Type III KR(2005) Incineration

Transcription

1 Co benefit approach on waste Co management g and GHG reduction Masato YAMADA, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

2 Status of WM in Asia 100% KR, Seoul (2005) Type III KR(2005) 20 ID(2002) 80 TH(2005) JP, Yokohama(2004) VN, Hanoi(2005) CN, Macao(2003) SG(2000) Type I Type II 0 CN(2006) 100% JP(2002) 100% Incineration KH, Phnom Penh(2002) LA, Vientiane(1991) i Type IV

3 Type II: Hanoi, Vietnam (2005) Generation 737,000 (ton/year) (70,000) 000) Resource Recovery (Private) (50,000) Composting Collection 677,000 The incineration and/or biological process have been partly introduced. (584,000) Recycling Landfill

4 Failure and Concern of LFG Recovery Failure Anaerobic digestion of organics and limitation of water in waste layer leads prolonged emission of polluted leachate and LFG over 30 years. Increasing of cost for post closure operation of landfill leads failure of waste management company. Western countries are now changing their policy from LFG recovery to avoidance of land disposal of organics (Europe) or aerobication of landfill (North America). For LFG recovery CDM projects, issuance of CER is about 30 % of expected on a median (for all project, that is 80 %). This leads a danger of recovery of their initial investment according to market condition of the carbon credit. Current IPCC waste model don t have enough accuracy to estimate GHG emissions from individual landfill site. Concern LFG and Leachate Load At regions with high precipitation, it is impossible completely to avoid the penetration of precipitation to the waste layer. LFG hardly extract from the submerged waste layer. Addition of water to the dried waste layer leads re activation of the biological process. LFG can utilize during a limited initial period in the all period of landfill operation. This leads uncontrolled emission i of polluted leachate and GHG after the project period CDM Project Post Closure Period 4

5 Should waste management do for energy production (or money)? greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction? environmental protection? improvement of public health? That should be for ALL!! =Co benefit Approach

6 Semi Aerobic Landfill Promise technology for GHG reduction and Environmental Protection Cover Soil Regulating Rain Fall Connection Gas Vent Exchange of LFG and Air by Convection A technology for improving leachate quality before discharge and saving cost for treatment in Japan where rain fall is high This technology was developed by Fukuoka City and Fukuoka Univ. in 1970 s and became a standard structure of Japanese Landfill. This technology has transferred to several developing countries (Southeast Asia, South America, Africa) by JICA/ODA Enhancement of aerobic digestion of organics leads to decreasing of methane production. Adopted in 2006 IPCC Guideline Bottom Liner Keep Void in Drainage by Enhancement of Discharge Drainage Treatment Facility

7 Semi Aerobic and Control Test Cells Drainage Pipe (with gravel) Drainage Pipe (without gravel) Catchment Data Logging Station On Site Labo. Well Cross Section of Main Drainage Pipe A. Semi Aerobic Cell 1,000mm Size: L 45m x W 42m x H 4m Volume: ca. 7,000m 2 1,000 mm Final Cover Waste Height of Sensors 500mm 2,000mm B. Control Cell 300mm Bottom Liner Main Drain (500φ) Branch Drain (300φ) 7

8 LFG Emission: Semi Aerobic SA-CO2-Vent SA-CH4-Vent SA-CO2-Surface Surface SA-CH4-Surface ion (1000 mol/day) 20 No CO2 data CH4 Emiss /11/ /12/ /01/ / /02/ /03/ /04/ /05/ /06/ /07/ /08/ /09/ /10/ /11/ /12/25 Date

9 Electrical ResistivityTomography Control Cell Low High Does Semi Aerobic Cell tend to dry by enhanced drainage? Semi Aerobic Cell

10 LFG Emissions: Methane Ratio SA-CH4-Ratio AN-CH4-Ratio CH 4 /(CH 4 +C CO 2 ) Air Pathway a at Control Cell? Date

11 Status of WM in Asia 100% KR, Seoul (2005) Type III KR(2005) 20 ID(2002) 80 TH(2005) JP, Yokohama(2004) VN, Hanoi(2005) CN, Macao(2003) SG(2000) Type I Type II 0 CN(2006) 100% JP(2002) 100% Incineration KH, Phnom Penh(2002) LA, Vientiane(1991) i Type IV

12 Waste Stream: Seoul, Korea (2005) Generation 3,464 Both incineration and biological process have been introduced. Others Food Waste (2,124) (1,340) (ton/year) (1,459) (416) (435) (686) (5) Resource Recovery (?) Incineration Compost ing Feed Stuff Anaerobic Digestion (?) (13) (1,038) (125) (?) (120) Sewage, Recycling Landfill Recycling Ocean Dumping

13 Waste Stream: Yokohama, Japan (2004) 1,000 tons/year Community Collection 125(122) Generation and Collection 1,386 1, Sorting Incineration 59 1, Storage Recycling Final disposal

14 Comparison of MSW Composition 3R system has already been existing in Asian countries Japan Metal Others Glass Organics Plastic paper Hanoi, Vietnam Others (bricks, sand) Organics (Food Plant textile) Asian Countries resource Waste Collection Landfill resource includes organic materials with high water contents for composting

15 Segregationat Source injapan Combustibles (mainly garbage and disposable paper) Waste E-Waste Incombustibles (china, glass and etc.) Bulky Waste (furniture, bicycle and etc ) Can (aluminum and steel) Glass Bottle (separating to clear, brown and others) (refrigerator, washing machine, television, air conditioner, personal computer) Managed by Producers PET Bottle (without cap and label) Plastic Packaging (sometimes separating to PS tray and others) Metals Used Dry Cell Used Cooking Oil Spray Can (after exhausting gas) Paper (separating to news paper, magazine, cardboard, carton and others) Textiles Resource Used Car These waste/resource flow different streams from points of generation

16 Improvement of WM and GHG Reduction 1. Improvement ofpublichealth Collection and Disposal Avoidance of Land Disposal of Organics 2. Control of Environmental Pollution Semi Aerobic Landfill Reduction of Methane in LFG 3. Establishment of Sustainable Society Segregation at Source Extraction of Energy Source from Waste

17 Thank you for your attention. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Authors wish to thank participants of the SWGA, Prof. Cao The Ha, Prof. Dong Dong Hoon Lee, Prof. Wang Qi Qi,, Dr. Huang Zechun, Zechun, Dr. Quan Hao, Hao, Dr Wen Xuefng, Dr. Xuefng, Prof Prof. Sirintornthep Towprayoon, Towprayoon, Prof. Prof Chart Chiemchaisri,, Dr. Bulgamaa Densambuu Chiemchaisri Densambuu,, Ms. Upik S Aslia Kamil Kamil,, Ms. Ellyza Mastura Aahmad Hanipiah for their help in data collection and discussion. This symposium is supported by the Global Environment Research Fund (B (B 071 and A1001) A1001) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan