SESSION: GREEN WASTE AND STANDARDS
June 18, 2014, 4:00 pm. Track B
THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY FOR WASTE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES: A LOOK AT RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES,
THEIR SCALES AND FEASIBILITY FOR LARGE TRANSIT, TURNPIKE, AND HIGHWAYS SYSTEM
Aaron Toneys, Associate, Good Company
PROACTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mike Yesconis, Environmental Information Technology, Co-author S. Babusukumar. Weston
LANDFILL REUSE ASTM STANDARD
Marty Rowland, PhD P.E., Third Leg Consultants & Amanda Ludlow, Principal Scientist, Roux Associates
SESSION: GREEN WASTE AND STANDARDS
The State of The Industry for Waste Recovery Technologies: A Look at Relevant Technologies,
Their Scales and Feasibility for Large Transit, Turnpike, and Highways System
Aaron Toneys. Associate, Good Company
Policy makers and waste management professionals are beginning to recognize the nexus between landfilled solid waste and our
need for domestically produced, low-carbon vehicle fuels. Pre and post-consumer food waste and difficult-to-recycle plastics are
significant waste streams with potential to reduce the burden on landfills, capture the highest and best use for materials, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and provide new sources of revenue through integrated waste management. This presentation will
introduce a 101 on waste recovery technologies and their potential to reduce costs and/or generate revenue and improve local and
global environmental conditions. The technology focus will be on vehicle fuel production through AD and plastics-to-oil
technologies. The presentation will conclude with an introduction to the significant operating and market variables to consider
when assessing the feasibility of these technologies for a transportation agency. This discussion will be supported by with
examples from various materials recovery feasibility studies that Aaron Toneys and his research team has performed for domestic
and international agencies and materials management companies. All participants will leave with a one-page checklist for
feasibility assessment for participating in or operating these technologies.
Aaron Toneys, Associate of Good Company, provides clients with technical research, triple bottom line assessments, tool
development, and greenhouse gas inventories. Mr. Toneys focuses on alternative fuels and the materials and energy recovery
industries. His work has included technology and system feasibility studies for anaerobic digestion, plastics-to-oil pyrolysis and
Fischer– Tropsch diesel. He is currently serving on workgroups to address life-cycle materials management, including Oregon
DEQ’s Materials Management Workgroup to address goals and measures and EPA’s West Coast Climate & Materials Management
Forum to develop a government purchasing toolkit.
MAKING
SUSTAINABILITY WORK
WORK
MAKING
SUSTAINABILITY
State of the Industry for Waste
Recovery Technologies
Anaerobic Digestion and Plastic-to-Crude Oil
Presented by
Aaron Toneys
Associate
4/13/2015
Good Company
65 Centennial Loop, Suite B
Eugene, Oregon 97401
3
www.goodcompany.com
phone 541.341.4663
fax 541.341.6412
Overview
• Purpose: Discuss the highest and best use for
organics and difficult to recycle plastics
• Technology 101
 Anaerobic digestion of organic materials
 Plastics-to-crude oil pyrolysis
• Variables to assess feasibility
• Potential for fuel production
4
Our Firm, Good Company
• Sustainability research and consulting firm
• Mission-driven, for-profit
5
Highest and Best Use Hierarchy (revised)
Reduce Consumption & Product
Stewardship
Reuse
Recycle / Compost
Conversion Technologies:
Energy and
Chemical Recovery
Incineration
& Co-Firing
Land
fill
6
What is Anaerobic Digestion (AD)?
• Process: breaks down waste organic materials without
oxygen that can produce energy, compost and
environmental credits
• Benefits: produces renewable energy, compost and
environmental commodities (RECs, RINs, offsets); waste
feedstock; landfill diversion; GHG reduction
• Risks: feedstock sourcing, air and water emissions,
permitting, logistical issues
• Transportation-related uses:
vehicle fuel to displace diesel
costs; source of compost for
operations; treatment method
for organic wastes (e.g.,
mowed, animal moralities)
7
What is Anaerobic Digestion (AD)?
8
GHG Comparison of Organics Disposal
Landfill
Compost
Anaerobic Digestor + Compost
35,000
GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
25,000
15,000
5,000
-5,000
-15,000
-25,000
Transport &
Operations
+
Fugitive
Emissions
+
Energy
Production
Carbon
Nutrient
+ Sequestration + Replacement =
9
Source: Good Company (2011). Managing Organics to Increase
Margins and Carbon Benefits.
Research presented at BioCycle 2011 conference in San Diego, CA.
Net Emissions
Methane Yield, by Feedstock Type
10
Source: This graphic was created based on Steppen, et al. Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion.
Energy + Env. Credit Value / Ton Feedstock
Value of AD Products, by Energy Use
$60.00
Series3
Environmental Commodities
Series1
Energy
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
Heat
CHP
(electricity + heat)
CNG*
(NG value)
11 Feasibility Study.
Source: Good Company (2011). Southern Oregon Biogas
http://www.jswcd.org/Files/Biogas_Plant_Feasibility_Study-Full_Report.pdf
CNG*
(diesel value)
Vehicle Fuel Cost Comparison
12 County Bioenergy Feasibility Study.
Source: Tetra Tech and Good Company (2011). Tillamook
http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/solidwaste/(1)Documents/TillamookBioenergyFSFinalReport(03-12).pdf
AD Feasibility Considerations
• Feedstock quantity, composition and seasonality
• Tip fees: >$50 / ton
• Energy prices: Displacing owned vehicle fuel in general leads to
greatest value.
• Environmental commodity prices (REC, RIN, offset): RINs have
offered greatest value in the last few years. Beware of variability
due to new markets and policy change.
• Facility Costs
 Construction: ~$1.5 million (5k tons/year facility) - ~$40 million (125k
ton / year facility)
 Operations and Maintenance: $20 - $100 / short ton
 Grant opportunities
• Facility Location: proximity to feedstock and markets
 Bulk compost: <50 miles from facility
• Existing waste contracts for you and partners
13
What is Plastics-to-Crude Oil Pyrolysis?
• Process: Anaerobic thermal conversion of difficult to
recycle plastics into synthetic crude oil
• Benefits: domestic fuel source, can be lower carbon,
recovers storable energy, reduces landfilling, relative
environmental performance will improve over time
• Risks: over-sized facility, highly contaminated
feedstocks, and permitting uncertainty.
• Transportation-related uses: create value from plastic
roadside waste that can’t be recycled, roadside and
station waste, asphalt producers
14
Plastics-to-Crude Oil Pyrolysis Feasibility
• State-level regulations for conversion technologies
• Feedstock
 Plastic feedstock that are NOT otherwise recyclable
 Technology Capacity: 100 tons / year - 17,000 tons / year
 Composition: More LDPE and HDPE and less PET and PVC for
most efficient, highest-yield conversion
•
•
•
•
Production: ~80,000 barrels 17,000 ton / year facility
Co-locate facility with feedstock source or refinery
Crude oil price threshold: >$85 / barrel
Costs
 Construction: $15 - $20 million (50 tons / day)
 Operations and Maintenance: ~$175 - $250 / ton of throughput
~1/3 of O&M = Balance of system
15
AD and Pyrolysis Potential vs. U.S. Use
200
Billion Gallons
Pyrolysis
AD
150
Gas + Diesel
100
50
0
2013 Gasoline
and Diesel Use
16
Waste-to-Fuels
(Estimated Potential)
AD and Pyrolysis Potential vs. RFS
16
Pyrolysis
AD
RFS Quota
Billion Gallons
12
8
4
0
2012 RFS Standard
17
Waste-to-Fuels
Thank you
Feel free to contact me:
Aaron Toneys, Associate
541.341.GOOD (4663) x218
associate@goodcompany.com
18
Scope of Services
MEASURE
Product and Service
Assessments
Life-Cycle Assessment
Enterprise Performance
Assessment
Greenhouse Gas
Inventory
Feasibility Studies and
Financial Modeling
MANAGE
Decision Support
Climate Adaptation and
Mitigation
MARKET
Market Research and
Positioning
Business Plans
Sustainability Reporting
and Carbon Disclosure
Sustainability Plans and
Management Systems
Business and Market
Development
Education and Training
Public Engagement and
Education
Venture Capital
Tool Development
19
Pyrolysis compared to Incineration
20
Carbon-Intensity of Pyrolysis
Carbon Footprint of Agilyx
Compared to Other Energy
Recovery
Affected Life-Cycle Stages Only
Agilyx Plas c-toCrude-Oil Process
200
70
Agilyx Plas cto-Crude-Oil
Process
Crude
extrac on and
transport
Final disposal:
combus on
60
150
g CO2e / MJ
Crude extrac on
and transport
Final disposal:
combus on
50
40
30
20
g CO2e / MJ
10
-
Vehicle Opera on
Plas c + Fuel
(Oil Sands)
100
Refining & Fuel
transporta on
Waste Collec on
& Sor ng
50
Resin distribu on
and product
fabrica on
Plas c + Fuel Plas c + Fuel
Agilyx
(Oil Sands) (US Avg Oil) (low-carbon)
Raw material
extrac on to resin
manufacturing
21
Plas c + Fuel
(US Avg Oil)
Agilyx
(low-carbon)