MARSS Workshop. Prof. Dr. Ing. Thomas Pretz

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MARSS Workshop. Prof. Dr. Ing. Thomas Pretz"

Transcription

1 MARSS Workshop Prof. Dr. Ing

2 RegEnt as the core of the project - is an association of municipalities in the Trier region with about inhabitants in an area of about km² - is always looking for efficiency driving their systems when organising the waste management of the region. - is the company in charge for the technical and organisational Regionale Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbh part of daily waste treatment RegEnt is providing the opportunity to use their MBT plant and the additional technical equipment for large-scale test work to improve MSW treatment. 2

3 Lessons learnt from large scale plastic separation Low influence of variations in the quality of the MSW on the yield Drying process efficiency (resulting moisture) sometimes leads to quality issues in the plastics product The more process steps needed in the treatment chain, the lower the yield of the aimed product Increasing quality demands for the product means that higher product losses have to be accepted 3

4 PO Yield from MSW 28 %

5 Losses resulting from Purification Process for PO (Nappies) Windeln 4% Holz 2% (Wood ) (Sorting residues) Sortierrest 4% Windeln 3% (Nappies) Textil 11% (Plastic foils) Textil 3% Kunststofffolien 20% (Plastic pieces) Kunststoffkörper 13% (Sorting residues) (Plastic pieces) Sortierrest 25% Kunststoffkörper 13% (Plastic foils) Kunststofffolien 77% PPK 25% Reject composition from first and second product cleaning process

6 The MARSS Idea Some years ago, RegEnt carried out large scaled tests to recover plastics from dried MSW with promising results: Plastics can be sorted from mixed MSW Plastic separation demands a specific conditioning process and 2-step NIR sorting Plastics recovery from mixed MSW yields a higher efficiency than recovery of plastics from separately collected materials because the system has access to 100 % of the plastic content for recovery. Most important process step to achieve successful sorting: Highly efficient drying! 6

7 Plastics Recycling from MSW 35% MSW composition 30% 25% 25,3% 21,2% 22,4% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5,3% 9,0% 0,8% 2,0% 4,5% 2,9% 6,5% 127 kg/c*y 180 kg/c*y 7

8 Importance of the organic waste fraction Metal 2% Glass 10% Stone/Ce ramic/ Porcelain 9% Biowaste 4% Plastic 2D 2% Plastic 3D 4% 58 Biogenic Carbon Inert Materials Fossil Carbon Mixed Carbon <10 mm 48% Paper 9% Wood 2% Textile <1% Sanitary Paper 1% Residue 6% Compound <1% Leather/R ubber. <1% 8

9 First Trials to Produce RRBF Lab work with well known separation equipment based on small samples (100 kg level) Results of lab work (pre-feasibility): recovery rate of RRBF = 35% of raw mixed MSW Calorific value of RRBF: > kj/kg Expectation of a challenge for waste management system Proposal MARSS 9

10 The MARSS Concept for EU Countries without access to Incineration t/a Mixed MSW t/a Mass loss drying t/a Metals Mechanical biological drying MBT MARSS Biomass Fuel (RRBF) Is it possible to achieve this goal taking into account real waste conditions? Landfill Disposal t/a? t/a? RRBF >11 MJ/kg Biomasse Power Plant GJ/a

11 MARSS Goals Design a RRBF quality that is suitable for power plants using fluidized bed technology Achieving a high yield of RRBF complying with biomass fuel standards MARSS Goals Improving the economic efficiency of MSW treatment referring to EU landfill-directive Improving the ecological performance of MSW treatment considering high social acceptance Sorting a RRBF from dry MSW with standardized and proved waste technology Assessment of social impacts 11

12 MARSS Challenges MSW is a complex mixture of organic and inorganic elements after a certain time of municipal usage MSW quality depends on many factors: Social Economic Climate and Several organisational aspects Question to be answered: Does MARSS technology provide the flexibility to deal with different MSW qualities? 12

13 % by mass MARSS Quality How do waste management parameters influence the MARSS system? e.g. separate collection of: 100% packaging waste, paper & cardboards, separate collected organic waste ( Biowaste ) Composition mixed MSW 80% 60% 12% 13% Residuals low CV Metals 40% Residuals high CV Plastics 20% 57% 52% Biomass 0% Status Quo After separate collection of biowaste 13

14 Influences on the RegEnt Process Status Quo MBT Mertesdorf Status Quo t/a MSW t/a Drying Loss t/a Metals MBT Mertesdorf t/a Substitute RDF Fuel 12 MJ/kg Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant GJ/a 14

15 RegEnt Process With Separate Collection of Biowaste MBT Mertesdorf After Separate Collection of Biowaste t/a MSW t/a Drying Loss t/a Metals MBT Mertesdorf t/a Substitute RDF Fuel <12 MJ/kg Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant GJ/a 15

16 Deviation of mean [%] Variation of MSW Quality Influence of growing season 10% Variation of Mass Deliveries 5% 0% -5% -2,5% 1,9% -10% -15% Monthly 2013 Daily 2013 Daily

17 Average daily temperature in C Variation of Climatic Conditions Influence of climatic conditions 25 Annual Average Temperature

18 Mass loss by biological drying Variation of MBT Process Conditions Variation of mean losses by drying process results in variation of the product humidity 40% Mass loss MBT - Temperature 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% % 31% 30% 18

19 Sieving Efficiency Process Challenges How does variable water content of biologically dried MSW influence the RRBF production? Separation efficiency, in particular sieving efficiency, is strongly depending on humidity / water content Sieving Efficiency and Moisture 100% 90% 80% 70% >20 mm <20 mm 60% 50% Moisture 19

20 RRBF product quality and moisture content Wet feed material w ~ 20% vs. Dry feed material w ~ 10% 20

21 Screening Throughput Share of Mass Particle Size Distribution of Material < 40 mm 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Mesh Size [mm] I II III IV 21

22 Sieving Efficiency Influence Humidity and Mesh Size on R M E.g. moisture content 10% : 20% Delta efficiency: 20% points Recovery R M = R M, RRBF * η Screening 30 mm, w = 10%: R M = 83% Screening 30 mm, w = 20%: R M = 65 % Screening 10 mm, w = 10%: R M = 38% Screening 10 mm, w = 20%: R M = 28% 75% 55% 92% 72% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% >20 mm <20 mm 50% Moisture 22

23 First results from MARSS test work Both the sorting and the purification process for RRBF largely depend on the results from the biological drying process, and the resulting moisture of the RRBF feedstock For the project s success, a continuous production is not of importance, but a very good knowledge of fluctuating process parameters is essential The adjustment of aggregates must ensure a RRBF production with consistently good quality Therefore the RRBF yield and mass recovery must be considered the variable parameters 23

24 The MARSS opportunities EU landfill directive is asking for MSW pre-treatment to avoid CO 2 emissions resulting from organic waste in landfills The economically most attractive solution to conform to these demands is Mechanical-Biological-Treatment for MSW Waste incineration as a competitive pre-treatment technology is struggling with economic issues and low social acceptance in several countries MARSS offers a technical solution to separate a Refined Renewable Biomass Fuel from MBT treated MSW, using well known and proved technical hardware, that can be added in different flow sheets 24

25 MARSS opportunities for countries without access to Incineration 25

26 The RRBF opportunities Social acceptance for renewable energy recovery is much higher than for energy recovery from waste Even small-scaled renewable energy power plants can be driven economically, which offers opportunities for regional energy supply solutions RRBF is a designed fuel and can be adapted to the technical demands of different chamber systems We are looking forward to find additional utilisations e.g. combined with sewage sludge treatment 26

27 Added Value RRBF separated from MSW reduces the total mass of landfilled waste minimising landfill capacity demand and landfill emissions RRBF as CO 2 neutral fuel is highly valued in competition with fossil fuels The option to produce RRBF by adding modular technologies to existing or mandatory MSW treatment plants offers economically attractive opportunities 27

28 Conclusions challenge 1: process efficiency of biological drying is the main driver to achieve sufficient results Challenge 2: a large number of samples representing the whole scope of feedstock qualities is necessary to achieve reliable results Challenge 3: feasible adjustment of the RRBF process based on large-scale burning tests Opportunity 1: RRBF production suitable for fluidised bed combustion Opportunity 2: RRBF designed for utilisation as additives e.g. in sewage sludge treatment Opportunity 3: RRBF with an enrichment of Phosphorus in residual ashes 28