Takeshi Shimotaya. School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia University Plain Norwich NR4 7TJ August 2008

Transcription

1 Waste Management : What is the best alternative treatment to reduce municipal waste going to landfill in terms of Carbon footprint : a case study for Norfolk By Takeshi Shimotaya Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the Degree of Master of Science in accordance with the regulations of the University of East Anglia School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia University Plain Norwich NR4 7TJ 2008 Takeshi Shimotaya This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the dissertation, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the author s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents an internal University document and that neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretive correctness of the dissertation. Takeshi Shimotaya

2 Abstract Nowadays climate change, especially global warming, is one of the serious environmental issues. The evidence of global warming has raised human s concern regarding environmental problems, and part of global warming results from inappropriate waste management (Ayalon and Avnimelech 2001). Waste is an important contributor to CO 2 emissions in the UK. The EU Directive requires the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill so as to prevent or reduce the negative effects of landfilled waste on the environmental and human health (DEFRA 2005).The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) is a tool to achieve the Directive targets (DEFRA 2005). There is a real need for alternative waste treatments to deal with these requirements (CIWEM 2005). The purpose of this research is to discover the best alternative treatment for reducing municipal waste going to landfill and to assess the alternative treatments from the view point of carbon footprint. Norfolk County Council has been used as a case study. This research set out a methodology for discovering the best waste treatments that reduced the generation of greenhouse gases. Procedures would be used is to estimate current waste arisings in Norfolk, to check how those waste arisings will be changed in next 10 years, and to calculate CO 2 for a number of different waste management systems into the future. This required establishing the trends of recent waste growth and of recycling and residual waste composition. Analysis of the data takes account of the LATS allocations for the different years. The appropriate data was extracted for further analysis. Takeshi Shimotaya

3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank first and foremost Dr. Iain Lake for his invaluable academic supervision and enthusiasm throughout this dissertation, as well as for the support and confidence he gave me from every meeting and point of contact that occurred from start to finish. I would like to thank Dr. Alan Bond who has been my academic advisor during this year. I would also like to thank the other MSc course staff, Dr. Dick Cobb, and Dr. Mat Cashmore, for their advice and guidance throughout the year. I would like to thank Community Carbon Reduction Programme (CRed) staff, Dr. Simon Gerrard, Matt Taylor, Marcus Armes, and Angela Larke, for their advice and support. Finally, thanks must go to all my friends, my wife Hiroko, and my parents for their continual support and enthusiasm towards this study, for having confidence in my ability throughout the duration of the Masters course. Takeshi Shimotaya

4 Contents 1 Introduction 1-1 Research context Global Warming Current Context of Waste management in UK 1-2 Carbon footprints 1-3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 2 Waste Management 2-1 Waste Management Waste hierarchy Integrated Waste Management 2-2 EU Landfill Directive The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) Landfill Tax 2-3 Waste treatment Recycling Composting Energy from Waste Incineration Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Pyrolysis and Gasification 2-4 Waste Management in Norfolk 2-5 Objective and Aims Takeshi Shimotaya I

5 3 Methodology Introduction 3-2 Study Area 3-3 Development of scenarios for the estimation of total GHG emissions in the Norfolk Current waste arisings and management MSW Arisings and Management 3-4 Waste Composition MSW Composition 3-5 Waste Growth Forecast of Waste Arising LATS Allocation to Norfolk 3-6 Scenario Descriptions Scenario 1 - Baseline (2008/2009) Recycling and Composting Scenario 2 - Higher Recycling and higher Composting Scenario 3 - Higher Recycling and higher Composting, and EfW Scenario 4 - Higher Recycling and higher Composting, and MBT Scenario 5 - Higher Recycling and higher Composting, and Gasification Scenario 6 - Recycling and Composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation 3-7 Quantifying Green house Gas Emissions from waste management process Direct UK/Non UK Emissions 3-8 Emission Factors Energy Emission Factors Transport Emission Factors Waste Management Emission and Recycling Emission Factors 3-9 LCA model and thinking Takeshi Shimotaya Ⅱ

6 4 Results and Analysis Introduction 4-2 Results of Scenarios Scenario 1- Baseline (2008/2009) Recycling and Composting Scenario 2 - Higher Recycling and Composting Scenario 3 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and EfW Scenario 4 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and MBT Scenario 5 Higher Recycling and Composting, and Gasification Scenario 6 - Recycling and Composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation 4-3 Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Forecast under 1 to Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast Discussion Findings Conclusion and Recommendation 66 References 68 Appendices 74 Takeshi Shimotaya Ⅲ

7 1 Introduction Nowadays climate change, especially global warming, is one of the serious environmental issues. People worry about global warming and want to contribute to the reduction of green house gases, because most countries in the world have been experiencing abnormal weather. The evidence of global warming has raised human s concern regarding environmental problems, and part of global warming results from inappropriate waste management (Ayalon and Avnimelech 2001). Waste is an important contributor to CO 2 emissions in the UK. Although landfill has the lowest position on the effective waste management hierarchy, the UK has used landfill treatment as the predominant disposal method, constituting 85% of municipal solid waste (Price 2001). Landfill is recognized as the waste management that makes the largest contribution to global warming, so the UK government and county councils seem to provide waste strategy, coping with reduction of landfill treatment. The EU Directive compels the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill (CIWEM 2005). There is a real need for alternative waste treatment to deal with these requirements without expectancy to improve waste minimisation drastically (CIWEM 2005). The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) is a tool to achieve the EU Directive targets (DEFRA 2005). This research concentrates on case study for Norfolk County Council. Norfolk County Council is located at East of England, and fifth largest county in England, with an area of 5,371 km². Population in Norfolk County Council was estimated to 822,500 in 2005 (Norfolk CC 2006). Norfolk County Council as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) has a responsibility for appropriate facility installed, waste treatment, and waste collection, Norfolk and is composed of seven districts as the Waste collection Authorities (WCA) (Norfolk CC 2006). This research will try to discover the best alternative treatment for reducing municipal waste sent to landfill, and to assess the alternative treatments in terms of carbon footprint by using Norfolk County Council as a case. Takeshi Shimotaya - 1-

8 1-1 Research context Global warming Ackerman (2000 pp223) states that; Waste is not only a large contributor to the greenhouse problem; it is also an area where doing the right thing for the environment is politically popular. Five types of waste management make impacts on climate change, and these are methane emissions in landfill, reduction in industrial energy use and emissions by recycling and waste reduction, energy from waste, carbon sequestration in forests by decreased demand for virgin paper; and energy use in long-distance transport of waste (Ackerman 2000). Almost of all UK Municipal solid waste (MSW), including organic waste, goes to landfill sites, and results is greenhouse gas (GHG), including about 50% methane (Ayalon et al 2001). Gasses are emitted from Landfill, of which methane is most obvious (Ackerman 2000), but also carbon dioxide, and these contribute to global warming (Williams 2005). According to Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)(2007), methane emissions from (biodegradable waste in) landfill account for 40% of all UK methane emissions and 3%of all UK greenhouse gas emissions (Methane is 23 times as damaging a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide) Current Context of Waste Management in UK The UK sets targets for recycling and/or composting household waste to achieve 40% of the 2000 total waste by 2010, 45% by 2015, and 50% by 2020, and for recovery of municipal waste to achieve 53% of the 2000 total waste by 2010, 67% by 2015, and 75% by 2020 (DEFRA 2007). Figure shows the global greenhouse gas emissions from the main waste sectors. Takeshi Shimotaya - 2-

9 Figure Greenhouse gas emissions from the main waste sectors Source: DEFRA (2007) DEFRA (2007) states that increasing the amount of waste that is recycled, composted, or recovered reduces the amount of waste sent to landfill. There is considerable scope for reducing greenhouse gas given off from the waste. In waste management, reducing consumption and waste generation is the best method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Korhonen and Dahlbo 2007). 1-2 Carbon footprint The term Carbon footprint is now in the public domain and influences public behaviour towards global warming and climate change. The awareness has increased over the last few years and is used widely across the media, the government and in the business field (Wiedmann and Minx, 2007). Carbon footprint originated in the Ecological Footprint concept, introduced by Wackernagel (1996). It determines the biologically productive area essential to current consumption patterns taking into account technical and economic procedures (Holmberg et al 1999). It signifies a large amount of green house gas emissions related to climate change and connected to human behaviour including production and consumption activities (Wiedmann and Minx, Takeshi Shimotaya - 3-

10 2007). Although the term Carbon footprint is widely used in the world, there is no consensus on the definition of a carbon footprint regarding measurement and quantification (Wiedmann and Minx, 2007). Definition of Carbon footprint has some differences, such as the carbon footprint including just carbon dioxide emissions or other greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint restricted to carbon-based gases or carbon footprint including substances that do not have carbon in their molecule. Wiedmann and Minx (2007) defines the carbon foot print as The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an actively or is accumulated over the life stages of a products. 1-3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) When trying to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, the carbon footprint of alternative strategies should be considered. According to Finnvenden (1999), Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a system analysis tool. It developed rapidly during the 1990s and has reached a certain level of harmonisation and standardization. He also states that; An LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a product s life (i.e. cradle-to-grave) from raw material acquisition through production, use and disposal. A LCA studies involves the inventory analysis (compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a system), the impact assessment (evaluating the potential impacts of those inputs and outputs), and the interpretation (interpreting the results) with regards to the objectives of the study defined as the goal and scope in the beginning of a study (Finnvenden 1999). Ekvall et al (2007) also states that methodological decisions are used for the LCA results, and they are: - choice of time perspective, - assumptions made in the study, - sources of input data, - allocation of environmental burdens to different life cycles, and - modeling of environmental impacts. According to Finnveden et al (2005), the goals of the LCA require analysis in several dimensions. A first basic dimension is linked to whether the study is prospective or retrospective. A second dimension is the time, and referred to a different time frame that is very short (less than a year), short (years), long (decades) or very long (centuries). There are many parameters to evaluate the environmental impact of different treatment Takeshi Shimotaya - 4-

11 options or technical solutions, and one of the most commonly used tools is LCA which helps expanding the perspective beyond the waste management system (Ekvall et al 2007). This is significant because the environmental consequences of waste management often rely more on the impacts on circumjacent systems than on the emissions from the waste management system itself (Ekvall, 1999; Ekvall et al 2007). In particular, the broad perspective of LCA makes it possible to take into account the significant environmental benefits that can be obtained through different waste management processes (Ekvall et al 2007). LCA is made a powerful tool for environmental comparison of different options for waste management of a specific product, a material, or a complex waste flow by the broad system perspective (Ekvall et al 2007) Takeshi Shimotaya - 5-

12 2 Waste Management 2-1 Waste Management Waste hierarchy The concept of a Hierarchy of waste management has been developed by the EU strategy on waste (Williams 2005). In 1975, the Waste Framework Directive originally provided the waste hierarchy which involved waste reduction, re-use, and recovery with disposal (Williams 2005). In the 1989 EU Community Strategy for Waste Management formally adopted the waste hierarchy (Gervais 2002). The waste hierarchy provides order for the best environmental options which have least impact on environment, and supports sustainable waste management (Waste not Want not 2002). According to Waste not Want not (2002), in their hierarchy (see Figure ) the order of the best options for the environment are reducing waste, re-use to products and materials, recovering value from waste, such as recycling, composting, and energy from waste, and disposal, landfill. The shape of the waste hierarchy taking into account current treatment rate, such as recycling, composting, and landfill rate, seems to be the triangle shown in Figure Figure The Waste Hierarchy Source: Waste not want not (2002) Takeshi Shimotaya - 6-

13 Waste not Want not (2002) has also more detailed versions of the hierarchy. However, DEFRA (2007) provides the waste hierarchy below as a target for waste management (See Figure ) Figure The Waste Hierarchy Source : DEFRA (2007) DEFRA (2007) states that the order of the waste hierarchy should be: Waste prevention (Reduction), Re-use, Recycling and composting. Recovery (Energy from Waste), and Disposal (landfill) (DEFRA 2007), and the shape of the waste hierarchy taking into consideration future treatment rate, such as recycling, composting, and landfill rate, should be an inverted triangle like that shown in Figure To achieve the inverted triangular waste hierarchy from Waste Strategy 2007, life- cycle thinking should be needed. The main stages of the life-cycle are shown in Figure Figure Life cycle Source : DEFRA (2007) Policy should give the good direction to reduce environmental impacts of products, materials and sectors from the view point of life-cycle thinking. Policies involving modification of social Takeshi Shimotaya - 7-

14 behaviour in terms of life-cycle can contribute to waste reduction, the highest ranking priority waste hierarchy (DEFRA 2007). In terms of life-cycle the significant points of the influence by the Policy are: Extract materials selection obtained from the earth, the way of those material extraction, and the way of those material use Produce making and selling products generating less waste over their lifecycle and meeting prevention and recycling targets by designers, manufacturers and retailers Purchase choice of more sustainable products and services by consumers and procurement professionals Consume consumption patterns for waste prevention Discard the decision to repair, re-use, or sorting for recycling instead of landfill bin Collect framework of the most effective collection Recover sorting waste for the technical capability and capacity of recycling and waste grows size year after year, and energy recovery, re-use market, remanufacturing and recycled goods Dispose the reduction of waste sent to landfill and other options As stated above, policy which should support the waste hierarchy and which has an influence on social behaviour could play a significant role in waste management. Takeshi Shimotaya - 8-

15 2-1-2 Integrated Waste Management Waste treatment and waste disposal have developed from widespread uncontrolled dumping to a sophisticated management discipline incorporating a range of options (Williams 2005). Integrated Waste Management has been defined as a system dealing with all solid waste materials types and all solid waste sources, and taking an overall systems approach (McDougal and Hruska 2000). Integrated waste management involves different treatment and disposal options, such as waste reduction, re-use, recycling, landfill, incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, composting, and anaerobic digestion (Williams 2005). However, integration means that each treatment and disposal option undertakes a role, but that overall waste management system is usually required to manage all wastes in an environmentally and economically sustainable way (McDougal and Hruska 2000;White et al 1995). Figure The elements of integrated waste management. Shaded area represents waste-to-energy Source : White et al (1995) In figure 2.1.2, the centre of an integrated waste management system is the waste collection and sorting, because this affects the waste treatment and disposal options (White et al 1995). In a material recycling facility the useable materials, such as paper, glass, and metals, could be removed from the waste (Williams 2005). The residual Takeshi Shimotaya - 9-

16 waste may then use for production of refuse derived fuel or combustion in an incinerator as energy from waste (Williams 2005). The waste in landfill sites may produce gas and energy generated from gas combustion, through anaerobic digestion to produce a gas or compost (Williams 2005). Almost always the waste treatment options need a final disposal route, landfill, for the residual product (Williams 2005). An integrated waste management system would involve one or more of the above treatment options (Williams 2005). Tchobanoglous et al (1993) listed the six functional elements of integrated waste management: Waste generation assessment of arisings, and evaluation of waste reduction; Waste source elements source separation, on-site storage of waste, home composting, and compaction; Waste Collection collection of waste, and transport of waste; Separation and Processing material recovery, energy recovery, and biodegradation processes; Transfer stations transfer of waste to larger vehicles, transport of waste to separation and waste processing site; Final Disposal landfill and landspreading. In order to achieve waste management targets and goals, integrated waste management is also defined as the selection and application of appropriate techniques, technologies and management programmes (Tchobanoglous et al 1993) Takeshi Shimotaya - 10-

17 2-2 EU Landfill Directive The European Commission introduced the Waste Landfill Directive to reduce greenhouse gases and risk to human health. According to Williams (2005, pp174), The European Commission regards landfilling of waste as the least favourable option, due to the fact that landfilling does not make use of waste as a resource and may result in substantial negative impacts on the environment. The European Commission have identified emissions of hazardous substances to soil and groundwater, emissions of methane into the atmosphere, dust, noise, explosion risks and deterioration of land as potential significant environmental impacts from the landfilling of waste (Williams 2005,pp174). Consequently, to reduce pollution from landfill which may have effects on the environment, such as surface water, soil and air quality, all of which will affect humans. Strict requirements for waste landfill were presented by the Waste Landfill Directive (1999) (Williams 2005). Williams (2005, pp174) also states that; The European Community has a strategy, in relation to international climate change agreements to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, a reduction of the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill to 75% of the 1995 levels by 2016 was established as an objective by the Waste Landfill Directive in order that methane and carbon dioxide emissions produced from landfill sites are reduced(williams 2005) The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) According to DEFRA (2005), EU Landfill Directive requires the UK to reduce the amount of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfill because of contribution to prevent or reduce the negative effects of landfilled waste on the environment and human health. The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) is a tool to achieve the Directive targets (DEFRA 2005). The Waste and Emissions Trading Act (2003) provides the legal frame work for the LATS and for the allocation of tradable landfill allowances to each waste disposal authority (WDA) in England (DEFRA 2005). Local Authorities can use LATS which has been developed as the revolutionary means to reduce the amount of BMW sent to landfill in the most cost effective way (DEFRA 2005). Takeshi Shimotaya - 11-

18 Through the flexibilities of banking, borrowing and trading, LATS give another way to achieve rigid targets and the chance to achieve the requirement of reduction by the local authority (DEFRA 2005). LATS is the first UK trading scheme involving waste, but trading schemes have already succeeded across the world, especially USA, to contribute to emission reduction (DEFRA 2005). When USA needed to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations, it used trading schemes successfully, and the use of trading schemes resulted in 20 percent emission reduction over two years, eight years ahead of schedule (DEFRA 2005). For almost all WDAs, LATS would be a new method, but any one WDA can find the best practical use of the waste management (DEFRA 2005). Under LATS trading is not a mandatory way but is an opportunity. Trading allows WDAs to have a benefit which gives solution of the different diversion costs relying on their specific environment (DEFRA 2005). WDA can do unlimited banking between target years, but can not bank allowances out of a target year or the year preceding a target year, and LATS allows WDA to borrow up to five percent of the next year s allowance (DEFRA 2005). The Environment Agency is the monitoring authority for England, and use the mass balance process to monitor the amount of BMW sent to landfill in any year by each WDA, and requires that WDAs put the data of quarterly returns on the WasteDataFlow within three months at the end of each quarter (DEFRA 2005). If a WDA breaches its landfill allowances target in the scheme year, the penalty of 150 per tonne of landfilling BMW will be occurred. When a WDA breaches its landfill allowances, it will have to pay a penalty in all cases. WDA has the opportunity to trade or borrow allowances within the six month reconciliation period at the end of each scheme year (DEFRA 2005). Takeshi Shimotaya - 12-

19 2-2-2 Landfill Tax According to Martin and Scott (2003), in October 1996 the UK landfill tax was implemented. There are two principle objectives of the tax: The UK landfill tax was aimed at applying an appropriate cost for the disposal of waste sent to landfill. It was commonly believed that the cost of landfill was very low compared with other European countries. However, the early cost estimates did not take account of the social costs or the environmental impacts. A second aim was to encourage sustainable waste management. Increases in the cost of landfill would encourage the substitution of landfill waste treatment, by recycling, re-use and waste reduction. The landfill tax was aimed to focus the minds of waste management teams, so as to reduce waste growth, and encourage recovery of valuable materials. According to DEFRA (2007), the landfill tax has become a successful tool in reducing waste sent to landfill and because of reduction of the total amount of waste sent to landfill. Landfill went down from about 96 million tonnes in 1997/98 to about 72 million tonnes in 2005/06, so reduction rate of waste sent to landfill would be about 25%. Continuous increase of landfill tax will provide financial incentives for businesses to focus more on waste reduction and recycling. Landfill tax is designed to force business to reduce waste and to use substitute waste treatment instead of landfill (DEFRA 2007). Takeshi Shimotaya - 13-

20 2-3 Waste treatment To reduce waste going to landfill, alternative treatments of landfill are provided. Alternative waste treatments which make a minimal impact on environment are: Recycling Composting, Energy from waste, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Pyrolysis Gasification, Combined pyrolysis-gasification, Anaerobic digestion (AD) Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) adapted from Williams (2005). Material recycling can also decrease both the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Korhonen and Dahlbo 2007) Recycling Recycling involves the process to collect the waste, sorting it, and producing new products made from used waste materials in order to reduce the consumption of raw materials (King et al 2006). Recycling is the third component of the Reduction, Re-use, and Recycling and Compositing, and is a key element of Waste Management (DEFRA 2007). According to DEFRA (2007), in Waste Strategy 2007 the Government set the following national targets to increase the recycling of household waste. To recycle or compost at least 40% of household waste by 2010 To recycle or compost at least 45% of household waste by 2015 To recycle or compost at least 50% of household waste by 2020 As they have an obligation to collect and dispose of municipal waste local authorities are responsible for delivering these targets. In this context, there are some obstacles toward recycling. CIWM (2005) reports that in terms of economic and financial issues landfill tax is too low, and due to market uncertainty investment for new technologies and recycling facilities are insufficient. In Takeshi Shimotaya - 14-

21 terms of getting local people to cooperate communication is important. People felt recycling seems cumbersome and want to make recycling easier. CIWM (2005) states that, to overcome these obstacles, some good solutions are delivered. Following are representatives of solutions. From the view point of economic and financial issues, landfill tax has to be escalated, and this will give greater incentives for recycling for the public. In terms of communication, more education at all levels is needed. From the view point of policy issues, more streamlined and consistent enforcement of legislation and more regulations for recycling are needed. On the basis of above, Timlett and Williams (2008) states that behaviour change towards recycling is most significant, and methods and tools seem to play a significant role on behavioural change. They report on three projects each using a different behaviour change approach. The project targets people to enhance participation in the recycling collection scheme and to diminish the number of non-targeted materials. The three projects are doorstepping-based, incentives-based, and delivering personalised feedback to residents. Timlett and Williams (2008) carried out the doorstepping project, the incentives project as part of DEFRA s Household Incentive scheme, and the feedback project. Effective ways to change social behaviour about recycling would be setting gradually increased goals, providing motivational and instructional information, providing feedback, contracting behaviour, displaying everyone s score, providing conditionality, and Face-to-face intervention. It is preferable that these useful ways which could change social behaviour regarding recycling will be widely used to facilitate recycling. According to Weitz et al (2002), recycling avoids using virgin materials and extracting raw materials, so is a very effective tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, recycling and composting contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane, from the waste materials of the landfill. Weitz et al (2002) also states that the result of their study demonstrated that the release of greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly reduced by recycling and composting. Takeshi Shimotaya - 15-

22 2-3-2 Composting Composting is the process of decomposition of the organic, biodegradable fraction of waste to make a stable product including soil conditioners and growing material for plants (Williams 2005). Composting is also the third component of the waste hierarchy, a part of recycling, and is the key component of Waste Management (DEFRA 2007). Home owners have been stimulated by composting of garden and food waste (Williams 2005). Composting could gradually play a significant role in the reduction of perishable Municipal Solid Waste sent to landfill sites year by year and in helping local authorities to achieve the targets both on recycling and on diverting waste from landfill (DEFRA 2004). Composting generates sanitary, stable, and high humid substance which can be used in land. Using products made from compost process has a good impact on the soil structure, and also adds valuable organic substance, macro- and micro-nutrients, improves soil structure (CIWEM 2005). Currently composting in the UK has three different types such as centralised composting, community composting, and home composting (DEFRA 2004). Centralised composting could be massively and commercially operated. For centralised composting operation, biodegradable wastes are collected from green waste at civic facilities, local authority parks and gardens, and kerbside collection site (DEFRA 2004). Community composting is generally run by wide range of local groups and organizations (Slater 2007), and treats a large amount of biodegradable waste instead of treating it in their own gardens (DEFRA 2004). Home composting is implemented in a garden of the house, and local authorities might provide composting bins to householders to facilitate composting, made from garden waste and kitchen waste (DEFRA 2004). Takeshi Shimotaya - 16-

23 2-3-3 Energy from Waste Incineration In terms of integrated waste management strategy, practicable recycling and composting and Energy from Waste (EfW) incineration have a beneficial effect, and EfW incineration plays significant role on municipal solid waste treatment(porteous 2001). Incineration can dispose of a wide variety of waste, but in most European countries, incineration of municipal solid waste is still not common treatment(williams 2005). EfW incinerators can be achieved using large-scale mixed waste mass burn systems or smaller modular burn systems (DEFRA 2004). Energy recovery from the municipal solid waste incineration has been an age-old concept (Williams 2005). In general, electricity from waste is generated from high-temperature steam or the is used for district heating schemes(williams 2005). In the UK, there are conventional EfW incineration operating plants (thirteen incinerators as of March 2004) (DEFRA 2004). The UK Waste Management Strategy needs to deliver the EfW incineration with more capacity, and with practicable recycling and composting in order to contribute to reduction of gas emission from landfill(porteous 2001). According to Williams (2005), waste incineration demonstrates several advantages over landfill below: Incineration can be located near the waste collection site. In some case, landfill sites are located near the waste generation, but they are insufficient, so waste needs to long distance transportation. Unlike landfill, Incineration does not produce methane. Methane as a greenhouse gas contributes significantly to global warming. Incineration of waste can produce a low cost energy without using fossil fuel. Incineration can be the best choice to dispose of many hazardous wastes including highly flammable, volatile, toxic, and infectious waste. However, Incineration of waste also has disadvantages below. In general, the capital cost for Incineration of waste is very high. The higher cost means long investment recovery. The high capital investment to Incineration of waste has an bad effect on the flexibility of waste disposal options, because incineration of waste always needs to long-term waste disposal contracts. After extracting recyclable products, such as paper and plastics, from the waste, the waste sent to Incineration has low calorific value, so it may result in bad performance Takeshi Shimotaya - 17-

24 of incineration based on the design requiring a certain calorific value. Modern incinerators follow the emission legislation, and adapt the strict emitted levels. However, public perception of Incineration of waste is still horrible. The incineration process requires management of a solid waste residue which is still produced. Because of the advantages and disadvantages listed above, EfW incineration should be considered as an important part in reducing waste sent to landfill sites (CIWM 2005). Porteous (2001) introduced the statement, To meet recycling and landfill directive targets over the next 20 years, Norfolk will have to build new plants such as energy from waste, recycling, compost, from Norfolk s public consultation document Your Rubbish -Your Choice. Takeshi Shimotaya - 18-

25 2-3-4 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plants are used to treat residual municipal waste by a combination of mechanical and biological processes (DEFRA 2007). According to Environment Agency (2005), the mechanical process are shredding the waste, segregating ferrous and no-ferrous metals, classifying size, separating density, treating with heat and steam, screening, and reducing size of outputs. The biological processes involve both aerobic decomposition and anaerobic digestion. MBT is considered an intermediate treatment process, and has many possible configurations. MBT can produce several different outputs, such as metals, glass, a high heat value fraction, a fine and solid fraction. Figure gives an illustration of the options for MBT. MBT can sort the waste first or undergo biological treatment first. ABT, Advanced Biological Treatment, involves both aerobic and anaerobic techniques (DEFRA 2007). Figure Mechanical Biological Treatment option MBT technologies could be considered a useful tool to reduce society s reliance on landfill treatment (Juniper 2005). The first MBT plants were aimed at reducing residual waste sent to landfill with its accompanying effect on the environment (DEFRA 2007). CIWEM (2006) also states that MBT can help local authorities to meet the targets of Takeshi Shimotaya - 19-

26 LATS allocation to reduce biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill and can help local authorities meet their recycling targets, even where kerbside recycling is already employed. To meet the targets of LATS allocation under the EU Directive and national recycling, MBT plants have ways to achieve their aims as follows: pre-treatment of municipal waste sent to landfill; avoiding non-biodegradable and biodegradable municipal solid waste being sent to landfill using mechanical sorting municipal solid waste for recycling and/or energy recovery as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF); using the output of composting on land; and transfer to a flammable biogas for energy recovery (DEFRA 2007) Pyrolysis and Gasification Pyrolysis, often incorporating gasification, is the medium temperature thermal degradation of organic waste in the absence of oxygen and under the action of heat to produce a carbonaceous char, oil and combustible gases (Williams 2005, DEFRA 2007). The process of Pyrolysis is no different to the process of charcoal production, and can pyrolyse only carbon based materials (DEFRA 2007). The process of Pyrolysis needs a heat source from the outside to keep the pyrolysis process going (DEFRA 2007). Thorough the process of pre-segregation, the majority of the nonorganics are removed from municipal solid waste for the pyrolysis operation, and through mechanical process the feedstock may be homogenised (DEFRA 2007). Pyrolysis may use a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) which already prepared in another appropriate process (DEFRA 2007). Pyrolysis takes place at relatively low temperatures, in range 300 and 850 centigrade, and Pyrolysis decomposes paper, plastics, and other organic derived materials to produce a gas (DEFRA 2007). A Pyrolisis Oil is produced from concentrate of this gas known as syngas (DEFRA 2007). The syngas is a mixture of gases, combustible constituents including carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane, and condensable oils, waxes and tars (DEFRA 2007). The Pyrolysis Oil or the gas as a fuel may be utilized for engine oil or electricity generation. A solid residue, sometimes described as a char, producing from Pyrolysis process, is a combination of non-combustible materials and carbon (DEFRA 2007). The process conditions, especially temperature and heating rate, determine how much of each product is Takeshi Shimotaya - 20-

27 produced (Williams 2005). Figure shows the characteristics of the main difference between pyrolysis, gasification, and incineration. According to Williams (2005), the amount of oxygen supplied to the thermal reactor is the main difference. There is no use of oxygen in the Pyrolysis process, and there is a limited use of oxygen during gasification. This means that complete burning of the combustible gases, such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen does not take place. For gasification the oxygen is supplied into the form of air, steam, or pure oxygen. Incineration, complete oxidising of the waste with surplus oxygen to generate carbon dioxide, water and ash, plus some other products such as metals, trace hydrocarbons, and acid gases. Gasification is different from pyrolysis because the available carbon in the waste reacts with oxygen from air, steam or pure oxygen at high temperature in order to produce ash, and a gas and tar product (Williams 2005). Incomplete combustion takes place producing heat and a low to medium calorific value fuel gas (Williams 2005). Air (oxygen) is added but the amounts are not enough to allow the fuel to be completely oxidized (DEFRA 2007). Syngas involving carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane is the main product (DEFRA 2007). Figure Process Characterisation of incineration, gasification and pyrolysis Source : Williams (2005) A solid residue of non-combustible materials, ash, containing a relatively low level of carbon is the other main product of gasification (DEFRA 2007).Gasification operates at a higher temperature range than Pyrolysis, typically above 650 centigrade, from 800 to 1,100 centigrade with air gasification, and from 1,000 to 1,400 centigrade with oxygen Takeshi Shimotaya - 21-

28 (DEFRA 2007; Williams 2005). For air gasification calorific values of the product gas are low, in the region of 4 to 6 MJ/m 3, and For oxygen gasification they are medium, in the region about 10 to 13 MJ/m 3 (Bridgwater and Evans 1993; Williams 2005). Steam gasification is endothermic and steam as a supplement to oxygen gasification is normally added to control the temperature (Williams 2005). However, under pressure steam gasification is exothermic. A fuel gas of medium calorific value, approximately MJ/m 3 is produced by steam gasification with pressure up to 20 bar and temperatures of between 700 and 900 centigrade (Bridgwater and Evans 1993; Rampling 1993; Williams 2005) Takeshi Shimotaya - 22-

29 2-4 Waste Management in Norfolk Norfolk County Council as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) has the responsibility for installing appropriate facilities, waste treatment, and waste collection (Norfolk CC 2006). Norfolk County Council is composed of seven districts each district being referred to as a Waste collection Authority (WCA). There are Norwich, South Norfolk, Great Yarmouth, Broadland, North Norfolk, King s Lynn and West Norfolk, and Breckland and have a responsibility for the collection of municipal waste within their individual boundaries (Norfolk CC 2006). Norfolk County Council as the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) also has a responsibility for land use planning, a waste management framework of development plans, and building of waste management facilities (Norfolk CC 2006). Norfolk CC (2006) states that Norfolk County Council must comply with the national Waste Strategy 2007 to achieve its targets. In 2004/2005 fiscal year Norfolk County Council had already achieved the national target of 30% of recycling and composting and is well placed to meet increased targets in future years with new recycling and composting initiatives (Norfolk CC 2006). During the 2004/2005 fiscal year, Norfolk produced over 428,000 tones of municipal waste (Norfolk CC 2006). Figure 2.4 Composition of Municipal Waste in Norfolk Source: Norfolk CC (2006) Figure 2.4 show that approximately 69% of this was disposed to landfill, 31% recycled, composted, and reused. Reduction of consumption and waste generation, and increasing Takeshi Shimotaya - 23-

30 recycling, composting, and other alternative disposal seems to be presented as an important task. Norfolk County Council has considered waste treated by alternative treatments to landfill. These are as follows; Recycling, Composting, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Anaerobic Digestion (AD), and Energy from Waste (EfW) (Norfolk CC 2008). 2-5 Objective and Aims The overall objective of this research is to discover the best alternative treatment to reduce municipal waste going to landfill and to assess the alternative treatments from the viewpoint of carbon footprint by using Norfolk County Council as a case study. This objective can be divided into three specific aims: To identify the waste growth of Norfolk County Council by using four waste growth forecasts. To identify the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by using six different scenarios. To determine the best alternative waste treatment. Takeshi Shimotaya - 24-

31 3. Methodology 3-1 Introduction In framing the case for this dissertation it was decided to concentrate on discovering the best waste treatment that would avoid generation of greenhouse gas. Procedures would be used is to estimate current waste arisings in Norfolk County Council, to check how those waste arisings will be changed in next 10 years, and to calculate CO 2 for a number of different waste management systems into the future. This required establishing the trends of recent waste growth and of recycling and residual waste composition. Analysis of the data takes account of the LATS allocations for the different years. The appropriate data was extracted for further analysis. 3-2 Study Area For the purposes of the study, a basic waste management system has been framed in terms of all municipal waste arisings and scenarios in Norfolk County Council. 3-3 Development of scenarios for the estimation of total GHG emissions in the Norfolk. The scenarios have been given evaluation based on utilising a chain of related spreadsheets, integrating the volume and composition of waste arisings in Norfolk, and green house gas emissions for each treatment (DEFRA 2006). The scenarios have been designed to incorporate a range of current waste management options, including: recycling composting energy from waste (EfW) mechanical biological treatment (MBT), with stabilisation of waste, or production of refuse derived fuel (RDF), and Gasification landfill Takeshi Shimotaya - 25-

32 adapted from DEFRA (2006) Other elements also incorporated within the waste management system include: transport within the different waste management routes, including waste collection; operation of transfer stations; and operation of materials recovery facilities (MRFs). (DEFRA 2006, pp9) Developing a basic scenario and evaluation were framed by a chain of main modelling assumptions which include the following components: current waste arisings and management; waste composition; waste growth; and waste policy context adapted from DEFRA (2006) Current waste arisings and management This study has focused on one waste stream arising, municipal solid waste (MSW), and this has been evaluated MSW Arisings and Management Current MSW data have been provided by Norfolk County Council in the published Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Norfolk Appendices, detailing MSW in Norfolk for 2004/2005. The baseline waste data for Norfolk was based on information supplied by Norfolk County Council for the first three quarters of the year 2004/2005. The data shows that, across Norfolk in 2004/2005, 428,153 tonnes of MSW were produced, approximately 31% of which was recycled and composted, 69% was sent to landfill. Takeshi Shimotaya - 26-

33 3-4 Waste Composition Municipal Solid Waste Composition Baseline data for waste composition have been taken and adapted from: Norfolk Waste Partnership DEFRA/LASU waste composition study- The composition of kerbside collected household waste arising in Norfolk and The composition of residual waste arising at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk September The Norfolk Waste Partnership DEFRA/LASU waste composition study was provided by Entec which DEFRA commissioned in April Capturing baseline waste composition data for seven Districts in Norfolk is the main aim of this project. Entec Focused on two aspects of waste: the composition of kerbside collected household waste and the composition of residual waste at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk. Both of the Entec studies took two samplings by the authorities to provide annual composition data. One was for in November 2005, and the other for March In the present study, in order to reduce sampling error, both composition data for November 2005 and March 2006 are combined in terms of kebside collected household and residual waste, and the combined composition data applied to waste in Norfolk. In the composition of kerbside collected household waste arising in Norfolk, fifty eight compositions were re-categorized into twelve categories (See Appendix 1) that take account of emissions of CO 2 (See Table 3.8.3). In the composition of residual waste arising at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk, forty four compositions were re-categorized into twelve categories (See Appendix 2), again taking account of emissions of CO 2 (See Table 3.8.3) The combined composition data in kerbside collected household waste between November 2005 and March 2006 shows composition by weight as a percentage, and residual waste as well. These percentages are shown in Table Takeshi Shimotaya - 27-

34 Table MSW Waste Composition of Norfolk Adapted from DEFRA (2006) Waste Fraction % Recyclables % Residue in MSW in MSW Paper/Card 79.9 % % Plastic Dense 8.15 % 6.12 % Plastic Film 0.70 % 7.02 % Glass 2.91 % 5.11 % Textiles 0.32 % 3.79 % Ferrous Metals 5.41 % 2.54 % Non-Ferrous Metals 1.00 % 1.04 % Kitchen Waste 0.48 % 0.74 % Garden Waste 0.24 % % Misc. Non-Combustible 0.32 % 4.8 % Misc. Combustible 0.37 % 7.27 % Fines 0.15 % 2.19 % Total % % When Emission factors are calculated in Recycling, Landfill, and other treatments, waste of each year is separated into two or three parts depending on the recycling rate, landfill rate and LATS allocation. In each part, the figures of separated waste are also separated into twelve sections showing recyclables and residue percentages. Takeshi Shimotaya - 28-

35 3-5 Waste Growth Forecast of Waste Arising Table shows that municipal waste in Norfolk has increased over the years 1998/99 to 2004/05. Table Summary of municipal waste growth rates for Norfolk Source : Norfolk CC (2006) Year Tonnes Annual % increase 1998/99 401, /00 427, % 2000/01 432, % 2001/02 429, % 2002/03 437, % 2003/04 421, % 2004/05 428, % Average Annual Increase over the last 7 years 1.1% Annual Average Increase over the last 5 years - 0.2% Annual Average Increase over the last 3 years - 1.1% MSW Growth Forecasts were adapted from Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Norfolk Appendices. Norfolk County Council (2006) appointed Motts McDonald consultants to carry out a waste growth analysis for Municipal waste and to make projections on their analysis. The results have been presented in Norfolk County Council (2006). They provide two types of forecasts, a worst case and best case forecast. Best Case: 0.25% growth per annum Worst case: 2.07% growth per annum In this study four possible MSW forecasts will be investigated: Forecast 1 Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Forecast 2 Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Forecast 3 Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Forecast 4 Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Takeshi Shimotaya - 29-

36 2008/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /2032 These four projections (See Figure 3.5.1, and Appendix 3) have been modelled in this study. Figure Waste Growth Forecasts of Norfolk Adapted by Norfolk CC (2006) Tons 800, , , , , , ,000 Fiscal year Histric Growth Rate Motts Minimum Growth Rate Motts Maximum Growth Rate Growth Rate -1.1% Takeshi Shimotaya - 30-

37 3-5-2 LATS Allocation to Norfolk The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) has been developed in order to ensure that the UK will meet targets for BMW diversion. In accordance with the UK targets, the amount that Norfolk County Council has been allocated in shown below. Table Summary of UK landfill Allowance, England and Norfolk allocation adapted from Norfolk CC (2006) and DEFRA (2006) Year Norfolk England UK Total ,145 15,196,000 18,700, ,608 14,530,000 17,655, ,225 13,642,000 16,628, ,996 12,532,000 15,378, ,921 11,200,000 13,703, ,341 9,953,333 12,226, ,761 8,706,667 10,749, ,181 7,460,000 9,125, ,412 7,140,000 8,735, ,643 6,820,000 8,344, ,874 6,500,000 7,953, ,105 6,180,000 7,563, ,335 5,860,000 7,172, ,566 5,540,000 6,781, ,797 5,220,000 6,391, Scenario Descriptions For the Management of MSW, six scenarios including the baseline case have been set out below to In this project the likelihood of Norfolk meeting its UK landfill allowance for the period between 2008 and 2032 will be assessed. Current alternative waste treatment technologies are Energy from Waste (EfW) incineration, Mechanical Biological treatment (MBT), Pyrolysis, Gasification, Anaerobic digestion (AD), Mechanical Heat Takeshi Shimotaya - 31-

38 Treatment (MHT). Norfolk County Council (2008) considers waste treated by alternative waste treatments to landfill, and These are Recycling, Composting, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), Anaerobic Digestion (AD), and Energy from Waste (EfW). In this study, more feasible current alternative waste treatment technologies are chosen according to Norfolk County Council (2008), and then Recycling and Composting, EfW incineration, MBT are chosen. Although AD also should be chosen according to Norfolk County Council (2008), AD only covers three waste components (Paper/Card, Kitchen waste, and Garden waste) (See Table 3.8.3). So in this study alternative waste treatment technology which covers more waste components could be investigated. Because Gasification could treat every waste component, it is a useful alternative waste treatment in terms of carbon foot print. So Gasification could be chosen instead of AD. It has been assumed that Norfolk County Council will meet recycling and composting targets as set out in Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Norfolk Core Document Scenario 1 - Baseline (2008/2009) Recycling and Composting This scenario assumes the baseline (2008/2009) Norfolk capacity for recycling and composting, and assumes that waste arisings over the periods 2008 to 2032 based on Figure will be recycled and composted, and landfilled in accordance with current recycling and composting rate 31% and landfill rate 69%, adapted from DEFRA (2006). However, in this scenario Norfolk County Council would not meet LATS targets Scenario 2 - Higher Recycling and Composting The scenario assumes the Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate will be met. DEFRA set national targets for higher recycling and composting rates as explained in Waste Strategy 2007 pp 38. Scenario 2 was applied to waste growth 1.5%, rate of house hold recycling and composting will meet 39% in 2009/2020, 50% in 2012/2013, and 59% in 2019/2020. However, in this scenario Norfolk County Council also would not meet LATS targets. Takeshi Shimotaya - 32-

39 3-6-3 Scenario 3 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and EfW Incineration The scenario assumes the Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate (as same targets as scenario 2) and will be met, and also energy from waste facility will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk. Incineration with Energy from Waste fills the gap between high recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Generally in the UK, public concern about health damage, fear the long term health effects, and have the mistrust in the known acquaintance regarding the risks from incinerator emissions (Petts 1992). In terms of the public concern, Scenario 4 (with MBT) and 5 (with Gasification) have more acceptability to the public Scenario 4 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and MBT with RDF combustion The scenario assumes that the Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate (as same targets as scenario 2) and will be met, and also MBT plant will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk. MBT (with MBT plant set up to produce RDF for combustion) fills the gap between higher recycling and composting rate and LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council Scenario 5 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and Gasification The scenario assumes that the Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate (as same targets as scenario 2) and will be met, and also Gasification will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk. Gasification fills the gap between high recycling and composting rate and LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Takeshi Shimotaya - 33-

40 3-6-6 Scenario 6 Increasing Recycling and Composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation The scenario assumes that increasing the recycling and composting rate will be used in order to meet LATS allocation in Norfolk. In this scenario increasing the recycling and composting rate will be very high rate. Highest rate will be 86 %. It will be much higher than national higher recycling and composting target rate. It may not be feasible rate, but recycling and composting are useful tool to reduce waste. So this scenario will be considered. 3-7 Quantifying Green house Gas Emissions from waste management process Direct UK/ Non UK Emissions Calculation of greenhouse gas emissions has two types of emissions. One is direct UK emissions, and the other is non-uk emissions. Both are calculated based on release location. These types of calculation of greenhouse gas emissions have many assumptions throughout waste management circuit (DEFRA 2006). The boundaries for direct UK, and non-uk systems are summarised in Figure 3.7.1, and the details of the main process are shown in Table Figure UK and Non-UK Emissions Boundaries Source: DEFRA (2006) Takeshi Shimotaya - 34-

41 Table UK/Non-UK Process Emissions Source : DEFRA (2006) Direct UK Emissions Non-UK Emissions Fuel use Fuel extraction and production(except natural gas) Electricity generation Production of primary material displaced by recycling activities Natural gas extraction Other materials production Process emissions from waste treatment options Transport emissions DEFRA (2006) provided Figure showing the boundaries for direct UK, and non-uk systems, and also Table UK/Non-UK Process Emissions. However, in this study, these original UK/Non-UK data will be combined. 3-8 Emission Factors In the waste management life cycle, Emission Factors (EFs) for each activity were provided, and then utilised to quantify scenario greenhouse gas profiles (adapted from DEFRA 2006). The three steps given below were used when dealing with EFs for Norfolk. Resource EFs were sourced from Table and Table The resource inputs, useful outputs and direct greenhouse gas emissions linked with the management of one tonne of waste were provided for each treatment process, using representative data for the Norfolk. Direct process emissions and those linked with resource consumption, material recycling, and energy recovery were integrated to provide a total greenhouse gas EF for each treatment process. These factors are presented in Table (adapted from DEFRA 2006) Energy Emission Factors DEFRA (2006) provided table for Emission Factors for Energy Production and Use (See Table 3.8.1) which projected for electricity mixes from 2010 to 2020, and was used for EFs calculation in Table Takeshi Shimotaya - 35-

42 Table Emission Factors for Energy Production and Use Source : DEFRA (2006) Process Release Long term Diesel production and use Direct / (kg CO 2 -equivalents/kg) Non-UK Electricity production and distribution Direct / (kg CO 2 -equivalents/kg) Non-UK Marginal (offset)electricity production Direct / (kg CO 2 -equivalents/kg) Non-UK Transport Emission Factors DEFRA (2006) created Table for Transport Emission Factors (See Table 3.8.2) which was used for EFs calculation in Table Table Transport Emission Factors Source : DEFRA (2006) Process Release Transport from Household to Transfer Station (kg CO 2 equiv/tonne waste transported) Transport from Transfer Station to Treatment Facility (kg CO 2 equiv/tonne waste transported) Refuse vehicle collection Direct / Non-UK 0.48 Bulk transport Direct / Non-UK Waste Management Emission and Recycling Emission Factors DEERA (2006) created table for Emission factors for Waste Treatment Process (See Table 3.8.3) which show green house gas emissions resulted from: production and use of fuels; generation of electricity; direct treatment process processes; offset emissions through materials recycling and energy recovery (where relevant) transport of residues to landfill (where relevant); and Takeshi Shimotaya - 36-

43 transport of materials to recycling and composting facilities (where relevant). On the basis of the percentage of waste treated, emission factors vary for some processes (adapted from DEFRA 2006). Taking into account components of Misc. non-combustible, Misc. combustible, and Fines, they would not be treated with recycling, and would go to landfill or be treated with other alternative waste treatment technologies as contaminants, so they are treated in each scenario as follows. In Scenario 1, 2, and 6, Misc Non-combustible, Misc Combustible, and Fines are applied to emission factors of Landfill. In Scenario 3, Misc. non-combustible is applied to Landfill in emission factors, and Misc. combustible and Fines are applied to emission factors of Energy from Waste (See Appendix 4). In Scenario 4, Misc. non-combustible is applied to emission factors of Landfill, and Misc. combustible and Fines are applied to emission factors of MBT with RDF combustion. In Scenario 5, Misc. non-combustible is applied to emission factors of Landfill, and Misc. combustible and Fines are applied to emission factors of Gasification. Emission Factors for Waste Treatment Processes are shown in table For the purpose of this study total CO 2 should be targeted and Direct UK and Non UK Emission Factors will be combined. Table Emission Factors for Waste Treatment Processes (Kg CO 2 Equivalents/tonne of waste Processed) Source : DEFRA (2006) Takeshi Shimotaya - 37-

44 3-9 Life Cycle Assessment model and thinking In Europe, North America and Latin America, and Asia, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools have been utilised to make optimal use of integrated waste management systems, and have successfully been applied to a variety of waste management problems. So currently LCA tools as appropriate techniques could support waste management in developed and developing countries (McDougall, R. F. 2007). Currently many types of LCA tools for Waste management have been prepared. WISARD (Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal) the UK Environment Agency (McDougall, R. F. 2007). WRATE (Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment) the UK Environment Agency (McDougall, R. F. 2007). ARES (Germany) (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B. 2007) EPIC (Environment and Plastics Industry Council), and CSR (Corporations Supporting Recycling) (McDougall, R. F. 2007). IWM-2 (Integrated Waste Management 2) : Procter and Gamble (McDougall, R. F. 2007). ORWARE (Sweden) (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). MSW DST (Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool) (McDougall, R. F. 2007). UMBERTO (Germany) (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). WISARD is the UK Environment Agency s Life Cycle Research programme. The scope of WISARD involves municipal waste collection, landfilling, incineration, composting, anaerobic digestion and recycling of packaging and newspapers (McDougall, R. F. 2007). WISARD has been used around the UK (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). WRATE is the second version of UK Environment Agency LCA model. This model is more user friendly, so the user can change the municipal solid waste composition, quantity, details of the collection regime, vehicle types, and waste management method (McDougall, R. F. 2007). ARES, EPIC, and CSR are standard version. The user can choose from a few model cases but can not make a significant change to them (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). Takeshi Shimotaya - 38-

45 IWM-2 is user-friendly and flexible (McDougall, R. F. et al 2000), and deals with wide range of waste management options, such as RDF production and hazardous landfill, and treats most feasible cases (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). ORWARE and MSW DST (Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool) allows the user to change all implemented waste management processes at every level. However, it is almost impossible for the user to carry out new processes (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). UMBERTO is the most flexible LCA tool. However, this tool includes not only waste management process but also all types of LCA (Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.2007). These LCA tools are not available for use in the university. Some LCA tools are expensive, and require a licence and participation in expensive training programme. This study could not use these LCA tools and had instead to create its own LCA tool using the Microsoft Office Excel spread sheet. For the numbers for the LCA there are no specific data for Norfolk anywhere. In table 3.8.3, Emission factors for waste management activities were already calculated by an updated version of WISARD (DEFRA 2006), and in this study they will be applied to the case for Norfolk County Council, and also different waste growth forecasts will be calculated. Takeshi Shimotaya - 39-

46 4 Results and Analysis 4-1 Introduction The results and analysis chapter is divided in three sections. In the first section results of the scenarios have been provided. Distribution of waste treatment under different scenarios has been provided, and Norfolk s greenhouse gas emissions under the different scenarios and each waste treatment rate have been calculated. The data has been presented quantitatively for the different years between 2008/2009 and 2031/2032. In the second section, the results of greenhouse gas emissions as forecast under 1 to 4 would be provided. The last section would provide discussion which includes findings, uncertainty, and waste growth and composition of Norfolk s waste. 4-2 Results of Scenarios The effect of different scenarios on Norfolk s greenhouse gas emissions are shown in Figure to , and in table to Comparative emissions for all scenarios are summarised in the last part of each scenarios. To simplify interpretation of the results, the results are shown as an aggregated CO 2 equivalent emission Scenario 1- Baseline (2008/2009) Recycling and Composting This scenario uses the figures for 2008/2009 as the baseline for Norfolk s capacity for recycling and composting, and assumes that waste production over the periods 2008 to 2032 based on forecast 1 (Table3.5.2) will be recycled and composted, and landfilled in accordance with current recycling rate 31% and landfill rate 69%, adapted from DEFRA (2006). Takeshi Shimotaya - 40-

47 Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 1 (base line) with time in Forecast 1 to Forecast 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled 400,000 Landfilled 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , , , , ,000 Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% / / / / / /2029 Landfilled 69% Recycling /composting 31% Fiscal Year Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , , , , , / / / / / /2029 Landfilled 69% Recycling /composting 31% Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 41-

