard's Hospital Hospital BH24 2RR 3,500 3,780 2,835 3,335 800 St Martin's Hospital Hospital BA2 5RP 6,800 7,344 5,508 6,480 1,555 St Michael's Hospital Hospital BS2 8EG 6,400 6,912 5,184 6,099 1,464 Swanage Hospital Hospital BH19 2ES 1,800 1,944 1,458 1,715 412 Tetbury Hospital Hospital GL8 8XB 900 972 729 858 206 The Great Western Hospital Hospital SN3 6BB 16,000 17,280 12,960 15,247 3,659 The Royal Gwent Hospital Hospital NP20 2UB 20,000 21,600 16,200 19,059 4,574 The Willows Day Hospital Hospital BS11 0TA 1,000 1,080 810 953 229 Thornbury Hospital Hospital BS35 1DN 3,600 3,888 2,916 3,431 823 Trowbridge Community Hospital Hospital BA14 8PH 2,300 2,484 1,863 2,192 526 Univeristy Hospital of Wales Hospital CF14 4XW 50,000 54,000 40,500 47,647 11,435 University of Bristol Dental Hospital Hospital BS1 2LY 2,300 2,484 1,863 2,192 526 Velindre Hospital Hospital CF14 2TL 13,000 14,040 10,530 12,388 2,973 Verrington Hospital Hospital BA9 9DQ 2,000 2,160 1,620 1,906 457 Victoria Hospital Hospital BH21 1ER 3,300 3,564 2,673 3,145 755 War Memorial Hospital Hospital TA8 1ED 1,600 1,728 1,296 1,525 366 Wareham Community Hospital Hospital BH20 4QQ 2,000 2,160 1,620 1,906 457 Warminster Community Hospital Hospital BA12 8QS 3,000 3,240 2,430 2,859 686 Westbury Community Hospital Hospital BA13 3EL 3,500 3,780 2,835 3,335 800 Westhaven Hospital Hospital DT4 0QE 5,700 6,156 4,617 5,432 1,304 Westminsiter Memorial Hospital Hospital SP7 8BD 2,700 2,916 2,187 2,573 618 Weston General Hospital Hospital BS23 4TQ 18,000 19,440 14,580 17,153 4,117 Weymouth Community Hospital Hospital DT4 7TB 2,700 2,916 2,187 2,573 618 Whitchurch Psychiatric Hospital Hospital CF14 7XB 20,000 21,600 16,200 19,059 4,574 Wimborne Community Hospital Hospital BH21 1ER 3,400 3,672 2,754 3,240 778 Winchcombe Hospital Hospital GL54 5NQ 700 756 567 667 160 Yeatman Hospital Hospital DT9 3JU 3,600 3,888 2,916 3,431 823 Yeovil Hospital Hospital BA21 4AT 11,000 11,880 8,910 10,482 2,516


University of Winchester University SO22 4NR 12,300 4,305 3,229 3,799 912 Bath Spa University University BA2 9BN 8,700 3,045 2,284 2,687 645 Bournemouth University University BH12 5BB 11,700 4,095 3,071 3,613 867 Cranfield University University SN6 8LA 43,500 15,225 11,419 13,434 3,224 Oxford Brookes Univeristy (Swindon Campus) University SN2 1HL 3,300 1,155 866 1,019 245 Univeristy of Glamorgan University CF37 1DL 22,000 7,700 5,775 6,794 1,631 Univeristy of Wales, Newport University NP18 3QT 18,000 6,300 4,725 5,559 1,334 University of Bath University BA2 7AY 40,000 14,000 10,500 12,353 2,965 University of Bristol University BS8 1TH 33,200 11,620 8,715 10,253 2,461 University of Gloucestershire University GL50 2RH 7,000 2,450 1,838 2,162 519 University of Plymouth Faculty of Education University EX8 2AT 8,500 2,975 2,231 2,625 630 University of the West of England University BS16 1QY 32,500 11,375 8,531 10,037 2,409 University of Wales, Cardiff University CF24 4AG 25,000 8,750 6,563 7,721 1,853

