Contents:

1. History of Waste Management in Nepal 2. Present Context

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are now the method by which most municipalities dispose of their solid waste. Certain components of the waste stream lend themselves inherently to reuse or recycling under the right economic and geographic circumstances (Curlee et al., 1 !). "or other fractions of the municipal waste stream (e.g. the wet putrescible organic fraction), beneficial recycling or re#use is infeasible in the $orth %merican conte&t because it is more e&pensive than landfill disposal ("CM, '((!). )owever, this fraction of the waste stream, subse*uent to some processing, may have value as fertili+er (,ar-er and .oberts, 1 /0). 1he biological degradation of organic materials almost always yields energy in some form, and in the right conditions such energy can be harnessed (2ayhanian et al., 1 1). Similarly, components of MSW such as paper, cardboard, and plastic have an inherent energy value that can be reali+ed by combustion or other means (%nderson and 1illman, 1 33). )undreds of small municipal landfills are located throughout the province of Sas-atchewan. 4n many communities, recycling programs are not economical due to insufficient amounts of waste to compensate for the distance to mar-et. Many of these landfills re*uire continuous e&pansion to accommodate the growing amount of waste being produced. 5ne option many municipalities are considering for reducing their MSW is waste#to#energy (6esilind et al., '(('). Several different types of waste#to#energy technologies are available, all differing in their associated costs and environmental effects, and the types and *uantities of waste they can use. 7sing municipal solid waste for energy results in a reduction in the total amount of waste going to the landfill. 4n some cases this reduction can be very significant, reducing landfilling costs and environmental impact. Waste#to#energy can be very appealing to many municipalities, because it turns a liability into a resource that can generate revenue.

3. Global trend in waste Management

8lobal trends in waste generation and management Waste generation and waste composition varies between and also within countries (see 1able 0), primarily due to differences in population, urbanisation and affluence. )owever, as already noted above, this type of information tends to be compromised (where used for comparative purposes) by the variance in definition of waste. Waste generation rates have been positively correlated to per capita energy consumption, 89, and final private consumption (:ogner et al '((/). ;urope and the 7nited States are the main producers of MSW in absolute terms (<acoste and Chalmin, '((=).
%lthough developed countries are striving to decouple waste generation from economic growth, overall reduction in waste generation remains a challenge, particularly where

populations are increasing. 4n non#5;C9 regions, as countries progress toward ds achieving a higher standard of living, waste generation per capita and overall national waste production is set to increase accordingly if current production>consumption patterns persist. %lthough average annual per capita waste generation in developing nations is estimated at 1(#'(? that of developed nations, this figure is constantly rising in response to economic growth. 8lobally, waste generation is increasing. 4n non#5;C9 countries there is a shift in waste management practices from open dumping or burning to waste disposal in controlled landfills, and to a higher proportion of the urban population receiving waste collection services. % number of 5;C9 countries (i.e. %ustralia, Canada, the 7S, and $ew @ealand) continue to rely on controlled landfilling while ;uropean 7nion (;7) member states, under the pressure of the ;uropean <andfill 9irective (1 ), are see-ing alternative solutions in order to minimise disposal of biodegradable municipal waste. "igure A indicates that as of '((3 8ermany, %ustria, 9enmar- and the $etherlands have made considerable progress in reducing per capita waste to landfill. More recently, the 72 has also introduced more stringent regulations that have resulted in a coordinated effort aimed at minimising organics landfilled. $ote that reduced landfilling does not e*uate to reduced overall waste generationB ;7 member states have increased recycling and biological treatment of organic wastes, and have tended to either favour M:1 or incineration to treat residual waste prior to landfill disposal. %ustralia is rapidly developing a strong M:1 industry.

4.

P! ad"i#e

:ecause no single waste management approach is suitable for managing all waste streams in all circumstances, ;,% developed a hierarchy ran-ing the most environmentally sound strategies for municipal solid waste. 1he hierarchy places emphasis on reducing, reusing, and recycling the maCority of wastes and demonstrates the -ey components of ;,%Ds Sustainable Materials Management ,rogram (SMM). SMM is an effort to protect the environment and conserve resources for future generations through a systems approach that see-s to reduce materials use and their associated environmental impacts over their entire life cycles, starting with e&traction of natural resources and product design and ending with decisions on recycling or final disposal. Source Reduction and Reuse Source reduction, also -nown as waste prevention, means reducing waste at the source. 4t can ta-e many different forms, including reusing or donating items, buying in bul-, reducing pac-aging, redesigning products, and reducing to&icity. Source reduction also is important in manufacturing. <ightweighting of pac-aging, reuse, and remanufacturing are all becoming more popular business trends. ,urchasing products that incorporate these features supports source reduction. Source reduction canB

Save natural resourcesE Conserve energyE .educe pollutionE .educe the to&icity of our wasteE and Save money for consumers and businesses ali-e.

Recycling/Composting

Recycling is a series of activities that includes the collection of used, reused, or unused items that would otherwise be considered wasteE sorting and processing the recyclable products into raw materialsE and remanufacturing the recycled raw materials into new products. Consumers provide the last lin- in recycling by purchasing products made from recycled content. .ecycling also can include composting of food scraps, yard trimmings, and other organic materials. .ecycling prevents the emission of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants, saves energy, supplies valuable raw materials to industry, creates Cobs, stimulates the development of greener technologies, conserves resources for our childrenDs future, and reduces the need for new landfills and combustors. Energy Recovery Energy recovery from waste is the conversion of non#recyclable waste materials into useable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion, gasification, pyroli+ation, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas (<"8) recovery. 1his process is often called waste#to#energy (W1;). Treatment and Disposal Landfills are the most common form of waste disposal and are an important component of an integrated waste management system. <andfills that accept municipal solid waste are primarily regulated by state, tribal, and local governments. ;,%, however, has established national standards these landfills must meet in order to stay open. 1he federal landfill regulations have eliminated the open dumps of the past. 1odayFs landfills must meet stringent design, operation, and closure re*uirements. Methane gas, a byproduct of decomposing waste, can be collected and used as fuel to generate electricity. %fter a landfill is capped, the land may be used for recreation sites such as par-s, golf courses, and s-i slopes.

