MSW Management and Energy Recovery

Transcription

1 The Int l Workshop on Policy Integration towards Sustainable Urban Energy Use for Asian Cities MSW Management and Energy Recovery February 4 & 5, 2002 East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Euiyoung YOON Hyupsung University, Korea Sunghan JO Andong National University, Korea 1

2 Contents I. MSW Management in Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing & Shanghai - Review of Waste Management Practice Generation, Composition, Treatment, Policy Responses, and Challenges II. Energy Recovery from Waste Facilities and Effects of GHG Emissions Reduction - Review of Incineration Heat-to-Energy - Analysis of Landfill Gas Utilization and GHG Emission Reduction 2

3 Population & MSW Generation - Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing & Shanghai Population(Th.) MSW Generation(Th. tons/year) Tokyo Shanghai Seoul Beijing Seoul Tokyo Beijing Shanghai Shanghai ( 99) : 13.1 mil. Beijing ( 00) : 12.7 mil. Tokyo ( 00) : 12 mil. Seoul ( 00) : 10.3 mil. 3

4 MSW Generation per capita - Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing & Shanghai - ton/year Seoul Tokyo Beijing Shanghai

5 Composition of MSW - Tokyo Businesses 2.16mil.tons (54%) Composition of MSW: The Ward Area of Tokyo (1997) Incombustible 0.61mil.tons (21%) Combustible and Incombustible of the Bureau-Collected Waste: the Ward Area of Tokyo (1997) Total: 4 mil. tons Households 1.84mil.tons (46%) Total: 2.99 mil. tons Combustible 2.30 mil.tons (79%) 5

6 Composition of Combustible and Incombustible Waste by Type: the Ward Area of Tokyo (1997) Combustible Waste Incombustible Waste Plastics 7.0% Wood and grass, thers 8.3% Textiles 3.7% Rubber, leather 0.2% Kitchen garbage 29.9% Metal 0.5% Waste paper 50.0% Glass 0.2% Ceramics, earth and others 0.2% Combustible waste Waste unfit for incineration 7.2% Incombustible waste Kitchen garbage 5.4% Waste paper 7.2% Ceramics, Glass earth, others 3.2% Textiles 3.2% Wood, grass, others 3.8% Plastics 41.9% 14.1% Metal 17.2% Rubber, leather4% Combustible waste Waste unfit for incineration 45.9% Incombustible waste 34.5% 6

7 Composition of MSW: Seoul (2000) Recyclable 34% Incombustible 6% Classification of MSW: Seoul (2000) Total: 11,339 tons/day Combustible 60% Composition of MSW: Seoul (2000) metals, ceramics 9% briquet ash 0.2% other 20% plastics 7% glass bottles 5% rubber & leather 3% soil 1% wood 4% food can 1% waste 23% paper 27% Total: 11,339 t/day 7

8 Composition of MSW : Beijing ( 98)( Glass 11% Metal 3% Stones, etc. 10% Food wastes 37% Briquette ash, dumped soil, etc. 6% Paper, textile, plastics 33% Total: 4,951 Th.tons 8

9 Composition of MSW : Shanghai (1999) Wood wastes 1% Food wastes 55% Other wastes 14% Paper 8% Metal 1% Glass 4% Textile, leather 3% Plastics 14% Total: 5,015.1 Th.tons 9

10 MSW Composition Changes: Beijing 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Stones, etc. Metal Glasses Briquette ash, dumped soil, etc. Paper, textile, plastics, etc. Food wastes 10

11 MSW Composition Changes: Shanghai 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Briquette ash, dumped soil, stones, etc. Metal Glasses Paper, textile, plastics, etc. Food wastes 11

12 Comparison of MSW Composition 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Tokyo('97) Seoul('00) Beijing('98) Shanghai('99) Others Briquette ash Metal Glass Textile,rubbe r Plastics Paper Food Waste 12

13 Treatment of MSW - Tokyo Waste Treatment -the Ward Area of Tokyo- Changes in Recycling - the Ward Area of Tokyo % Landfill Incineration ton/year 700, , , , , , ,

14 Treatment of MSW - Tokyo % Landfilling Incineration Recycling 14

15 Treatment of MSW - Seoul % Landfilling Incineration Recycling 15

16 Challenges - Seoul x 1, Population MSW: ton/year 16

17 Waste Treatment Capacity - Beijing and Shanghai - 2 Compostin g Fac. 3% (200t/d) Beijing 1 Incinerator 11% (700t/d) Shanghai - 2 Landfills (4,900 t/d). - Waste generation: 13,700tons/day 6 Landfills 86% (5,760t/d) Both cities need more facilities & effective waste mgt. strategies to avoid waste problems faced by Tokyo & Seoul. 17

18 Characteristics and Effective Policy Initiatives Tokyo: Tokyo Act for Waste Treatment and Recycling (1992) The TMG Basic Plan for Urban Waste Treatment: Tokyo Slim Plan 21 etc. Seoul: Waste Management Act to Promote Recycling (1991) Volume-based Waste Collection Fee System (1995) etc. Beijing: Still increasing in MSW generation. Shanghai: Growth in population and income level will make the increasing trend of MSW generation keep going. 18

19 II. Analysis of Energy Recovery from Waste Facilities and Effects of GHG Emission Reduction Utilization of waste incineration heat and landfill gas for energy saving and reduction of GHG emissions 19

