Waste to Wealth by Dr Sivapalan Kathiravale

advertisement
WASTE TO WEALTH
SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE
[email protected]
Introduction

The need to understand waste
 Waste generation rates
 Waste management trends
 Effect on the Environment
 Waste to Wealth
 Conclusion
Global Perspective of Municipal Solid Waste Generation
Rates and The Respective Management Costs
Units
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Mixed Urban Waste – Large City
kg/cap/day
0.50 to 0.75
0.55 to 1.10
0.75 to 2.20
Mixed Urban Waste – Medium City
kg/cap/day
0.35 to 0.65
0.45 to 0.75
0.65 to 1.50
Residential Waste Only
kg/cap/day
0.25 to 0.45
0.35 to 0.65
0.55 to 1.00
Average Income from GNP
USD/cap/yr
370
2,400
22,000
Collection Cost
USD/ton
10 to 30
30 to 70
70 to 120
Transfer Cost
USD/ton
3 to 8
5 to 15
15 to 20
Open Dumping Cost
USD/ton
0.5 to 2
1 to 3
5 to 10
Sanitary Landfill Cost
USD/ton
3 to 10
8 to 15
20 to 50
Tidal Land Reclamation Cost
USD/ton
3 to 15
10 to 40
30 to 100
Composting Cost
USD/ton
5 to 20
10 to 40
20 to 60
Incineration Cost
USD/ton
40 to 60
30 to 80
70 to 100
Total cost without Transfer
USD/ton
13 to 40
38 to 85
90 to 170
Total cost with Transfer
USD/ton
17 to 48
43 to 100
105 to 190
%
0.7 to 2.6
0.5 to 1.3
0.2 to 0.5
Cost as % of Income
Socio-economic data, generation rates and
major waste components in some countries
City
Country
Socio-economic factors
W T
PD
P/DW GNP POP
USA
Australia
Japan
France
Italy
1000 15 450
620 25
30
700 15 40 694
1250 10 4 000
580 14 700
4.2
4.2
7.0
2.5
4.9
12 800
4 100
4 910
18 400
7 000
Spain
Singapore
Philipines
Taiwan
Nigeria
410
440
64
220
70
14 290
29 26 472
27 983
22 1 250
30 200
4.2
3.9
5.0
4.2
4.5
5 000 3.19
4 000 2.44
807 1.63
2.50
2 000 1.00
India
Bangldeh
Pakistan
Indonesia
Burma
50
25
340
45
32
24 1 300 7.0
26 3 750 6.0
29 1 300 5.5
24 700 8.0
26 200 6.0
Municipal
Waste
MW
Major waste components (% by weight)
Paper Plastic Food Metal Glass
High Income
New York
Sydney
Tokyo
Paris
Rome
9.12
3.23
11.60
2.18
2.88
720
690
400
590
460
35
38
38
30
18
10
0.1
11
1
4
22
13
23
30
50
13
11
4
4
3
390
-
21
43
17
8
17
6
4
2
4
45
5
43
25
43
3
3
2
1
5
-
3
2
0.5
2
1
0.5
1
0.5
3
4
9
18
7
4
4
Medium Income
Madrid
Singapore
Manila
Taipei
Kano
4
1
5
3
2
Low Income
Banglore
Dacca
Karachi
Jakarta
Rangoon
320
200
1 890
474
120
2.91
1.31
5.10
6.50
2.60
65
40
56
82
80
0.4
1
0.5
4
3
0.2
9
0.5
0.5
6
Fo
od
/O
rg
M anic
ix
Pa
pe
N
H
ig ews r
h
Pr
G
Co rad int
rru e P
ga ap
er
te
Pl d Pa
as
tic per
Pl (Rig
as
id
ti
)
Pl c (F
as
tic lim)
(F
oa
m
Pa )
m
pe
rs
Ru Te
xt
bb
er ile
/L
ea
th
er
W
oo
d
G
Y
la
ar
ss
d
G
(C
la
ss
l
( C ear
)
ol
ou
re
d
Fe )
r
N
on rou
s
-F
er
r
o
A
lu us
Ba
m
tte
rie iniu
s/H m
az
ar
ds
O
th
Fi
O er O n e
th
rg
er
In anic
-O
rg
an
ic
O
th
er
s
Percentage
Composition of MSW generated in Kuala Lumpur
70
Min
Average
Max
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Solid Waste Management
Problem in Malaysia

MSW Generation 17,000 t/day (2003),
30,000 t/day (2020)
 Kuala Lumpur Generates 2,500 t/day
 95 – 97% of MSW is Land filled Currently
 112 Disposal Sites (2002)
 43% Open Dump, only 6.3% Sanitary
Landfill (SLF)
 50% Remaining Lifespan < 5 yrs
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Environmentally Sustainable
•Reduce the Environmental Impact
•Reduce Energy Consumption
•Reduce Pollution of Land, Air & Water
•Reduce Loss of Amenity
Economically Sustainable
•Balance between Cost versus Env. Impact
•BATNEEC, BPEO
LEADING TO IWMS
ROLE of INTERGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(IWMS)
Energy
Raw
Material
Energy
Recovery
I.W.M
Material
Recovery
Landfill
Amount of waste collected and the management
methods
Country
Data
latest
year
available
Municipal
waste
collected
(1000
tonnes)
Population
served by
municipal
waste
collection
(%)
Municipal
waste
collected
per
capita
served
(kg)
Municipal
waste
landfilled
(%)
Municipal
waste
incinerated
(%)
Municipal
waste
recycled/
composted
(kg)
Europe
Sweden
2001
3 930
...
...
22.4
38.2
38.7
United Kingdom
2001
34 851
...
...
79.9
7.3
12.3
Bulgaria
2002
3 199
81.1
495
99.7
...
...
Czech Republic
2002
2 845
100.0
278
70.3
14.0
...
Denmark
2002
3 587
100.0
670
8.3
58.3
34.6
North & Central America
Belize
2000
62
48.6
532
100.0
...
...
Canada
2000
10 870
...
...
...
...
32.2
Costa Rica
2000
71
...
...
...
...
...
Mexico
2002
32 174
86.0
367
97.6
0.0
2.4
United States
2001
207 957
100.0
722
55.7
14.7
29.7
Cont’
South America
Bolivia
2002
662
...
...
...
...
...
Chile
2002
5 558
...
...
41.0
...
...
Colombia
1998
7 430
...
...
...
...
...
Peru
2001
1 444
100.0
…
64.6
...
...
Uruguay
2000
910
…
…
…
…
…
Algeria
2003
8 500
...
...
99.9
...
0.1
Benin
2002
986
23.0
654
0.0
0.0
...
Egypt
2000
15 000
...
...
...
...
...
Madagascar
2002
151
100.0
…
100.0
0.0
0.0
Mauritius
2003
351
95.0
303
100.0
...
...
China,
Hong
Kong SAR
2002
5 399
100.0
773
63.7
...
36.3
Japan
2000
52 362
100.0
412
5.9
77.0
15.0
Cyprus
2002
500
...
709
90.0
0.0
0.0
Singapore
2002
4 402
...
...
3.7
55.0
41.3
Thailand
2000
13 972
...
...
...
0.8
14.3
Australia
1999
13 200
...
...
95.0
0.0
7.3
New Zealand
1999
1 541
...
...
84.7
...
15.3
Africa
Asia
Oceania
Waste Management/Thermal Treatment
Trends
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Mass Burn
Sanitary Landfill
Dumping
Environmentally the best
Economically the best
Hydrogen
Global New Approach
4.RDF Burn /GAM
Electricity
? MW Export
Ash
MSW
MRF/
RDF Plant
Organics
Digestate
1.Reduction
2. Recycle Materials
SLF
3.A.D/
Electricity Composting
? MW Export
Compost
Selection is not simple, depends on:








Waste Size, Composition and Need for ReProcessing
Choice of Recycling Options-Energy,
Chemicals, Slag
Regulation
Local Conditions
Flexibility with Regards to Waste Stream
Technology Maturity and Track Record
Economics Issues
Public Acceptance
Greenhouse gas emissions of different waste
management systems
+
CO2
equivalents
per annum
-
Landfill +
Gas recovery +
Power Production
Landfill
Mix waste
combustion plant +
power production
Energy
SRF production cogasification in coal
boiler
Recycling
SRF and paper fibre
recovery + cogasification in coal
boiler
Total
GHG emissions from the MSW incineration and
landfill (Germany)
Emission in 2002
[million t CO2eq]
Total Emissions
Landfill
MSW Incineration
Carbon dioxide CO2
863.5
-
6.45
Methane CH4
74.5
13.7
-
Nitrous oxide N2O
49.5
-
0.03
HFCS
8.2
-
-
PFCS
0.7
-
-
SF6
4.1
-
-
Total
1000.5
13.7
6.49
Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production
1 tonne
MSW
MSW Incineration
1100 kg CO2
(220 kg fossil and 880 kg biogenic)
600 kWhe
Coal
Coal Combustion
592 kg
CO2
600 kWhe equivalent
1 tonne
MSW
Landfill
1610 kg
CO2
With out gas utilization
Net reduction in CO2 = 220-592-1610 = -1982 kg
What is Dioxin

A Common Name for a Group of Chemicals
called Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDD), furans(PCDF) and certain PCBs
 As its name suggests, it forms from a
chemical combination of Carbon,
Hydrogen, Oxygen and Chlorine
 Pure dioxins are colorless solids or crystals
Source of Dioxin

In Japan, more than 80% dioxin comes from
incineration
 In the USA, about 38% comes from incineration
 In the Ireland, only 0.32% comes from
incinerators whereas the biggest sources are from
accidental fires and illegal domestic waste
combustion (58%). Note: Ireland produces about
38 g TEQ/yr compared to other European
countries ranging from 50 – 1123 g-TEQ/yr.
 I.e depends on the industrialization and the use of
many old incinerators
Dioxin Level in Environment
Malaysia
Air (pg/Nm3) 0.1- 0.17
Soil (pg/g)
MSW (pg/g)
Germany
0.1
Japan
Std
0.6
(MINT,2003)
(Vehlow,2000)
(Sakai,
2000)
2-5
1-10
1000
(MINT, 2003)
(Vehlow, 2000)
(Sakai,
2000)
11-25
20-100
NA
(MINT, 2003)
(Vehlow, 2000)
Pathways for processing of municipal solid
waste
Processing
Intermediate
Products
Materials
For Market
Conversion
To Energy
Incineration
Compost
MSW
Mechanic
Separati
al
on
Anarobic
Digestion
Biodegradable
Fraction
Secondary
Raw material
Glass, Metals,
Aluminium etc
Pyrolisis
Gasification
Solid
Recovered
Fuels
Combustion
Co-utilisation
with Fossil Fuels
SA
K
K
ECU/ton
400
U
S
Si
ng A
ap
o
M re
al
ay
si
a
M
al
ay
si
a
U
U
U
Au
st
ria
Be
lg
iu
Be m
lg
iu
m
D
en
m
ar
Fi k
nl
an
Fi d
nl
an
G
er d
m
an
G
er y
m
an
G y
N ree
et
he ce
r
N l an
et
he ds
rl a
nd
s
Sp
ai
n
Sp
Sw a in
ee
d
Sw en
ee
de
n
Cost comparison between land filling and
incineration
Incineration
Landfill
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Amount of Energy Recoverable from MSW by Various
Treatment Technologies [15]
Material
Treatment
Technology
Conversion Efficiency
Calorific Value of
Fuel
Energy
Recoverable /
ton of Fuel
Total Energy
Recovered
(based on 1500
tons/day
Energy
Recoverable
(Normalized to
per ton of
MSW Input)
MSW
Incineration
WTE - 25 %
2200 kcal/kg
639 kW.hr
960 MW.hr
639 kW.hr
MSW
Incineration
WTE - 25 %
1500 kcal/kg
436 kW.hr
655 MW.hr
436 kW.hr
MSW
Incineration
WTE - 25 %
800 kcal/kg
233 kW.hr
350 MW.hr
233 kWhr
RDF
Incineration
MSW to RDF - 30%,
WTE - 25%
3500 kcal/kg
1017 kW.hr
458 MW.hr
305 kW.hr
MSW
Anaerobic
Digestion,
MSW to Digester –
60%, Biogas to energy
– 25%
5000 kcal/m3
218 kW.hr
196 MW.hr
131 kW.hr
MSW
Anaerobic
Digestion,
MSW to Digester –
60%, Biogas to energy
with steam recovery
80%
5000 kcal/m3
697 kW.hr
627 MW.hr
418 kW.hr
MSW
Anaerobic
Digestion and
Fuel Cell
MSW to Digester –
60%, Biogas to energy
by Fuel Cell – 50%
241.83 kJ /mol H
585 kW.hr
526 MW.hr
351 kW.hr
Conclusion

Waste generated and managed in a proper
manner – could be advantageous to the
environment
 The environment has already suffered enough
from the actins of it’s inhabitants
 Education and realization is necessary to ensure
sustainability
 The Challenges is how and what action should
be taken?
Matters to ponder!

Most of current technology is focused on
treating waste that has already been generated
 What about reducing the need to manufacture
less for less consumption?
 Ensuring manufacturing processes are 110%
efficient and do not produce waste at all.
 How to contain the huge appetite for modern
lifestyle?
 Ensuring zero waste production by the general
population?
Thank You
THANK YOU AND HELP PRESERVE THIS
Download