The American University in Cairo. Alternative Fuels From Solid Waste in Egypt

Transcription

1 The American University in Cairo School of Sciences and Engineering Alternative Fuels From Solid Waste in Egypt Fatma A. Shahat Ahmed S. El Gendy Salah M. El Haggar June th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Athens

2 Introduction Problem statement Objective Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion Agenda 2

3 Sources of Energy Introduction Non Renewable Fossil fuels: oil, coal, natural gas, propane Renewable Wind power Hydroelectric power Solar energy Geothermal energy Tidal energy Biofuels Waste to energy (WTE) 3

4 Introduction (Cont d) Solid waste in Egypt 89 million ton/year in 2012 Municipal solid waste (MSW) (21.0 million ton) residential, commercial, educational, and health facilities, gardens, markets, hotels, and small factories mainly organic matter (56%) and less percentages of paper, glass, plastics, and other materials Industrial solid waste (6.0 million ton) medium to large industries contain hazardous components like chemicals and heavy metals Agricultural solid waste (30.0 million ton) farming activities including crop residues, animal manure, pesticide residue, and agricultural fertilizers Hazardous 4

5 Introduction (Cont d) Alternative Fuels from waste Alternatives to conventional gasoline and diesel fuels made from waste materials can be solid, liquid, or gaseous Terminology Refuse Derived fuel (RDF) Processed Engineered Fuel (PEF) Paper and Plastic Fraction (PPF) Packaging Derived Fuel (PDF) Recovered Fuel (REF) Substitute Liquid Fuel (SLF) 5

6 Problem Statement Depletion of fossil fuel Increase of energy prices for industries in Egypt Increase of waste production MSW 21 MT in 2012 to more than 30 MT in 2025 Common disposal methods: Open dumpsters Landfilling: large areas emissions Recycling: cannot be applied for all wastes Composting: only for organic waste 6

7 Objective Investigating the use of solid waste in Egypt as alternative fuels, including: Calorific values of different waste materials The effect of different binders on the calorific value of biomass pellets Binder to strengthen bonding in biomass pellets Relative comparison between the amount of emissions produced from the most promising waste materials in terms of mass per unit mass of the burned material 7

8 Methodology Waste materials Agricultural related wastes: rice straw, bagasse, rice husk, corn husk, onion leaves Industrial and municipal wastes: Tires Wood (sawdust) Plastics [polypropylene PP, high density polyethylene HDPE, polystyrene PS, polyvinyl chloride PVC, polyethylene terephthalate PET, and laminated plastics] 8

9 Methodology (Cont d) Preparation of waste materials Agricultural wastes: dried under sunlight, cut into smaller pieces, and then ground Laminated plastics and PET: washed, dried, manually cut, then cut into smaller particles with a crushing machine HDPE, PVC, and PP: received as they were, as small particles (106µm 2.00mm) Tires: manually cut, and then crushed into smaller particles Wood (sawdust): waste from workshops 9

10 Methodology (Cont d) Sieve analysis to determine grain size of waste materials Moisture content of biomass materials (ASTM, 2010) Moisture content (%) = x

11 Methodology (Cont d) Calorific Values Pellets Emissions Phase I Phase II Phase III 11

12 Phase I Calorific Values Methodology (Cont d) Investigation of the average calorific value: Oxygen bomb calorimeter A sample of 0.53 g of each material was tested Five samples of each material were measured The instrument recorded temperature data every 0.5 min The following equation used to calculate calorific values: Q =. Q = heat value of sample in (J/g) or (kj/kg) E = heat capacity of the instrument = (J/ C) T = temperature increase (Tf Ti) in the calorimeter system ( C) G = mass of sample (g) 12

13 Methodology (Cont d) Phase II Pellets Biomass materials: rice straw, rice husk, corn husk, onion leaves, bagasse, and sawdust Binders: starch, water, All pellets densified under the same compression force Each binder tested in 0, 2, and 4% Five samples of each material Mold 13