HMP The Verne Prison DT5 1EQ 8,200 2,785 2,088 2,457 590 HM Prison Albany Prison PO30 5RS 9,000 3,056 2,292 2,697 647 HMP Ashfield Prison BS16 9QJ 6,500 2,207 1,656 1,948 467 HMP Bristol Prison BS35 1DN 10,000 3,396 2,547 2,996 719 HMP Camp Hill Prison PO30 5PB 8,000 2,717 2,038 2,397 575 HMP Cardiff Prison CF24 0UG 11,000 3,736 2,802 3,296 791 HMP Eastwood Park Prison GL12 8DB 9,000 3,056 2,292 2,697 647 HMP Erlestoke Prison SN10 5TU 8,600 2,920 2,190 2,577 618 HMP Guy's Marsh Prison SP7 0AH 9,400 3,192 2,394 2,817 676 HMP Prescoed Prison NP4 0TB 6,000 2,038 1,528 1,798 431 HMP Shepton Mallet Prison BA4 5LU 3,700 1,256 942 1,109 266 HMP Usk Prison NP15 1XP 4,500 1,528 1,146 1,348 324 HMP Winchester Prison SO22 5DF 6,700 2,275 1,706 2,008 482 IRC Haslar Prison PO12 2AW 5,400 1,834 1,375 1,618 388


5 Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

This study has identified a number of potential sectors and sites where, in theory, SRF can be

used as an alternative fuel source. The main opportunities examined include:

1. Solid fuel power generation: partial replacement of existing solid fuel with SRF, including

existing coal fired (major) power stations plus smaller wood or bio-mass power stations.

Here a realistic substitution of up to 5% SRF (on a CV basis) has been considered.

2. Direct solid fuel replacement into existing industry – most significantly cement although

several other industrial sectors have been identified. Again, 5% levels of substitution have

been used.

3. Use of SRF as a fuel source for CHP generation, ideally located close to process-industrial

end-users with large, non-seasonal, low temp (<400˚C) heat-load requirements plus power

requirements. Here, <25 MW(e) energy from waste CHP units with an estimated 20%

electrical and 30% heat output have been considered. These output figures should put the

CHP into the “good quality” category. For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed

that all sites’ heat needs will come from CHP, although in reality it will be less.

4. Use of SRF as a heat-source for large public sector bodies – focussing on Prisons,

Hospitals and Universities, with large non-seasonal heat-requirements.

5.2 Limitations

To date, this study has been entirely desk-based research and no direct contact has been made

with the identified facilities (comments received from biomass facilities are taken from a previous

RPS study). The potential for the facilities to use SRF has been estimated based on publicly

available information and the experience of RPS staff. It is recognised that this data is often

incomplete and/or only best estimation, and further refinements to the search criteria are

recommended.

The main attraction of SRF as a fuel-source is that it is considerably cheaper per kWh than fossil

fuels; indeed consumers may want a “gate fee” to use it. On the other hand, there are several

technical issues that make its use challenging, e.g. low energy density and impurities – which

ultimately cause pollution emissions of dust, alkali metal chlorides and heavy metals – all of

which need controlling. These are likely to limit the scope for its use to those that already have or

are willing to install pollution control systems, making any further studies in this area more and

more site-specific.

Due to the time scale, heat users identified in this study have been limited to industry, power

generation, universities, hospitals and prisons. Other facilities, including housing, leisure


centres and retail parks will also present opportunities for heat utilisation, however the vast

number of such facilities would not be suitable to map on such a large area.

Currently the use of SRF is less dependable on distance, and the amount required by potential

facilities can be distributed widely. Despite the ability to transport SRF, the proximity of

facilities should be considered as this could facilitate in the siting of a SRF production plant as

well as reduce the overall environmental impact from the unit.

Although direct fuel replacement for SRF may not be possible, many of the facilities have a

high thermal requirement and, should space be available, could benefit from an on-site SRF

plant. Thus the remaining facilities identified should not be discounted. Furthermore, it is

recommended that contact is made to determine missing data and to gauge interest in the use

of SRF. The opportunity for adjacent areas to create a partnership should be given

consideration as a suitably located facility, either a MBT plant or a dedicated SRF fuelled

plant, could offer increased benefit to the councils included

5.3 Main Findings

Based on the available databases, more than 100 sites were identified across the region both

for SRF potential users and potential heat users. Of these, over 40 of the sites had no

quantitative info on either energy or CO2 emissions.

