WASTE SECTOR MODELLING
AND ANALYSIS
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 76 104 485 289
Level 5, 141 Walker Street
Locked Bag 6503
North Sydney NSW 2060
Australia
Tel: +61 2 8907 9000
Fax: +61 2 8907 9001
www.hyderconsulting.com
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
WASTE SECTOR MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Final Report
Author
Dominic Schliebs,
Charlotte Wesley and
Sam Withers
Checker
Ron Wainberg
Approver
Ron Wainberg
Report No
AA007082-R01-04
Date
20 August 2014
This report has been prepared for Department of
Environment in accordance with the terms and conditions of
appointment for Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis dated
16 May 2014. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104 485
289) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or
reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
CONTENTS
1
2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
Background........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2
Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3
Modelling Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4
Solid Waste Emissions .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1
3
Wastewater Emissions ................................................................................................................ 22
3.1
4
Projection Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 5
Projection Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 22
Modelling Projections – SUmmary .............................................................................................. 25
4.1
Solid Waste Parameters .................................................................................................................. 25
4.2
Wastewater Parameters .................................................................................................................. 28
5
Future Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 31
6
References .................................................................................................................................. 32
1
Solid Waste – Baseline Data ....................................................................................................... 34
1.1
2
Baseline data ................................................................................................................................... 34
Wastewater – Baseline Data ....................................................................................................... 44
2.1
Baseline Data .................................................................................................................................. 44
APPENDICES
Appendix A Baseline Data Review
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page i
TABLES
Table 2-1 Current Waste Policy ............................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2-2 Australian Capital Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios ......................................................................... 10
Table 2-3 New South Wales Waste Diversion Scenarios ....................................................................................... 11
Table 2-4 Northern Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios ....................................................................................... 12
Table 2-5 Queensland Waste Diversion Scenarios ................................................................................................ 12
Table 2-6 South Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios ........................................................................................... 13
Table 2-7 Tasmania Waste Diversion Scenarios ................................................................................................... 13
Table 2-8 Victoria Waste Diversion Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-9 Western Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios ....................................................................................... 16
Table 2-10 External Territories Waste Diversion Scenarios ................................................................................... 16
Table 3-11 Domestic and commercial wastewater generation – future projection estimates ................................. 22
Table 3-12 Industrial wastewater generation – future projection estimates ............................................................ 23
Table 1-13 Australian rates of waste generation, recycling and recovery, by jurisdiction, 2008–09 ....................... 35
Table 1-14 Estimated net landfill emissions and total gross embodied energy to landfill, 2008–09 ....................... 35
Table 1-15 WGRRA Waste Generation (tonnes per capita) data summary table (2010/11, excluding flyash) ....... 35
Table 1-16 Landfill methane emissions by jurisdiction, 2009/10 ............................................................................ 36
Table 1-17 Total quantity of raw materials (biodegradable organic materials) received for processing ................. 36
Table 1-18 Waste Audit Resources ........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 1-19 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia between 2002 and 2012 .......... 39
Table 1-20 Activity data for waste in Australia........................................................................................................ 39
Table 1-21 WMAA National Landfill Survey Results 2008...................................................................................... 40
Table 1-22 Methane Capture Calculations – common assumptions ...................................................................... 42
Table 2-23 Industrial Wastewater Generation ........................................................................................................ 47
Table 2-24 Domestic & Commercial wastewater methane recovery ...................................................................... 48
Table 2-25 Industrial wastewater methane recovery – 2013 .................................................................................. 48
FIGURES
Figure 2-1 SKM-MMA Forecast LGC prices (2012) ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-2 Acil Allen Preliminary LGC price forecasts under various scenarios (2014) ......................................... 20
Figure 2-3 Historic landfill CH4 recovery based on NGGI data 2001 - 2012 ........................................................... 21
Figure 4-4 Projected national waste generation per capita by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate) ......... 25
Figure 4-5 Projected national diversion rates by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate) .............................. 25
Figure 4-6 Projected national Municipal waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate) .................................. 26
Figure 4-7 Projected national C&I waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate) ........................................... 26
Figure 4-8 Projected national C&D waste to landfill by waste mix type .................................................................. 27
Figure 4-9 Projected national Total waste to landfill by waste mix type ................................................................. 27
Figure 4-10 Historic and projected landfill CH4 recovery rates by jurisdiction (best estimate) ................................ 27
Figure 4-11 Projected landfill CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate) .............................................................. 28
Figure 4-12 Projected national wastewater generation (m3 per capita) and CH4 recovery (best estimate) ............ 28
Figure 4-13 Projected domestic and commercial CH4 capture rates by jurisdiction (best estimate) ....................... 29
Figure 4-14 Projected D&C CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)................................................................. 29
Figure 4-15 Projected Industrial wastewater (tonne COD/tonne production) by industry (best estimate) .............. 30
Figure 4-16 Projected Industrial wastewater CH4 capture by industry (best estimate) ........................................... 30
Figure 1-17 Department population projections for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory ................................ 37
Page ii
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Figure 1-18 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia ................................................ 39
Figure 1-19 WMAA National Landfill Survey ......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 2-20 Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered ...................................................................................... 45
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Environment (the Department) engaged Hyder Consulting (Hyder) to model
parameters for waste generation, waste diversion and methane recovery rates as a time series
to 2035. The findings of the investigation will be used by the Department to model methane
emissions associated with solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment.
Hyder has developed a model to project future solid waste and wastewater parameters for input
in the Department’s waste emissions model. The model considers baseline data sets and is
designed to project future parameters under best estimate, high and low emissions scenarios.
Based on the scenario inputs and growth assumptions entered by the user, the model is able to
project the following parameters in a time series up to 2034/35:

Solid waste generation;

Solid waste diversion rates;

Methane recovery from landfill sites;

Wastewater generation rates; and

Methane recovery from wastewater
The model also gives the user the opportunity to take into account policy changes and
technology developments that may promote methane gas capture or reduce waste generation
rates, such as the Renewable Energy Target.
The model contains a number of assumptions; these are based on Hyder’s experience and
knowledge of the waste sector, current data sources and recent market trends. These
assumptions are outlined in the following tables.
Solid Waste Generation
Waste Generation
2.5% growth per annum
1.7% growth per annum
-0.5% growth per annum
Solid Waste Diversion
The model allows the user to enter a target diversion rate for each jurisdiction and waste stream
with the three scenarios broadly defined below.
Waste Diversion
No change from current
BAU
Based on appraisal of
policy and market drivers
Diversion targets
achieved and/or optimistic
improvements on current
baseline
Wastewater Generation
Domestic & Commercial Wastewater
Generation
0%
0%
-2% until 2025
Industrial Wastewater Generation
0%
0%
-5% until 2025
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 1
Methane Recovery
The projection of future methane recovery rates allows the user to take into account a range of
factors including:

Impact of current RET policy

Impact of future Direct Action / ERF (currently set to zero as impact is not
known)

Impact of new, cheaper technologies; and

For landfills, diversion of organics from landfill
Solid Waste
3.9% additional recovery
by 2020
0%
5% additional
recovery by 2030
3.9% less recovery
by 2025
Wastewater
2% additional recovery by
2020
0%
4% additional
recovery by 2025
NA
It was noted during the study that various baseline data sources investigated by Hyder
presented conflicting information, were not publically available in raw form, and in some cases
were not complete. This may impact the results of projection models in future studies depending
on the source and/or completeness of the baseline data. Greater collaboration between the
various stakeholders recording information relating to waste sector emissions, or the
department aggregating the separate data sources, would assist in ensuring the most up to date
and relevant data is available and used in future studies.
Page 2
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
1
INTRODUCTION
Hyder Consulting (Hyder) has been engaged by the Department of Environment (the
Department) to provide consultancy services to support Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions
projections for the waste sector.
Accordingly, Hyder has modelled parameters for waste generation, waste diversion and
methane recovery rates to the year 2035. These parameters will serve as inputs for the
Departmental model of waste emissions, which will contribute to the 2014 update of Australia’s
Emissions Projections.
1.1
BACKGROUND
The Department releases projections of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and reports on
abatement estimates where possible. These projections comprise a number of sectors and
include:

Energy (including direct combustion, transport and fugitives)

Industrial processes

Agriculture

Waste

Land use, Land-use change and Forestry
This report focuses on the key parameters that determine the emissions from the waste sector
(solid waste and wastewater) which contributed around 3% to the nation’s emissions in 2012,
mainly due to landfill disposal, composting, wastewater emissions and incineration of wastes.
This report, which accompanies a parameter projection model (which the Department uses in an
in-house waste emissions model), outlines the methods used to determine waste emission
parameter projections, and discusses the issues which arose during the application of the data
to the projection model.
1.2
SCOPE
Based on current policy settings Hyder was required to project the following parameters as a
time series from 2009/10 to 2034/35:

Solid waste generation per capita

Solid waste diversion rates

Methane recovery from landfill sites (including % flared and % captured)

Wastewater generation rates

Methane recovery from wastewater
These parameters were projected for three scenarios; best estimate, high emissions and low
emissions. The basis of these projections is presented in the relevant sections of this report.
The modelling involved projecting waste emissions across a number of waste types, industries
and jurisdictions, as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. The model was also designed to take into
account projections of abatement attributable to particular government policy initiatives such as
the Renewable Energy Target and jurisdiction waste management policies.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 3
1.3
MODELLING METHODOLOGY
Hyder has developed a waste parameter model to project future solid waste and wastewater
emission parameters for input to the Department’s own modelling of future emissions from the
waste sector. The model considers the baseline data set for each jurisdiction and then
calculates future parameters based on a number of growth assumptions that can be entered
and adjusted by the user, to describe the impact of various future trends and policies. Different
growth assumptions can be entered reflecting the core (best estimate), high and low emissions
scenarios.
To establish the baseline data from which to make future projections, Hyder reviewed a number
of datasets, both publically available and provided by the Department. Appendix A provides a
summary of the datasets considered and discusses some of the inconsistencies encountered.
The baseline data that was adopted by Hyder for the modelling is described within the relevant
sections of this report.
Based on the scenario inputs and growth rate assumptions entered by the user, the model first
calculates the annual growth in key parameters as a time series. The model then projects the
waste generation per capita in each waste stream based on the annual growth assumptions
defined for each scenario (baseline, high and low emissions).
For solid waste, the model also projects future waste diversion performance in each jurisdiction
(by waste stream) and calculates the tonnage of each waste type diverted each year. This
allows calculation of a breakdown of the waste to landfill in each jurisdiction.
For methane capture from both landfills and wastewater treatment facilities, the user can input
assumptions about key factors that will affect future increases in methane recovery (such as
Renewable Energy Target), which informs the calculation of the projected methane recovery
time series for each jurisdiction. A specific time series showing the impact of the RET is
presented.
The main output of the model is a series of datasheets for each jurisdiction based on a template
provided by the Department, which details key solid waste and wastewater parameters. A
further datasheet compiles the national dataset, based on population-weighted average values.
Page 4
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
2
SOLID WASTE EMISSIONS
Methane emissions from landfills depend on a number of factors including waste generation,
waste diversion, and methane capture for destruction or energy recovery. Waste generation is
typically linked to population growth and consumer behaviour. Waste diversion mostly depends
on jurisdictional policy settings and instruments. Methane capture and utilisation is typically
affected by regulatory requirements to control emissions and odours, and incentives for
renewable energy generation and/or carbon abatement.
2.1
PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS
This section describes the key assumptions adopted by Hyder in modelling future projections of
solid waste emission parameters, including waste generation, waste diversion from landfill and
landfill methane recovery rates.
Hyder examined a number of datasets in pursuit of appropriate baseline data from which to
make future projections of these parameters. Appendix A provides a summary of this review
and the key datasets considered. However, the actual data used as the baseline for projections
is described below.
Waste Policy
Projections of future waste diversion performance are heavily influenced by the waste policy
frameworks in each jurisdiction including regulatory drivers, price signals (e.g. levies),
infrastructure development and government support. To a lesser extent, waste generation can
also be affected by waste policies.
The following table provides a summary of current waste policy in the Australian states and
territories. The policy instruments identified in the table are the key issues likely to affect waste
diversion and generation parameters.
Table 2-1
Current Waste Policy
Jurisdiction Waste Policy Overview
ACT
ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025 sets an ambitious target to divert 90% of
waste from landfill by 2025 (with interim targets of 80% by 2015 and 85% by 2020). It
also identifies clear and realistic action plans to achieve the targets.
NSW
NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy - Targets of 70% recycling of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), 70% recycling of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and
80% recycling of Construction and Demolition (C&D).
The NSW waste levy which has reached $120 per tonne in the Greater Sydney basin
and $64 per tonne in the Regional Regulated area (from July 2014) provides a
significant driver for diversion and waste avoidance.
NT
The NT does not have an over-arching policy or strategy in place to drive resource
recovery, although Hyder understands a waste strategy is currently being drafted.
Qld
The state government recently published the Waste – Everyone’s Responsibility: Draft
Queensland Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy (2014-2024) for
public consultation. The draft strategy proposes a diversion target for municipal waste
of 50% overall based on 55% in metropolitan areas and 45% in regional centres.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 5
Jurisdiction Waste Policy Overview
SA
South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015 set a target to divert 70% of metropolitan
municipal waste by 2015. A revised strategy is due from 2015.
Tas
The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2009 provides a high level
strategic framework but does not set diversion targets. A very low voluntary landfill levy
of $2/tonne has been introduced to fund some programs.
Vic
The previous Towards Zero Waste strategy in Victoria set a municipal waste diversion
target of 65% by 2014. The new strategy, Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and
Resource Recovery Policy, sets a 30 year vision for resource recovery in Victoria but
does not establish new diversion targets. Victoria has moderate landfill levies with
varying rates for rural and metropolitan areas, and municipal and industrial waste.
WA
The Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment sets diversion
targets for metropolitan Perth region and non-metropolitan regions. In the metro area,
the municipal waste diversion targets are 50% by 2015 and 65% by 2020. For regional
centres, the targets are 30% by 2015 and 50% by 2020.
A landfill levy is in place and the government recently announced a significant increase
in the levy rate for municipal waste to $55 per tonne from January 2015. The levy will
continue to rise to $70/tonne by July 2018.
External
Territories
2.1.1
Hyder is not aware that waste policy frameworks exist in the External Territories.
Recycling options are significantly constrained by the geographical remoteness and
high cost of transport and providing services to small populations.
SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL
2012 Baseline Data
The key output from the model is the ‘waste to landfill’ per capita for each jurisdiction, split by
waste stream and type. The Department provided Hyder with historic waste to landfill inventory
data which is understood to be partially derived from National Greenhouse and Energy
Reporting System (NGERS) datasets supplemented by jurisdictional reporting on waste
volumes and composition (for non-NGERS reporting sites). The dataset shows the tonnage per
capita of waste disposed to landfill in each jurisdiction up to and including 2012, split by waste
stream and type. The Department specified that the future projections should be consistent with
the existing landfill disposal inventory data, to avoid discontinuity in the emissions projections
arising from the use of different datasets.
Therefore, the model projects from the 2012 waste to landfill values by allowing for the annual
overall growth in waste generation and calculating the additional waste that will be diverted from
landfill as a result of improved diversion performance in each jurisdiction by waste stream.
The NGGI data provided by the Department did not provide an indication of historic waste
generation or diversion performance. As noted above, the most complete and recent national
data set describing solid waste generation and recovery is the Waste Generation and Resource
Recovery in Australia (WGRRA) 2010/11 report and accompanying database. The WGRRA
database aggregates available data on waste disposal, recycling and energy recovery to
develop estimates of waste generation and recovery in each jurisdiction. Where possible, the
Page 6
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
WGRRA 2010-11 data has been used as a baseline for projecting future waste generation and
diversion performance.
Therefore, the data set used as a baseline in the model is a combination of:

Waste-to-landfill data from the 2011 and 2012 NGGI dataset provided by the Department
and

2011 waste generation data from the WGRRA report.
Therefore it was necessary to project the 2011 waste generation data forward to 2012, to
provide a common 2012 baseline that was consistent with the NGGI disposal data. Effectively,
the 2012 generation data was calculated by applying the generation growth rate to the 2011
recycled component (generation minus landfill disposal, for each waste type) and then adding
this to the 2012 NGGI landfill disposal figures.
Given the highly variable nature of waste data from differing sources, this resulted in some
conflicts whereby the diversion of some waste types exceeded the calculated generation, and
discrepancies whereby the resulting diversion rates were significantly different from 2011
diversion rates and 2012 diversion rates published by some jurisdictions. In those cases, the
2011 waste generation baselines were adjusted by Hyder.
For ACT, NSW, Queensland and Western Australia, it was possible to project the waste
generation data from the 2011 WGRRA values. For Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria,
waste generation was calculated by combining NGGI landfill data with WGRRA recycling
tonnages. For South Australia, a review of the 2010-11 data published by Zerowaste SA1 found
that the WGRRA database significantly under-estimated the waste generation at 2,364 kg per
person. Whereas data published by Zerowaste SA data indicated the waste generation was
actually 3,284 kg per person in 2011, and this was figure was used as a baseline.
For the External Territories, in the absence of adequate data and considering the significant
constraints on recycling in those regions, Hyder has assumed that the diversion rate was zero.
Therefore the 2012 waste generation tonnage was assumed to equal the landfill disposal data
provided by the Department.
The calculated 2012 diversion rates will still not exactly match diversion rates published by
some jurisdictions, given they are calculated values from inconsistent datasets. However this
approach has avoided significant discontinuities between the landfill disposal tonnages from
2011 to 2012 (and future projections), which is the ultimate output of the model.
The WGRRA diversion and generation data was also used as a basis to estimate the baseline
split between waste streams (MSW, C&I and C&D) for waste generation. Where insufficient
data was available to directly identify the waste generation stream split, it was back calculated
from waste diversion data.
Future Growth in Waste Generation
Overall waste generation can be directly linked to population, therefore this parameter is
represented as waste generation per capita and combined with population forecasts to estimate
the total waste generation. However, waste generation is also affected by other factors. For
domestic waste, generation growth has often been linked to consumer behaviour and the level
of economic activity in a given country. As residents become more affluent and achieve a higher
standard of living, they tend to consume more goods and therefore produce more waste. In
Australia, growth in consumer activity is best represented by the consumer price index (CPI).
1
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/reuse-recovery-andrecycling/Recycling%20Activity%20in%20South%20Australia%202011-12.pdf
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 7
For C&I and C&D waste streams, there may be different factors that affect waste generation,
such as the level of building activity, or investment in new manufacturing industries. However,
such factors are highly volatile and future trends are very difficult to predict. Ultimately, these
factors link back to the level of economic activity in a country and the CPI is again the most
reliable indicator of this.
On the other hand, manufacturers and retailers are becoming more aware of packaging waste
and taking measures to reduce it. Examples include light-weight packaging and re-usable
shopping bags. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence within the recycling industry suggests there
has been a significant drop in the generation of paper and cardboard waste. This is linked to a
recent downward trend in consumption of paper products, which can mostly be attributed to a
decline in sales of print media products (newspapers, magazines and marketing materials) due
to substitution with electronic and online alternatives.
It is reasonable then that the best estimate of future waste generation growth should be
somewhere below the expected growth in CPI, that is, mostly driven by economic activity and
consumer behaviour, but somewhat offset by material efficiencies such as reduced packaging,
improved manufacturing practices and reduced paper consumption. While a number of
jurisdictions have set targets to reduce waste generation (including ACT and Queensland),
there is little historic evidence that these have any significant impact.
The 2011 WGRRA report calculated the compound annual growth rate in national waste
generation per capita over the 4 year period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 to be 0.6% per annum.
Hyder utilised 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 WGRRA data sets to determine a best estimate
growth scenario of 1.7%. The 2006-2007 data was excluded as it was skewed by changes in
waste reporting practices of some states. By 2008-2009, waste reporting practices across the
majority of states had improved, and in Hyder’s view the more recent nationally aggregated data
sets of 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 could be used to prepare a revised estimate of the growth in
waste generation.
It is prudent to consider the impact of the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, which resulted in a
decline in economic activity across all sectors of the economy. This event explains the variation
between the observed waste generation growth rate and the CPI, which is typically used to
represent waste generation changes. Hyder acknowledges that this may have resulted in a
lower than average waste generation figure for the year of 2008-2009.
While acknowledging that the 2008-09 data may have reflected the impact of the GFC, in
Hyder’s view the 1.7% growth rate is a reasonable representation of future trends in Australia. It
is not unexpected to have growth rate of 1.7% given that waste generation grows in line with
economic growth with a small correction downward to account for reduced packaging,
efficiencies, and other waste reduction measures. Therefore in Hyder’s experience, a figure
between 1.5% to 2% is a reasonable assumption for waste generation growth in Australia.
Given the uncertainties associated with waste generation modelling, it is best practice to
consider a range of growth rate estimates and undertake sensitivity analysis. For this reason,
this analysis compares high emissions, best estimate and low emissions scenarios for
forecasting future waste generation.
As such, in Hyder’s view, longer term historic trends are not a reliable indicator of future waste
generation growth given that:
Page 8

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 had a significant impact on waste generation rates
which will skew a projection including this period

The accuracy and completeness of waste data reporting systems have improved
dramatically in some jurisdictions in recent years
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1

Waste policies and waste management practices are constantly evolving and improving,
which may affect waste generation rates in some jurisdictions.
To project future waste generation rates, Hyder has developed three scenarios as follows:
High emissions – per capita waste generation increases at 2.5% annually across all three
sectors, which is approximately aligned with expected future CPI growth. This scenario
assumes that generation grows in line with consumer activity with no significant additional
efficiency savings (such as packaging efficiencies).
Best estimate – the per capita waste generation will grow at 1.7% per annum, across all three
sectors. This is based on observed growth in national waste generation per capita over the two
year period from 2008-09 to 2010-11, derived from the most recent aggregated waste data set
from the WGRRA report. However it also represents a moderate reduction from the common
baseline indicator (CPI) to account for reductions in paper consumption and further
improvements in packaging reduction and other waste reduction measures.
Low emissions – the per capita waste generation rate declines very slightly by 0.5% per
annum (negative), which would require significant additional reductions in paper consumption,
improvements in packaging reduction and other waste reduction measures. For C&D waste, a
zero growth rate is assumed as most of the waste reduction trends do not affect this sector to
the same extent as MSW and C&I.
Historically, waste generation growth has varied significantly across jurisdictions as shown in
the WGRRA report which estimated that the growth in per capita waste generation over the four
years to 2011 varied from -14% (Qld) to 18% (ACT). In Hyder’s view, there is no basis to
accurately predict how future waste generation growth rates will vary across jurisdictions.
Therefore the above assumptions have been applied uniformly across all jurisdictions.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that waste generation will not continue to grow
indefinitely. It is difficult to predict when the ‘upper limit’ might be reached and what that value
may be. There is a growing awareness in the community and business of the need to minimise
waste production and a number of initiatives already implemented or in planning as noted
above. Hyder anticipates that this focus on waste reduction will be a slow process, continuing
over the coming decade. For the purpose of modelling, Hyder has assumed that the waste
generation growth rates above continue until 2025, after which waste generation per capita is
assumed to stabilise.
2.1.2
WASTE DIVERSION
To estimate future diversion performance, the model allows the user to enter a future expected
diversion rate (‘target’) for each jurisdiction and waste stream, with a corresponding year that
the target rate will be achieved (see Hyder assumptions below). In the best estimate scenario,
the expected future diversion should be based on known policy frameworks and drivers for
diversion, and will not necessarily correlate with diversion targets set by each jurisdiction. The
model assumes that the progress towards the target level from the baseline will be linear –
therefore it is broken into equal annual steps.
Based on the future diversion assumptions and the defined contributions of each waste type to
future diversion (see below), the model calculates the additional tonnage of each waste stream
and type, that will be diverted from landfill in each future year (from 2012 baseline). That
tonnage is subtracted from the ‘waste to landfill’ tonnage per capita from the previous year
(starting from 2012 NGGI data), providing a continuous trend.
The model also calculates the overall diversion by waste type for each jurisdiction, based on the
waste to landfill in each stream and the overall generation tonnages per capita.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 9
The diversion parameters used in the modelling by Hyder are based on an appraisal of the
waste policies and key drivers for diversion in each jurisdiction. The three scenarios have been
broadly defined as follows:

Best estimate – based on realistic appraisal of policy and market drivers for diversion
(e.g. levies, landfill bans, infrastructure planning and infrastructure funding).

Low emissions – diversion targets achieved (where applicable) and optimistic
improvements on current baseline.

High emissions – no change from current BAU diversion.
The following section describes the background to the diversion assumptions developed by
Hyder.
Australian Capital Territory (ACT): The ACT has already achieved high rates of waste
diversion (currently around 75% overall). A successful self-haul system for garden organics
currently results in around 90% of domestic garden organics being composted.
The Territory’s ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025, sets an ambitious target to divert
90% of waste from landfill by 2025 (with interim targets of 80% by 2015 and 85% by 2020). The
targets are supported by realistic action plans, some of which have already commenced
implementation. The ACT Government is in a unique position relative to other jurisdictions in
that it is responsible for both setting the policy and regulatory framework for waste
management, and delivering waste services to households and a large proportion of the
commercial generators.
While no specific landfill levy is in place, the Government operates the only landfill in the
territory and sets the price of landfill in order to encourage resource recovery. New infrastructure
proposed in the strategy includes a commercial Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and a wasteto-energy facility for residual and organic wastes, both of which will play a significant role in
achieving the overall diversion targets.
In Hyder’s view, the ACT has a high chance of achieving or getting close to achieving the
diversion targets, given the high level of control of the waste system in the Territory. The best
case scenario equates to an overall diversion rate of 85% by 2025, while the low emissions
scenario assumes that the 90% overall target is achieved by 2025. Future diversion
assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-2
Australian Capital Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
87% diversion of MSW
by 2025
90% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&I
80% diversion of MSW
by 2025
85% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&D
90% diversion of MSW
by 2025
95% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
New South Wales (NSW): The 2007 NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy
set targets for recycling of waste based on source, by 2014: 66% of municipal waste; 63% of
commercial and industrial waste; and 76% of construction and demolition waste. The new
strategy, currently in draft form (NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy
Page 10
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
2013–21) sets an overall target of 75% of waste diverted from landfill by 2021-22. Source based
recycling targets have also been increased to 70% of municipal and C&I waste; and 80% of
C&D waste (by 2021-22).
To support achievement of the new targets, the NSW Government is implementing its Waste
Less, Recycle More (WLRM) funding program which will provide $467 million in funding over
five years for new and improved resource recovery programs and infrastructure. NSW also has
the highest landfill levy of any jurisdiction in Australia, which has reached $120 per tonne in the
Greater Sydney basin and $64 per tonne in the Regional Regulated area, from July 2014. The
levy provides a significant deterrent to the landfilling of waste within these areas of the state.
Combined with already high landfill costs in the Sydney area due to lack of capacity, alternative
resource recovery approaches are able to be cost-competitive with landfill. A number of energyfrom-waste and other advanced waste treatment projects are planned.
In Hyder’s view, there is a good chance that the overall landfill diversion target will be met in
some parts of the state, particularly in the Greater Sydney area where the majority of waste
arises and the impact of the landfill levy is greatest. However, to achieve the target across the
entire state will be challenging, particularly in non-levy regional areas. Hence, Hyder’s best
estimate scenario is based on MSW and C&I diversion falling short of the target by 5%, with the
C&D target achieved.
Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-3
New South Wales Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
65% diversion of MSW
by 2022
70% diversion of MSW by
2022
No change from current
C&I
65% diversion of MSW
by 2022
70% diversion of MSW by
2022
No change from current
C&D
80% diversion of MSW
by 2022
80% diversion of MSW by
2022
No change from current
Northern Territory (NT): Current diversion rates in the Northern Territory are very low by
national standards (around 17% of municipal waste and 9% overall in 2010-11). Recycling in the
NT is significantly constrained by a number of factors including remoteness from processing
facilities and end markets resulting in prohibitive transport costs for recovered waste; underdeveloped resource recovery infrastructure; and the high cost of delivering waste services to a
relatively small, dispersed population.
The NT does not have an over-arching policy or strategy in place to drive resource recovery,
although Hyder understands a waste strategy is currently being drafted. In January 2012 the NT
implemented a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) to reduce beverage container litter and
increase resource recovery. In September 2011, a ban on disposal plastic bags was introduced.
Programs and infrastructure to divert organic waste from landfill are thought to be limited.
For the best estimate scenario modelling, a slight improvement to the most recent diversion
rates is assumed by 2025. For the low emissions scenario, more significant improvements are
assumed by 2025, and for the high emissions scenario, no change from current levels is
assumed.
Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 11
Table 2-4
Northern Territory Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
20% diversion of MSW
by 2025
30% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&I
12% diversion of MSW
by 2025
20% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&D
5% diversion of MSW
by 2025
10% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
Queensland (Qld): Current diversion rates in Queensland are around 33% for municipal waste
and 45% overall (2012-13 data). The state government recently published the Waste –
Everyone’s Responsibility: Draft Queensland Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity
Strategy (2014-2024) for public consultation. The draft strategy proposes a diversion target for
municipal waste of 50% overall based on 55% in metropolitan areas and 45% in regional
centres. There are also targets for C&I waste (55%) and C&D waste (80%).
Recycling in regional parts of Queensland is constrained by high transport costs, cheap and
abundant landfill; and under-developed resource recovery infrastructure. Despite the diversion
targets proposed in the draft strategy, they are voluntary and there are not yet any action plans
that detail how improvements in resource recovery will be achieved; nor are there financial or
regulatory drivers in place to encourage resource recovery. Queensland does not have a landfill
levy and seems unlikely to introduce one in the short-term, after a levy was introduced in 2011
and then repealed six months later. At the time of writing, there is no state government process
for planning or funding new resource recovery infrastructure.
In Hyder’s view, the diversion targets proposed in the draft Queensland strategy are unlikely to
be achieved unless supporting policies are introduced to incentivise landfill diversion and
support new infrastructure development. As such, the best estimate is based on minor
improvements from the current diversion rates by 2024, while the low emission scenario is
based on the draft targets being achieved by 2024. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-5
Queensland Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
40% diversion of MSW
by 2024
50% diversion of MSW by
2024
No change from current
C&I
45% diversion of MSW
by 2024
55% diversion of MSW by
2024
No change from current
C&D
70% diversion of MSW
by 2024
80% diversion of MSW by
2024
No change from current
South Australia (SA): SA already has very high overall diversion rate at around 77% in 201011, with a particularly high C&I diversion rate (88%). This is due to early adoption of progressive
waste management policies including a long-standing container deposit scheme, a landfill levy
and landfill bans on unprocessed waste. Resource recovery infrastructure in SA is well
developed as a result of government and private investment. It is Hyder’s view that recovery
Page 12
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
rate will plateau after reaching the current diversion targets in the absence of advanced
technologies that can processes residual wastes such as shredder floc and flexible plastics.
South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015 set a target to divert 70% of metropolitan municipal
waste by 2015. A new strategy will be due by 2016, in accordance with regulation requiring a
new strategy every five years.
In Hyder’s view, the SA resource recovery industry is quite mature, well developed and has
previously been well supported by government. Considering its high current base and in the
absence of diversion targets beyond 2015, the best estimate assumes that diversion of organic
waste will exceed the 2015 target levels by 5% by 2020 and then stabilise. The low emissions
scenario will assume an additional 10% diversion on target levels by 2020 (except C&I).
Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-6
South Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
75% diversion of MSW
by 2020
80% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
C&I
95% diversion of MSW
by 2020
95% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
C&D
90% diversion of MSW
by 2020
95% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
Tasmania: Tasmania’s diversion rate is around 33% overall and 36% for municipal waste (in
2010-11). The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2009 provides a high
level strategic framework but does not set diversion targets.
Recycling in Tasmania is somewhat constrained by difficulties in transporting products to market
and under-developed resource recovery infrastructure in some areas. Some infrastructure,
including organic composting, is well established in other areas. A very low voluntary landfill
levy of $2/tonne has been introduced to fund some programs.
In Hyder’s view, significant future changes in waste diversion are unlikely in Tasmania based on
current policies, due to a lack of current policy support for increased recovery and development
of new infrastructure. For the best estimate scenario modelling, a slight improvement to the
most recent diversion performance is assumed by 2025. For the low emissions scenario a MSW
diversion rate of 50% is assumed by 2025, and for the high emissions scenario, no change from
current levels is assumed.
Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-7
Tasmania Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
45% diversion of MSW
by 2025
50% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&I
35% diversion of MSW
by 2025
40% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 13
Page 14
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
C&D
10% diversion of MSW
by 2025
20% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Victoria: The previous Towards Zero Waste strategy in Victoria set a municipal waste diversion
target of 65% by 2014, which in Hyder’s understanding is unlikely to have been achieved. The
new strategy, Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy, sets a 30
year vision for resource recovery in Victoria but does not establish new diversion targets.
To support the new policy the government has also published the draft Statewide Waste and
Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) which aims to guide future investment in
resource recovery infrastructure across the state. The state government has also strongly
encouraged and facilitated regional groups of councils to work together to develop new
resource recovery infrastructure. Victoria has landfill levies with varying rates for rural and
metropolitan areas, and municipal and industrial waste. In metropolitan areas, the current levy is
$53.20 and is not expected to increase in real terms (indexed annually).
In Hyder’s view, the prospects for Victoria to significantly improve resource recovery are good,
given the landfill levy and active government support for new infrastructure development. In the
absence of diversion targets, the best estimate scenario assumes that diversion of MSW will
reach 65% by 2020. The low emissions scenario assumes this will reach 70% by 2025. Future
diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-8
Victoria Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
65% diversion of MSW
by 2020
70% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&I
70% diversion of MSW
by 2020
75% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&D
80% diversion of MSW
by 2020
85% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
Western Australia: The Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment
sets diversion targets for metropolitan Perth region and non-metropolitan regions. In the metro
area, the municipal waste diversion targets are 50% by 2015 and 65% by 2020. For regional
centres, the targets are 30% by 2015 and 50% by 2020.
The state government’s Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning Project (SWIPP) is also working
extensively to facilitate planning for significant new resource recovery infrastructure in the Perth
area to achieve the targets. A landfill levy is in place and the government recently announced a
significant increase in the levy rate for municipal waste to $55 per tonne from January 2015.
The levy will continue to rise to $70/tonne by July 2018. A number of energy-from-waste
projects have been approved or are in planning phase. The government is also actively
supporting councils to implement kerbside organics collections.
In Hyder’s view, WA has a good chance at approaching the ambitious diversion targets. The
best estimate scenario is based on falling short of the targets by 5%, while the low emissions
scenario assumes the targets are met. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 15
Table 2-9
Western Australia Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
55% diversion of MSW
by 2020
65% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
C&I
60% diversion of MSW
by 2020
70% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
C&D
65% diversion of MSW
by 2020
75% diversion of MSW by
2020
No change from current
External Territories: Hyder was unable to find data on recycling in the external territories.
Recycling is likely to be significantly constrained by geographic remoteness and access to
markets. Some opportunities may exist for ‘on-island’ composting and recycling of some
materials. Therefore the best case scenario is based on 5% additional diversion of MSW (from
zero) by 2025, with no recovery of commercial waste streams. The low emissions scenario
assumes 10% diversion of MSW by 2025. Future diversion assumptions are as follows:
Table 2-10
Page 16
External Territories Waste Diversion Scenarios
Waste Stream
Best Estimate
Low Emissions Scenario
High Emissions Scenario
MSW
5% diversion of MSW
by 2025
10% diversion of MSW by
2025
No change from current
C&I
No change from current
No change from current
No change from current
C&D
No change from current
No change from current
No change from current
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Waste Type Contribution to Diversion
Given that diversion will not be consistent for all waste types within each stream, the model also
defines the contribution that each waste type is likely to make to the future diversion of each
waste stream, in each jurisdiction. These values have been defined by Hyder based on current
diversion performance and infrastructure in each jurisdiction and knowledge of policies and
drivers for future diversion. A brief outline of assumptions on diversion contributions and the key
drivers in each jurisdiction follows:

