Integrated waste management of MSW across
Europe
Waste to Energy as a professional route to
treat residual waste.
Jan Manders
Deputy President CEWEP
Energy from Waste Consult
Kosice, 18th October 2012
1
Topics for this session
• How did Waste Management develop in Europe
• EU Directives and legislation
• Best Practice in Europe for integrated waste
management and alternative approaches
• Waste to Energy: current practice and outlook
• Emission and health aspects
• Renewable Energy and Climate Change aspects
• Communication to stakeholders
2
CEWEP
Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants
CEWEP represents 371 of 452
Waste-to-Energy plants across Europe.
(62 mt of EU capacity of 73 mt in 2010)
They thermally treat household and
comparable waste, which is not otherwise reused or recycled, and
generate energy from it.
In 2010 across Europe they supplied:
30 TWh electricity (6 m hholds)
72 TWh of heat. (5 m hholds)
3
Waste Management across Europe
divided into 3 groups
• Leading countries DE, NL, SE, BE, AT, CH, DK
• Sophisticated legislation and enforcement
• Extensive SS collection and treatment infrastructure
• No Landfill of MSW anymore
• Group making steady progress but long way to go e.g.
FR, UK, IT, ES, PT, FI, NO, IE
• Landfill diversion slow, less WtE
• Compromises, political complications, NGO’s
• Countries which are way behind : new entrants, GR
4
How did leading countries in Europe
develop in the past?
Initiatives go back to the 1970’s in DE, NL, CH, Nordic
• Growing awareness on environment, concern on soil
pollution, scandals, land scarcity
• Set up source separation, recycling and incineration
• Instruments to discourage landfill: taxation, bans
• Comprehensive legislation and waste hierarchy (NL)
• Visionary energy strategy and important role for WtE
plants (SE and DK)
• Eventually have become model for overall EU approach
5
Current EU Framework on Legislation :
Set of EU Directives to be implemented
into national legislation.
Relevant examples:
• Landfill Directive : binding landfill diversion targets
• Waste Framework Directive
• Waste hierarchy, Energy Recovery status
• End of Waste criteria
• Recycling targets for MSW
• Waste Incineration Directive (-> IED) : emission limits
• Renewable Energy Directive: binding targets for
utilisation of Renewable Energy by 2020
• ETS directive (CO2 Emission Trading)
6
EU Landfill Directive
Derogations:
According to the
Landfill Directive
(1999/31/EC)
biodegradable
municipal waste
going to landfills
must be reduced
(base year 1995):
to 50 % by 2009 and
to 35% of the total
amount by 2016.
Poor landfills are a threat to the
environment:
-- Contamination of water and soil
-- Methane emissions (GHG)
-- Loss of materials
For countries
that had 80%
landfilling in
1995:
50% Until 2013
Greece, Poland
United Kingdom
New Member
states:
2014
Bulgaria
2017
Romania
Diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills the EU targets and country status in 2006
source: Eur Commission
G
er
m
a
A ny
u
D stri
en a
m
E a
st rk
o
S nia*
w
ed
Lu Be en
xe lgiu
m m
b
S ou
N lov rg
et ak
h e ia
rla *
n
Fr d s
an
Fi ce
nl
an
d
Ita
S ly
H pai
un n
S gar
lo y
v
P en
o ia
U
n i Li rtu
te th ga
d ua l
K n
in ia
gd *
om
L
*
C
ze Ro a tv
ch m ia*
R an
ep ia
ub *
Ire lic*
la
G nd
re *
e
P ce
ol *
an
d*
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste in 2006, in % of 1995 levels
Target 2006
Target 2009
Target 2016
* country with derogation periods of up to 4 years
to achieve the target
Waste Hierarchy adopted by EU within the
Waste Framework Directive
The 5 step waste hierarchy
Prevention
in the Waste Framework
Directive helps to achieve
Reuse
sustainable waste
management,
Recycling
placing prevention at the
top and disposal (such as
Other recovery
landfilling) as the least
favoured option.
e.g. energy
recovery
Disposal
9
Amount of MSW per capita in EU countries
(total amount of waste leaving the household)
900
Kg of MSW per capita per year in 2008
EU average = 500 kg
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
CR PL SK LV RO LT GR HU SL BG PT BE ET SE
Source: Eurostat 2010
FI
FR
IT
GB ES DE AT NL MT LU
Waste composition varies across Europe
IE
CY DK
10
Treatment of MSW in Europe EU27,
260 m tpa in 2009
A large part of the
EU27 waste is still
Recycled
24%
Landfilled
38%
"Bio
Recycled"
18%
wasted by putting it
on landfills with
negative effects on
the environment.
Thermal Tr
20 %
Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in the EU 27 in 2009
Source: EUROSTAT
But waste is a
precious resource
which should be
utilised!
11
Treatment of MSW across Europe in 2009
Source: EUROSTAT
Graph created by CEWEP
„Bio-Recyling“
Recycling
Thermal Treatment
Landfilling
100%
2
8
11
18
24
32
36
80%
24
27
30
34
26
32
36
16
32
70%
24
14
14
18
24
40
20
4
1
14
12
10
7
10
1
28
34
2
1
2
1
16
14
28
50%
34
4
3
20
6
17
3
19
12
18
14
2
11
48
60%
12
13
7
34
17
9
11
12
92
18
40%
75
75
78
82
82
83
95
96
99 100
86
36
42
62
30%
48
49
38
39
34
46
48
62
52
49
32
29
10%
14
CH
BG
RO
MT
LT
LV
CY
CZ
SK
GR
PL
HU
EE
SL
PT
IE
ES
UK
12
FI
SE
5
IT
AT
4
FR
1
BE
1
DK
1
NL
DE
17
E…
0%
45
LU
20%
35
62
NO
90%
14
15
2
2
Screening report by BIPRO for EU Com
July 2012: implementations gaps across MS?
• Which are implementations gaps with individual member
states on key elements of EU directives, notably Landfill
Directive and Waste Framework Directive
• Core elements are: implementation of WFD, financial
and legal instruments, infrastructure, planning, target
setting and applying infringement procedures.
• Semi quantitative analysis after desk exercise of
performance of all 27 member states
13
Summary of major findings of screening report by BIPRO
(max 42 points to be received) green max score; red min score
14
Summary of results BIPRO report:
EU divided into 3 groups based on performance
• First group 10 MS: 39 – 31 points in descending order
AT, NL, DK, DE, SE, BE, LU, GB, FI, FR
• Second group 5 average MS (25 to 19 points)
SL, ES, PT, HU, IE
• Third group: 12 MS scoring 18 down to 3
IE, CZ, PL, EE, SK (17), IT, LV, CY, RO, LT, MT, BG,
GR(3)
15
Successful Strategy for Integrated Waste
management in various West- European countries
Separation at source
Organic
textiles
glass
paper
packaging
Residual Waste Bulky Dom. Waste
AD +Compost.
Compost
recycling
Domestic and Comparable Waste
WtE
Energy
Bottom ashes R
Residue material*
Metals  R
Separation
Wood  Biomass Energy Plants
Rubble  R
RDF  pellets  cement kilns
etc.  R
landfill *
backup
16
Promoting recycling by targets set
in the Waste Framework Directive
• Targets in Art 11(2) WFD to be achieved by 2020
• preparation for re-use and recycling of materials
“such as at least” paper, metal, plastic, glass
from households + option for similar wastes to
be increased to “a minimum of overall” 50%
• preparation for re-use, recycling and backfilling of
70% construction & demolition waste
• Various options for assessing the performance
Alternative processing routes : variants of MBT ,
especially for situations with little / no source separation
Paper, metals, plastics, etc
M
S
W
Separation
& Sorting
combustible
Fuel
preparation
Biological
Drying
RDF
SRF
Recycling
Incineration
Heat /
Electricity
Landfill
Residue
Organics
Anaerobic
Digestion
Composting
Biogas
Energy
Compost ?
Meeting specs ?
If not  landfill
Why were/are sorting & MBT variants for Residual
Waste being considered ?
(DE, AT, IT, ES, UK )
• Hope to avoid the investment of incineration plants.
• Hope that RDF/ SRF would become « end of waste »
general purpose fuel finding many applications
The Reality is however:
• MBT is only a pre-treatment
• RDF is and will be waste, continuing to fall within EU
waste emission legislation (WID, IED)
• RDF fuel is finding application in cement kilns; potential
for co-incineration in power plants is very limited
• Majority of RDF is finding its way into dedicated
incineration plants ( = WtE plant for residual MSW)
19
Landfill bans in Europe
10 countries:
AT (requires pre-treatment; TOC must not exceed 5%)
BE (unsorted waste)
CH (combustible waste)
DE (requires pre-treatment)
DK (combustible waste)
EE (unsorted MSW)
Fl (household waste without sorting biodegr. mun. waste)
NL (combustible waste)
NO (> 10% TOC)
SE (combustible & organic waste)
20
Landfill taxes in Europe
18 countries:
AT, BE, CH, CZ, DK, EE, ES, Fl, FR, IE, IT, LT, NL, NO,
PL, SE, Sl, SK, UK
Range:
3.5 €/t in Portugal – 107 €/t for combustible waste in NL
More details about landfill bans and taxes:
http://www.cewep.eu/information/data/landfill/index.html
21
Typical composition of RESIDUAL MSW
Component
%
NL 2008
France 2007
Organic
31
31
Paper &
cardboard
22
16
Plastics
19
12
Diapers
6
10
Glass
5
6
Metals
3
3
Textiles
4
3
Others
10
19
Total
100
100
22
Waste to Energy in Europe
(Incineration with Energy Recovery of MSW and comparable waste)

dominant route for the treatment of residual waste
(and of RDF or sorting residues)
 Fully proven and environmentally safe thanks to FGC
 About 71 million tonnes of capacity in operation in 2009
supplying about 30 TWh of electricity (6 million hh)
and about 55 TWh of heat (5 million hh)
 about 50 % of this energy is classified as renewable
 represents a net CO2 saving and avoids the use of
fossil fuels elsewhere for energy production
Feedstock for WtE plants in Europe
• Mostly a combination of Residual MSW and
Commercial Waste (collected by private business) e.g.
in NL ratio 70: 30
calorific value in range 9 – 10 MJ/ kg
• Some new plants are designed for dedicated
incineration of RDF or sorting fractions (DE and UK)
Calorific value up to 14 MJ/kg
•
24
WtE producing local energy
making Europe less dependant on fossil fuels imports
Energy content of waste
1 tonne brown coal
1 tonne
Municipal Waste
or
=
0.330 tonnes hard coal
ca.
or
250 litres oil
Assuming that the calorific value of
municipal waste = 10 MJ/kg, brown
coal = 9 MJ/kg, hard coal = 30 MJ/kg,
oil = 42 MJ/kg
Typical Waste-to-Energy Plant
Incineration/ Energy
recovery
Flue-gas cleaning
Waste delivery
1. Tipping hall
8. DENOx catalyst
15. Primary air fan
2. Waste bunker
9. Economiser
16. Re-circulation fan
3. Grabs
10. Spray drier
17. Re-circulation to ECO
4. Feed chute
11. Fabric filter
18. Turbine and generator
5. Moving grate
12. Fan
19. Boiler water tank
6. Boiler
13. Stack
20. Residue silo
7. Electrostatic precipitator
14. Bunker air
extraction
21. Bottom ash bunker
26
72 million tonnes of
remaining waste in Europe
29 billion kWh electricity
supplying
13 million inhabitants
72 billion kWh heat
Metals from
bottom ash
7 – 40 million tonnes of fossil fuels
Year 2010
Application of Power and Heat in Europe
• Production of Electricity is obligatory; Older plants have
modest electrical efficiency; Newer plants designed for
optimum electrical efficiency (steam conditions, turbine
type)
• Supply of electricity to the grid, or local customer
• Supply of high pressure steam to industrial customer
nearby e.g. paper company, chemicals plant, water
desalination
• Supply of hot water/ low pressure steam to district
heating system e.g. in Nordic, NL DE, CR
• Maximum Energy Efficiency can be achieved by
combination of supply of Power and Heat
28
Bottom Ash from Waste to Energy Plants
• Extensive application of bottom ash in civil works in e.g.
NL, DE, BE, FR, DK, IT
• Active development of other applications in building
materials: bricks, concrete
• Major process optimisation in recovery of more nonferrous material from bottom ash : Al and Cu
• Some countries do not permit application of bottom ash
other than as cover for landfill. e.g. CH
• Development of dry extraction route (CH): dry bottom
ash with high levels of recovery of Al and Cu
29
EU Waste Incineration Directive:
Emission Limit Values (ELV) for WtE incineration
Component
Limit value
Period
(Cd) and (Tl)
0,05 mg/m³
max 8 hours
•
0,05 mg/m³
max 8 hours
(Sb), (As), (Pb), (Cr), (Co),
(Cu), (Mn), (Ni), (V)
0,5 mg/m³
max 8 hours
dioxins and furans,
0,1 ng/m³
max 8 hours
(CO)
50 mg/m³
daily average value
dust
10 mg/m³
daily average value
(HCl),
10 mg/m³
daily average value
(HF),
1 mg/m³
daily average value
(SO2),
50 mg/m³
daily average value
(No), (NO2)
(depending on plant size).
200 mg/m³ - 400 mg/m³
daily average value
(Hg)
30
Waste-to-Energy
Dioxin emissions have been minimised !
In 1990
Dioxin emissions
dropped to approx.
1/1000
400g
In 2000
0,5g
“in 1990 one third of all dioxin
emissions in Germany came from waste
incineration plants; during the year
2000 the figure was less than 1% ”
Source: German Federal Environment Ministry (BMU), July 2005.
31
Health studies
The Scientific Advisory Council of the Federal Medical Association
(Germany) investigated potential health risks caused by emissions of
Waste-to-Energy Plants, concluding:
“The
evaluation conducted shows that currently
operating Waste-to-Energy Plants, which conform to
the technical standards, cause very marginal health
risks, which can therefore be classified as negligible
health risks for the population living in the vicinity
of Waste-to-Energy Plants”
Source: German Medical Journal 90, edition 1 / 2, 11th of January 1993,
p. 45-53, Publications
32
Waste-to-Energy in Europe
in 2010
Finland
3 0.3
Norway
17 1.2
• Waste-to-Energy Plants operating in Europe
(not including hazardous waste incineration plants)
• Waste thermally treated in Waste-to-Energy plants
in million tonnes
Sweden
32 5.1
Estonia
Latvia
Denmark
29 3.5
Ireland
Lithuania
United Kingdom
24 4.2
Data supplied by CEWEP members
unless specified otherwise
* From Eurostat
** Includes plant in Andorra
Portugal
3 1.1
Spain**
11 2.0
Poland*
Netherlands
1 0.04
11 6.5 Germany
70 20.0
Belgium
Czech Republic
16 3.0
Luxembourg*
3 0.5
Slovakia*
1 0.1
2 0.2
Austria
France
13 2.1 Hungary
129 13.7 Switzerland
Romania
1 0.4
30 3.7
Slovenia*
1 0.01
Bulgaria
Italy
53 5.7
Greece
[email protected]  www.cewep.eu
Incinerated MSW in EU27+CH+NO
2001-2010, in tonnes
80,000,000
450
447
430
70,000,000
430
425
415
60,000,000
357
361
369
414
403
390
343
390
325
50,000,000
328
328
Incinerated MSW by CEWEP members
Incinerated MSW in EU27+CH+NO
40,000,000
30,000,000
number of plants in CEWEP
187
188
number of plants in EU27+CH+NO
192
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of WtE plants in
EU27+CH+NO, 2001-2010
500
447
450
400
390
390
403
414
415
425
430
450
430
357
361
369
343
350
328
328
325
Plants in CEWEP
300
Plants in EU27+CH+NO
250
200
187
188
192
150
100
50
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WtE Capacity Europe
by end of 2008 is 71 m tonnes.
Arial
Average size of WtE plants varies
from country to country
Averag e c apac ity of
WtE plants in 2008 per c ountry (kt per annum)
600
500
400
300
Av C ap
200
100
0
NL HU P T DE G B E S S K AT B E S E C H LU DK IT F I C Z F R NO P L
WtE capacity growth in steps
(includes MSW & comparable & dedicated RDF/SRF incin plants)
Waste to Energy Capacity Development
within Europe
Country Groups
Likely developments
Potential for expansion
DE, NL, DK, SE, CH, A, BE
Recent extensions
Demand and Capacity in balance or
slight overcapacity emerging
FR, IT, ES, PT, IE
Market opportunities, but complications
due to local policies & preferences
UK, CZ, PL,
Major extension potential
GR, new EU entrants
Major potential, but various
complications and hurdles despite EU
support
Climate Change Aspects
• CO2 accounting systems available
• Consensus on CO2 impact from Waste to Energy,
although some NGO disagreement
• Emission Trading Scheme ETS; until 2013 WtE is not in,
we are lobbying to stay out
• Renewable Energy major topic in EU;
Contribution from Waste, WtE is being recognized
40
Net CO2 emissions from modern WtE plants
A state-of- the art WtE plant saves CO2 in the range of
100 to 350 kg CO2 eq per tonne of waste processed *,
depending on:
• Waste composition (% biogenic)
• Amount of heat and electricity supplied
• Country Energy substitution mix
If WtE replaces (poor) landfilling, then there would be
additional savings of 200 to 800 kg CO2 /tonne waste
* The more energy can be supplied as heat the higher the CO2 savings
Energy from Waste as a source of
Renewable Energy
• EU binding targets on RE : 20 % by 2020, differentiated
by country
• Major gap of 1500 TWh of RE to be filled by solar, wind,
hydroelectric, biomass, waste
• Renewable Energy from waste is « low hanging fruit » :
easy-to-achieve, reliable and relatively cheap
• CEWEP study shows that EfW might contribute 95 TWh,
of which the largest contribution is through WtE, followed
at a distance by SRF/RDF and LFG
42
Communication with stakeholders on
Waste-to-Energy
Communication with stakeholders is often the most
important issue when considering investment in WtE:
• Who are our stakeholders ?
• Local community, neighbours
• Politicians
• Media
• NGO’s and pressure groups
• Authorities
43
Communication with stakeholders on
Waste to Energy
Communication is generally effective when:
• Taking stakeholders seriously: attitude
• Being honest, transparent and consistent
• Not reactive but proactive
• Making use of various media and instruments:
leaflets, newspaper, website, guided tours…
• Third Party Advocates have a role to play
44
Thank you for your attention !
CEWEP
Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants
Office in Brussels:
Boulevard Clovis 12A
B-1000 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel.: +32 (0)2 770 63 11
Fax: +32 (0)2 770 68 14
e-mail: [email protected]
www.cewep.eu
[email protected]
45
EU 27 have ambitious targets for Renewable Energy
overall 20 % of consumption by 2020
Binding targets 2020 and actual 2005 Renewable Energy as % of total
consumption EU 27
50
45
40
35
30
25
2020 Target
2005 Level
20
15
10
5
0
SE LV FI AT PT EE RO DK SL LT FR BG ES PL GR SK CZ DE IT HU IE CY NL BE GB LU MT EU
27
The gap to close is about 1500 TWh of Renewable Energy
(at a flat – zero growth - EU energy consumption level of 13700 TWh)
46
Agreed formulae within the WFD
for the R1 Efficiency criterion
Treatment of waste in a WtE plant is recovery if:
An existing plant meets efficiency factor
> 0,6
New plant (from 2009) meets efficiency factor > 0,65
Energy efficiency formulae:
Energy produced – (Energy in added fuel + Energy import)
0,97* x (Energy in the waste + Energy in added fuel)
Equivalency factor electricity production x 2,6
Equivalency factor heat exported x 1,1
* factor accounting for energy losses due to bottom ash and radiation
47
Heat production kWh/t of waste
Heat vs Power production by WtE plants
across EU relative to EU R1 Criterion
3000
2500
2000
1500
R1=0,8
1000
Less
efficient
plants
500
0
0
200
0,6
Power only
400
600
Power kWh/ ton of waste
48
Based on data from majority of CEWEP WtE plants
800
1000