All Regions had a substantial number of large (50-100 kt SRF) and very large (>100 kt) sites

offering potential for SRF substitution. A brief summary is given in the table below:

Table 12: Site Summary

Region Total number of sites for SRF utilisation

Total number of sites for Heat use

West England & Dorset 115 101

Many of these are those are considered to have substantial CHP potential. Given the

timeframe and scope of the work, it was impossible to cross-check whether CHP was a

realistic potential for each site (or indeed whether they already had CHP). This could have a

bearing on the figures. It is also recognised there is an element of duplication across regions.

The SRF potential for direct substitution and for EFW CHP are given in Table 13.


Table 13: Potential SRF Tonnage

Region Direct sub

(kt SRF/y)

CHP

(kt SRF/y)

Total

(kt SRF/y)

West England & Dorset 217 1353 1,570

It has already been commented that it was impossible to cross-check whether EFW CHP was

a realistic potential for each site. In reality, the CHP potential is likely to be substantially less

than the values quoted here.

5.4 Recommendations for further exploration

It should be recognised that this report and the accompanying Excel spreadsheets has acted

as a valuable exercise in identifying potential markets for SRF in the regions that are van-

guarding Round 4 of DEFRA’s PFI requirements. The work has identified numerous sites

where SRF could be used as a substitute fuel, either as a direct replacement or as a

feedstock into an EFW CHP unit. The report has also provided some ballpark estimates of

potential for substitution, although precautionary messages must be given with these figures.

However, the authors believe that there are some clear next steps that industry and Local

Authorities would ask before feeling confident that SRF is likely to be a success. Should the

study be taken forward to explore the potential for direct replacement of solid fuel with SRF,

the following activities are recommended:

1. Contact and further exploration with individual organisations across specific industrial

sectors:

• Solid-fuel major power plants (MPPs), including their realistic maximum potential

utilisation of SRF. There are 2 coal-fired MPPs in the regions under consideration and

these could benefit from individual attention or contact via the parent organisation.

Coal-fired major power plants (MPPs) are under increasing pressure to reduce their

carbon footprint; partial replacement of coal with SRF offers one such opportunity.

Partial replacement at just one coal-fired MPP would offer a market for tens of

thousands of tonnes SRF per year.

• Existing or planned wood/ bio-mass power plant/ CHP units may offer an alternative

direct substitution market, although they would need to have adequate flue-gas controls

to be able to use SRF.

• Cement manufacturers, including their realistic maximum potential utilisation of SRF.

Cement makers already use solid fuel and have flue-gas cleaning systems in place.

Many cement sites are in an advanced position for being able to handle SRF, indeed


some sites are already using this and other EfW sources. Individual attention (perhaps

initially via BCA) would be a distinct possibility.

• Exploring integrated steel works and their realistic maximum potential utilisation of SRF.

2. Develop better understanding of scope and opportunities in other industrial sectors that

consume solid fuel:

1. Identifying all iron cupola operators, their location and their realistic maximum potential

utilisation of SRF, etc. These already use solid fuel and will have flue-gas cleaning

systems in place. It is believed that there are likely to be sites within the area of interest,

with typical substitutions of up to 2 kt SRF. It is recommended that initial contact is via

the sector Trade Association.

2. Some industries, including the paper, brick, chemicals and textile sectors, may offer

some potential for SRF, either:

(a) as a direct replacement for coal/ solid fuels,

(b) as potential large, non-seasonal heat sink for SRF fuelled heat or CHP units.

The information gathered from the data sources used in this study do not indicate which

sites offer the most realistic opportunities, and it is recommended identification of the

more promising sites be made, initially through Trade Bodies, with a view to contacting

potential users.

3. CHP opportunities

Claims to-date are based on total supply of “low temp” heat from CHP; it is recognised this

approach will over-state the real figure. The real potential for EFW CHP would need better

scoping with several real examples, including:

• Stand-alone process industry sites, in particular: 1 x Chemicals, 1 x Food & Drink, 1 x Paper

• 1 or 2 trading estates with a potential for hot-water ring-mains servicing more than one site.