ACT – already very high diversion of garden organics and dry recyclables. The ACT has
no plans to pursue separate food organics collections, but is investigating advanced
processing options to recover materials and energy from mixed waste streams, which will
result in significant diversion of food organics (50% contribution) and minor diversion of
other organics (paper, garden and commercial wood).

NSW – has already made good progress in diversion of garden organics and dry
recyclables, and the NSW Government is now actively supporting and strongly
encouraging councils to establish kerbside collections of food and garden organics to
improve diversion of food waste from landfill. Therefore, for MSW, the model assumes
that food organics will contribute 60% of future MSW diversion in NSW, while garden
organics, paper and wood diversion from MSW will make minor contributions.

Northern Territory – given the remoteness constraints on dry recycling, it is considered
that the greatest future opportunities for diversion lie in garden organics (50%
contribution) with some paper recycling, and significant inerts (including plastic and metal
containers).

Queensland – moderate progress in garden organics recycling with scope to improve
(30% contribution). Food organics recovery identified as important but no firm
government support (20% contribution). Most future diversion expected to be driven by
economic considerations – ie, high value materials (plastics, metals).

South Australia – already very high diversion of garden organics and dry recyclables.
Focus on food organics (60% contribution) and ban on unprocessed waste to landfill.
Garden, paper and inerts to make minor contributions.

Tasmania – reasonable progress with organics diversion with scope to improve (20%
food and 30% garden contributions). Remoteness somewhat limits additional dry
recycling recovery.

Victoria – moderate recovery of garden organics with significant support for
improvements (30% contribution). Also likely to target food organics (40% contribution)
and some known projects targeting wood waste (10% contribution).

Western Australia – Good recovery of dry recyclables and organics through existing
AWT facilities. Government support for kerbside garden and food organics collections
(30% and 40% contributions respectively). Also a number of energy-from-waste projects
which will divert additional paper and plastics.

External Territories – given the constraints on dry recycling, it is considered that the
greatest future opportunities for diversion lie in garden organics (50% contribution) with
some paper recycling, and significant inerts (including plastic and metal containers).
In all jurisdictions, the diversion of C&I and C&D waste streams is expected to be largely
focussed on paper and cardboard and high value or easily recyclable inert materials (plastics,
metals, soils and rubble).
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 17
2.1.3
LANDFILL METHANE RECOVERY
The other key parameter for modelling waste emissions is the rate of landfill methane capture in
each jurisdiction. As noted above, Hyder investigated a number of datasets in order to develop
and estimate of the 2013 baseline capture rate. However the publically available data was
limited or inconsistent and ultimately the Department requested that future projections be based
on the 2012 NGGI data to avoid discontinuity in the data trends.
Hyder compared the NGGI data against data from the LGC register and industry data. As
reported in Appendix A in the discussion on available datasets, assumptions as to methane
content and engine conversion efficiency were required. Due to the limitations of available data
the necessity for assumption uniformity in methane capture calculations, there was variation
between the collated datasets. Correlation between data sets was apparent for some facilities
but not others.
To project future methane recovery rates, the model allows the user to define up to four different
‘factors’ that will have an impact on the rate of landfill gas capture. These factors must be
mutually exclusive so as not to double-count or exaggerate the influence of any one element.
For each factor, the user can define the overall impact of the factor (as a % increase in landfill
capture rates) and a target year, or as an annual growth rate with an end-point. The four factors
defined by Hyder are:

Impact of current RET regime – in the best estimate scenario, 3.9% additional recovery
by 2020 is assumed (10% increase on 2012 levels) - see the discussion below.

Impact of the future Direct Action / ERF – this is currently set to zero in all scenarios,
given the uncertainty over the implementation and form of this measure. However it can
be modified easily by the Department once program details are confirmed and better
understood.

Impact of new, cheaper technologies to recover and utilise landfill gas (for example, micro
gas turbines) and tighter regulation to control landfill emissions – Hyder estimates that in
the best estimate case, this factor will contribute an additional 5% (absolute) recovery by
2030.

Diversion of organics from landfill, which will generally have a negative impact (negative
% value), reducing the viability of new LFG capture projects at some landfills or causing
the early shut-down of systems at other landfills. This factor is linked to the overall
diversion of organics, although not necessarily directly correlated. Hyder’s modelling of
organics diversion indicates that nationally, organics diversion will increase by an
additional 10% (from 53% to 63%) by 2025. Therefore it is estimated that in the best
estimate case, this factor could result in a reduction of 10% from the landfill methane
recovery rate (39% in 2012), which equates to 3.9% less recovery by 2025.
In the low emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed that the above growth assumptions will
double. For the high emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed no change from current levels of
methane recovery.
The model then combines these four factors into a single overall impact factor and applies that
growth rate to the annual landfill gas capture rate in each jurisdiction. At the Department’s
request, the model also shows the impact of the RET as a separate time series.
Page 18
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Renewable Energy Target
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) provides an incentive for the implementation of renewable
energy projects that would otherwise not be financially viable or cost competitive with fossil
fuelled energy generation. Together with the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), the RET has been
responsible for an increase in the recovery of methane from landfills and wastewater treatment
facilities for energy production.
The operators of landfill gas energy generation projects can earn Large-scale Generation
Certificates (LGCs), which can then be sold into the market, to be purchased by energy retailers
to meet their obligation to provide a proportion of renewable energy. However it is difficult to
isolate and quantify the historic increase in methane capture that can be specifically attributed
the RET, given the range of other highly variable parameters that affect such projects including
environmental regulations, technology developments, wholesale power prices, and other
schemes such as the CFI and carbon pricing mechanism. According to Landfill Gas Industries,
a leading provider of landfill gas energy systems, both LGCs and Australian Carbon Credit Uits
(ACCUs, issued under the CFI) are needed to ensure the commercial viability of landfill gas
capture projects2.
The RET in its current form sets a target for Australia to generate 41,000 GWh of renewable
energy by 2020. The Government has commissioned a review of RET which could have a
number of outcomes, including maintaining the RET in its current form, repealing the RET, or recalculating the baseline of the target to account for recent decreases in overall energy
consumption. The modelling undertaken in this project is based on the current form of the RET
at the time of writing.
The impact of the RET on methane recovery rates from the waste sector will mostly depend on
the future prices that industry expects to receive for any LGCs generated, over the life of the
project. Given it is a market-based mechanism, this is difficult to accurately predict. However
various parties have modelled future LGC prices under various scenarios. In 2012, the Climate
Change Authority undertook a statutory review of the RET and commissioned SKM-MMA to
undertake modelling of the impact of the RET and future LGC prices under a number of
scenarios3. The results of that modelling under two key scenarios are presented below,
including the ‘reference case 1’ scenario (current RET with a price on carbon) and a ‘zero
carbon’ (current RET with no price on carbon).
The 2012 modelling shows that in the absence of a price on carbon, the LGC price is expected
to peak in 2018 at almost $79 / MWh, and then steadily decline to around $49 / MWh by 2030.
Note the volume weighted average market price for an LGC for the 2014 year (at the time of
writing) was around $35 / MWh4.
2https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/webform/submissions/20140428_LGI%20Submission_RET%20Review_
final.pdf
3
http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/121217%20RET%20Review%20SKM%20
MMA%20Report%20Final.pdf
4
http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/For-Industry/Emissions-Intensive-Trade-Exposed/Volume-Weighted-AverageMarket-Price/market-price
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 19
Figure 2-1
SKM-MMA Forecast LGC prices (2012)
As part of the current review of the RET, Acil Allen has been commissioned to provide updated
modelling5. Detailed results of the modelling have not yet been published, but preliminary
results of LGC price forecasts are reproduced below. The ‘Reference case’ (black line)
represents the current RET scheme. The overall profile of future LGC prices is similar to but
slightly less than the zero carbon price scenario modelled by SKM-MMA in 2012. Under this
modelling, the price peaks in 2019 at just over $70 / MWh and then slowly declines to around
$40 / MWh by 2030.
Figure 2-2
Acil Allen Preliminary LGC price forecasts under various scenarios (2014)
The available modelling indicates that, in the absence of a carbon price, the value of LGCs is
expected to approximately double from current levels and therefore the RET can potentially
provide a significant source of revenue for new and established methane abatement projects up
to and beyond 2020, until at least 2030. This is likely to provide an incentive for new projects up
to 2020. However, in Hyder’s view, it is unlikely that the RET will contribute significantly to the
5
https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/papers/preliminary_modelling_results_workshop.pdf
Page 20
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
implementation of new projects beyond 2020. As the target is met in 2020 and the market value
of LGCs starts to decline, proponents of new projects are unlikely to see the RET as a
significant financial incentive.
Prior to 2020, it is difficult to forecast the direct and exclusive impact of the RET on methane
capture projects. Obviously the RET only has an impact on projects that will generate electricity
(rather than flaring only or heat recovery projects). As noted above, some landfill gas project
developers feel that the RET alone is not a major driver of new abatement projects and that in
recent years, it has been the combination of RET and CFI that has driven new projects. This is
possibly evident in the figure below which shows the trend in landfill methane recovery rates
since the RET was first introduced in 2001, up to the latest available NGGI data for 2012.
The current 20% target of the RET was introduced in 2009 and there has been an increase in
landfill methane recovery since 2010. The sharp rise observed in 2012 is likely attributed to the
implementation of the CFI for landfill gas projects. With the carbon price in Australia now
repealed, the future value of ACCU’s generated by CFI projects is uncertain but expected to
significantly decrease.
Figure 2-3
Historic landfill CH4 recovery based on NGGI data 2001 - 2012
For the purpose of modelling future emissions, Hyder estimates that under the core modelling
scenario, the impact of the RET on future landfill methane recovery projects will account for a
10% growth in recovery of landfill methane by 2020 from 2012 levels, which is equivalent to an
additional 3.9% recovery (absolute) over this period from the 2012 level (39%).
Given that LGC prices are still increasing, but Hyder is modelling a scenario in the absence of
new CFI projects, in Hyder’s view the impact of the RET will continue to increase, but only by a
moderate amount. The figure of 10% is based on Hyder’s judgement of the expected impact
when considering the variety of parameters which may have an influence, and it is
recommended that future trends be monitored to enable the forecast to be updated as policy
and economic factors evolve.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 21
3
WASTEWATER EMISSIONS
Methane emissions from wastewater treatment depend on a number of factors including the
volume of wastewater generated, its carbon content (commonly measured as chemical oxygen
demand, COD) and the rate of recovery of methane generated during treatment. Hyder has
modelled the following key parameters for wastewater treatment in the domestic and
commercial sector, and various industrial sectors:

Domestic and commercial wastewater generation, sewered (m 3 per person)

Domestic and commercial methane recovery, sewered (recovery per unit produced)

Industrial wastewater generation (tonnes COD/tonne production)

Industrial wastewater methane recovery (recovery per unit generated)
The baseline data from which future parameters were projected is discussed in Appendix A,
including a discussion of the datasets reviewed by Hyder. This section describes the key
assumptions and process of modelling future parameters.
3.1
PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS
This section describes the key assumptions and process of modelling future parameters relating
to wastewater emissions.
3.1.1
WASTEWATER GENERATION
During the drought of the 2000s there was an increased focus on water conservation which not
only reduced water consumption but also had the impact on reducing wastewater generation.
Typical wastewater generation per capita is approximately 133m 3 (Metcalf & Eddy 4th Edition,
2003), Figure 2-20 in the Appendix shows that in 2013 all States generated less wastewater per
capita than this number, suggesting there is limited scope for wastewater generation to further
decrease in the near future. There is the possibility of minor reductions in wastewater
generation under the low emissions scenario mainly due the prevalence of water saving
appliances in the market currently that will gradually replace older, inefficient systems. This is
reflected in the generation growth projection assumptions in Table 3-11 below.
For domestic and commercial wastewater volumes, the model allows the user to enter a single
set of growth rates that apply to all jurisdictions as in Hyder’s view, the drivers for this parameter
are likely to be generally consistent across all areas.
Table 3-11
Domestic and commercial wastewater generation – future projection estimates
High Emissions
0%
Best Estimate
0%
Low Emissions
-2% per annum until 2025
The industrial wastewater generation parameter for the emission projections is reported in
tonnes of COD per unit of production. Therefore increasing water efficiency in the production
process, which in turn will increase the COD concentration per m3 of wastewater, will have no
effect on this value as lower water consumption with higher COD concentration will have the
same result as higher water consumption with lower COD concentration. To determine any
Page 22
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
change to this parameter consideration was given to whether any changes to the manufacturing
processes would reduce the organic content in the wastewater, for example a new material
used in pulp and paper or organic chemical production. In Hyder’s view, significant
improvements in manufacturing/production processes which will lead to reduced organic content
in the effluent are unlikely in the future due to the existing strict discharge limits and trade waste
licenses which will have already driven advances in this area. In Hyder’s view these limits and
licenses are unlikely to be made more restrictive therefore any improvement is only going to
impact the low emissions scenario. In that scenario, it is assumed that more efficient production
methods will reduce the loss of organic load to the wastewater stream.
The Department required that industrial wastewater generation (measured as tonnes COD/ per
tonne production in each industry) be modelled at a national level only. The model allows the
user to enter a single set of growth rates that apply to all industries as in Hyder’s view, the main
drivers for this parameter (e.g. operational / manufacturing efficiencies) are likely to be generally
consistent across all industries.
Table 3-12
3.1.2
Industrial wastewater generation – future projection estimates
High Emissions
0%
Best Estimate
0%
Low Emissions
-5% per annum until 2025
METHANE RECOVERY
There are a number of drivers that may affect methane recovery at wastewater treatment
facilities in the future including government policy and regulation, cost effectiveness and the
state of technology in the industry itself.
It is reasonable to suggest that government policy is not driving investment in renewable/biogas
technology as much as previously, however as the technology becomes more cost effective and
industries producing wastewater look to improve operational efficiency, methane recovery is
likely to become more widespread in the future.
Wastewater treatment is an energy-intensive process and increasing energy prices are likely to
create an incentive for wastewater treatment facilities (both domestic and commercial and
industrial) to invest further in methane recovery technology, to offset their own consumption
whether that is for heating, power or co-generation. As demonstrated by some large scale
domestic and commercial wastewater facilities (e.g. Melbourne Water’s Western Treatment
Plant) there are also opportunities to export energy back into the grid. The most recent State of
the Water Sector Report (AWA/Deloitte, 2013) highlighted that the second largest issue facing
the water sector was improving operational efficiency, and reflects the concerns the industry has
about controlling costs. As energy prices continue to rise, utilising biogas as an energy source
will become increasingly financially feasible. Industries that produce large volumes of organic
rich wastewater are also seeing the benefits of utilising biogas, with a number of food
processors and producers adopting the technology to reduce their energy costs. One high
profile example is the Nippon Meat Packers’ Oakey abattoir where utilising biogas has the
potential to reduce the company’s overall gas bill by 42% 6.
6
Self-funded Oakey methane project looks to slash millions off energy bill (Beef Central, March 2014)
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 23
The modelling of future methane capture rates follows a similar process to that for landfill
methane described above in 2.1.3. Given that the key drivers for increased methane recovery
are considered to be consistent across all wastewater treatment sectors, including domestic and
commercial, and all industrial sectors, the same approach and assumptions have been applied
by Hyder in modelling future parameters. Although it is noted that the model allows the user to
apply different parameters to domestic and commercial methane recovery, versus industrial,
should better data become available to support this.
For wastewater methane recovery (all sectors), three key factors have been defined which are:

Impact of current RET policy – for wastewater, it is thought that the RET will have a very
minor impact, with rising energy costs and improved technology paying a greater role
(below). In the best estimate scenario the RET is assumed to lead to an additional 2%
(absolute) recovery by 2020. As discussed in 2.1.3, the RET is not expected to play a
significant role beyond 2020.

