Northern European Approach to practically zero waste

Transcription

1 Northern European Approach to practically zero waste 2016 Macao International Environmental Co-operation Forum & Exhibition Torben Kristiansen, Vice President Waste & Contaminated Sites, COWI A/S Denmark 1

2 Outline of presentation 1. Introduction 1. Introduction 2. "Zero landfill": An approaching reality in Northern Europe 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark 4. Integrated Waste management Which elements are critically important, - and where are the "battle fields"? 5. How can waste management technologies best be used? And how can they best be organized? 6. Prospects of the future Northern European / EU Waste Management Concluding remarks 7. Questions 2

3 2. The zero landfill approach in Northern Europe The "zero landfill" scenario: How this is approaching a reality in Northern Europe Landfilling is unacceptable: Lack of land, environmental risk, public opposition, loss of development opportunities, high dependency on limited groundwater resource, Resource efficiency: Loss of material and nutrient resources into landfills and incinerators -> bio-waste solutions, material recovery (Circular Economy) & energy recovery More than 100 years of using "advanced waste treatment": Waste-to-energy, AD, source separation & recycling, composting. New emerging technologies: e.g. enzymatic treatment and sorting of residual (REneScience) Strong regulatory and policy approach: EU and national policies, directives, laws and regulations for Circular Economy, Rare Earth Minerals, Resource Efficiency, Material supply safety for EU industry, landfill taxes/levies, standards for recycled aggregates etc. 3

4 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark Example: Waste management in Denmark 5.7 million inhabitants 43,000 sq km 5 Regions 98 Municipalities: Total waste generation 2011: 9.2 mill. tonnes Household waste 2.4 mill. Responsible for management of all waste Provide MSW collection/disposal services Organise treatment capacity Issue instructions on treatment and disposal of all waste Commercial waste Industrial waste 1.9 mill. 2.2 mill. 4 Co-operates in Inter-Municipal Waste Management Associations on Waste Treatment and Disposal C&D waste 2.7 mill. Recycling WtE Landfill 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark Example: Waste management in Denmark Treatment and disposal of municipal & commercial waste Now: Around 25 Inter-Municipal Waste Associations/Companies Associations owned by Municipalities and operated as independent "utilities" having boards with elected councilors All member municipalities are represented in the Boards Future: Reduced number of associations (mergers in progress) More involvement from private sector Recycling: Major part by private enterprises, however also some Public Waste Associations are involved Collection and transport > 80 % household waste collected by private contractors Almost all commercial waste collected by private contractors 380 km 5

6 3. Example: Waste management in Denmark Tax on waste = less landfill + more recovery State tax Euro/tonnes Energy from Waste (combined heat and power Energy from Waste 35 (heat recovery only) Landfill Disposal Recycling/Sorting/ Composting/AD Tipping fees Euro/tonnes 2012 Incineration 17 Landfill Disposal 49 Anaerobic Digestion 80 Composting garden waste 45 6 Typical total costs for a household: Euros/year.

7 4. Integrated waste management More 100 years ago: Dumps are a health threat 7 Source: Renosam 2006,

8 4. The zero landfill approach in Northern Europe Waste treatment HK (2014), AUS, EU/EEA & USA Incineration Landfilling 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 USA 2013 AUS 2011 HK 2014 Ref: US EPA 2013: CEWEP/EUROSTAT: AUS Dept of Env: EPD HK:

9 4. The zero landfill approach in Northern Europe Most effective way to achieve landfill diversion targets? High use of WtE Limited or no use of WtE Source: European Commission Northern European success towards zero landfill. Torben Kristiansen

10 4. Integrated waste management and the battle field of SWM Integrated Waste Management IWM is critically important for the success of any multistreamed waste management system for the purpose of meeting particular environmental, economic, resource or carbon policies. Integrated waste management is the art of being wellorganised and successful in waste management and is supported by a number of enabling mechanisms such as: 1. Fiscal incentives (waste tax, tax on natural resources, tax on carbon emissions, incentives for green energy, etc.) 2. Regulation and enforcement (permitting, licensing, reporting, audits, waste data reporting systems, access to district heating networks, access to power supply etc.) 3. Standards supporting markets for recovered materials (compost, recycled aggregates, end-of-waste products etc.) 4. Good organisational structure (public/private) and clear roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders (waste generators, authorities, transporters, recyclers/treatment plants etc.) 5. Integration of relevant sector policies: Waste energy environment - resources 10

11 The "battle fields" in IWM In Northern Europe / EU the typical battle fields are: 1. Municipal/public waste utilities vs. private contractors/ppp operators 2. National/regional government vs. local government/municipalities 3. Established technologies (WtE/MBT) vs. emerging technologies (AD, Enzymatic treatment, single stream recovery technologies etc.) 4. Waste sector vs. energy sector (access to market, cost of recovered energy) 5. Waste/energy sector vs. agricultural sector (quality of biproducts to farmland, access to bio-waste, alternative fuel markets etc.) 6. Municipality vs. small commercial/retail (freedom of choice, waste flow control) 7. As energy becomes fossil-free, WtE will become "dirtier" Integrated waste management and the battle field of SWM

12 4. Integrated waste management and the battle field of SWM..winners and loosers.. Winners Private waste contractors get more market access Waste producers enjoy lower tariffs for some services Investors can buy/build waste infrastructure for profit Increased market for waste collection contractors (multiple waste streams, longer haulage) Lowest gate-fee facilities (incl. haulage) increase volume SEPTEMBER 2015 THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE 12 Big (economies of scale) Loosers (Some) Municipal loss of waste flow control Municipality stuck with nonprofitable services Public loss of control of waste infrastructure incl. treatment capacity Higher entry barrier for new technologies/solutions for special waste streams due to loss of flow control Higher gate-fee facilities (incl haulage) loose volume due to "waste tourism" Small / local solutions

13 5. How can technologies best be used? Technical approaches to "zero waste" Material recovery: Source separation of recyclables Co-mingled collection + central sorting Reuse/repair Clean /dirty MRFs Volume reduction /bio-stabilisation: MBT / Bio-drying Nutrient recovery: Aerobic - Composting Anaerobic/AD + nutrient recovery Enzymatic nutrient recovery Energy recovery: Mass burn to energy RDF/SRF fuel substitution 13 AD/biogas/landfill gas/fuel production

14 5. And how can infrastructure and services best be organised? Gate fees vary greatly in Europe. Why? Revenue from sale of energy, recyclables, compost etc? Cost of disposing residues, rejects etc? Capital costs (conditions of financiers) Risk premiums (Commercial conditions/risk profile) Non-profit/profit? Dividends to shareholders? Taxation, VAT, green levies Build up of capital/residual value? Lean staffing/mechanisation Fixed/variable costs Operational robustness Design strategy (low O&M or Capex?) Market conditions, supply/demand Source: RenoSam 2006, Denmark 14

15 Prospects of the future Northern European / EU Waste Management 6. Concluding remarks Large scale landfilling is unsustainable. Northern European practice of only 3-8% to landfill sets the trend (need better and more comparable waste statistics) Increased pressure from resource, carbon and energy policies result in push for closed loops for materials and nutrients. Energy recovery from remaining residual waste only Less need for WtE capacity in Northern Europe. Need to define "recycling quality" As energy supply becomes fossil-free (wind, solar, hydro etc.), energy from waste will be less desirable as it changes classification from "clean" to "dirty" energy. Continued liberalization of the waste market, less direct waste flow control and more indirect control via regulation, tenders and fiscal tools. More emphases on truly integrated waste management: We must be even better organized and regulation will be more complex! More cross-sectoral approach: waste energy agriculture resources (the biomass fight etc.) Benchmarking and push for lower waste tariffs to balance profits in liberalized market 15

16 7. Questions? Thank you! Torben Kristiansen, M.Sc. Civ. Eng Vice President Solid Waste COWI A/S, Denmark COWI is a leading European and global consulting group providing state-of-the-art services within engineering, environmental science and economics. COWI has more than 6,500 employees worldwide including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, Spain, Belgium, UK, Greenland, Turkey, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, India, South Korea, China, USA, & Canada JUNE 2011 Northern European success towards zero landfill. Torben Kristiansen

17 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN APPROACH TO (PRACTICALLY) ZERO WASTE