4. Fully evaluate the actual heat opportunities in a tighter area of 5 km around a pre-defined

epicentre. Two types of location are recommended:

(a) Urban/ industrial;

(b) Semi-rural area


It is recommended actual sites are discussed and agreed prior to the commencement of

further work. The work would involve a thorough on-the-ground investigation of the area,

including identification of all major heat users. This would include a map search/ satellite

picture review, walk-around the area, discussions with Local Authority and Environment

Agency, web-searches, etc, followed by detailed assessments of heat use based on floor

area for industry and buildings.

Experiences in similar studies around a pre-defined epicentre have identified a substantial

number of heat-consumers that were not identified or logged on publically available web-

sites.

5. Public Sector heating

Work with DEFRA/Local Government regarding initial contact and encouraging Government/

Public Sector bodies, including NHS, Prison Services, Education and others (e.g. Ministry of

Defence) to:

• identify specific locations within individual Departments that could/ should consider the

use of SRF as a fuel (ideally those that are currently considering upgrade or replacement

of their existing heating systems),

• encourage /incentivise these sites to act as “demonstration sites” for SRF heating –

promoting relevant parts of the findings so that other Government/ commercial

organisations can replicate at low risk.

6. Proposed SRF sites, already in the system

It should be noted that whilst this study has concentrated on potential SRF consumers from

the heat end-user perspective, it is recognised there sites may have been identified for EFW

or waste-handling. It is recommended that the area surrounding such sites should be further

investigated. The export of heat is limited by the distance between the point of generation

and its end-use; generally a distance of up to 5 km is deemed viable, as a greater distance

would generally increase capex costs, the heat-transfer costs and result in greater a loss of

heat.

If potential SRF processing/ combustion sites have already been identified, it is

recommended that a 5km radius around this point be searched for suitable heat (and/or

cooling) users. This search should also incorporate any suitable planned infrastructure.


6 References

[1] BEER 2008 “Reform of the Renewables Obligation. Government Response to the Statutory

Consultation on the Renewables Obligation Order 2009”

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49342.pdf

[2] BERR 2008 “Reform of the Renewables Obligation. Statutory Consultation on the Renewables

Obligation Order 2009” http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46838.pdf

[3] EA 2008 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/position/41215.aspx

[4] Kakaras E, Grammelis P et al, Solid Recovered Fuel Substitute in the Electricity Generation

Sector, 2005

[5] Martin Frankenhaeuser, Anja Klarin-Henricson, Aki Hakulinen, Frank E. Mark 2008 Co-

combustion of Solid Recovered Fuel and Solid Biofuels in a Combined Heat and Power plant,

Plastics Europe Association of Plastics Manufacturers

[6] Obernberger I, Brunner T, Barnthaler G, Chemical Properties of Solid biofuels – Significance

and Impact. Biomass Bioenergy 2006

[7] Patel N, 2008, “Residual Waste Technologies: Operational, In Procurement & Proposed”

Presented at Thermal Treatment 2008 CIWM

[8] Petri Vesanto, Solid recovered fuels, quality analyses and combustion experiences, January

2008

http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?ez_search=1&fuseaction=readAnnouncement&Announ

cementID=526164

[9] Richards G, 2008, “CEN TC 343 Solid Recovered Fuel Standards. The importance of fuel

quality and standards” Presented at EfW 2008

[10] Scottish & Southern – SRF Conference 2008

[11] Shanks, 2008, “SRF Brochure” www.shanks.co.uk

[12] Technical Committee CEN/TC 343, 2005, “Solid recovered fuels - Specifications and

classes”, European Committee for Standardization

[13] Waste & Resources Action Programme WRAP Gate Fees Report, 2008, Comparing the

cost of alternative waste treatment options, www.wrap.org.uk/marketknowledge

[14] Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme 2008” Waste Wood as a Biomass Fuel“ Market

Information Report Defra

[15] WRAP, 2008, “Comparing the cost of alternative waste treatment options” WRAP Gate fees

report 2008

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/W504GateFeesReport_FINAL.9f55673f.5755.pdf

Documents

Solid Recovered Fuel Regional Assessments West of England ... · Solid Recovered Fuel Regional Assessments West of England and Dorset Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs