STAR Annual Conference - PDF Free Download

STAR Annual Conference APPLICABILITY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES IN TEXAS Presented by Scott Pasternak October 2014

Why the Recent Attention to Conversion Technology? Heightened interest in green energy with President Obama calling for 80 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2035 in 2011 State of the Union address* Potential financial incentives for some projects carbon emission reduction credits renewable energy credits tax credits Developers approaching City Councils about their technologies May count towards waste reduction and recycling in some places May be cost competitive with transfer/disposal in some places * Federal governments and some states count MSW as renewable source. Texas does not specifically include or exclude MSW as a renewable resource

Topics to be Covered Overview of resource recovery and conversion technologies to process MSW Overview on the status of resource recovery and waste conversion technologies in Texas Lessons Learned

Summary of Technologies Being Proposed for MSW Mechanical Proven Thermal Emerging Thermal Biological Chemical Technologies Other Mixed Waste Processing Mass Burn Combus6on Gasifica6on Anaerobic Diges6on Cataly6c Cracking Waste- to- Ethanol Refuse- Derived Fuel ( RDF ) Combus6on Plasma Arc Gasifica6on Steam Classifica6on/ Autoclave Technology Advanced Thermal Recycling Pyrolysis Bio Mechanical Processes Content based on workshop developed for the Houston-Galveston Area Council: http://www.h-gac.com/community/waste/workshops/conversion-technology.aspx

Mixed Waste Processing To extract recyclables from MSW Separate recyclables from MSW Dispose of unrecyclable material To pre-process MSW for conversion technology Separate high-value recyclables from MSW Remove materials that are problematic for the conversion technology Mechanical and manual sorting Recent, significant improvements achieved in mechanical sorting Mechanical Mixed Waste Processing

Proven Thermal Process Sort out non-processibles Combust in the presence with injected air Generate steam for energy Capture and dispose of flue and bottom ash (with occasional beneficial reuse) Proven Thermal Mass Burn Combustion Refuse-Derived Fuel ( RDF ) Combustion Advanced Thermal Recycling

Proven Thermal Technology Facilities in the US According to the Solid Waste Association of North America: 89 waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities Operating in 27 states Managing 29 million tons per year of MSW Generating the equivalent of 2,500 megawatt-hours of electricity Most common where space for landfills is limited and landfill tipping fees are high Proven Thermal Mass Burn Combustion Refuse-Derived Fuel ( RDF ) Combustion Advanced Thermal Recycling No Texas facilities using MSW as feedstock

Emerging Technologies Emerging Thermal Gasification Plasma Gasification Pyrolysis Biological Anaerobic Digestion Description of Process Input and Output Current Status of Development Typical Capacity Financial Requirements Environmental Considerations For more detail, refer to the H-GAC workshop

Gasification High temperatures convert hydrocarbons to synthesis gas, which can be further processed to make other products (chemicals, fuel, energy). Thermoselect Gasification Facility, Chiba, Japan 330 TPD MSW (Operating Since 1999)

Current Status of Development Used commercially for decades on non-msw feedstock Operating outside US, primarily in Japan and China, on industrial solid waste as feedstock Facility in Edmonton, Alberta is financed and under construction to convert syngas to ethanol No facilities currently operating commercially in US with MSW as feedstock Technology has been selected for US projects but many on hold Emerging Thermal Gasification

Plasma Arc Gasification Extremely high heat (>3,000 degrees C) produces super heated gas and inorganic solid by-products. Plasma systems typically are combined with gasification or pyrolysis for conversion of hot gases to syngas. Hurlburt Field Air Force Base 10 TPD MSW

Current Status of Development Used in steel refining for decades One commercial scale and two pilot facilities operating with MSW as a feedstock in Japan Operating (120,000 tpy) and planned (160,000 tpy) facility in Ottawa, Ontario Built, owned, and operated by Plasco Energy Group MSW commitment and land provided by City Emerging Thermal Plasma Arc Gasification Hurlburt Field AFB has 10 TPD facility processing MSW No full-scale facilities operating with MSW as a feedstock in US

Financial Requirements $120 million was proposed for 600 TPD St. Lucie facility (excludes pre-processing) $270 million raised to date for Ottawa facility Emerging Thermal Plasma Arc Gasification Tipping fee for Ottawa at new facility starts at $83.25 per metric tonne

Pyrolysis Thermal treatment of MSW, in the absence of oxygen, to produce oils and fuel gases. Agilyx Pyrolysis Facility Portland, Oregon 2013 Agilyx Corporation

Current Status of Development Commercial facilities primarily operating in Japan and Europe Emerging Thermal Pyrolysis Demonstration facility in Oregon with waste plastic as a feedstock selling oil No commercial-scale facilities in US operating with MSW as a feedstock 2013 Agilyx Corporation

Anaerobic Digestion Microbes break down biodegradable material in MSW in the absence of oxygen, to produce a methane-rich biogas and other products OWS/DRANCO Anaerobic Digestion Facility Vitoria, Spain 330 TPD MSW (Operating since 2006)

Current Status of Development Proven method of managing organic materials in the US wastewater treatment sludge agricultural waste small units at food processors, large groceries or markets, etc. Many facilities in Europe and a couple in Japan processing organic fraction of MSW at commercial scale Facility processing MSW at one Toronto transfer station and another being added Biological Anaerobic Digestion No full-scale commercially operating facilities using MSW as a feedstock in U.S.

Topics to be Covered Overview of resource recovery and conversion technologies to process MSW Overview on the status of resource recovery and waste conversion technologies in Texas Lessons Learned

Case Studies Included in this Presentation City of San Antonio City of Dallas City of Plano City of Killeen City of Waco City of Houston Included in the H-GAC Workshop Three Rivers Solid Waste Authority (Pontotoc, Mississippi) St. Lucie County, Florida Los Angeles County, California Taunton, Massachusetts Tulsa, Oklahoma

City of San Antonio and CPS Energy (2011) Waste to Energy Feasibility Study Study Objective was to answer two primary questions: Are there feasible Waste to Energy (WTE) technologies that operate in a clean, efficient and sustainable manner? If yes, what are they and could they be economical in San Antonio given the City s waste management strategy, renewable energy goals and the price of electricity? Initial Research è Tech Memo Waste Availability è Tech Memo Technology Screening è Tech Memo Feasibility Analysis è Presentation and Report

10 Year Recycling and Resource Recovery Plan: Achieve 60% Recycling Goal Creating Pathway to Zero Waste Recycle 60% of residential waste by 2020 Recycling access for all residents Improved recycling opportunities for businesses City Recycling Initiatives Separation of brush and bulky waste Pilot an organic recycling waste program (food and yard waste) Evaluate a Pay As You Throw program (tiered fees) Continued outreach and education Typical Waste Composition Plastic 12% Metals 9% Paper 28% Glass 5% Organics 34% Other 12%

WTE Additional to the 60% Recycling Goal A WTE Facility would receive MSW not otherwise diverted Some WTE plants remove additional materials for recycling prior to conversion Some WTE plants produce a residue with beneficial uses Most Favored Option Least Favored Option Waste Management Hierarchy Reduction Reuse Recycling Composting & Digestion Energy Recovery Landfilling & Methane Capture Landfilling

Costs Parameters - 1,000 Ton per Day Facility Capital (millions) Annual Operation (millions) $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $250 - $500 $230 - $415 $260 - $380 Mass Burn Gasifica6on Pyrolysis $13- $23 $11 - $25 $11- $16 Mass Burn Gasifica6on Pyrolysis

Economic Model Results Tip Fee Required Tip Fee with No Premium to Current Power Price Forecast Tip Fee ($/ton) $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Mass Burn Gasification Pyrolysis Landfill Note: Graph based on median values of capital and operating costs

San Antonio WTE Project Key Findings Are there feasible WTE technologies that operate in a clean, efficient and sustainable manner? Yes Mass Burn, RDF, and Gasification plants are proven in commercial operation using MSW as a feedstock WTE plants have demonstrated the ability to operate in compliance with strict emission standards WTE plants in the U.S. operate safely and reliably

San Antonio WTE Project Key Findings Could these technologies be economical in San Antonio? No, not at this time or in the foreseeable future In Texas, landfill space is abundant, tip fees are low and electricity prices are modest compared to areas that have implemented WTE A substantial premium in either disposal costs or electricity prices are required to make WTE feasible There are critical hurdles beyond economics to overcome

City of Dallas: Developing a Resource Recovery Planning and Implementation Study Developed an implementation plan to assist the City in achieving a 60 percent recycling goal Evaluated options that will increase the City s recycling rates based on sound financial and environmental decisions Evaluated multiple technologies single stream processing mixed-waste processing anaerobic digestion gasification Conclusion: Focus on single-stream, City is currently preparing an RFP for recycling processing services. Options being considered: Processing services agreement and DBO MRF at the McCommas Bluff Landfill

City of Plano: Waste to Fuel Study Completed a waste to fuel study in 2013 Purpose: Evaluate alternative waste conversion technologies to process the City s various waste streams into fuel products, such as bio-coal, bio-diesel, or compressed gas for potential fleet use The City intentionally decided not to explore traditional, more proven waste-to-energy technologies that produce electricity as their primary energy output Conclusion: Technology is still too new and unproven

City of Killeen: Negotiated with a Gasification Company City entered negotiations with ZEROS for a gasification facility City sought a solution to decrease the need for transfer and disposal ZEROS committed to obtaining private funding for the facility, which had an estimated capital cost of $250 350 million ZEROS priced service at $10 per ton to the City of Killeen ZEROS did not secure the private financing, and the project was terminated

City of Waco: Recycling Waste to Energy Procurement City issued recycling waste to energy RFP in 2013 City received five responses for the statement of qualifications, and determined two responders met criteria to submit responses to the RFP After receiving proposals, the City identified the following issues: Availability of city provided feedstocks Need for waste characterization Financial and technical role of the City City declined to further pursue proposals as none of the companies were in commercial operation in the US at the time of submittal to Waco

City of Houston: One Bin for All Procurement Status: City completed the RFQ process and invited short-listed companies to submit proposals Information provided is limited since procurement is ongoing City s perspective: Mechanical biological treatment with advanced resource recovery is very likely the future of the waste industry. We encourage other cities to explore the possibility of separating commingled waste to achieve high waste diversion City will continue expansion of current single-stream recycling program until One Bin for All is fully implemented [source: Scott s Mom]

Topics to be Covered Overview of resource recovery and conversion technologies to process MSW Overview on the status of resource recovery and waste conversion technologies in Texas Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned: National Perspective It always takes longed than anticipated Most projects in the US that were expected to be operational, or at least under construction by now, are not Securing capital has been one of the key challenges Exacerbated by recent economic conditions Federal funds less available (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds allocated) Some projects (e.g. Pontotoc, St. Lucie County) scaled down to reduce financing needs

Lessons Learned: Texas Perspective Relatively low cost of disposal in Texas increases the challenge for conversion technology projects to be financially viable After studying and/or conducting a procurement, multiple Texas cities are refocusing on more conventional waste reduction efforts Single-stream recycling Organics diversion (yard waste, brush, food scraps) Mixed waste processing may represent a greater opportunity for increasing diversion in the future

Contact Information Scott Pasternak, Senior Project Manager Tel: 512.589.3411 Email: spasternak@burnsmcd.com Visit us at www.burnsmcd.com

Procurement Recommendations Be proactive rather than reactive Answer the big questions first Clearly articulate your objectives, processes, and criteria Clearly define your process for project participation Clearly define your criteria for selecting a project Criteria can be very specific: at least one other similar facility operating at a commercial scale in the United States If you start with 100 interested vendors, you ll end up with a few Ideally allow five years from planning to contract start-up