Sludge management within the pulp and paper industry

Transcription

1 management within the pulp and paper industry F. Ometto A. Karlsson, X. Truong, C. Svedin, D. Donner and J. Ejlertsson Francesco Ometto, Ph.D. R&D Manager Disclaimer: all companies, the European Agency and the European Commission are not responsible for any use of the information here provided. All information are in relation to the sole Effi for LIFE demonstration project. The Problem Industrial production of everyday goods such as paper, food, and chemicals generates wastewater that has to be treated to protect our environment. 1

2 Effi in the EU market 903 active mills Million Euro turnover Paper and Board production (data from CEPI, June 2017) Wastewater production: ~15 m 3 per ton product! The Problem Treating wastewater comes at high costs for the industry in terms of intensive energy chemical nutrients carbon emissions 2

3 Effi for LIFE Sustainable Industrial Wastewater Treatment lower energy lower chemical nutrients lower carbon emissions innovative operations + onsite BIOGAS from waste products nutrients recovery and reuse renewable fuels + lower energy/chemicals A demonstration project for Climate Change Mitigation This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. Project number: LIFE14 CCM/SE/ A cooperation between 3

4 Implementation site Skogn five biogas plants giving a total capacity of ~500 GWh Bromma Henriksdal II Henriksdal Södertörn Ulsan, South Korea Norske Skog Skogn 4

5 Norske Skog Skogn ton/year of newsprint m 3 /day wastewater ~400 m 3 /day Waste Activated (WAS) Mill WWTP - Today Nitrogen and Phosphrous Wastewater paper mill Primary Neutralization basin Activated Treatment Secondary Final recipient RAS tank WAS Incineration with other materials 5

6 quality Today Age: days (extended aeration) production kgtss/kgscod red BMP: NmlCH 4 /gvs (60 days at 37C) Mill WWTP Today Carbon Footprint Nitrogen and Phosphrous Wastewater paper mill Primary Neutralization basin Activated Treatment Secondary Final recipient RAS tank WAS Incineration 6

7 Mill WWTP Today Carbon Footprint Nitrogen and Phosphrous 28 ton CO 2 /d Wastewater paper mill Primary 1.4 kgco 2 /m 3 Neutralization basin Activated Treatment ton CO 2 /year Secondary Final recipient RAS tank WAS Incineration ECOINVET carbon factors applied: 0.48 kgco 2 eq/kwh 6.42 kgco 2 eq/kg N 1.47 kgco 2 eq/kg H 3 PO 4 Mill WWTP Today Nitrogen and Phosphrous Wastewater paper mill Primary Neutralization basin Activated Treatment Secondary Final recipient RAS tank WAS Incineration 7

8 Mill WWTP + AD plant Tomorrow Reduced Nitrogen and Phosphorous LBG Gas upgrading Wastewater paper mill Primary Neutralization basin AD (UASB) 50% scod reduced Activated Activated Treatment Secondary RAS tank WAS (bio-sludge) Nitrogen Incineration Evaporation Fertilizer AD (CSTR) FISH WASTE quality Tomorrow Age: 4-6 days (reduced aeration time from days) production: kgss/kgscod red (to be demonstrated this will allow for similar WAS sludge production dispate the reduced COD loading due to the ECBS treatment) BMP: NmlCH 4 /gvs (60 days at 37C) 8

9 Pilot work completed Pilot work completed Parameter Current operation Target operation Unit HRT % h OLR TOC kg TOC/m 3, d COD kg COD/m 3, d BOD kg BOD 7 /m 3, d Reduction 3-4 times HIGHER LOADING TOC STABLE % REDUCTIO COD N % (WWT Efficiency) BOD % Age % days SVI ml/g SS Production % kg SS/kg CODred 9

10 Pilot work completed % WAS (2d ) BMP [Nm 3 /ton added VS] % WAS (4 d) WAS (12 d) Time [d] Mill WWTP + AD plant Tomorrow Carbon Footprint Reduced Nitrogen and Phosphorous LBG Gas upgrading Wastewater paper mill Primary Neutralization basin AD (UASB) (50% scod reduced Activated Activated Treatment RAS Secondary tank WAS (bio-sludge) Nitrogen Incineration Evaporation Fertilizer AD (CSTR) SBF SBF

11 Mill WWTP + AD plant Tomorrow Carbon Footprint Reduced Nitrogen and Phosphorous LBG Gas upgrading Wastewater paper mill Primary tank Neutralization basin Nitrogen Incineration Biokraft AD 14 (28) ton CO 2 /d (ECSB/ UASB) 0.7 (1.4) kgco 2 /m 3 Evaporation Aeration (5 250) ton CO 2 /year Fertilizer RAS Secondary Biokraft AD (CSTR) WAS (bio-sludge) SBF SBF Expected impact on WWT PARAMETERS age (d) Energy demand (MWh/d) WAS production (kg SS/kgCODred) BMP value (Nm 3 /ton VS) Nutrient recirculation Carbon footprint (kgco2eq/m 3 ) TODAY VALUES NO (external addition) 1.7 EXPECTED VALUES (2019) YES (from AD rejected water)

12 June 2017 February

13 Fish waste is delivered by boat ECSB units (4 000 m 3 ) treating effluents from first sedimentation CSTR digesters ( m 3 ) treating WAS and fish waste LBG storage (350 m 3 ) and gas upgrading SECONDARY digester + GAS HOLDER STORAGE TANKS (6X) for fish silage and substrate SECONDARY sedimentation EVAPORATION for part of the rejected water January 2018 AEROBIC BASIN ( m 3 ) (Activated Treatment) 13

14 Emissions from AST? Hyperspectral maging of methane fluxes on a local scale (HyperCam Methane) Emissions from AST? ongoing evaluation Q1: How the aeration time will impact emissions? Q2: How the ECBS unit will impact emission? CH 4 N 2 O and H 2 O 14

15 Industrial symbiosis for Circular E Pulp and Paper mill Improved WWT performance (anaerobic + aerobic) Possible future expansion of mill production capacity Energy saving (less COD, reduced aeration Effi) Costs saving (less COD, less chemical nutrients Effi) Improved incineration performances (no WAS incinerated) Carbon saving (reduced carbon footprint) Anaerobic Digestion plant Feasible (substrate availability) Reduced costs for substrate delivery (available onsite) Strategic (secured long term co-operation) Reduced costs for rejected water disposal (recirculation into the WWT as primary source of nutrient Effi) Follow Effi! #Effi 15

16 Thanks for the attention! Scandinavian Biogas Fuels AB Holländargatan 21 A SE Stockholm Sweden Francesco Ometto, R&D Manager francesco.ometto@scandinavianbiogas.com +46 (0)