Waste-to-Energy

As Seen In

WasteAdvantage
The Advantage in the Waste Industry

The Resurgence of Waste-to-Energy And Conversion Technologies: Wheres the Risk?

Harvey W. Gershman

While it is tempting to embrace technologies that at first glance appear to show promise, it is important to pause and conduct a full risk assessment before gambling on whether emerging technologies Will prove themselves to be commercially, economically and environmentally viable.

Waste processing technologies have come a long way in the last century. The technology to extract energy from the combustion of solid waste has been in use since 1898, when the first waste-toenergy (WTE) facility was built in New York. Since that time, WTE technologies have evolved from incinerators that were simply destruction units to large-scale mass-burn combustion and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facilities that recover steam, electricity and non-combustible recyclable materials from municipal solid waste (MSW). Although no new MSW-processing WTE facilities have been built in the United States since 1996, there is currently a resurgence of interest in mass-burn combustion and emerging conversion technologies. The reasons: WTEs solid track record as a proven technology, an increase in fossil fuel costs,

restoration of flow control, concerns about greenhouse gases, EPAs more positive approach to WTE and requirements that electric utilities meet a portion of demand through renewable energy. What are some of the emerging conversion technologies and how do they compare with mass-burn combustion and RDF? Are they commercially viable options for cities, counties and regional authorities? What companies are taking the lead? What, if any, are the risks of these new processing methods? This article provides some answers, based on a comprehensive review of WTE and conversion technologies. The growing list of companies we track currently numbers 469: 257 in the United States, 46 in Canada, 136 in Europe and 30 in other countries. Table 1, page 37 breaks down the company list by technology.

The Baltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company (BRESCO) has been providing disposal of up to 2,250 tons per day of municipal solid waste from Baltimore City, Baltimore County and other areas in Maryland since 1985. This facility is the first U.S. WTE plant for which GBB, as consultant to the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (NMWDA), managed procurements. GBB also assisted NMWDA with waste-to-energy facility procurements in Harford County and Montgomery County, MD.
Images courtesy of GBB, Inc.

34

WasteAdvantage Magazine December 2010

As Seen In

WasteAdvantage
The Advantage in the Waste Industry

A rendering of Enerkems wasteto-biofuels facility to be located in Pontotoc, MS, one of several conversion technologies funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Photo courtesy of Enerkem.

Current Status of Mass-Burn Combustion and RDF

Since the first WTE facility was built in New York more than a century ago, WTE has matured into a safe, effective and environmentally acceptable technology. Currently, there are 87 WTE facilities in the U.S. with $14 billion in productive assets, generating 2,700 megawatts annually. These facilities process between 6.9 percent1 and 12.7 percent2 of the total MSW generated in the U.S., according to BioCycle and U.S. EPA respectively. With the renewed interest in this technology, mass-burn expansions have been announced, underway, or completed in Baltimore, MD; Honolulu, HI; and Hillsborough and Lee County, FL. In addition, a number of other localities are engaged in planning and/or procurements for WTE or alternative technology facilities: City of Los Angeles, CA; Los Angeles County, CA; St. Lucie County, FL; Frederick and Carroll Counties, MD (Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority NMWDA); Harford County, MD (NMWDA); Tallahassee, FL; Palm Beach County, FL; Taunton, MA; Santa Barbara, CA and San Bernardino County, CA. Several others have issued expressions of interest to learn who is out there and what they offering. U.S. Department of Energy grants are spurring a number of alternative energy projects in the U.S. that will use solid waste as feedstock. For example, with a $50 million DOE grant, Ineos Bio and its partner, New Planet Energy, are planning a two-phased project in Indian River County, FL, that will process wet MSW, vegetative, wood, cardboard and other waste to create third generation bioethanol and clean, renewable power for export to the Florida market. Enerkem of Montreal, Canada, received a similar $50 million DOE

grant for the construction and operation of a waste-to-biofuels facility in Pontotoc, MS.

Overview of Combustion Technologies

Proven large-scale waste processing methods include the following incineration and starved-air technologies.

Mass-burn Water Wall Combustion

This technology is considered mature and used more than any other for large WTE facilities in the U.S. and overseas. Mass-burn water wall combustion is the controlled incineration of organic or inorganic waste with more than the ideal air requirement (excess air) to ensure that complete burning occurs. The firebox is constructed with water tubes to efficiently capture energy. Water wall systems are fabricated onsite and generally have larger unit sizes: 200 tons per day (TPD) up to 750 TPD. Much of the equipment is field-erected, requiring extended contracting schedules of 28 to 32 months. Covanta and Wheelabrator own and operate the majority of the privately-owned mass-burn water wall facilities in the U.S.

Mass-burn Starved-Air Combustion

Starved air incineration uses less air than water wall incineration, and it produces ash similar to that from a conventional incineration process. The lower air requirement leads to smaller equipment sizes, which are modular, factory-built and can be brought to a site and set up in a relatively short time,

N
36

EW!

check out our equipment demonstrations on our new video page, plus news, articles, event information and more!

Featured Videos Now Available on WasteAdvantageMag.com!

WasteAdvantage Magazine December 2010

As Seen In
Table 1: Waste-to-Energy and Conversion Technology Companies

number of companies tracked

e.g., 18 to 24 months. These units have been built to process up to 150 TPD and are used for smaller WTE facilities and for industrial applications. Active suppliers are Enercon Systems of Elyria, OH, Consutech Systems of Richmond, VA and Basic Environmental Engineering of Chicago, IL. These companies have been supplying incineration systems for MSW for more than 25 years. Other U.S. firms, including Energy Answers of Albany, NY and Covanta Energy of Fairfield, NJ, are marketing project development and management services for modular WTE facilities. 13 85 20 158 46 43 28 76 469 companies

Refuse-Derived Fuel
In an RDF system, MSW is mechanically processed at the front end to produce a more homogenous and easily burned fuel, called RDF, which is prepared to boiler specifications. Additional pre-processing can be applied to the incoming waste stream to remove other noncombustible materials, such as glass and aluminum. In an RDF/Dedicated Boiler system, a separate water wall boiler burns the fuel, usually a semi-suspension system, allowing for a smaller, more efficient boiler. In an RDF/Fluidized Bed system, MSW is shredded to less than four inches mean particle size and the RDF is blown into a bed of sand at the bottom of a vertical cylindrical furnace. Hot air is also injected into the bed. Steam tubes in the bed and a section of boiler tubes capture heat from the flue gas exiting the furnace. Currently, there are 13 RDF facilities in the U.S.,

The Advantage in the Waste Industry Aerobic composting Anaerobic composting Ethanol fermentation Gasification Plasma gasification Pyrolysis WTE: mass urn, modular, dedicated boilers and RDF Other (agglomeration, autoclave, depolymerization, thermal cracking, steam reforming, hydrolysis)

WasteAdvantage

technology

operated by both public entities (e.g., Great River Energy and Ames Municipal Electric System) and private firms, including Excel, Wheelabrator, Covanta Energy, and Babcock and Wilcox.

Several Emerging Conversion Technologies

In recent years, a number of technologies have emerged for the treatment and disposal of MSW. Most of these involve thermal processing, but others comprise biological or chemical decomposition of the organic fraction of the

WasteAdvantage Magazine December 2010

37

the resurgence of Waste-to-energy and conversion technologies: Wheres the risk?

As Seen In

Table 2: Relative Risks of Technologies Companies

Anaerobic Digestion
risk summary
Very Low Low Low Moderate High Anaerobic digestion is a wet treatment process where waste is pre-sorted and then fed into water tanks where it is wetted and Waste Industry into a slurry. formed The Advantage in the Ferrous and glass are discharged into dedicated containers for recycling, further processing or disposal. The slurry generates black water, which is high in organic content and processed without air in sealed digesters. The organic solids break down and generate gas containing methane, which can be burned as a fuel for heating or for electric power generation. ArrowBio of Haifa, Israel has responded to procurements in the U.S., but has not built a facility here; the company operates facilities in Tel Aviv and Sydney, Australia.

alternative
Mass Burn/Water Wall Mass Burn/Modular RDF/Dedicated Boiler RDF/Fuel Bed

risks/liability

Proven commercial technology Proven commercial technology Proven commercial technology Proven technology; limited U.S. commercial operations Pyrolysis Previous failures of scale, uncertain commercial potential; no operating experience with huge scale operations Gasification Limited operating experience at only small scale; subject to scale-up issues Anaerobic Digestion Limited operating experience at small scale; subject to scale-up issues Chemical Decomposition Technology under development; not a commercial option at this time

WasteAdvantage

High

Chemical Decomposition
Also referred to as depolymerization, chemical decomposition is a process whereby waste feedstocks are directly liquefied into useful chemical feedstocks, oils and/or gases. The oils are a replacement for fuel oil and the gases consist of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. Changing World Technologies has a plant in Carthage, MO, that uses chemical decomposition on poultry waste. One form of chemical decomposition is used to break cellulose into sugars for fermenting to produce ethanol. The U.S. Department of Energy has been working to move cellulosic ethanol to commercial production in currently smallscale demonstration projects, and has provided grants supporting larger facilities.

High

High

waste to produce useful products such as compost, chemical feedstocks or energy products. These technologies include, but are not limited to, gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and chemical decomposition.

Gasification
Gasification is the heating of MSW to produce a synthesis gas (syngas), which consists primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and some trace compounds. The energy or heating value of synthesis gas produced varies from 200 to 500 Btu per cubic foot, half or less than natural gas. After an extensive cleaning step where particulates are removed, the gas can be used as fuel or feedstock or for production of other chemicals. Facilities using gasification technology are few in number, and smallscale or pilot projects. Seven plants in Japan use technology developed by Thermoselect, a European firm. These plants began operations in 1999, 2002 and 2003, with two firing MSW. The largest has a furnace size of 185 TPD. In addition, 20 facilities in Europe and Asia use gasifiers built by EnTech of Devon, England; none is designed for more than 70 TPD throughput. Two Canadian firms are operating pilot gasification facilities: Enerkem and Plasco Energy Group. Several larger facilities built in Europe have closed for technical and pollution reasons.