Impact of the future Direct Action / ERF – this is currently set to zero in all scenarios,
given the uncertainty over the implementation and form of this measure. However it can
be modified easily by the Department once program details are confirmed and better
understood.

Impact of new, cheaper technologies to recover and utilise biogas and rising energy costs
– Hyder estimates that this factor will contribute an additional 4% (absolute) recovery by
2025.
In the low emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed that the above growth assumptions will
double. For the high emissions scenario, Hyder has assumed no change from current levels of
methane recovery.
The model then combines these four factors into a single overall impact factor and applies that
growth rate to the annual landfill gas capture rate in each jurisdiction. At the Department’s
request, the model also shows the impact of the RET as a separate time series.
It is noted that the methane recovery future projection estimates are lower than previous
estimates. This is because, in Hyder’s view, many large methane producers will have already
adopted the technology so as to minimise the impact of the Carbon Tax. Therefore the
projection estimates take into account smaller producers looking to biogas and other alternative
energy sources where the rising cost of energy makes these options financially viable.
Page 24
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
4
MODELLING PROJECTIONS – SUMMARY
This section provides a brief summary in graphical form, of the key parameter projections from
the model (under the best estimate scenario), based on the assumptions and baseline data as
described in this report. Detailed data outputs are available in the model file itself.
4.1
SOLID WASTE PARAMETERS
0.30000
tonnes per capita per year
0.25000
Food
Paper
Garden
0.20000
Wood
0.15000
0.10000
0.05000
Woodwaste
Textile
Sludge
Nappies
0.00000
Rubber and
Leather
Projected national waste generation per capita by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)
diersion rate from landfill (%)
Figure 4-4
100%
Food
90%
Paper
80%
Garden
70%
Wood
60%
50%
Woodwaste
40%
Textile
30%
Sludge
20%
Nappies
10%
0%
Figure 4-5
Projected national diversion rates by waste mix type (organic only, best estimate)
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Rubber and
Leather
All organics
Page 25
Food
0.12000
Paper
0.10000
tonnes per capita per year
Garden
0.08000
Wood
Woodwaste
0.06000
Textile
0.04000
Sludge
Nappies
0.02000
Rubber and
Leather
Inert
0.00000
Projected national Municipal waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)
tonnes per capita per year
Figure 4-6
0.16000
Food
0.14000
Paper
Garden
0.12000
Wood
0.10000
Woodwaste
0.08000
Textile
0.06000
Sludge
0.04000
Nappies
0.02000
Rubber and
Leather
Inert
0.00000
Figure 4-7
Page 26
Projected national C&I waste to landfill by waste mix type (best estimate)
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
0.25000
Food
Paper
tonnes per capita per year
0.20000
Figure 4-8
Garden
Wood
0.15000
Woodwaste
0.10000
Textile
Sludge
0.05000
Nappies
0.00000
Rubber and
Leather
Inert
Projected national C&D waste to landfill by waste mix type
0.18000
Food
0.16000
Paper
tonnes per capita per year
0.14000
Garden
0.12000
Wood
0.10000
0.08000
Woodwaste
0.06000
Textile
0.04000
Sludge
0.02000
Nappies
0.00000
Rubber and
Leather
Figure 4-9
Projected national Total waste to landfill by waste mix type
80%
Landfill methane recovery rate
70%
60%
ACT
NSW
NT
50%
40%
30%
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
20%
10%
0%
WA
Ext T
NATIONAL
Figure 4-10 Historic and projected landfill CH4 recovery rates by jurisdiction (best estimate)
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 27
NATIONAL
Landfill Methane Recovery Rate - RET Impact
50%
Landfill Methane Recovery Rate (%)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Methane Recovery increase attributed to RET impact
Net Methane Recovery increase attributed to Non-RET impacts
Baseline Methane Recovery (2012)
Figure 4-11 Projected landfill CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS
m3 generated per capita per year
100.0
45.0%
44.0%
95.0
43.0%
42.0%
90.0
41.0%
40.0%
85.0
39.0%
38.0%
80.0
37.0%
36.0%
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
75.0
Methane Capture rate
4.2
D+C
wastewater
generation,
Sewered (m3
per capita)
D+C
Methane
Recovery,
Sewered (per
unit
generated)
Figure 4-12 Projected national wastewater generation (m3 per capita) and CH4 recovery (best estimate)
(Although the best estimate assumes zero growth in wastewater generation volume per capita, the varying
growth in population across different jurisdictions results in a slight change in the national average per capita
rate.)
Page 28
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
120%
100%
ACT
Methane Recovery rate
NSW
80%
NT
QLD
60%
SA
TAS
40%
VIC
WA
20%
Ext T
NATIONAL
0%
Figure 4-13 Projected domestic and commercial CH4 capture rates by jurisdiction (best estimate)
NATIONAL
Domestic & Commercial Wastewater - Methane Recovery Rate - RET Impact
Landfill Methane Recovery Rate (%)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Baseline Methane Recovery (2013)
Net Methane Recovery increase attributed to Non-RET impacts
Methane Recovery increase attributed to RET impact
Figure 4-14 Projected D&C CH4 capture – RET impact (best estimate)
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 29
tonnes COD per tonne production
0.25000
Dairy production
0.20000
Pulp and paper
production
Meat and poultry
processing
Organic chemicals
production
0.15000
Sugar production
0.10000
Beer production
Wine production
0.05000
Fruit processing
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
0.00000
Vegetable
processing
Figure 4-15 Projected Industrial wastewater (tonne COD/tonne production) by industry (best estimate)
80%
Dairy production
70%
Pulp and paper
production
Methane Capture rate
60%
Meat and poultry
processing
50%
Organic chemicals
production
40%
Sugar production
30%
Beer production
Wine production
20%
Fruit processing
10%
Vegetable processing
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
0%
Figure 4-16 Projected Industrial wastewater CH4 capture by industry (best estimate)
Page 30
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
5
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Solid Waste
The absence of a nationally aggregated waste database hampers efforts to characterise the
state of waste management in Australia. In addition, independent initiatives such as the National
Waste Landfill Survey have not been supported to enable comprehensive updates or data
analysis. It is recommended that the Department examine options to improve waste reporting in
Australia. Without such data, predictions as to future waste generation are limited.
A greater degree of data integration within government bodies would assist in timely access and
assessment of relevant data. For example, data held by the National Pollutant Inventory and the
Clean Energy Regulator could be beneficially combined.
The NGGI waste compositional data should be regularly updated to allow the natural
fluctuations in waste material generation to be included in the projections. Generalising data
trends prevents observation of subtle changes in waste generation and diversion, which are
indicative of the efficacy of policy change.
Wastewater
The main difficultly surrounding the wastewater component of the parameters was finding
publically available data that was accurate and robust enough to use in the projection model.
Data for domestic and commercial wastewater generation (m 3 per capita) was available from
reputable sources and the 2012/13 dataset itself was complete enough to be used in
projections. However if COD per capita is required in the future, this information generally sits
with the water utilities and is not a reporting requirement that is made public. It is noted that the
NGER calculator for wastewater emissions requires COD be entered as part of the calculation.
It may be possible for the Clean Energy Regulator to provide this information for future studies.
Data on a national level for the nine key industries was also difficult to source as in the majority
of cases there was no industry body overseeing the capture of the data. The National Inventory
Report data suggests that this data is available and could be provided if raw data is required.
The National Pollutant Inventory seems to be the most appropriate source of information for
methane recovery compared with publically available information in annual reports and LGC
registry data. For future studies this information should be provided with the projection template
and could be used, subject to reasonable assumptions being applied to the data.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 31
6
REFERENCES
Authority, W. W. (2012). Western Australia Waste Strategy: Creating the right environment. Retrieved from
http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/western-australian-waste-strategy-creating-theright-environment
AWA / Deloitte. (2013). State of the Water Sector Report 2013.
Blue Environment. (n.d.). Waste Generation and Resouce Recovery in Australia 2010/11. Retrieved from
Department of Environment: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/waste-generation-andresource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks
Cook, S. H. (2012). Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia: an update.
CSIRO.
Department of Environment. (2014). National Inventory Report 2012.
EHP Qld. (2014). Waste - Everyone's Responsibility: Draft Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity
Strategy (2014-2024). Retrieved from
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/media/resources/documents/publications%20and%20research/
publications/q%20%20t/publications%20towards%20zero%20waste%20progress%20report%202007-08.pdf
Environment and Sustainable Development. (2011). ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025.
Retrieved from
http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/576916/EDS_ACT_Waste_Strategy_
Policy_23AUG2012_Web.pdf
Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse 4th Ed.
National Water Commission. (2014). National performance report 2012-13 Urban water utilities.
NSW EPA. (2013). Draft NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2013-21. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/warr/WARRStrategy2013.htm
O'Brien Consulting. (2006). Review of Onsite Industrial Wastewater Treatment.
Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator. (2014). Tasmania Water and Sewerage State of the Industry
Report.
Sustainability Victoria. (n.d.). Towards Zero Wast Strategy. Retrieved from Sustainability Victoria:
http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/~/media/resources/documents/publications%20and%20research/
publications/q%20%20t/publications%20towards%20zero%20waste%20progress%20report%202007-08.pdf
Zero Waste South Australia. (2011). South Australia's Waste Strategy 2011-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/waste-strategy
Page 32
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
APPENDIX A
BASELINE DATA REVIEW
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 33
1
SOLID WASTE – BASELINE DATA
Methane emissions from landfills depend on a number of factors including waste generation,
waste recovery (diversion), and methane capture and destruction / energy recovery. Waste
generation is typically linked to population growth and consumer behaviour. Waste diversion
depends on jurisdictional policy settings and instruments. Methane capture and utilisation is
typically affected by regulatory requirements to control emissions and odours, and incentives for
renewable energy generation and carbon abatement.
1.1
BASELINE DATA
Hyder Consulting reviewed a number of publically available information sources in pursuit of
baseline waste generation and emissions parameters. Hyder also consulted with industry to
appreciate current trends and policy implications. This Section outlines the findings of a
literature review and summarises the various datasets that were identified. Not all of the data in
this section was ultimately used to as the basis for developing model assumptions. In some
cases, Hyder was instructed to use particular datasets by the Department, and other datasets
served merely as a quality check. The actual datasets used as baselines for future projections
are defined in section 2.
This section highlights some of the issues and inconsistencies with existing waste data sets.
Up-to-date data for waste generation is limited as most aggregated data sets are released
several years after the collection period. Reporting practices are not standardised across
jurisdictions and subsequently there are data gaps or inconsistencies for some Australian states
and territories. The availability of recent landfill gas data is also limited. Landfill gas flow and
methane destruction data is generally restricted by commercial confidentiality, and publically
available renewable energy registers do not fully capture the state of all methane recovery in
Australia.
1.1.1
WASTE GENERATION AND DIVERSION
In view of the limitations and variation in reporting standards for waste generation, disposal and
recovery across Australia, the Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia (WGRRA)
report data was used as the main resource for establishing a baseline of waste management
practices in Australia.
Hyder compared the WGRRA data sets for 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 to determine a national
average waste generation growth rate. Hyder Consulting utilised these data sets as they
represent the most recently aggregated national data sources. Hyder excluded the WGRAA
2006-2007 data set, as it was skewed by changes in waste reporting practices of some states.
By 2008-2009, waste reporting practices across the majority of states was improved.
Waste and Recycling in Australia 2011 (2008/09 data)
The Waste and Recycling in Australia (WRiA) report provides an estimate of waste generation,
disposal and recycling in Australia by jurisdiction for the financial year 2008-09. The report
groups state data by waste stream, waste material category and waste type. The report also
provides an estimate of net landfill emissions and gross embodied energy to landfill. Key data is
summarised below.
Page 34
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Table 1-13
Table 1-14
Australian rates of waste generation, recycling and recovery, by jurisdiction, 2008–09
NSW
7,099,714
2,290
940
1,350
59%
10
59%
Vic
5,427,681
1,900
870
1,010
54%
10
54%
Qld
4,406,823
2,100
1,160
930
45%
10
45%
SA
1,622,712
2,050
650
1,340
67%
60
68%
WA
2,236,901
2,670
1,830
830
31%
10
32%
TAS
502,627
1,060
890
150
15%
20
16%
ACT
351,182
2,260
580
1,650
74%
30
74%
NT
224,848
1,690
1,610
70
4%
10
5%
National
21,872,488
2,140
1,030
1,090
51%
20
52%
Estimated net landfill emissions and total gross embodied energy to landfill, 2008–09
Parameter
NSW Vic
Qld
SA
WA
Tas
ACT
NT
Total
Net landfill emissions (net Mt CO2-e)
3.2
2.3
2.5
0.5
2
0.2
0.1
0.2
11
Gross embodied energy to landfill
