AEA's Kathryn Warren presents at an event hosted by Envirolink at the National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull. This year’s Landfill Tax rise to £64 per tonne plus disposal charge means that sending waste to landfill is becoming an uneconomical option. In a climate where customers are looking to get the best deal possible on their waste disposal costs, recycling and waste companies are under pressure to find alternatives to landfill. Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) offers a potential to utilise the combustible fraction of waste as a fuel within the energy, combined heat and power (CHP) and cement industries. This event provided an introduction to SRF markets in the UK and Europe; testing standards and protocols; best practice refinement equipment; the perspectives of endusers and case study examples. Kathryn's presentation looked at the "Market opportunities for waste derived fuels and process heat"

1. Kathryn Warren
Senior Consultant
Waste Management & Resource
Efficiency 18th May 2012
AEA
SRF: Fuelling the Future

2. Agenda – all in 20 minutes!
+ A personal welcome
+ Setting the scene
+ Aims of our research
+ Methodology applied
+ Outcomes
+ What next?
2

3. A personal welcome
+ Senior Consultant @ AEA in Waste Management and
Resource Efficiency
+ Focus on
- waste derived fuel
- EfW
- waste procurement
+ Cardiff based
- UK/US remit
+ Delivering EfW and organics procurement support for a
number of private waste companies
3

4. www.aeat.co.uk

5. Setting the Scene
5

6. 6

7. Current Situation
+ Increasing landfill tax
+ Growth in MBT
+ Rise in SRF production
+ Zero waste policies
+ Financial melt down
7

8. The Energy Situation
+ Commitment to CO2 Reduction
+ Commitment to Renewable Energy
+ Ageing Nuclear Capacity
+ High gas and oil prices
+ Dwindling home production of oil and gas
+ Rising population
+ Equates to a potential Energy Crisis
- Extracting energy from waste seen to be a positive
contribution!
- EfW, Biogas, Solid Recovered Fuels
8

9. Setting the scene
Fuel inputs Energy outputs
How much waste derived fuel is
available?
How much process heat do we use
What are the current markets for in England?
for WDF in the UK
How does that compare with fuel
How much energy could we available?
recover from the UK waste stream
How could industry use WDFs?
What would be the economics of How would this work financially?
using more WDF?
What are the opportunities for
Fossil Fuel Displacement?

10. Our approach

11. Review of Waste Derived Fuels
+ Top down approach:
- Overall arisings
- Potential WDF within overall arisings
- WDF included RDF/SRF, Waste wood, forestry residues and agricultural
residues
11

12. UK Waste arisings
Waste type Total (million tonnes)
MSW 31.5
C&I 67.3
C&D 101.0
Dry agricultural residues 13.3
Forestry residues 7.8
TOTAL 220.7
12

13. Potential WDF
Tonnes available Energy potential
Material
(Mt) (GJ)
RDF/SRF from MSW and C&I
11,482,884 125,880,748
(2015)
Waste Wood (2009) 2,200,000 33,000,000
Forestry Residues (2009) 1,987,000 18,677,800
Agricultural Residues (2009) 3,012,000 54,216,000
TOTAL 18,681,884 231,774,548
13

14. Current use of WDF - SRF
+ Estimated 800,000 already produced
+ A further 2.5 million tonnes from future MBT/MHT plants
+ Other than EfW, other predominant user is cement kilns
+ Finite capacity of cement kilns
+ Large quantities exported
14

15. Current use of WDF - wood
+ Markets for virgin untreated wood have increased, due to
expansion of biomass heating
+ Markets for waste wood not developed in the same way
+ Examples of WID compliant biomass plants, but most still
focussed on clean wood and biomass
+ Increasing exports of waste wood
15

16. Opportunities for fossil fuel displacement
+ Depends very much on energy conversion technology
+ Technologies are limited in the range of fuel types they can
accept
+ Fuel quality, properties and composition need to be
understood
+ Increasingly fuels are produced to a specification, as opposed
to mass burn
+ Unlikely that most raw materials would be suitable for direct
use in an energy recovery process
16

17. UK Heat Demand
17

18. Overall Heat Demand
Sector GW Heat load
Industrial 13.7
Domestic 147.8
Commercial Offices 4.6
Government buildings 3.3
Education 3.3
Health 1.3
Others 20.7
Total (all Sectors) 194.7
18

19. WDF and Heat mapping
+ Mapped sites producing waste using GIS
+ Calculated energy resource at each site, using assumed CV of
waste type
+ Identified large single point heat loads
+ Sized potential EfW plants based on energy available and
heat demand
+ Selection of sites analysed further for feasibility and costs
19

20. Heat mapping

22. Large Heat Users
+ 94% of waste sites mapped had point heat loads within 20
mile radius
+ Suitability refined to include only:
- Large and medium industrial sites
- Established district heating schemes
+ Total heat load of these sites estimated at 6.75 GWth
22

23. Heat demand by sector
23

24. Matching suitable technology
Range of tonnage Size range of
Maturity of
Technology Type of waste used Technology
Technology
(tonnes/year) (MW)
Heat only plant Mature
500 – 100,000 0.25 – 70 MWth
(Combustion) technology
CHP (standard 15,000 tonnes Mature 1 MWe
steam cycle) upwards technology upwards
Gasification and
Development & 1 MWe
pyrolysis (Heat or 600 -100,000
Commercialisation upwards
CHP)

25. Reference sites chosen
Waste
Feedstock
Approximate
Scale Sector Plant Location Available
plant size (MW)
within 20 mile
radius.
Food
Small Heat only Y&H 1600 tonnes/yr 0.5 MWth
Manufacturing
Large Engineering Heat only SE 39,000 tonnes/yr 11.5 MWth
6.5 MWth / 2.5
Large Engineering CHP SE 39,000 tonnes/yr
MWe
CHP 7.5 MWth / 3.5
Large Chemicals NW 50,000 tonnes/yr
conversion MWe

26. Technical analysis results
Small Heat Large Heat Large CHP Large CHP
Only Only Conversion
Feedstock throughput 1,600 39,000 39,000 50,000
t/yr
Feedstock consumption 215 5,250 5,250 6,160
kg/hr
Equivalent WDF thermal 4,250 104,000 104,000 132,000
input
MWhth
Annual thermal output 3,400 83,200 46,800 59,400
MWhth
Annual electrical output 0 0 18,700 23,800
MWhe
Natural gas savings 380,300 9,286,400 5,223,600 9,953,000
Nm3/yr
Imported electricity 0 0 18,700 -4,200
savings
MWhe

27. Financial analysis results
Small Heat Large Heat Large CHP
£/year Only Only
Large CHP
Conversion
Total energy costs savings
£181,000 £4,420,000 £4,980,000 £4,930,000
Total income from
£46,900 £416,000 £318,000 £278,000
incentives
Additional O&M £28,400 £698,000 £965,000 £940,000
Total financial benefit
£199,500 £4,138,000 £4,333,000 £4,268,000
Simple payback years
6.4 5.7 7.2 6.0
Simple total financial
benefit
£2,710,000 £59,210,000 £55,260,000 £59,900,000
(20 years duration)

28. What are the barriers?
28

29. Project Development Barriers 1
Barrier Impact
Waste • Increased combustion requirements – i.e higher temperatures, correct
Incineration residence times
Directive • Requirement for flue gas treatment
• Requirement for flue gas monitoring equipment
Planning • Schemes will require planning permission
Permission • Higher requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Likelihood of public opposition
Permitting • A WID scheme will either be a Part A(1) scheme regulated by the
Requirements Environment Agency or a Part A(2) regulated by the Local Authority
• As the sites are importing waste – they will need to be compliant with
waste permitting elements
• Smaller sites may not currently require an environmental permit
Technology • There is a limited amount of technology available – particularly at
Availability smaller scales.
• Technically possible to have smaller plant, but at a cost
29

30. Project Development Barriers 2
Barrier Impact
Technology • The cost of the equipment particularly the flue gas treatment
Cost add significant cost (flue gas treatment c. £250,000 for smaller
schemes).
• Cost of this equipment is not linear – therefore making small
schemes expensive.
Operating • Cost associated with ongoing permitting/licensing
Costs • Ash disposal costs.
Site suitability • The site needs to have space to accept solid fuel, store in the
appropriate manner (controlling odour etc).
• On-site solutions only likely to be suitable for only larger
industrial sites
Feed stock • EfW schemes would have a life span of 20 – 25 years - there
supply risk needs to be reassurance that the feedstock will be available over
this period.
30

31. Tackling perception of EfW

32. So, what next?
32

33. What actions are needed?
+ More work with regulators to progress end of waste status
for wider range of waste derived fuels?
+ Work with traditional fossil fuel users to explore
opportunities for using waste derived fuels
+ Support to waste processors to understand fuel
requirements?
+ Wider implementation of fuel standards?
+ WID – Why so expensive?
+ Learning from Europe and their use of WDFs?
+ Open debate and discussion ……
33

34. Any questions?
I’m here all day ….
Kathryn Warren
Senior Consultant
Waste Management & Resource Efficiency
07837 293929
Kathryn.warren@aeat.co.uk
www.aeat.co.uk
34