14 Methodology (Cont d) Phase III Emissions Tested materials burned in a muffle furnace heated at 850 C volume = Testo 350 gas analyzer: CO, NO,,, 14

15 Results and Discussion Phase I Calorific Values Average calorific values: agricultural wastes CV (kj/kg) Bagasse Corn husk Rice husk Rice straw Onion leaves n= Bagasse Corn Husk Rice Husk Rice Straw Onion leaves Waste 15

16 Results and Discussion (Cont d) Phase I Calorific Values Average calorific values: industrial and municipal wastes CV (kj/kg) PP HDPE PS PET PVC Laminated plastics Tires Sawdust n=5 0 PP HDPE PS Laminated plastics Waste Tires PET Wood PVC 16

17 Results and Discussion (Cont d) Phase I Calorific Values Validation of results compared to literature Material CV (kj/kg) Bomb CV (kj/kg) Literature Difference % Reference calorimeter PP (Themelis, Castaldi, Bhatti, HDPE & Arsova, 2011) PS PET Tires (Singh, Nimmo, Gibbs, & Williams, 2009) Sawdust (Capareda, 2011) Rice Straw (Capareda, 2011) Rice Husk

18 Phase II Pellets Results and Discussion (Cont d) Material / % Diff. CV CV(0%Binder)kJ/kg 2%Starch 4%Starch 2%Ca(OH)2 4% Ca(OH)2 2%Water 4%Water Bagasse Rice straw Rice husk Corn Husk Onion leaves Sawdust

19 Results and Discussion (Cont d) Phase III Emissions Tested materials: Bagasse: highest calorific value among agricultural wastes PP: highest calorific value among industrial and municipal wastes Rice straw and tires: relatively high calorific value and abundance Resulted Emissions: CO, NO,, : ppm / =. : vol% 1% = 10,000 ppm Emissions measured every minute Compared relative to each other Mass Loss (rice straw=16%, bagasse=25%, tires=3%, polypropylene=28%), combustion conditions, non measured pollutants 19

20 Phase III Emissions Results and Discussion (Cont d) 60 56, , ,68 662,66 CO (g.min/kg) ,58 19,15 38,16 Rice Straw Bagasse Tires Polypropylene 2 (g.min/kg) ,56 Rice Straw Bagasse Tires Polypropylene 0 0 Waste Waste 20

21 Phase III Emissions Results and Discussion (Cont d) 0,7 0,014 0,013 0,6 0,59 0,012 0,012 0,5 0,01 NO (g.min/kg) 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,39 0,35 0,18 Rice Straw Bagasse Tires Polypropylene NO2 (g.min/kg) 0,008 0,006 0,004 0,002 0,0015 Rice Straw Bagasse Tires Polypropylene Waste Waste 21

22 Phase III Emissions Results and Discussion (Cont d) 3 2,73 2,5 SO2 (g.min/kg) 2 1,5 1 Rice Straw Bagasse Tires Polypropylene 0, Waste 0 22

23 Conclusion All used wastes have a reasonable calorific value when compared to coal s calorific value ( kj/kg), and laminated plastics can also be a potential source of energy with CV of kj/kg. Onion leaves had the minimum CV (14340 kj/kg ± 3.32%) among agricultural wastes, while bagasse had the maximum value (17309 kj/kg ± 2.96%). Polypropylene had the highest CV among the tested types of plastics (47390 kj/kg ± 0.33%), while PVC had the minimum value (15245 kj/kg ± 2.09%). Starch, water, and did not have significant impact on the CV of the biomass pellets, however, it may affect other properties such as durability and density. Tires produced the highest value of CO, and (56.56, g.min/kg), while rice straw produced the lowest values of CO, and (12.56, g.min/kg). Bagasse had the highest value of NO (0.59 g.min/kg), while polypropylene had the minimum (0.18 g.min/kg). for bagasse and tires were almost the same and gave the maximum value ( g.min/kg), while rice straw did not emit at all. was only produced by tires (2.73 g.min/kg). 23

24 Thank You 24