EPA Pacific Environmental Conference

Developing a 21st Century Energy From Waste Facility –

An Island PerspectiveMarc J. Rogoff, Ph.D.

Outline

• What Is Energy From Waste (EfW)?

• What Are The Steps in Conducting Feasibility Analysis?

• Case Study in American Samoa

2

My Career Background

• Education– Ph.D., Resource Development– MBA, Finance

• Resource Recovery Program Administrator (4 Years)

• Solid Waste Management Consultant (25 Years)

• University Institute of Government (4 Years)

3

Our Global Challenges• Today, we face numerous environmental & economic challenges:

– Population growth and associated waste disposal needs– Global warming– Dependence on fossil fuels

• There is a common solution for all of these challenges: Energy from Waste (EfW) provides:

– Safe, economic waste disposal– Greenhouse gas reduction– Renewable energy

4

Overdependence on Imported Fuels

5

Over 70% in 2009

A Growing Waste Problem• In the US an increasing amount

of trash is buried in landfills:– Waste generation has

increased by over a third in the past 25 years in the U.S. alone.

– Recycling efforts have not been able to keep pace with the increased generation of trash.

• The EU has addressed waste disposal with a directive that requires reduction of landfilling raw garbage

151.6

14.5

245.7

58.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 2005

MSW Generation

Recycling Recovery

Proliferation of MSWMunicipal Solid Waste in U.S. (in millions of tons)

6

Why Choose EfW ?• Clean power: The  US EPA has stated that EfW plants are a “clean,

reliable, renewable source of energy” that “produces electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.”

• Less dependence on imported fuels: For every ton of waste processed in a EfW facility, we avoid the need to import 1 barrel of oil or mine one quarter ton of coal.

• Net Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction: For every ton of waste processed in a EfW facility, almost one ton of GHG is avoided.

• A safe and effective solution for managing local trash generation: Less reliance on landfills and long distance shipping of trash preserves valuable land and resource with minimal disturbance to surrounding neighborhoods.

7

EfW Worldwide

U.S

.

Den

mar

k

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Ave

rage Ita

ly

U.K

.

Irela

nd

Japa

n

Taiw

an

Sing

apor

e

Chi

na

U.S.89 EfW facilities 29 million TPY

Western Europe388 EfW facilities

62 million TPY

Asia301 EfW facilities

48 million TPY

EfW

Recycling/Composting

Landfill

• EfW is used extensively worldwide– 780 EfW facilities; 140 million tons per year (TPY)

8

Islands and EfW

9

EfW Benefits For Islands

• Preserve limited land for future generations• Decreasing dependence on fuel imports by

using a renewable indigenous fuel• Minimize groundwater contamination• Use of solid residues (ash or slag) to add to

land surface • Utilization of recovered metals, ash and low

pressure steam (by-product of EfW in ecoparks created around EfWs.

10

EfW Technologies

• Traditional– Mass Burn– Refuse Derived Fuel

• Alternative – Thermal – Biological

Metal: 50 lbs

Power: 400 to 560 kWh

Ash: 10% of original volume

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): 2000 lbs

EfW is a specially designed energy generation facility that uses household waste as fuel and helps solve some of society’s big challenges

11

Typical Mass Burn Facility

12

Refuse Derived Fuel Systems

Smaller Modular Facilities

14

•Pre-Fabricated at Factory•Modules Can Be Added

Steps in the Process

15

Loading of Combustion Chamber450 degrees – air starved condition

Secondary Combustion 1200 degrees C

Steps in the Process

16

Energy Recovery in Waste Heat Boiler,Turbine Generator, Chiller, Heat Exchanger

Bottom Ash

430 to 650 kwh/Ton of Waste

Air Emission and Process Control

17Designed to Meet EPA and EU Standards

SCADA Operator Control

THERMAL(Plasma Gasification)

MRF

Reactor (Gasifier)

Syngas

Slag

Heat Source

MSW• power generation by various means

• other uses in manufacturing

cooling water blowdown

Air, O2 or steam

Air Lock

Emission Treatment

18

BIOLOGICAL (Anaerobic)

MRFAnaerobic Reactor

Biogas

Compost

MSW

Water Mixing

Filtrate Water

• boiler fuel

• power generation

Treatment

Heat Source

MSW

Steam

Sludge

19

BIO-CHEMICAL (Hydrolysis)

MRF Hydrolysis Reactor

Fermenter Distiller

Acid

MSW

Sewage sludge

Gasifier

Biogas

lignin

Ethanol production

Wastewater

20

PROCESS SUMMARYProcess

Pre-Processin

gBy-Product Product

Commercial

Readiness

PyrolysisPyrolysis HighHigh Char/Ash/Char/Ash/Tar/Oil Tar/Oil Syngas/OilSyngas/Oil YesYes

GasificationGasification Med.Med. Ash/SlagAsh/Slag Syngas/CharSyngas/Char YesYes

Anaerobic Anaerobic DigestionDigestion Med./HighMed./High

FiltrateFiltrateWaterWater

Biogas, Biogas, Compost Compost YesYes

HydrolysisHydrolysis HighHigh Waste water, Waste water, ashash EthanolEthanol NoNo

Aerobic Aerobic DigestionDigestion Med./HighMed./High NoneNone CompostCompost YesYes

Plasma Plasma GasificationGasification Claims LowClaims Low Slag/ Slag/

BlowdownBlowdown SyngasSyngas NoNo

21

PROS / CONS

Process Advantages DrawbacksPyrolysis / Pyrolysis / GasificationGasification

Potential for high power Potential for high power production, high production, high conversionconversion

Untested, possibly high Untested, possibly high O&M costs, ash disposalO&M costs, ash disposal

Biological (aerobic & Biological (aerobic & anaerobic)anaerobic)

Proven, “low” tech. Proven, “low” tech. Emissions less of a Emissions less of a concern.concern.

Some odor. Lack of Some odor. Lack of market for compost, low market for compost, low conversionconversion

Plasma GasificationPlasma GasificationPotential for high power Potential for high power production, high production, high conversion conversion

Untested, possibly high Untested, possibly high O&M costs, safety O&M costs, safety concerns, slag market (?)concerns, slag market (?)

Bio-Chemical Bio-Chemical (Hydrolysis)(Hydrolysis)

Fuel production, sludge Fuel production, sludge processing processing

Untested, Treats only Untested, Treats only cellulosic part of wastecellulosic part of waste

22

Beyond The “HYPE”• Some companies that market the thermal technologies have had

dubious performance records with some plants operated abroad.

• Problems ranged from complete failures, to explosions, excess air emissions, continual process breakdown, discharges of contaminated liquids, false claims, and data validation.

– Verification of operating records & permitting conditions in other countries makes direct comparisons incomplete and risky.

• California, Hawaii, Arizona, and Washington have had problems with actual facilities or technical proposals.

23

Case Study of EfW Feasibility Analysis in American Samoa

24

American Samoa Power Authority

Similar Island Concerns

• Increasing cost of energy• Limited space due to topography for new

landfills• Increasing population growth• Improvements in solid waste management

25

Steps in Feasibility Analysis

26

Phase I – Feasibility Analysis Waste Stream Analysis Waste Disposal Practices Analysis Energy and Materials Market Study Analysis of Feasible Waste-to-Energy

Technologies Analysis of Potential Facility Sites

Review Permitting Requirements Risk and Legal Assessment Financial Analysis Develop Project Alternatives Go/No-Go Decision

Phase II – Procurement Select Project Alternative Select Site and Acquire Permitting Underway Market Contracts Concluded Waste Stream Guarantee

Develop Financing Plan RFQ/RFP Produced and Issued Contractor Selected Contract Negotiations Concluded Notice-to-Proceed

Phase III – Plant Construction Site Preparation Complete Final Design Equipment Ordered Building Constructed

Equipment Installed Testing and Startup Acceptance Testing Certificate of Completion

Phase IV – Plant Operations Service Fee Payment Annual Tipping Fee Adjustment

Annual Report (Optional) Facility Retesting (Optional)

Funded by DOI

EfW Building Blocks

1. Waste supply2. Energy markets and potential revenues3. Site – good logistics, permitable,

neighbors4. Landfill5. Contractor6. Capital7. Ability to finance8. Political will

27

Waste Composition Analysis

28

Two Weekly Sorting Programs – February and July, 2009

29

Detailed Components in Waste Stream

30

Top Ten Materials in Waste Stream

Material Type Tons Mean % Cum % Cardboard and Kraft 3,316 15.1% 15.1% Ferrous Cans 2,930 13.4% 28.5% Mixed Residue 2,927 13.4% 41.8% Yard Waste 2,010 9.2% 51.0% Diapers 1,027 4.7% 55.7% Fish Meal 925 4.2% 59.9% Food Waste 909 4.1% 64.1% Fish Waste 761 3.5% 67.5% Bag Film Plastic 749 3.4% 71.0% Boxboard 621 2.8% 73.8%

Total 16,174 73.8%

Preliminary Waste Composition Results – Feb 2009

31

Other Important Wastes

32

Waste Oil Tires

120,000 Gallons/Year 1,200 Tons/Year

33

34

EfW Plant Sizing

Assumptions Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Waste Growth (1.5%/Year) 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 77 78 79 WTE Downtime &10% 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 87 WTE Downtime @15% 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 87 88 89 91

Can American Samoa Serve As Regional MSW Disposal Hub?

35

Proposed Plant Siting

36

Tafuna Power Plant

3.5 Acre Parcel

Who Is Responsible For What ?(there is no set structure)

EfW Company Investors

Regulatory Agency

Design / Build Operate Company

Territory/ Federal

Agencies

ASPAGrant

PermitsContract

Financing

Owner

“Avoided cost” Payments

37

Energy Revenues/Deferred Costs

38

Year $ Per KWh

Fuel and Production Expenses

Total Operating Expenses

2003 0.097 0.124 2004 0.110 0.142 2005 0.141 0.175 2006 0.181 0.207 2007 0.180 0.211 2008 0.260 0.289

Other Revenues

• Process steam to industry• Process steam for district heating• Chilled water or air for central cooling• Desalinated water• Scrap metal recovered from bottom ash• Carbon credits• IRS Section 45 production tax credits• Treasury grant under ARRA

39

Financial Analysis

• Developed a Pro Forma Economic Model – Operating costs– Capital costs– Project revenues– User fees/customer charges– Grant/bond financing– Roadmap

40

Next Steps

• Conduct second waste sort• Finalize inputs to Pro Forma model• Finalize draft report• Regional market study?• Issue final report• ASPA Go/No-Go• Move onto procurement phase

41

Questions???

Marc J. RogoffSCS Engineers

mrogoff@scsengineers.com

42