Before Leaping, Assess the Risks

Localities considering exploring waste processing technologies must evaluate the relative risks involved in any waste processing technology. They need to ask: What are the risks? Who would assume these risks? And, who will pay the risk premium? In conducting a risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the following factors, and answer questions such as these about the company offering the technology: Overall track record, including operational commercial experience with the technology. Where has this technology been used and how successful has it been? What is the individual companys track record with this technology? Size and scale of successful facilities. Has the company built facilities of comparable size and scale? Is it comparable to what is needed to process the localitys quantity of waste? Environmental performance. What are the characteristics of emissions? Are there likely to be any changes in state or federal legislation that might affect operations? Overall economics. What capital investment is required to achieve required operating performance? Has the solid waste stream been estimated accurately? Is waste likely to be diverted to competing facilities? What is the cost for residue disposal? Will the facility meet energy market specifications? What are the market specifications for any non-combustible recyclables? Will there be revenue from the sale of non-combustible recyclables? Reliability over time. What is the companys record of technical failure and downtime? Does the locality have an alternative disposal option in the event of downtime or technical failure? Financial strength of the vendor and ability to offer full service arrangements. Is the company financially viable with sufficient capital resources? Is it able to undertake the project without delays in project completion? Table 2 summarizes the risks of mass-burn combustion and RDF versus the risks of several new technologies. For example, there is little operating history with MSW for gasification and pyrolysis, compared with a long history

Pyrolysis
In pyrolysis, MSW is heated without oxygen or air, thus generating a synthesis gas, char and inorganic residue. The gas produced is similar to that produced by gasification, although it must be filtered of particulate matter. The gas can be burned for energy or used as feedstock for the production of other chemicals. Metals, glass and other inorganic residues will usually melt and are then discharged as a black, gravel-like substance called frit. There currently are no full-scale pyrolysis systems in commercial operation using MSW in the U.S. A 50-TPD pilot demonstration, built and operated by International Environmental Solutions began operating in southern California in 2005. Although the system is marketed as a pyrolysis system, a combustion chamber is necessary for its operation (for destroying organics in the off-gas) and the presence of the combustion chamber classifies the system as an incinerator.

38

WasteAdvantage Magazine

December 2010

As Seen In
of commercial experience with mass-burn combustion and RDF technologies. There are no full-scale pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion or chemical decomposition facilities in commercial operation in the U.S., and the gasification systems that do exist are small-scale or pilot projects. Reliability can only be demonstrated and measured for systems that have a significant history of successful operation. Gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic and chemical decomposition systems have limited MSW operating history. Although they may appear to be simpler in operation than other systems and have fewer moving parts, it is impossible to draw conclusions about their reliability based on the current limited experience with the technologies. In contrast, mass-burn combustion and RDF have an established history of successful operation and reliability. The only technologies with dependable estimates for capital and operating costs, based on long experience in the U.S., are mass-burn combustion and RDF. All others have cost estimates that are speculative, theoretical or market driven. Unless a vendors cost proposals are backed by substantial guarantees of performance, the proposals cannot be considered reliable. the need to allocate risks in areas where there may be little experience. While it is tempting to embrace technologies that at first glance appear to show promise, it is important to pause and conduct a full risk assessment before gambling on whether emerging technologies will proveThe Advantage in the Waste Industry commercially, themselves to be economically and environmentally viable. | WA Harvey Gershman is President of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) (Fairfax, VA), Solid Waste Management Consultants. He has been active in the solid waste management field as an adviser to government and industry for more than 35 years. He has managed the preparation of many plans, market studies, cost and feasibility analyses, contracts development and negotiations, contractor procurements and project financing activities for a broad range of waste-to-energy, district energy, recycling, and solid waste management technologies and services. He specializes in providing strategic planning advice to solid waste service/system managers and owners. Harvey can be reached at hgershman@gbbinc.com. This article is based in part on two recent presentations he gave on WTE and conversion technologies: Municipal Waste Management Associations conference presentation, September 30, 2010 (www.gbbinc. com/speaker/GershmanMWMA2010.pdf) and WasteCons presentation, August 15, 2010 (www.gbbinc.com/speaker/GershmanWasteCon2010.pdf).

WasteAdvantage

Conduct a Full Risk Assessment

The process of implementing a viable solid waste management system, like any other large industrial system, is time-consuming and frustrating. Successful systems generally require large capital outlays, long-term commitments and

Notes 1. www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001782.html. 2. www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf.

2010 Waste Advantage Magazine, All Rights Reserved. Reprinted from Waste Advantage Magazine. Contents cannot be reprinted without permission from the publisher.

WasteAdvantage Magazine

December 2010

39