48 Table Scenario 1 Base line - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Figure Scenario 1 (Base line) - Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 42-

49 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure These numbers were applied to LCA and the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of four Forecasts are presented in Figure In Table 4.2.1, the numbers are negative because they are the saving of CO 2 compared to the situation if all the waste went to landfill. This is because recycling and composting make an offset benefit on the total Norfolk County Council green house gas emissions. The recycling and composting rate of 31% and the landfill rate of 69% on the basis of 2004/2005 is applied to fiscal years from 2008/2009 to 2031/2032. Figure shows that within the study period, Forecast 1, 2, and 3 in baseline scenario shows a gradual decrease in total Norfolk County Council greenhouse gas emissions within the study period, but the numbers for Forecast 4 become less negative indicating the greenhouse gas emissions increase. The range of the baseline scenario from forecast 1 to forecast 4 is narrow, but is getting slightly wider year by year, and difference between scenario 3 and 4 in 2031/2032 is just 64,121,842 kg of CO Scenario 2 - Higher Recycling and Composting The scenario assumes Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rates, rate of house hold recycling and composting meeting 39% in 2009/2010, 50% in 2012/2013, and 59% in 2019/2020, will be met (DEFRA 2007). Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 2 (Higher Recycling and Composting) with time in Forecast 1 to Forecast 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled 400,000 Landfilled 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2031 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 43-

50 Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , ,000 Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled 400,000 Landfilled 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Table Scenario 2 Higher Recycling and Composting - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 44-

51 Figure Scenario 2 (High Recycling and High Composting) in Forecast 1 Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure These numbers were again applied to LCA and the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of four Forecasts are presented in Figure Table shows targets under scenario 2 of high recycling and composting rate in Waste strategy As the rate of recycling and composting goes up, it will have good impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Waste strategy 2007 set the target of higher recycling and composting rate at, 39% in 2009/2010, 50% in 2012/2013, and 59% in 2019/2020. Figure shows that, following these recycling and composting rates, four forecasts are going to fall dramatically from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020. Forecast 1, 2, and 3 are going to be almost steady from 2009/2010 to 2012/2013, and are going to decrease gradually from 2013/2014 to 2018/2019, and to drop marginally from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. However, Forecast 4 is going to rise slightly from 2009/2010 to 2012/2013, and then is going to go up gradually from 2013//2014 to 2018/2019, and to increase slightly from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Within the study period, the range with scenario 2 from forecast 1 to forecast 4 is getting wider year by year, especially from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032, and range in 2031/2032 results in 163,607,385 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 45-

52 4-2-3 Scenario 3 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and EfW The scenario assumes Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate and will be met, and also energy from waste facility will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Incineration with energy from waste fills the gap between high recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 3 (Higher Recycling and Composting, and EfW) with time in Forecast 1 to 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation EfW 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation EfW 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation EfW 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation EfW 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 46-

53 Table Scenario 3 Higher Recycling and Composting, and EfW - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Figure Scenario 3 (Higher recycling and composting, and EfW) Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 47-

54 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure These numbers were again applied to LCA and the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of four Forecasts were presented in Figure Table shows targets under scenario 3 of higher recycling and composting rate in Waste strategy The percentage of Landfill would be calculated according to the LATS allocation. The percentage of incineration with Energy from Waste was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure shows that, following these recycling and composting rates, the four forecasts are going to fall rapidly from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020. Forecast 1, 2, and 3 are going to drop slightly from 2009/2010 to 2012/2013, and then are going to go down marginally from 2013/2014 to 2018/2019, and to drop slightly from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. However, forecast 4 is going to rise slightly from 2009/2010 to 2012/2013, and then is going to slightly go up from 2013//2014 to 2018/2019, and to rise slightly from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. within the study period, the range with scenario 3 from forecast 1 to 4 is getting wider year by year, especially from 2012/2013 to 2031/2032, and range in 2031/2032 results in 241,356,750 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 48-

55 4-2-4 Scenario 4 - Higher Recycling and Composting, and MBT The scenario assumes that Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate and will be met, and also MBT plants will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. MBT (with MBT plant set up to produce RDF for combustion) fills the gap between high recycling and composting rate and LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 4 (Higher Recycling and Composting, and MBT) with time in Forecast 1 to 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation MBT 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation MBT 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800,000 Fiscal Year 700, , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation MBT 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation MBT 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 49-

56 Table Scenario 4 Higher Recycling and Composting, and MBT - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Figure Scenario 4 (Higher recycling and composting, and MBT) Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 50-

57 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure These numbers were again applied to LCA, the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of four Forecasts were presented in Figure In table 4.2.4, scenario 4 was applied to higher recycling and composting rate in Waste strategy The percentage of Landfill would be calculated according to the LATS allocation. The Percentage of MBT was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure shows that the trend of four forecasts are almost the same as scenario 3. The range with scenario 4 in 2031/2032 results in 238,019,009 kg of CO Scenario 5 Higher Recycling and Composting, and Gasification The scenario assumes that Waste strategy 2007 higher recycling and composting rate and will be met, and also Gasification will be used in order to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Gasification fills the gap between higher recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 5 (Higher Recycling and Composting, and Gasification) with time in Forecast 1 to 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Gasification 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Gasification 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 51-

58 Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Gasification 500, ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Gasification 300,000 Recycling /composting 300,000 Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Table Scenario 5 Higher Recycling and Composting, and Gasification - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 52-

59 Figure Scenario 5 (Higher recycling and composting, and Gasification) Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure These numbers were again applied to LCA and the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions four Forecasts were presented in Figure In table 4.2.5, scenario 5 was applied to the higher recycling and composting rate in Waste strategy The percentage of Landfill would be calculated according to the LATS allocation. The percentage of Gasification was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting rate and the LATS Allocation to Norfolk County Council. Figure shows that the trend of four forecasts are almost the same as scenario 3 and 4. the range for scenario 4 in 2031/2032 results in 233,754,909 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 53-

60 4-2-6 Scenario 6 Increasing Recycling and Composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation The scenario assumes that the recycling and composting rate will be used in order to meet LATS allocation in Norfolk County Council. Figure Distribution of waste treatment under Scenario 6 (Increasing Recycling and composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation) with time in Forecast 1 to 4 Forecast 1 - Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 2 - Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Recycling /composting 500, , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Forecast 3 - Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , ,000 Forecast 4 - Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% Waste Throughputs / tonnes 800, , , , , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Recycling /composting 500, , ,000 Landfilled LATS Allocation Recycling /composting 200, , , , / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year / / / / / /2029 Fiscal Year Takeshi Shimotaya - 54-

61 Table Scenario 6 Increasing Recycling and composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation - Green House Gas Emissions (kg CO 2 Equivalents) for forecast 1 to 4 Figure Scenario 6 (Increasing Recycling and composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation) Green House Gas Emissions for forecast 1 to 4 Takeshi Shimotaya - 55-

62 The distribution of waste treatment in four Forecasts are shown in Figure these numbers were once again applied to LCA and the greenhouse gas emissions are presented in Table The trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of four Forecasts were presented in Figure Under scenario 6, increasing the recycling and composting will be sufficient to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Figure shows that under forecast 1 to 4 there will be a drop in CO 2 emissions from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013, and then a second smaller drop from 2012/2013 to 2019/2020. According to forecast 1, 2, and 3 CO 2 emissions will fall marginally from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. According to forecast 4 CO 2 emissions will rise gradually from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. The range for scenario 4 in 2031/2032 results in 309,759,237 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 56-

63 2008/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Forecast under 1 to 4 In Section 4-2, the numbers from the distribution of waste treatment were applied to LCA, and then the greenhouse gas emissions were calculated. On the basis of these numbers, the trends of these greenhouse gas emissions for six scenarios are presented in Figure to Figure under Green House Gas Emissions for the four Forecasts Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast 1 Figure Forecast 1 Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth - Green House Gas Emissions Fiscal Year CO 2 Emission (kg) 0-50,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6-350,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 On the basis of the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions in section 4-2, the trends of these greenhouse gas emissions for six scenarios were presented in Figure under the Forecast 1 Waste growth based on the 7 year historic trend of 1.1% growth. In figure 4.3.1, Scenario 1, the baseline, is gradually becoming more negative. Scenario 2 was applied to high recycling and composting rate as set out in Waste Strategy Waste Strategy set the target of higher recycling and composing rate at, 39% in 2009/2010, 50% in 2012/2013, 59% in 2019/2020. The slope of the graph shows that under scenario 2 there is a much greater saving of greenhouse gas emissions than under Takeshi Shimotaya - 57-

64 scenario 1. Gas emissions under scenario 2 are going to fall dramatically from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020, and are going to drop gradually from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012, from 2012/2013 to 2018/2019, and from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Scenario 3 was applied to higher recycling and composting rate in Waste Strategy 2007, and percentage of landfill would be calculated according the LATS allocation. The percentage of EfW incineration was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting and the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Scenario 4 was applied to the higher recycling and composting rate in Waste Strategy 2007, and percentage of landfill would be calculated according the LATS allocation. The percentage of MBT with RDF combustion was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting and the LATS allocation to Norfolk County Council. Scenario 5 was applied to the higher recycling and composting rate in Waste Strategy 2007, and the percentage of landfill was calculated according the LATS allocation, and the percentage of Gasification was calculated to fill the gap between higher recycling and composting and the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Under scenario 3, 4, and 5 CO 2 emissions fall rapidly from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020, but are also going to drop marginally from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012, from 2012/2013 to 2018/2019, and 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Under Scenario 6, increasing the recycling and composting would be sufficient to meet the LATS allocation for Norfolk County Council. Under scenario 6 CO 2 emissions are going to drop gradually from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013, and to drop slightly from 2012/2013 to 2019/2020, and then to fall marginally from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Scenario 6 seems to have the best offset of all scenarios, and will save the CO 2 emissions, - 361,569,944 kg of CO 2 in 2031/2032, while Scenario 1 will only result in a saving of - 89,378,549 kg of CO 2. The range between Scenario 1 and Scenario 6 in 2031/2032 results in 280,191,395 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 58-

65 2008/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast 2 Figure Forecast 2 Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25% - Green House Gas Emissions CO 2 Fiscal Year Emission (kg) 0-50,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6-350,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 On the basis of the mass of greenhouse gas emissions in section 4-2, the trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of six scenarios were presented in Figure Waste growth based on the Motts best case projection of 0.25%. The trend of the greenhouse gas emissions for six scenarios under Forecast 2 are almost the same as Forecast 1. However, the slopes of all scenarios under the Forecast 2 are gentler than under Forecast 1. Using scenario 6 will save - 276,494,959 kg of CO 2 in 2031/2032, while with scenario 1 there will be a saving of - 71,762,447 kg of CO 2. The range between Scenario 1 and Scenario 6 in 2031/2032 results in a saving of 204,732,512 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 59-

66 2008/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast 3 Figure Forecast 3 Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07% - Green House Gas Emissions Fiscal Year CO 2 Emission (kg) 0-50,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6-350,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 On the basis of the mass of greenhouse gas emissions in section 4-2, the trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of six scenarios were presented in Figure Waste growth based on the Motts worst case projection of 2.07%. The trend of the greenhouse gas emissions for six scenarios under Forecast 3 are almost the same as Forecast 1. However, using scenario 2 to 6 under Forecast 3, the savings will be much grater than under Forecast 1 and 2. Under scenario 6 the savings will be - 483,207,356 kg of CO 2 in 2031/2032, while Scenario 1 savings will be - 114,565,471 kg of CO 2. The range between Scenario 1 and Scenario 6 in 2031/2032 results in 368,641,885 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 60-

67 2008/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Result of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Forecast 4 Figure Forecast 4, Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1% - Green House Gas Emissions CO 2 Fiscal Year Emission (kg) 0-50,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3 Scenario4 Scenario5 Scenario6-350,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 On the basis of the mass of greenhouse gas emissions in section 4-2, the trends of these greenhouse gas emissions of six scenarios were presented in Figure Waste growth based on the Annual Average increase over the last 3 years of 1.1%. Under scenario 1 the graph is rising. Under scenario 2 emissions are going to fall dramatically from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020, but is going to rise gradually from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012, from 2012/2013 to 2018/2019, and from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Under scenario 3, 4, and 5, emissions are going to fall rapidly from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010, from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013, and from 2018/2019 to 2019/2020, and to drop slightly from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012, but going to rise marginally from 2012/2013 to 2018/2019, and 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Under scenario 6 emissions will going to drop gradually from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013, and drop slightly from 2012/2013 to 2019/2020, and then to rise marginally from 2019/2020 to 2031/2032. Under scenario 6 there will be savings of - 173,538,119 kg of CO 2 in 2031/2032, while scenario 1 will result in savings of - 50,443,629 kg of CO 2. The range between Scenario 1 and Scenario 6 in 2031/2032 results in 123,094,490 kg of CO 2. Takeshi Shimotaya - 61-

68 4-4 Discussion This section includes the process which key input parameters were investigated with regard to probable uncertainty and possible existence of a range of values. Key areas for the discussion involve waste findings, uncertainty, and waste growth and composition Findings The four forecasts from Figure to show that each scenario can bring about a change in greenhouse gas emissions according to waste growth. Scenario 2 was applied to higher recycling and composting rate as set out in Waste strategy 2007, and has a much greater effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than scenario 1, base line. Scenario 3 s higher recycling and composting and Energy from Waste, and scenario 4 s higher recycling and composting and MBT, and scenario 5 s higher recycling and composting and Gasification, will have similar effect to one another, and will make much greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to scenario 1 and scenario 2. Those three scenarios from 3 to 5 have subtle differences. In Forecast 1 in 2031/2032, Scenario 3, 4, and 5 will save, - 299,034,771 kg of CO 2, - 296,028,981 kg of CO 2, and - 292,049,598 kg of CO 2 respectively. So Scenario 3 seems to have best offset benefit of the three. However, in terms of public concern, scenario 4 s higher recycling and composting and MBT have more acceptability to the public instead of Scenario 3 s higher recycling and composting and Energy from Waste. Scenario 6 seems to have the best offset benefit of all scenarios. In forecast 1 in 2031/2032, Scenario 6 will result in savings of - 361,569,944 kg of CO 2. However, the recycling and composting rate in Scenario 6 seems to be unrealistically high i.e. 86% (See Table 4.2.6). When we considers the aluminium can recycling rate of Brazil, Norway, Japan, and Germany, there are 94.4%, 92.0%, 91.7%, and 89% respectively in 2006 (Japan Aluminium can Recycling Association 2008). Therefore it seems unlikely that these increasing high recycling and composting rates can be achieved with mixed general waste as suggested for Norfolk. All the results of greenhouse gas emissions are given as negative numbers. If landfill rates decrease and the rate of recycling and composting and other treatments dealt with by scenario 3, 4, and 5 go up, there will be good offset benefit on greenhouse gas Takeshi Shimotaya - 62-

69 emissions. However, these results show that if waste arisings goes up greenhouse gas emissions are affected and a much greater offset benefit will be produced. Calculated greenhouse gas emissions seem to be considered some sort of barometer indicating what are the best alternative treatments to reduce waste going to landfill without regards to waste growth. In the real situation, it is preferable that waste production will be reduced. The large amounts of waste sent to landfill will be further reduced because of increased recycling and compositing and other treatments. Table shows total Household CO 2 emissions in 2019/2020 in Norfolk (adapted from DEFRA 2007; Norfolk CC 2006). This data has been calculated using National Average personal household CO 2 emissions (DEFRA 2007)(See Appendix 6). and Household and Population Projections for Norfolk (Norfolk CC 2006)(See Appendix 7 ). In this Table 4.4.1, the figures under Home include heating, hot water, and lighting, Appliances means household appliances, such as lighting, cold appliances, cooking appliances, and Travel involved personal transportation and flights (DEFRA 2007). Norfolk household projection in 2019/2020 could be chosen from Household and Population Projections for Norfolk (Norfolk CC 2006) as sample year. Table Total Household CO 2 emissions in 2019/2020 for Norfolk Adapted from DEFRA (2007); Norfolk CC (2006) The figures for household emissions for Norfolk in 2019/2020 show that Home will produce 1,819,800,717 kg of CO 2, Appliances will produce 619,743,908 kg of CO 2, Travel will produce 1,631,408,128 kg of CO 2, and Total will be 4,070,952,753 kg of CO 2. Table gives a forecast of household emissions for 2019/2020. The figure for scenario 6 namely -308,466,008 kg of CO 2, scenario 3 namely -257,645, 469, and scenario 4 namely -255,212,056 kg of CO 2 can be compared with Total household CO 2 Takeshi Shimotaya - 63-

70 emissions i.e. 4,070,952,753 kg of CO 2. This means that savings due to scenario 6, 3 and 4 are small in comparison with total household CO 2 emissions. However, scenario 6 can achieve approximately 8% of reduction of CO 2 emissions for Total household emissions, scenario 3 and 4 can achieve approximately 6% of reduction of CO 2 emissions for Total household emissions. Table Comparison between total household CO 2 emissions in 2019/2020 for Norfolk and Scenarios under Forecast Uncertainty These figures could be very different if everyone in Norfolk stops using Aluminium cans, glass bottles, PET bottles, and starts using paper cartons, especially Tetra Recart which is made from paperboard coated with layers of poly-propylene, and a thin layer of aluminium foil (Tetra Pak 2005). The potential for recycling might go down and EfW and Gasification might be more used to treat these kinds of packaging. Such things produce big effects on the results in this study. It is important that composted waste can be safely used on agricultural land. If this is not achieved there would be different results. MBT produces Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), but there is uncertainty about market availability for RDF (CIWM 2006). If the RDF market is very weak, and there is no plan to remove or minimise the barrier to the markets, the stock of RDF would have to be dealt with as waste and be treated by other waste treatments. This would also have an effect on the scenario of results in this study. Takeshi Shimotaya - 64-

71 Many assumption need to be made when making forecasts for waste growth for the Norfolk County Council for MSW. Forecasts for waste growth show serious differences in tonnage arising as shown in Figure Four forecasts of waste growth were created, based on data from Norfolk County Council (2006). These four forecasts of waste growth will have a great influence on the results of calculated green house gas emissions. The Norfolk County Council waste composition study was provided in April Capturing baseline waste composition data for seven Districts in Norfolk County Council is the main aim of this project. In this study two aspects of waste: the composition of kerbside collected household waste and the composition of residual waste at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk have been inspected. Both studies took two samplings by the authorities to provide annual composition data. One was for in November 2005, and the other for March However, each composition data has just twice data sampling so results of this data may have biased sampling. If so, this would have serious effects on this study. Takeshi Shimotaya - 65-

72 5 Conclusion and recommendations The purpose of this research is to discover the best alternative treatment for reducing municipal waste going to landfill and to assess the alternative treatments from the view point of carbon footprint. Norfolk County Council has been used as a case study. This study established a methodology for discovering the best waste treatments that reduce the generation of greenhouse gases. Four waste growth projections have been used, and six scenarios of waste treatment have been provided to calculate CO 2 emissions for Norfolk. Four scenarios out of six scenarios which used in this study take into account of the LATS allocations to achieve its target. Distribution of waste treatment under different scenarios has been provided, and Norfolk s greenhouse gas emissions under the different scenarios and each waste treatment rate have been calculated. The data has been presented quantitatively for the different years between 2008/2009 and 2031/2032. The results of greenhouse gas emissions as forecast under 1 to 4 would be provided. Scenario 6 s increasing recycling and composting filling the gap on the LATS allocation seems to have the best offset benefit of all scenarios. In Forecast 1 in 2031/2032, scenario 6 will result in quite high savings of CO 2. However, the recycling and composting rate in scenario 6 seems to be unrealistically high i.e. 86%. Therefore it seems unlikely that these increasing high recycling and composting rates can be achieved with mixed general waste as suggested for Norfolk. Scenario 3 s higher recycling and composting and Energy from Waste, and scenario 4 s higher recycling and composting and MBT, and scenario 5 s higher recycling and composting and Gasification, will have similar effect to one another, and will make much greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to scenario 1 and scenario 2. Those three scenarios from 3 to 5 have subtle differences. In Forecast 1 in 2031/2032, Scenario 3, 4, and 5 will save, - 299,034,771 kg of CO 2, - 296,028,981 kg of CO 2, and - 292,049,598 kg of CO 2 respectively. So scenario 3 seems to have best offset benefit of the three. However, in terms of public concern, scenario 4 s higher recycling and composting and MBT have much more acceptability to the public rather than Scenario 3 s higher recycling and composting and Energy from Waste. Takeshi Shimotaya - 66-

73 The figure of of CO 2 emissions under scenario 6, 3 and 4 can be compared with Total household CO 2 emissions. This result showed that savings of CO 2 emissions under scenario 6, 3 and 4 are small in comparison with total household CO 2 emissions. However, scenario 6 can achieve approximately 8% of reduction of CO 2 emissions to total household emissions, and scenario 3 and 4 can achieve approximately 6% of reduction of CO 2 emissions to total household emissions. Using alternative treatments to reduce municipal waste sent to landfill contributes to carbon reduction. The EU Directive compels the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill (CIWEM 2005). There is a real need for alternative waste treatment to deal with these requirements without expectancy to improve waste minimisation drastically (CIWEM 2005). The Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) is situated as a useful tool to achieve the EU Directive targets. This study will contribute to carbon reduction in order to select the best alternative treatment to reduce municipal waste going to landfill and to meeting LATS allocation for Norfolk. Takeshi Shimotaya - 67-

74 References Ackerman, F (2000). Waste Mangement and Climate Change. Local Environment, 5(2), pp Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y., and Shechter, M. (2001). Solid waste treatment as a high-priority and low-cost alternative for greenhouse gas mitigation. Environmental Management. 27(5). pp Bridgwater, A. V. and Evans, G. D. (1993). An assessment of thermochemical convention systems for processing biomass and refuse. Energy Technology Support Unit, Harwell, Report ETSU/T1/00207/REP, Department of Trade and Industry. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM). (2005). Composting. viewed 31 July 2008 The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM). (2005). DEFRA/CIWM Regional Workshops to Support Phase 1 of the Strategy Review: Resource Efficiency and Sustainable Waste Management The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM). (2005). Energy Recovery From Waste. viewed 31 July 2008 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM). (2006). Mechanical Biological Treatment of Waste. viewed 31 July 2008 Takeshi Shimotaya - 68-

75 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM). (2006). Recycling. viewed 31 July 2008 DEFRA (2004), Impact of EU Landfill Directive and National Strategies on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DEFRA (3/05/2005). Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme Back Ground. Viewed 3 DEFRA (10/05/2005). Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. viewed 3. DEFRA (2005), Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) - A practical Guide. DEFRA (3/05/2005). Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme The penalty system. Viewed 3 DEFRA (2006), Norfolk Waste Partnership Dafra/LASU waste composition study- The composition of kerbside collected household waste arising in Norfolk DEFRA (2006), Norfolk Waste Partnership Dafra/LASU waste composition study- The composition of residual waste arising at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk Takeshi Shimotaya - 69-

76 DEFRA (2006), Impact of Energy from Waste and Recycling policy on UK Greenhouse gas emissions. (DEFRA, London). DEFRA (2006), Norfolk Waste Partnership Dafra/LASU waste composition study- The composition of kerbside collected household waste arising in Norfolk DEFRA (2006), Norfolk Waste Partnership Dafra/LASU waste composition study- The composition of residual waste arising at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk DEFRA (2007). Act on CO 2 Calculator: Public Trial Version Data, Methodology and Assumptions Paper. DEFRA (2007). Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste. DEFRA (2007), Introductory Guide to Options for the Diversion of Biodegradable Municipal Waste from Landfill. DEFRA (2007). Waste Strategy for England Environment Agency. (2005). An Environment Agency guide to assist those considering the Mechanical Biological Treatment of waste. Gervais, C. (2002). An overview of European Waste and Resource Management Policy. Forum for the Future, London. Holmberg, J., Lundqvist, U., Robert, K-H. and Wackernagel, M. (1999). The Ecological Footprint from a Systems Perspective of Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 6. pp Takeshi Shimotaya - 70-

77 Japan Aluminium can Recycling Association (2008). Aluminium can recycling rate around the world. viewed 28 July Juniper (2005). Mechanical biological treatment : A Guide for Decision Makers Processes, Policies and Markets The Summary Report. viewed 1 King, M. A., Burgess, C. S., Ijomah, W., and McMahon A. C. (2007). Reducing Waste: Repair, Recondition, Remanufacture or Recycle?. Sustainable Development. 14, pp Martin, A. and Scott, I. (2003). The Effectiveness of the UK Landfill Tax. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5), pp McDougall, R. F. and Hruska, P. J.(2000). Report: the use of life cycle inventory tools to support an integrated approach to solid waste management. Waste management and research. 18. pp McDougall, R. F. (2007), The use of life cycle assessment tools to develop sustainable municipal solid waste management systems, cooperate sustainable development, Procter and Gamble. Norfolk County Council (2006), Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Norfolk Core Document. Norfolk County Council (2006), Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Norfolk Appendices. Takeshi Shimotaya - 71-

78 Petts, J. (1992), Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: experience in the U.K. improving risk communication. Waste management and research. 10. pp Porteous, A (2001). Energy from waste incineration a state of the art emissions review with an emphasis on public acceptability. Applied Energy. 70, pp Price, J.L. (2001). The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on the UK householder. Resources conservation and recycling. 32. pp Rampling, T. W. A. (1993). Downdraft fixed bed gasification, paper W93058, presented to the Development of Trade and Industry, Renewable Energy Programme Advanced Workshop. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, Kent. Slater, R. (2007). Community composting activity in the UK Integrated waste systems, The Open University. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management : Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York. Tetra Pak. (2005). Tetra Recart - Product Environmental Profile. Timlett, E. R. and Williams, D. I. (2008). Public participation and recycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behavior change. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 52. pp Takeshi Shimotaya - 72-

79 Waitz, A. K., Thorneloe, A. S., Nishtala, R. S., Yarkosky, S., and Zannes, M. (2002). The impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States. Journal of the Air and Waste management Association. 52, pp Waste Not Want Not. (2002). UK Government Strategy Unit. HMSO White, P., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (1995). Integrated Solid Waste Management : A Lifecycle Inventory. Blackie Academic and Professional. London. Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J. (2007). A Definition of Carbon footprint. ISA UK Research Report 07-01, ISA UK Research & Consulting. Williams, P.T. (2005) Waste Treatment and Disposal Second Edition. U.K. John Wiley & Sons. Winkler, J. and Bilitewski, B.(2007), Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management, waste management. 27. pp Takeshi Shimotaya - 73-

80 Appendices Appendix 1 Re-categorised Composition of kerbsite collected household waste arising in Norfolk adapted from DEFRA (2006) and Norfolk (2006) Composition Category Composition Category Composition Category Newspapers Paper/Card Packaging film Plastic Film Non-compostable food Misc. Combustible Magazines Paper/Card Other plastic film Plastic Film Engine oil Misc. Combustible Shredded paper Paper/Card Glass bottles Glass Identifiable Clinical Waste Misc. Combustible Other recycled paper Paper/Card Glass jars Glass Other hazardous materials Misc. Combustible Yellow Pages Paper/Card Other glass Glass Nappies Misc. Combustible Paper Packaging Paper/Card Textiles Textiles Sanitary Products Misc. Combustible Other non-recycled paper Paper/Card Shoes Textiles Treated wood Misc. Combustible Liquid cartons Paper/Card Ferrous food cans Ferrous Metals Untreated wood Misc. Combustible Board packaging Paper/Card Ferrous drinks cans Ferrous Metals Carpet and Underlay Misc. Combustible Card packaging Paper/Card Ferrous aerosols Ferrous Metals Furniture Misc. Combustible Other card Paper/Card Other ferrous metal Ferrous Metals Other misc. combs Misc. Combustible PET bottles - clear Plastic Dense Non-ferrous food cans Non-Ferrous Metals White goods Misc. Non-Combustible PET bottles - coloured Plastic Dense Non-ferrous drinks cans Non-Ferrous Metals Large electrical goods Misc. Non-Combustible HDPE bottles - natural Plastic Dense Non-ferrous aerosols Non-Ferrous Metals TV s and monitors Misc. Non-Combustible HDPE bottles - coloured Plastic Dense Other non-ferrous metal Non-Ferrous Metals Other WEEE Misc. Non-Combustible Other plastic bottles Plastic Dense Compostable food Kitchen Waste Household batteries Misc. Non-Combustible Dense plastic packaging Plastic Dense Garden Garden Waste Car batteries Misc. Non-Combustible Video tapes Plastic Dense Soil Garden Waste Construction and demolition Misc. Non-Combustible Other dense plastic Plastic Dense Other Organic Garden Waste Other misc. non-combs Misc. Non-Combustible Fines <10mm Fines Takeshi Shimotaya - 74-

81 Appendix 2 Re-categorised Composition of residual waste arising at household waste recycling centres in Norfolk adapted from DEFRA (2006) and Norfolk (2006) Composition Category Composition Category Newspapers and magazines Paper/Card TV s and monitors Non-Ferrous Metals Recyclable paper Paper/Card Other WEEE Non-Ferrous Metals Cardboard boxes/containers Paper/Card Kitchen waste Kitchen waste Liquid cartons Paper/Card Garden waste Garden Waste Other paper and card Paper/Card Animal bedding Garden Waste Dense plastic bottles Plastic Dense Other Garden Waste Other packaging Plastic Dense Construction and demolition Misc. Non-Combustible Other dense plastic Plastic Dense Bathroom suites Misc. Non-Combustible Refuse sacks and carrier bags Plastic Film Other misc. non-combustibles Misc. Non-Combustible Packaging film Plastic Film Lead/acid batteries Misc. Non-Combustible Other plastic film Plastic Film Household batteries Misc. Non-Combustible Packaging glass Glass BAGGED WASTE Household Residual Misc. Non-Combustible Non-packaging glass Glass Wood Misc. Combustible Textiles Textiles Carpet and Underlay Misc. Combustible Shoes Textiles Tyres Misc. Combustible Disposible Nappies Misc. Combustible Other misc. combustibles Misc. Combustible Ferrous food and drink cans Ferrous Metals Oil Misc. Combustible Other ferrous metal Ferrous Metals Paint Misc. Combustible Non-ferrous food and drink cans Non-Ferrous Metals Identifiable Clinical Waste Misc. Combustible Other non-ferrous metal Non-Ferrous Metals Other potentially hazardous Misc. Combustible White goods Non-Ferrous Metals BAGGED WASTE Household Clearance Misc. Combustible Large electrical goods Non-Ferrous Metals FINES< 10mm diameter particles Misc. Combustible Takeshi Shimotaya - 75-

82 Appendix 3 Summary of Waste Growth Forecasts of Norfolk adapted by Norfolk CC (2006) Financial year Historic Growth Rate Motts Minimum Growth Motts Maximum Growth Growth -1.1% Forecast 1 Forecast 2 Forecast 3 Forecast / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , , / , , , ,754 (figures for waste are in tonnes) Takeshi Shimotaya - 76-

83 Appendix 4 Scenario 3 calculation of EFs (Sample) Takeshi Shimotaya - 77-