20 Energy Recovery and Its Impacts on GHG Emission Reduction Analysis Research method Substitute Facility Comparison Method "to compare the amount of energy consumption and GHG emissions from incineration/lfg heating systems with that from the existing boiler heating system (using LNG or Diesel) 20

21 Research Framework Revisited Comparison of Incineration Heating and LNG/Diesel Heating District Heating by Incineration Heat Heat loss rate in the Supply (selling) process Estimation: the amount of heat supply Portion by fuel type, Fuel price, Production efficiency* Loss rate Estimation: the amount of fuel consumption & fuel price GHGs emission coefficients by fuel type Estimation of the amount of GHGs emission Heat Sales LNG / Diesel Boiler Loss rate for preparation heat Estimation: the amount of heat energy Portion by fuel type, Fuel price, Production efficiency Estimation: the amount of fuel consumption & fuel price GHGs emission coefficients by fuel type Estimation of the amount of GHGs emission Energy Saving & GHGs Emission Reduction 21

22 The Results: Energy Recovery from Incineration (Seoul, 2000) Incineration Plant Heat Production Unit: Gcal Heat Loss Rate Sales (%) Nowon 99,776 95, Yangchon 126,232 75,

23 Some facts and Preconditions for Analysis Research Period: Amount of LFG Emission : 340,000 m 3 /day CH 4 emission : 457,196 CH 4 ton/year Estimated proportion of CH 4 of LFG: 50% CH 4 collection rate : 75% Heat production efficiency rate of LFG heating : 81% 23

24 Research Framework for the Comparison of LFG Heating & LNG/Diesel Heating Baseline Emission Waste Landfilling LFG Heating Heating by Collected LFG LNG/Diesel Heating Heating by LNG or Diesel LFG Generation LFG Inputs Same amount of Heat Production LNG or Diesel Inputs GHG Emission GHG Emission GHG Emission Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Total Amount of GHG Emission Reduction 24

25 GHG Emission Reduction Effect of LFG Heating : Nanjido Landfill, Seoul The Method of Analysis Total amount of GHG reduction = the amount of GHG emission reduction + the amount of avoidance emission Here, the amount of GHG emission reduction = the amount of GHG emission when LFG is not utilized the amount of GHG emission when LFG is used for heating fuel (I. e., LFG Heating System) the amount of avoidance emission = the amount of GHG emission when LNG/Diesel is used to produce the same amount of heat produced by LFG 25

26 GHG Emission Reduction from Landfill Gas Heating (vs( LNG Heating) - Nanjido,, Seoul - Baseline GHG Emission (A) Emission By LFG Heating (B) Heat Production by LFG GHG Emission By LNG (C) Total Effect from LFG (A-B)+C Unit Transfer (D) CDM Effect (D*u$50) CO 2 ton CO 2 ton Gcal CO 2 ton CO 2 ton TC U$(000) , , ,848 38, ,832 68,954 3, , , ,848 38, ,832 68,954 3, , , ,285 37, ,315 66,904 3, , , ,101 36, ,707 65,647 3, ,657 96, ,882 32, ,820 58,042 2, ,852 73,422 76,886 24, ,199 44,236 2, ,302 67,659 70,852 22, ,468 40,764 2,038 SUM * 4,909,768 1,709,652 1,790, ,752 3,776,867 1,030,053 51,053 A: GHG emission from landfill site w/o LFG-to-Energy Plan. B: GHG emission when LFG is utilized to produce heat. C: GHG emission when LNG is used to produce the same amount of heat by LFG. * Sum of 19 years from 2002 to

27 GHG Emission Reduction from Landfill Gas Heating (vs( Diesel Heating) - Nanjido,, Seoul - Baseline GHG Emission (A) Emission By LFG heating (B) Heat Production by LFG GHG Emission By Diesel (C) Total Effect from LFG heating (A-B)+C Unit Transfer (D) CDM Effect (D* U$50) CO 2 ton CO 2 ton Gcal CO 2 ton CO 2 ton TC U$(000) , , ,848 50, ,694 72,189 3, , , ,848 50, ,694 72,189 3, , , ,285 48, ,824 70,043 3, , , ,101 48, ,001 68,727 3, ,657 96, ,882 42, ,805 60,765 3, ,852 73,422 76,886 32, ,809 46,312 2, ,302 67,659 70,852 29, ,481 42,677 2,134 SUM * 4,909,768 1,709,652 1,790, ,953 3,954,070 1,078,381 53,919 A: GHG emission from landfill site to the air w/o LFG-to-Energy Plan. B: GHG emission when LFG is utilized to produce heat. C: GHG emission when Diesel is used to produce the same amount of heat by LFG. * Sum of 19 years from 2002 to

28 Summary of LFG-to to-energy - Nanjido Landfill, Seoul - LFG utilization reduces 80% of GHG emi. 200,000 CO 2 tons of GHG emission reduction/year for 19 years. U$2.7 mil of monetary benefits/year. (Construction costs, labor costs, etc are not included.). Saving of fossil fuel consumption. 28

29 Policy Implications (Tentative) All mega-cities: to increase recycling/ reuse rate of MSW & to develop more effective policy strategies. to reduce food waste generation & its utilization. Beijing & Shanghai: need new facilities, policy instruments, & citizen participation. Seoul: to increase the operation rate of incineration plants (current rates: 36%). to benchmark the operation of Tokyo incineration plants. Tokyo: to refer to LFG utilization in Seoul. 29

30 THANK YOU!!! 30