(Mt CO2-e)
3.1
2.4
2
0.4
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
9.8
Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11
Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11 is the most recent nationally
aggregated data set. The report provides an estimate of disposal, recycling and energy recovery
rates by jurisdiction. In the absence of the raw data used in this report, waste generation per
capita figures have been used as a basis to forecast future waste generation.
Table 1-15
7
WGRRA Waste Generation (tonnes per capita) data summary table (2010/11, excluding flyash)7
ACT
2.56
0.54
1.93
0.09
79%
NSW
2.38
0.83
1.49
0.07
65%
NT
1.32
1.20
0.06
0.06
9%
Qld
1.68
0.80
0.80
0.08
52%
SA
2.36
0.54
1.74
0.08
77%
Tas
1.18
0.80
0.31
0.08
33%
Vic
2.18
0.83
1.30
0.05
62%
WA
2.56
1.57
0.92
0.07
39%
Australia
2.17
0.88
1.23
0.07
60%
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/waste-generation-and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 35
*It should be noted that the ‘recovery’ figures in the WGRRA report include energy recovery,
which is primarily derived from an estimated figure reflecting energy recovery from organics in
landfill through landfill gas capture systems. Therefore it does not reflect true landfill diversion.
Landfill diversion should be calculated from the generation and recycling figures (excluding
energy recovery).
Generation of greenhouse gas emissions from landfill was also investigated as part of the
Waste Generation and Resource Recovery in Australia 2010/11 report and results are
summarised below.
Table 1-16
Landfill methane emissions by jurisdiction, 2009/10
Total (Mt CO2-e)
4.2
0.1
2.7
0.6
0.2
2.1
1.2
Per capita (t CO2-e)
0.58
0.49
0.61
0.38
0.43
0.38
0.51
Compost Australia ‘Organics Recycling in Australia: Industry
Statistics’
The Recycled Organics Unit provides an annual report for organics recycling in Australia.
Between 2011 and 2012, the total quantity of organic material received for processing
decreased in WA, SA, VIC and QLD. The only state which recorded an increase in organic
waste processing was NSW. The decline in organic waste processing in WA, SA and VIC was
attributed to a general economic downturn as well as regulatory constraints and interventions.
The largest decrease in organic waste processing was a response to the repeal of the
Queensland Waste Levy. Diversion rates in New South Wales continue to increase as additional
infrastructure becomes fully operation and production capacity expands.
Table 1-17
Total quantity of raw materials (biodegradable organic materials) received for processing
State
2011
2012
Net Variation
NSW
1,788,746
1,816,619
+26,873
WA
732,995
698,006
-34,989
SA
637,271
595,320
-41,951
VIC
999,145
962,354
-36,791
QLD
2,172,592
1,443,386
-729,206
Total
6,330,749
5,515,685
-815,064
The variation in the organics recovery market provides insight into drivers for landfill demand.
The data provided is indicative of recovery trends but fails to fully capture generation and
disposal patterns in Australian states and territories.
Population Growth
Historic population figures and forecast population changes are presented in Figure 1-17, for
each jurisdiction, based on data provided by the Department. The trends indicate significant
Page 36
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
growth in most Australian states and territories. Waste generation is directly linked to population
(amongst other factors), therefore population growth projections are a critical element of the
parameter modelling.
Figure 1-17 Department population projections for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory
10,000,000
ACT
9,000,000
NSW
8,000,000
7,000,000
NT
6,000,000
Qld
5,000,000
SA
4,000,000
Tas
3,000,000
2,000,000
Vic
1,000,000
WA
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
0
External
territories
Waste Composition Data
Waste composition is generally location specific and varies according to demographics, season,
environmental conditions and waste collection systems. Application of ‘average’ waste
composition factors do not fully account for the range of disposal and recycling practices in
Australia. However, in the absence of a national waste database, assumptions need to be made
as to the composition of the residual waste stream. Methane generation in landfills is a product
of the degradable organic carbon (DOC) content of waste materials which is a function of waste
composition. Consequently, composition factors need to be applied to waste disposal data to
account for the different DOC content of various waste materials.
Table 1-18 below presents some of the key waste composition datasets identified by Hyder.
Table 1-18
Waste Audit Resources
Domestic Kerbside Waste and
Recycling in NSW 2011
Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling in NSW is the most
robust waste audit assessment in Australia due to the number of
households audited and range of local government areas
investigated. However, this audit data was for the reporting
period 2010-2011.
Waste Generation and Resource
Recovery in Australia 2010/11
The WGRRA database consolidates audit data from across
Australia and uses it to determine quantity of waste generated
by material type.
Commercial and Industrial Waste
Survey Sydney 2008
Audit data for the commercial and industrial waste stream is
limited. The Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey Sydney
2008 provides insight into typical composition of C&I waste
loads in urban settings. However, this data is dated.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 37
Commercial and Industrial Waste in the
Lower Hunter Region 2009
The Lower Hunter Region C&I audit was undertaken over a two
day period by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water (DECCW). Although less robust than other
data sets, this survey provides a benchmark for C&I waste
generation in regional areas.
Report into the Construction and
Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2002005
The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change
(DECC) undertook a composition study of C&D waste disposed
to landfill between 2000 and 2005. This investigation was
comprehensive due to the lengthy investigation period.
For consistency with methane generation modelling of previous years, the Department advised
Hyder to adopt the material composition factors for landfilled waste from the 2012 dataset, as
set out in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI). Waste generation compositional data
has been derived by combining NGGI landfill data with WGRRA 2011 recycling data where
available.
It should be noted that, in Hyder’s understanding, the NGGI dataset is inherently based on
assumptions and generalisations regarding waste composition and it is difficult to trace and
verify the accuracy of those assumptions. In general, location specific waste audits are often not
available or not recent and there is a lag between the period of audit and application of the
NGGI composition factors. It is Hyder’s recommendation that the Department undertake or
facilitate auditing of the MSW, C&I and C&D waste streams in each state and territory to provide
a more up-to-date and jurisdiction-specific estimate of waste type disposal and generation.
Page 38
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
1.1.2
METHANE RECOVERY
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 8
The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) provides a time series summary of greenhouse
gas emissions in Australia by sector. The most recent inventory year is 2012 and the earliest
recording year is 1990. NGGI data for methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal
is presented in Figure 1-18 and Table 1-19.The figure illustrates trends in methane emissions
associated with solid waste disposal on land. The NGGI was used to inform the model, but data
from this inventory was not directly used.
Section 1.1
Figure 1-18 Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia
Table 1-19
Methane emissions associated with solid waste disposal in Australia between 2002 and 2012
Methane
Emissions (’000
tonnes)
535
498
479
470
456
469
487
485
498
483
428
The NGGI is based on the Kyoto Protocol Accounting Framework, which compiles activity data
by state and sector. The NGGI provides an aggregated data set for solid waste disposal and
incineration between 1990 and 2012.
Table 1-20
8
Activity data for waste in Australia
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 39
2002
19,390
0.01
2003
19,818
0.01
2004
20,587
0.01
2005
20,225
0.01
2006
20,396
0.01
2007
21,215
0.01
2008
21,794
0.01
2009
19,999
0.02
2010
19,916
0.01
2011
19,207
0.01
2012
18,547
0.02
Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) Landfill
Database
The Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) has undertaken a number of landfill
surveys to develop an Australia-wide landfill database, with the most recent survey in 2010.
However, no further analysis was undertaken on this data set. The aggregated data from the
WMAA 2008-2009 survey is presented in Table 1-21 and Figure 1-19. While this data provides
insight into general trends in landfill gas collection and electricity generation, it is of limited value
as it is outdated and not comprehensive in its coverage of all landfills. Specifically, no data for
landfill gas capture data is reported for The Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.
Table 1-21
WMAA National Landfill Survey Results 2008
Australian Capital Territory 9
New South Wales
12%
8%
Queensland
6%
5%
South Australia
8%
4%
Tasmania
36%
9%
Victoria
30%
20%
Northern Territory
9
ACT landfill gas capture is not included in the WMAA National Landfill Survey Results. There is only one landfill in the
ACT and it recovers energy. Therefore, 100% of landfills in the ACT collect gas and generate electricity.
Page 40
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Western Australia
Figure 1-19
6%
5%
WMAA National Landfill Survey
The Department provided Hyder with the results of the 2005, 2008 and 2010 landfill surveys.
The databases provided some insight into the number of facilities that were flaring and
collecting landfill gas in 2010. However, recent changes in carbon policy mean that the rate of
methane destruction in 2010 is unlikely to be relevant to the rate of methane destruction in
2013. The changes are attributable to a number of policy instruments and incentive schemes
including demand for Renewable Energy Certificates and Australian Carbon Credit Units under
the Carbon Farming Initiative. Accordingly, these datasets were used as a qualitative guide
only.
State and Federal landfill gas capture data
State government reporting on landfill gas capture is limited. The primary sources for methane
capture and combustion data include Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs) registers, Australian
Carbon Credit Unit (ACCUs) registers and the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI).
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 41
Renewable Energy Certificate Registry
The Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Registry of information provides details of renewable
energy generated by projects registered under the Australian Government's Large-scale
Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). Largescale Generation Certificates (LGCs) are an electronic form of credit created on the REC
Registry by eligible projects. One LGC is equivalent to 1 MWh of renewable electricity
generated by a project. Properly created LGCs are validated by the Clean Energy Regulator
and are able to be transferred and/or sold between generators and liable energy sellers to
satisfy their obligation to source a given proportion of renewable energy.
A search of the public register for LGCs for landfill gas in 2013 was undertaken. The number of
registered certificates per jurisdiction was recorded and through back calculations, the volume
of methane captured was estimated as follows, and using the assumptions below.
Methane Capture (Nm3 ) =
Table 1-22
𝑅𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 (𝑀𝑊ℎ) × 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 (𝑀𝐽)
𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝐽
𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 (%) × 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 ( ) × 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (
)
𝑘𝑔
𝑁𝑚3
Methane Capture Calculations – common assumptions
Assumptions
1 MWh
3600
MJ
Engine Conversion Efficiency
35.0%
Energy Content of Methane
55.66
MJ/kg
Density (assuming T = 25 and P = 1 atm)
0.68
kg/Nm3
Through consultation with industry and investigation into plant specifications, Hyder determined
that engine conversion efficiency factors typically range from 30% to 40% depending on the
engine type, make and age. As such, Hyder applied the mid-range estimate of 35% to estimate
methane capture.
Australian carbon credit units
An Australian carbon credit unit (ACCU) is a type of carbon unit that can be traded in the
Australian carbon market. The Carbon Farming Initiative allows farmers and other land
managers to earn ACCUs by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land.
Each ACCU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2-e). Abatement from all
types of activities, including those that reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, can be
measured in tonnes of CO2-e. ACCUs can be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset
their emissions, and do not have an expiry date enabling them to be banked and later sold to
cover future requirements.
Kyoto ACCUs are issued for reduction in emissions associated with waste deposited in landfills.
The Kyoto Protocol and other international agreements set out the rules for which emissions
should be included in Australian greenhouse accounts, and how they should be measured.
Abatement activities of a type that count towards Australia’s national target under the Kyoto
Protocol are known as Kyoto projects.
Page 42
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Kyoto ACCUs and non-Kyoto ACCUs were used to estimate methane capture and combustion
activities in Australia for the 2013 financial year.
National Pollutant Inventory
The Department of the Environment provided Hyder with a confidential dataset from the
National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). Under current legislation only ‘biogas’ burned is reported
under the NPI, which includes landfill gas and wastewater methane, either flared or used in
engines. Accordingly, it was necessary to differentiate between landfills that only flare gas and
those which combine flaring and energy capture. Using the NPI combusted biogas data for
landfills, the avoided methane emissions were back-calculated. This was done by dividing the
tonnes of ‘fuel burned’ by a landfill gas density, and then multiplying the result by the assumed
methane fraction of landfill gas.
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 43
2
WASTEWATER – BASELINE DATA
To support the modelling of emissions from the wastewater sectors, Hyder was engaged to
provide modelling of the following parameters:
2.1

Domestic and commercial wastewater generation, sewered (m 3 per person)

Domestic and commercial methane recovery, sewered (recovery per unit produced)

Industrial wastewater generation (tonnes COD/tonne production)

Industrial wastewater methane recovery (recovery per unit generated)
BASELINE DATA
The initial step in updating the wastewater emission parameters for the Department’s waste
emissions model was to review baseline data that had become available since the National
Inventory Report 2012 (DoE, 2014).
The National Inventory Report contained data up to and including 2012. The ideal approach
would have been for Hyder to identify data for 2013 and use this as the baseline for future
projections. Hyder was able to source appropriate data for the domestic and commercial
wastewater sector, but unfortunately the requisite data has not been published for industrial
wastewater, and so the 2012 dataset was used as this basis.
2.1.1
GENERATION PARAMETERS
Domestic & Commercial
Wastewater generation data from domestic sources was obtained from the National Water
Commission. As part of the National Water Initiative, governments prepare an annual,
independent report (National Performance Report) on water utilities to benchmark pricing and
service quality. These reports also include data such as the population connected to the
sewerage network and the amount of sewage collected. Eighty-three wastewater utilities from
across Australia are included in the National Performance Report and using the ‘population
connected to sewerage’ and the ‘sewage collected’ datasets, wastewater generation per capita
could be calculated for the relevant jurisdictions. Wastewater generation per capita was
determined across four years (2010-2013); this allowed for analysis of recent trends and could
help inform future projections.
Figure 2-20 shows that wastewater generation per capita has generally decreased, which is to
be expected following the national focus on water conservation over the past decade.
Page 44
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered
190
Wastewater Generation per capita (m 3)
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Year
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
WA
TAS
NT
ACT
AUS
Figure 2-20 Domestic Wastewater Generation, Sewered
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 45
It was noted that the Department has undertaken to convert wastewater generation from m 3 per
capita to COD tonnes per capita after submission of the emissions parameter projections model.
This is to ensure compatibility with the Department’s waste emissions model.
Industrial
Industrial wastewater generation, measured as tonnes chemical oxygen demand (COD) per
tonne of production, was required for the following industries:

Dairy

Pulp and Paper

Meat and Poultry

Organic Chemicals

Sugar

Beer

Wine

Fruit

Vegetables
Determining wastewater generation rates in industry proved more difficult compared to domestic
wastewater generation. This is because, in most cases, companies active in these industries
are not required to publically report wastewater generation volumes and COD levels, and there
is no industry body capturing this information.
As there was no publically available data that would be suitable for use within the projection
parameters template, text books and research papers were consulted. Review of Onsite
Industrial Wastewater Treatment (O’Brien 2006) provided figures for wastewater generation
(m3/t) and a COD generation (kg COD/m 3 wastewater), using this information, and by
determining the tonnes of each product produced in 2013, industrial wastewater generation
(tonnes COD/tonne production) was estimated.
The 2013 production of each product was determined by consulting ABS data. Since suitable
ABS data for annual production of pulp and paper, organic chemicals and beer was not
available, Hyder has assumed that there was no change between 2012 and 2013 industrial
wastewater generation. The industrial wastewater generation parameters for 2013 are detailed
in Table 2-23 below.
Page 46
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Table 2-23
2.1.2
Industrial Wastewater Generation
Dairy
0.00513
Pulp and Paper
0.01068
Meat and Poultry
0.08357
Organic Chemicals
0.20100
Sugar
0.00152
Beer
0.03180
Wine
0.03450
Fruit
0.00400
Vegetables
0.00400
METHANE RECOVERY
Domestic & Commercial
In order to calculate the ratio of methane recovered in 2013 two datasets were required; amount
of methane generated and the amount of methane burned (either for energy or flared).
Methane generation was not publically available for each wastewater treatment plant/utility
therefore methane generation was assumed based on the following formula derived from
Equation 6.1 in the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
𝐶𝐻4 = 𝑈 × 𝑇 × 𝐸𝐹 × 𝑃 × 𝐶𝑂𝐷
Where:

U – urbanisation = 0.9210

T – treatment pathway = 0.9511

EF – emissions factor = 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD

P – population connected to sewer = varied depending on jurisdiction

COD – default COD value in Australia = 0.0585 tonnes per capita
To determine the methane recovery at domestic and commercial wastewater treatment facilities,
data from organisations generating sewage gas and biomass-based components of sewage
REC’s was investigated. However only three organisations, across two States, reported
generating REC’s, and this information did not align with Hyder’s industry knowledge or data
captured in the National Inventory Report 2012. Upon further investigation into suitable datasets
the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) data, supplied by the DoE, was used. Thirty-one
domestic wastewater facilities, in six States reported burning methane in 2013. No facilities
reported burning methane in the Northern Territory or ACT, however National Inventory Report
data suggested that 4% of methane was recovered from domestic and commercial wastewater
facilities in the ACT.Table 2-24 shows the methane recovery across each jurisdiction.
10
From Table 6.5 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
11
Ibid.,
Waste Sector Modelling and Analysis—Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1
Page 47
Table 2-24
Domestic & Commercial wastewater methane recovery
New South Wales
46%
Victoria
38%
Queensland
17%
South Australia
90%
Western Australia
43%
Tasmania
28%12
Northern Territory
0%13
Australian Capital Territory
4%
Industrial
As the NPI data did not specifically contain information relating to the nine key industries, further
desktop analysis was undertaken to determine methane recovery in industrial wastewater
facilities. A direct survey of businesses across each industry to determine if methane was
captured and recovered in any capacity is beyond the scope of this project, and so Hyder has,
after consultation with the Department, assumed methane recovery in 2013 has increased from
2012 levels as per the methane recovery projection assumptions outlined in Section 3.1.2.
Table 2-25 shows the assumed methane recovery rates across the nine key industries for 2013.
Table 2-25
Industrial wastewater methane recovery – 2013
Dairy
33%
Pulp and Paper
65%
Meat and Poultry
7%
Organic Chemicals
2%
Sugar
0%
Beer
19%
Wine
60%
Fruit
24%
Vegetables
5%
12
Based on the most recent NPI data methane recovery and confirmed with the Tasmanian EPA.
13
At the time of writing, no information has been forthcoming from PAWA, and so Hyder has assumed zero recovery.
Page 48
Waste Sector Emission Parameters
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289
document1