$. Hierar#%y of &'stainable Waste Management

4t is important to emphasi+e the G;&panded )ierarchy of Sustainable Waste Management!H depicted below in "igure 1. 1his figure shows that the first priority in terms of sustainable waste management is the reduction of waste. Secondly, the emphasis is on the recovery or recycling of materials, and once this is achieved, the priority shifts to the aerobic and anaerobic composting (or digestion) of source separated organics (e.g., wet food and yard wastes). 4t is only then that the emphasis shifts to the recovery of energy through a thermal waste conversion process, as this system should only accept non#recyclables. %gain, emphasi+ing that a waste to energy system is complimentary to recycling and utili+es the calorific value in Gblac- bagH municipal solid waste (appro&imated as 1( MI>2g or '/(( -Wh>ton0). 1herefore, Gwaste

to energyH systems are superior to landfills. 4t is important however to distinguish between landfills which capture and utili+e the landfill gas (methane) as opposed to those which do not perform energy recovery.

(. Nepal swm a#t ). &wm r'les and reg'lation *. Waste Management sit'ation in Nepal + m'ni#ipalities Geograp%i#al distrib'tion of m'ni#ipalities
1he geographical distribution of these cities and towns as per development region and ecological +ones is as shown 1able 1#1. 1able 1 #1 indicates that the municipalities are concentrated in on eastern and central development regions in 1erai rather than the hilly# mountain areas. 5f total municipalities, A1 municipalities are located in 1erai whereas '0 municipalities lie in hilly region and only ' municipalities in Mountain .egion. 1he 1erai in the ;9. has ten municipalities whereas "W9. has only three municipalities in the 1erai area. )owever, the hilly#mountain area in the C9. has ten municipalities whereas the same region in the MW9. has only two municipalities despite of its greater geographical coverage.

1he physical factors such as altitude, temperature, rainfall, humidity as well as socio# economic factors such as population, economic status and consumption patterns etc. are varied from one region to others. 1hese factors influence the waste generation, characteristics as well as treatment and final disposal technologies of waste. 1his analysis provides a basis for the comparison of the various indicators describing the state of solid waste management in the municipalities of different regions and finally helps to recommend appropriate waste treatment and management approach.

Table 1-1 Geographical distributions o the municipalities 9evelopment region ;astern 9evelopment .egion ;cological region Mountain )ill 1erai Central 9evelopment .egion Mountain )ill 1erai Western 9evelopment .egion Mid#western 9evelopment .egion "ar#western 9evelopment .egion )ill 1erai )ill 1erai )ill 1erai 1( / ! ' ! A A $o. of municipalities 1 A 1( 1

1otal Mountain J 'E 1otal )ill J '0E 1otal 1erai J A1

,and 'se pattern

1he municipalities cover about '.'0? of the total area of country. 1he smallest municipality in terms of area coverage seems to be :anepa with an area of =.(3 s*uare -ilometer (s* -m) and the largest one is 1riyuga of 7dayapur district with an area of A'' s* -m (%nne& %>1able1). 1he figures indicated that the highest built#up area was found to be A= s* -m in 2athmandu Metropolitan City (2MC).

-rban.r'ral setting
"or purpose of this SWM baseline study, area of each municipality was categori+ed into urban and rural wards. Ward is the smallest administrative unit of each municipality. 1he urban ward is referring to those areas having higher population density with intense commercial and industrial activities. 1he rural wards in the municipalities are those areas of lesser population density with no commercial activities. 5f total 0/ municipalities, only few municipalities li-e 2athmandu

valleyFs municipalities, :iratnagar have no rural wards, whereas :himdutta has 13 rural wards in total 1 wards. Similarly other many municipalities li-e, 2amalamai, 2apilbastu, 1riyuga, 9ashrathchand, 8ulariya, 2hadbari etc., are dominated by rural wards. 4n this study, wards were chosen both from urban and rural setting of the municipalities for the waste generation and composition study, which resulted more comprehensive and representative average per#capita waste generation rate in each municipality.

/emograp%i# information
$epal has 0/ municipalities having a population of !.0 million that accounts for 13? of the total population in the country. %mong the municipalities, the 2athmandu Metropolitan City constitutes the largest population of 1,((=,=0= followed by ,o-hara, <alitpur and :iratnagar Sub#Metropolitan City. 9huli-hel has the lowest population, 1=,!(=, among the municipalities followed by 9asharath Chand, :hadrapur and 4lam municipalities (C:S, '(11). 1hese municipalities can be classified in ! groups as underB
Table 1-! Classi ication o municipalities based on population "Source: C#S$ !%11&

'opulation range K 1((((( 0(((( # 1((((( '0((( # 0(((( L '0((( Total

(o) o municipalities 1( 13 ''

Total population '!1 '3A 11 A A0 3'1!(( 1/=/!'

*+

,*!1,*%

:iratnagar, :irgunC, :haratpur, :him 9utta, :utwal, 9hangadhi, 9haran, 2athmandu, <alitpur and ,o-hara having a population above 1((,((( which account more than 0(? of the total municipalitiesF population. Similarly, the municipalities having population less than '0,((( are which include %marghadi, :hadrapur, :himeshwor, 9asharath Chand, 9huli-hel, 4lam, Ialeshwor, $arayan and Waling. 1he population of the rest of the municipalities lies between '0,((( and 1((, ((( as given in %nne& %>1able 1.

Municipal solid waste generation and composition

Ho'se%old waste generation
an average per#capita household waste generation figure of 13( gm>capita>day.

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

0.88 0.72 0.49

Average daily waste generation (kg/family)

Mountain municipality

Hill municipality Ecological region

Terai municipality

"487.; A#1 %6;.%8; )57S;)5<9 8;$;.%145$ ,%11;.$ 4$ 94"";.;$1 ;C5<584C%< .;845$ %s per survey results, the per#capita household waste generation is found to vary from a minimum value of 30 gm>capita>day (1riyuga Municipality) to a ma&imum value of '3/ gm>capita>day (4naruwa Municipality).

0nstit'tional and #ommer#ial waste generation

1he average school or college waste was calculated based on total sample si+e of AA' schools or colleges and ' 3 different types of offices from 0/ municipalities. 1he average daily waste generation was 1.! -g per school and '.0 -g per officeE 1.! -g per shop and 0.3 -g per hotel>restaurant.

M'ni#ipal waste generation

:ased on our findings and analysis, it can be estimated that, as the household waste in general contributes to about 0( to 30? of the total municipal waste generation depending upon the municipality. 1hus, the average per#capita municipal waste generation, as per survey results, can be estimated A1/ gram>capita>day.

M'ni#ipal waste #omposition

Household waste composition
1he analysis of waste composition indicated that the highest waste fractions were organic matter (=0?) followed by plastics (11?). ,aper and paper products and others comprised ? and 3? of the waste respectively. 8lass, metal, rubber and leather, te&tile components all were at or below A?. 1he average composition of the household waste of 0/ municipalities showed that there was a mi&ture of different types of components, with a significant portion (=0?) of them being compostable. 1he high organic content indicated the necessity for fre*uent collection and removal, as well as having a good prospect of organic waste recycling through

composting. Similarly, the content of maCor reusable>recyclable materials (i.e. plastic, paper and paper products, metal, glass, rubber and te&tiles) comprised with an average of '/?. Moreover, paper and paper products, te&tiles, plastics and rubber etc., can be used as .efused 9erived "uels (.9"s), which comprised about 'A?.

.ubber and <eather 1e&tiles 1? '? Metals 8lass A? '?

5thers 3?

,aper> paper products ?

,lastics 11? 5rganic waste =0?

/( 3( =( 0( !( A( '( 1( (

=A 0'

=/

Mountain Municipality

)ill Municipality

1erai Municipality

- by .eight

1( 1' 1(

11 1( /

13 ' ! ' ' ' 1 A ' ' 1 1 1 = 3

5rganic waste

,lastics ,aper> paper 8lass products

Metals

1e&tiles .ubber and 5thers <eather

"487.; A#! C5M,5S4145$ 5" )57S;)5<9 W%S1; 4$ 94"";.;$1 ;C5<584C%< .;845$

Existing solid waste management system

Colle#tion and segregation
1he solid waste collection system in many municipalities is not satisfactory. %naly+ing the information provided by municipalities, the present collection efficiency ranges between 3( to (? in maCor cities, whereas in several smaller municipalities it is below 0(? (%nne& %>1able ').

1ransportation2 transfer station and final disposal

Sites for construction of treatment facilities and sanitary landfills sites are yet to be identified by many municipalities and waste is currently being disposed off untreated at crude dumping sites causing problems of health and environment. 1here is an urgent need to identify and allot suitable parcels of land for setting up treatment and disposal facilities. 1he disposal sites in most of the municipalities are mainly riverban-s, depressed land>dumps, open pit or temporary open piles as given in "igure !#11.

"#m$er of m#nici ality

30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Sanitary Land ill Site !ontrolled dumpin"

25

13 6 4 6 2
#i$er%ide dumpin" &pen'ri$er dumpin" #oad%ide'ri$er%ide pillin" &pen dumpin"

2
(o municipal di%po%al %y%tem

Ty e of dis osal met!ods

"487.; !#1 1M,; 5" S5<49 W%S1; 94S,5S%< M;1)59S 4$ M7$4C4,%<414;S 5" $;,%<

"igure !#1 refers e&isting final waste disposal methods practiced in 0/ municipalities. 5f total 0/ municipalities, only si& municipalitiesE 2athmandu, <alitpur, ,o-hara, 8horai, 9han-uta and 1ansen have constructed sanitary landfill site. 1ansen municipality has Cust started to operate sanitary landfill site since 5ctober 11, '(1' after construction of access road. "or the final disposal of waste generated 4n 2athmandu and <alitpur, sanitary landfill site at Sisdol , 5-harpauwa was constructed and operated as sanitary landfill site in early stage of operation but currently it is not operated as sanitary landfill site.

%nne& %>1able 3 presents the type of final waste disposal methods practiced in 0/ municipalities. 5nly si& municipalitiesE 2athmandu, <alitpur, ,o-hara, 8horai, 9han-uta and 1ansen have constructed sanitary landfill site.

Recycling
1he household waste composition survey revealed that more than '0? fraction of household waste and much higher ? from institutional and commercial waste could be either reused or recycled.

Composting
Content on organic materials varies up to /0./3? (1ulsipur Municipality), with an average value of =0.'!? that could be used for producing compost. 4t was found that about A(? of surveyed households in the municipalities are practicing it.

3. Waste #omposition
Waste characteri+ation is important for developing solid waste management programsE such as recycling, composting, landfill design, and waste#to#energy facilities. ;ach type of waste#to#energy utili+es certain components of the waste and thus, waste composition plays a maCor role in determining which type of waste#to energy is technically and economically feasible for a given waste stream. %ccording to 2han and :urney (1 / ), the success of any recovery or recycling effort is directly related to accurate determination of solid waste composition. Composition of municipal solid waste varies from one community to another, as well as with time within any one community (Weiner and Matthews, '((A). %ccording to 8rossman et al. (1 3!), four basic factors affect the solid waste generated by a community or householdB N population N dwelling unit si+e and character N income level N cultural characteristics 2han and :urney (1 / ) used multi#linear regression techni*ues to determine the relation between categories of paper, plastic, food, and certain demographic factors (persons per dwelling, income, climate, population and 89,). 1he first three of these demographic factors were found to be the most influential. 1he model uses waste stream composition data (? weight) from various maCor centres from around the world. More paper in the waste stream was found to be related to higher income. )igher occupancy rates resulted in higher percentages of foodE lower occupancy rates resulted in higher percentages of glass. 1he percentage of metal increased with increasing average temperature. .ichardson and )avelic- (1 3/) used a very similar techni*ue for selected 7nited States cities, and developed an e*uation to determine the *uantity of components of

waste based on income, household si+e, percentage of people 1/ to =1, percentage of blac- people, and a random disturbance variable. 1heir results indicate higher income families produce more newspaper and less clothing, and that household si+e, household age and income were important factors affecting the waste composition and *uantity, but no consistently strong statistical relationship was evident. 9as-alopoulos et al. (1 /) developed a prediction methodology for waste composition and *uantity using data from ;urope and the 7nited States. 1hey converted 89, (gross domestic product) data to 1C; (total consumer e&penditure), which vary linearly with one another. 5nly a fraction of the 1C; is responsible for municipal waste, referred to as the .1C; (related total consumer e&penditure). 9as-alopoulos et al. (1 /) also found that the plastic and paper fractions increased with increasing .1C;, while glass, metal and organic fractions tended to decrease. )owever, none of the relationships between the waste fractions and .1C; were linear. 1he principal components involved in recovering the energy from the heat, steam, gases, oils or other products produced in the waste#to#energy process are similar and typically includeB boilers for the production of steam, steam and gas turbines for motive power, and electric generators for the conversion of motive power into electricity (1chobanoglous et al., 1 33).
Waste composition %ffected byB N 8eographyB building materials, ash content ()) heating), green waste. N ClimateB 7lan :ator, Mongolia ash is =(? of the MSW in winter, '(? in summer. N 4ncomeB Wealthier nations have more comple& waste, lower organic content N CultureB differences in food consumed (eg, pac-aged or fresh), electronic e*uipment used changes nature of waste

14.Waste 5'antity
Feasibility Based on Waste Quantity Since the composition of Sas-atchewan waste is suitable for use in thermal conversion facilities, waste *uantity and costs will be the determining parameters for feasibility. 4n this and the following section, the information regarding the typical capacities of the facilities and their costs is ta-en from "CM ('((!). N .otary 2iln 4ncinerator .otary -iln incinerators have typical capacities ranging from 1( to 0( tonnes per day ("CM, '((!). 1his aligns with communities between A,'(( and 10,=(( people, of which 1( e&ist in Sas-atchewan (Sas-atchewan :ureau of Statistics,

'((1). "or countries other than the 7nited States, :Celdanes and :eard (1 =) report that the rotary -iln incinerators in operation as of 1 = have capacities ranging from 10' to 1( ( tonnes>day and averaging !/( tonnes>day. "acilities of this si+e re*uire a population of O10(,(((, and thus would be unsuitable e&cept for Sas-atoon and .egina. N Mass :urn 4ncineration 1hese facilities typically range in si+e from 1(( to 1((( tonnes per day ("CM '((!). 1his waste production rate would re*uire a population of between A1,((( to A1(,(((E only ! centres of this si+e e&ist in Sas-atchewanB Sas-atoon, .egina, ,rince %lbert and Moose Iaw. N Starved %ir 4ncineration 1hese facilities range in si+e from 1( to 1(( tonnes per day. 1his suggests communities with A,'(( to A',((( residents could support such a facility. Si&teen communities of this si+e e&ist in Sas-atchewan (Sas-atchewan :ureau of Statistics, '((1). N "luidi+ed :ed Combustion "luidi+ed bed combustors range in si+e from 0( to 0(( tonnes per day. 4n Sas-atchewan this means that communities with between 10,=(( and 10=,((( residents could possibly support this type of technology. "ive communities in Sas-atchewan fall into or above this range (Sas-atchewan :ureau of Statistics, '((1). N ,yrolysis and 8asification 1hough pilot studies have been done, pyrolysis and gasification systems have yet to be successfully commercially applied to the management of municipal solid waste in $orth %merica ("CM, '((!E 2umar, '(((). 1hey are still emerging technologies for use with non#homogeneous materials such as municipal solid waste (%dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc., '((!). 8asification has been successful in parts of ;urope where MSW is segregated by citi+ens at its source. (Crow et al., '(('). 1his has not been attempted in $orth %merica, where the main reasons for failures of these types of plants has been the heterogeneity of MSW and the difficulty of segregation (6esilind et al., '(('). 4f landfill and operating costs increase, and energy prices change in terms of environmental costs, these technologies could become attractive in Canada. )owever, this type of technology is not currently recommended for small cities and towns in Sas-atchewan as followsB 1hese technologies have yet to be applied in Canada to municipal solid waste. 1hey are not well understood, and maCor e&pertise would be re*uired to run a plant (which would li-ely not be available in small cities and towns). 1he capital costs of such facilities are *uite high, estimated to be between PA( and P!( million for a town in %lberta with '(,((( residents (C%;,, '((0). 8asification plants for larger location could cost ten times as much. % :ritish company, 5rganics <td., estimated the costs of building a facility in ;ngland to be P3 million (Canadian dollars), with operating costs of P!((,(((>year and a revenue of about P1.0 million a year (;den, 1 ). ,aybac- was estimated at only '.A to A./ years. 1his e&cludes the cost of the front#end separator, and is based on a facility that obtains 1(( tonnes per day

of waste. 1his seems *uite attractive, but it may be biased by much higher tipping fees and higher energy prices in ;urope.

11. n"ironmental 0mpa#t

;ach type of waste#to#energy has different effects on the environment. %ll can be built to meet Canadian regulatory re*uirements and environmental standards, however, not all are considered GgreenH energy. <andfill gas utili+ation (and bioreactor landfills), anaerobic digestion, and gasification and pyrolysis are considered green energy alternativesE rotary -iln, mass burn, starved air incineration and fluidi+ed bed construction are not (C%;,, '((0E ;nvironment Canada, '((0b). )owever, in comparison to the use of coal, natural gas, or oil, these technologies would be considered much more GgreenH (Murphy and Mc2eogh, '((A). %naerobic digestion is the most environmentally friendly option for the organic portion of waste as it can be designed to have no negative impacts on the environment. 1he sludge leftover from the process can be used as compost if the process is done properly, and methane gas can be collected from the organic matter as it decays, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a similar fashion to landfill gas utili+ation (2umar, '(((). Thermal Technologies "or thermal technologies, environmental control systems on average constitute between one third and one half of a facilityFs total capital and operating cost ("CM, '((!). Gasi ication and 'yrolysis 8asification and pyrolysis are considered green technologies, but produce air pollution and residues that re*uire e&pensive e*uipment for reduction to very low levels (,ar-er and .oberts, 1 /0). Rotary /iln$ 0ass #urn and Starved 1ir 2ncineration 1hese technologies are considered together because they all produce air emissions and solid residues. $one burn as cleanly as gasification and pyrolysis ("CM, '((!).

3luidi4ed #ed Combustion1his type of thermal technology produces more fine ash in the air pollution it generates than the other technologies mentioned, and thus re*uires e&tensive air pollution control systems. )owever, the solid ash that is produced is of better *uality ("CM, '((!). Rating Environmental 2mpacts :ased on the total savings of greenhouse gas emissions, Murphy and Mc2eogh ('((A) compared three technologiesB incineration, gasification and biogas production (anaerobic digestion). 1hey found that biogas was the most GgreenH, followed by gasification then incineration. 8reenhouse gas emissions are a good measure of environmental impact, but other wastes such as the ash produced from combustion and incineration processes are also produced. :ased on greenhouse gas emissions as well as the residues produced, the ran-ing of technologies considered here from least to most impact on the environment isB 1) %naerobic digestion ') :ioreactor landfill and landfill gas utili+ation A) 8asification and pyrolysis !) "luidi+ed bed combustion 0) .otary -iln, mass burn and starved air incineration %naerobic digestion is most favourable since it eliminates the greenhouse gas emissions that would have been produced from the decaying organic matter. "urthermore, the sludge if composted properly can become a useful fertili+er. :ioreactor landfills and landfill gas utili+ation are ne&t since the end result of the degraded organic waste remains in the landfill and is not utili+ed. :ioreactor landfills could be considered somewhat more environmentally friendly, since the leachate produced is re#circulated, resulting in reduced chances for percolation into the groundwater and soil below the landfill. )owever, for well designed landfills, this is typically not a concern. 8asification and pyrolysis burn cleaner than other incineration technologies, and produce less ash residue. "luidi+ed bed combustion produces less ash residue than the incineration technologies mentioned, but more air pollution than gasification and pyrolysis. .otary -iln, mass burn, and starved air incineration produce more air pollution and more ha+ardous ash residues than all the technologies mentioned.

12.Waste Management system adopted

13.6ationale for sear#% for te#%nology

Technology drivers N 2mproved pollution and emissions controls or combustion . 5ne of the primary obCections against waste incineration, even when used to generate energy, has been that burning releases particulate matter and pollutants li-e nitrogen o&ides ($5&) into the atmosphere. )owever, improved technologies for treating gas waste streams are mitigating these concerns (see 1echnology ,rofile A.'.1, G%ir ,ollution Control 1echnologiesH). N 1dvanced non-incineration conversion methods) $ew technologies li-e pyrolysis, thermal gasification, and plasma#arc gasification are providing ways of generating energy from waste that avoid many of the pollution concerns around incineration, and may provide better economics for waste#to#energy as well. N )ydrogen production enabling other clean technologies li-e fuel cells. Waste#to# energy systems li-e thermal gasification#based waste conversion plants can be fitted with direct hydrogen generation. While many countries are interested in developing a hydrogen infrastructure for fuel#cell#powered vehicles, in most cases, including the 7.S. and Canada, current plans include only hydrogen generation from coal plants. Waste#to#energy systems could provide a more sustainable solution. Strategic drivers N Reduction in land ill dumping . <andfills re*uire large amounts of land that could be used for other purposes. Municipalities that run out of space for landfills must pay to have their garbage and construction debris shipped somewhere else. "or e&ample, 1oronto pays to have almost /((,((( tons per year of its e&cess garbage shipped to Michigan, at P'' per ton. $ew Mor- City pays up to P1'( per ton to ship its solid waste to landfills. Converting municipal waste to energy reduces the volume of ordinary solid waste bound for landfills by up to (?, and by producing useful products can help cut costs further.

N Reduced dependence on ossil uels) With advanced technologies, waste can be used to generate fuel that does not re*uire mining or drilling for increasingly scarce and e&pensive non#renewable fossil#fuel resources. N Reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and pollution) 7sing waste as a feedstoc- for energy production reduces the pollution caused by burning coal or other fossil fuels. While traditional incineration still produces C5' and pollutants, advanced methods such as gasification have the potential to provide a double benefitB reduced C5' emissions compared with incineration or coal plants, and reduced methane emissions from landfills. N Eligibility or carbon credits and ta5 incentives . :ecause they replace fossil# fuel use, most advanced waste#to#energy technologies are eligible for greenhouse#gas emission credits. 1hese credits can be used by corporations to offset greenhousegas emissions, or sold as a commodity via carbon cap#and#tradeprograms li-e the Chicago Climate ;&change. 4n addition, government programs in several ;7 countries are promoting the use of biogas from waste and offering ta& incentives for producers.

14.C%allenges in te#%nology
Technology challenges N 6ac7 o versatility) Many waste#to#energy technologies are designed to handle only one or a few types of waste (whether plastic, biomass, or others). )owever, it is often impossible to fully separate different types of waste or to determine the e&act composition of a waste source. "or many waste#to#energy technologies to be successful, they will also have to become more versatile or be supplemented by material handling and sorting systems. 8 9aste-gas cleanup) 1he gas generated by processes li-e pyrolysis and thermal gasification must be cleaned of tars and particulates in order to produce clean, efficient fuel gas. 8 Conversion e iciency) Some waste#to#energy pilot plants, particularly those using energy#intensive techni*ues li-e plasma, have functioned with low efficiency or actually consumed more energy than they were able to produce. "or e&ample, many sites in 4ndia have been forced to shut down because they were not financially sustainable once government subsidies ran out. Strategic challenges N Regulatory hurdles. 1he regulatory climate for waste#to energy technologies can be e&tremely comple&. %t one end are regulations that may prohibit a particular method, typically incineration, due to air#*uality concerns, or classify ash byproducts of waste#to#energy technologies as ha+ardous materials. %t the other end, while changes in the power industry have allowed small producers to compete with established power utilities in many areas, the electrical grid is still protected by yet more regulations, presenting obstacles to would#be waste# energy producers. N :igh capital costs. Waste#to#energy systems are often *uite e&pensive to install. 9espite the financial benefits they promise due to reductions in waste and

production of energy, assembling the financing pac-ages for installations is a maCor hurdle, particularly for new technologies that arenFt widely established in the mar-et. 8 ;pposition rom environmental and citi4en groups . :ecause traditional incineration#based waste#to#energy technologies can produce significant pollution from the burning of waste, environmental and citi+en groups have often opposed such systems. 9evelopers argue that advanced technologies li-e pyrolysis release few emissions, and that any pollution that is released is captured with emissions#control systems. )owever, many activists remain unconvinced, and some e&press concern that using waste as a feedstoc- for energy generation will cause municipalities to abandon their efforts in waste reduction, recycling, and composting.

1$.7est option strategies 1$.1. &H1 80 C601 60! G N 6!, M9/ ,

3actors Criteria S-Social N S-ills of the wor-erB training N 5fficer needs and preferencesE treatment cost, convenience, more benefits N Willingness to ray N $umber of patients, bed patient and 5,C N 4nfluence ability to operate and maintain :-:ealth N )ospital facilitiesE hygienic related concerns N 9iseases carrying by waste T-Technological N Waste type N %vailability of spare pails and materials N %vailability of local -nowledge and e&pertise N Current procedure of disposing the waste N ,ower re*uirementsE electricity fuel etc. E-Economic N Quantity and *uality of waste N 5verall repute of hospital and fame affecting by the waste problems N Structure of economy N <and, labor and capital re*uirements 3-3inancial N "inance availableE method of funding

N %bility and willingness to pay 2-2nstitutional N ;&isting roles and responsibilities of organi+ation and management N .elationship between organi+ations N <egislation, policies and regulations E-Environmental N 8lobal wanting N %ir pollutionE smog N Water pollution, ground R drin-ing water N 5dor ,ollution

1(.Waste 1e#%nologies a"ailable in world 1(.1. Waste to nergy 8'ndamentals

There are three principal ways to recover the energy content of MSW by treating it thermally, as shown below. These include pyrolysis, gasification and combustion. These processes are differentiated by the ratio of o ygen supplied to the thermal process divided by o ygen re!uired for complete combustion. This ratio is defined as the "lambda# ratio and in the case of pyrolysis, it is e!ual to $ero. %asification is conducted at substoichiometric conditions and full combustion is carried out using a lambda greater than one. ) &yrolysis '( ), no air, all e ternal heat ) %asification ' ( ).*, partial use of e ternal heat ) +ombustion ' ( ,.* -, no e ternal heat w%ere : represents; oxygen inp't+ oxygen re5'ired stoi#%iometri#ally for #omplete oxidation of all organi# #ompo'nds in M&W.

1(.2.

0n#ineration

Process: 4ncineration, also referred to as combustion, is a speciali+ed process that involves the burning of organic (putrescible, combustible and plastic) materials in any state to form gases and residue (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). 1he basic elements of an incinerator include a feed system, combustion chamber, e&haust gas system and a residue disposal systemE whereas modern incinerators use continuous feed systems and moving grates within a primary combustion chamber lined with heat resistant materials (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). 1he waste must be mi&ed, dried, and then heated, all for specific amounts of time and at controlled temperatures (Mantell, 1 30). "our different types of incinerators are in common useB mass#fired combustors, refuse derived fuel combustors, modular combustion units, and on#site commercial and industrial incinerators (Salvato et al., '((A). "our types of incineration have been put to use in CanadaB rotary -iln incineration, mass burn incineration, starved air incineration and fluidi+ed bed systems ("CM, '((!). 1he first three of these are types of mass#fired

combustors. "luidi+ed bed systems do not fall into any of the categories mentioned by Salvato et al. ('((A). Advantages: 1he primary obCective of incineration is to combust solid waste, reducing its volume and producing non#offensive gases and non#combustive ash residues (Wilson, 1 33E 6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). 6olume can be reduced by /(# 0? and weight by 3(#/(? and thus incineration significantly reduces the land re*uired for disposal of municipal wastes (:aum and ,ar-er, 1 3!E 6esilind and .imer, 1 /1E Salvato et al., '((AE). %lthough incineration produces air pollutants primarily in the forms of nitrogen o&ides, sulphur dio&ide, and hydrogen chloride, these emissions can be reduced substantially through combustion modifications and air pollution control e*uipment (California %ir .esources :oard, 1 /!). 1heoretically, incineration could be combined with anaerobic digestion, wherein the residue from anaerobic digestion is incinerated (,feffer and <iebman , 1 3=). :y using the steam from incineration as well as the methane from anaerobic digestion, the efficiency of the combined system might be increased to =A? compared to A'.=? from anaerobic digestion alone. ;fficiency, in this case, is defined as the amount of energy produced as a fraction of the theoretical yield based on the total calorific value of the waste. 1he capital costs of a system that combines anaerobic digestion and incineration would be significantly higher than each of the systems on their own, but the paybac- time would be much less. $otably, this study performed by ,feffer and <iebman (1 3=) was a mathematical simulation rather than an actual full scale demonstration. Disadvantages: 4ncineration has high capital and operating costs (:aum and ,ar-er, 1 3!E 6esilind and .imer 1 /1E 2umar, '(((). % maCor consideration is operating problems which can occur as a result of variability of the waste over time (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). ,ublic perception can also be a problem because of air pollution caused by incineratorsE this pollution cannot be completely avoided even with the most sophisticated of plants (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1E 2umar, '(((). 1he most difficult factors to be accommodated in the combustion process are the amounts of moisture and non#combustible materials in the refuse (Mantell, 1 30). 4n general, incineration is not recommended for small towns or villages (si+e is not specified) unless good design can be assured, and cost is not a factor (Salvato et al., '((A). 1his is due to the high capital and operating costs, and the re*uirement for e&pensive, dedicated and sophisticated operators. % large system is re*uired to compensate for these needs.

1(.3.

Pyrolysis

Process: ,yrolysis is chemical decomposition by heat in the absence of o&ygen converting carbonaceous material into fuel gas that can be used as a substitute for natural gas (Iac-son, 1 3!E <evy, 1 3!E %dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc., '((!). 1he pyrolysis process, li-e incineration, can be continuous or batch fed (.obinson, 1 /=), producing char, pyrolysis oils, and gases (1chobanoglous et al., 1 33E

,ar-er, '(((). 1he process is conducted at /10SC, most commonly in what is called a fluidi+ed bed (Iac-son, 1 3!E %dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc., '((!). Cellulose molecules within the municipal waste dissociate instead of burning, due to the absence of o&ygen. 1he fragments of the dissociated molecule form methane, carbon dio&ide, hydrogen, carbon mono&ide, and water (Iac-son, 1 3!). Advantages: 1he process is highly e&othermic (gives off heat) and therefore re*uires very little energy (1chobanoglous et al., 1 33). 4t transforms refuse into gaseous or li*uid fuel products that can be utili+ed by a wide variety of end users, including conventional engines and boilers (1chobanoglous et al., 1 33). 1he gases produced from pyrolysis can be used to create steam, which could become much more valuable with oil price increases in the future (<evy, 1 3!). 1he energy recovery rate is considerably higher than that of a conventional incinerator (Iones and .adding, 1 /(). Disadvantages: $one of the products of pyrolysis have great value (,ar-er, '((() and capital costs and operating costs are high (Iac-son, 1 3!E ,ar-er and .oberts, 1 /0). 1he conversion of fossil fuels into fuel gas also re*uires a large number of s-illed personnel (Iac-son, 1 3!). 1he use of municipal waste as feedstoc- has had only limited success (.obinson, 1 /=)E pyrolysis has been successfully used for the production of energy from co-e, charcoal and other homogenous materials, but no successful field tests in full scale with MSW have ta-en place (6esilind et al., '(('). %s of 1 A only one full#scale pyrolysis system was built in the 7nites States, and it did not achieve its primary operational goals (1chobanoglous et al., 1 A). "ailure seems to be due to the comple&ity of the system and the difficulty of producing consistent feedstoc- from a heterogeneous municipal solid waste stream (1chobanoglous et al., 1 AE 6esilind et al., '((').

1(.4.

Gasifi#ation

Process: 8asification is the reaction of organics (combustible, putrescible, and plastic fractions of the waste) with steam, producing carbon mono&ide and hydrogen (,ar-er, '(((). 8asification is a modification of pyrolysis in that a limited *uantity of o&ygen is introduced, and the resulting o&idation produces enough heat to ma-e the process self sustaining (6esilind et al., '(('). 8asification occurs at very high temperatures (greater than 3((SC) (,ar-er and .oberts, 1 /0) and involves the partial combustion of a carbonaceous fuel, which produces combustible fuel gas rich in carbon mono&ide, hydrogen and some saturated hydrocarbons (mostly methane). 1he combustible fuel the process produces can be combusted in an internal combustion engine (1chobanoglous et al., 1 A). 5f the several different types of gasifiers, the mostly commonly used are hori+ontal or vertical fi&ed bed, and fluidi+ed beds. (1chobanoglous et al, 1 A). Advantages:

1he products of gasification are very useful for ma-ing products including methanol, ammonia, and diesel fuel (,ar-er, '(((). 1he process is *uite energy efficient (=(? to (?E ;den, 1 ). Waste volume is reduced by about (? (1chobanoglous et al., 1 AE 2umar, '((() and only /#1'? ash is produced compared to 10#'(? for incineration (2umar, '(((). "urthermore, the ha+ardous by#products produced during incineration such as dio&ins and furans are given little opportunity for formation during gasification (;den, 1 ). Disadvantages: %s of 1 A, reliable results with full#scale and pilot#scale gasifiers had not been achieved. %t that time, 1chobanoglous et al. (1 A) stated that gasification systems could not be considered a commercial technology. )owever, since 1 A, some plants have successfully operated on a pilot scale in Canada and the 7S (2umar, '(((). %ccording to %dvanced ;nergy Strategies 4nc. ('((!), application of gasification to municipal waste is still a relatively new development. .emoving inert material before using municipal waste in a gasifier is important in order to reduce air pollution and improve performance, but this can be difficult. ,article si+e distribution, which can be difficult to control, is important to ensure the flow through the gasifier is uniform and bloc-age does not occur (;den, 1 ). 4f the moisture content is ade*uate (between 1(? and '(?), air can be used rather than steam. )owever, most municipal solid waste normally has a moisture content of 0(? and some drying may be necessary (;den, 1 ). 1he product gas may contain particulate matter, heavy metals and other to&ic chemicals (;den, 1 ).

1(.$.

!naerobi# /igestion

Process: %naerobic digestion is the decay of organic matter (without o&ygen) producing primarily carbon dio&ide and methane, but also small amounts of hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, and other compounds (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). 1he putrescible and combustible (paper) fraction of the waste is removed and placed in a contained digester to decay. 1hree main steps are involved in anaerobic digestion (1chobanoglous et al., 1 33). 1he first involves the preparation of theorganic fraction of the waste including sorting, separating and si+e reduction. 1he second step involves adding moisture and nutrients, blending, adCusting the p) to about =.3 and heating the slurry to about 00#=(SC. 1he contents are well mi&ed for 0#1( days. "or colder climates, the slurry is heater to a lower temperature, but mi&ed for a longer period of time. 1he third step involves capture, separation (if necessary) and storage of the gas components. 1he residual sludge must be disposed of (though if free of contaminants, composting may be possible), and treatment of this residual could be considered another step in the process (.obinson, 1 /=). 1he micro#organisms responsible for anaerobic digestion can be divided into two main categoriesB acid formers and methane formers (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). 1he acid formers degrade the comple& organic compounds to simple acids, then the methane formers convert the acids into methane (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). Methane forming bacteria are sensitive to many environmental factorsE maintaining the appropriate temperature

is important, as is preventing o&ygen and other substances to&ic to the microbes from entering the system (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). Methane can be generated in two waysB the gases can be captured directly off of the landfill (sanitary landfill or bioreactor landfill) or the refuse can be pre#treated and digested in a tan-. ;ither high solids digesters or low solids digesters can be used. <ow solids digesters are a well#developed technology, but considerable amounts of water must be added to the waste. )igh solids digesters re*uire little addition of moisture, but their technology is less developed (1chobanoglous et al., 1 A). % minimum of 0 ha is re*uired for a (( tonne>day anaerobic digestion plant (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1)E however, this si+e of plant is much larger than what would be re*uired anywhere in Sas-atchewan. %naerobic digestion of MSW has never been successful in $orth %merica on a prototype scale, though it has been successful in ;urope where the high cost of landfill space ma-es it more economical ("CM, '((!E 6esilind et al., '(('). Advantages: 1he purpose of anaerobic digesters is to utili+e the gas produced by decomposing refuse as a source of fuel (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). %ccording to .icci (1 3!), anaerobic digestion appeared to be the most popular mechanism for methane production from wastes. Waste can be aerobically composted after anaerobic digestion to obtain the benefits of both biogas as well as humus for soil improvement and fuel for power plants (2ayhanian et al., 1 1). 9e :aere (1 /!) discusses the use of high#rate anaerobic composting with biogas recovery, which could be an attractive option economically. 1his process is similar to anaerobic digestion, but the pathogenic materials are removed, allowing for the residual of the digestion to be useable compost. 8lauser et al. (1 /3) found anaerobic digestion to be possible even with the natural moisture content of the organic municipal solid waste fraction of about =(?. "rom the point of view of life cycle cost, anaerobic digestion is comparatively more cost effective (2umar, '(((). Disadvantages: ;nsuring the removal of to&ic substances before the waste goes into the digester is difficult, and the problem of what to do with the residue from anaerobic digestion has not been solved (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). %ccording to ,ar-er and .oberts (1 /0), anaerobic digestion would li-ely only be feasible if it was combined with sewage or agricultural waste digestion. %naerobic digestion is commonly used for treatment of sewage and manure because this material is uniform and easily degradable. 1he addition of such materials to MSW would enhance the digestion process. 1he current trend for anaerobic digestion seems to be towards larger proCects (9e :aere, '(((). %naerobic digestion still has to compete vigorously with aerobic composting (<issens, '((1).

1(.(.

,andfill Gas -tili<ation

From a Sanitary Landfill Process: 8eneration of methane from a sanitary landfill is similar to anaerobic digestion, but without operational control of the process. 1he waste is simply left as is with

no efforts made to increase gas productionE gas is simply captured as it is generated (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). <andfill gas typically consists of 0(#=(? methane, !(#0(? carbon dio&ide, and trace levels of other gases (%lmes R %ssoc. and )olditch R %ssoc., 1 ). 1ypical landfill gas has an energy e*uivalent to about half that of natural gas (%lmes R %ssoc. and )olditch R %ssoc., 1 E 5leary and Walsh., 1 1). 1he methane concentration of the gas needs to be about A0? for energy recovery to be worthwhile (5leary and Walsh , 1 1). 1he decomposition process within a landfill consists of an aerobic stage, anaerobic non#methanogenic stage, anaerobic methane production build#up stage and finally an anaerobic steady state stage (Constega#.overs R %ssoc., 1 /3). % landfill gas recovery and utili+ation system includes four basic componentsB a gas recovery system, a gas pumping system, a gas transmission system, and a gas utili+ation system (Constega#.overs R %ssoc., 1 /3). Advantages: Methane collected off of the landfill can be used for energy, and as with anaerobic digestion, the amount released to the atmosphere is reduced. <andfills are the largest anthropogenic source of methane, accounting for !(? of these emissions (%lmes R %ssoc. and )olditch R %ssoc., 1 ). 4n the 7nited States, e&isting landfill power stations (as of 1 ') provided energy e*uivalent to appro&imately '. million barrels of oil per year, or 03(,((( tonnes of coal per year (6alenti, 1 '). 8as collection also reduces odours, vegetation damage, and fires, and can be a source of revenue (;nvironment Canada, 1 0). <andfill gas utili+ation typically re*uires less maintenance and operation costs compared to anaerobic digestion (1chobanogolous et al., 1 A). 8as e&traction is environmentally beneficial, and considerable economic potential e&ists for methane recovery (,ar-er and .oberts, 1 /0). <andfill gas collection is one of the more popular forms of waste#to#energy, and the number of landfill gas to energy proCects have increased dramatically in recent years, with a 1(? growth per year since 1 ( (1horneloe et al., 1 ). 4n the 7nited States, landfill gasto# energy proCects have climbed from 11( in 1 ', to AA facilities in 1 =, to over 1!( facilities in '((0 (1horneloe et al., 1 !E World .esource 4nstitute, '((0). 4n Canada, numbers climbed from in 1 ' to 13 as of '((0 (;nvironment Canada, '((0aE 1horneloe et al., 1 !). <andfill gas utili+ation can be *uite simple if a factory or large building is located near the landfill where the gas can be piped directly into a boiler (5leary and Walsh, 1 1). <andfill gas collection is most economical if sufficient land is available and proper care is ta-en to treat the leachate collected (2umar, '(((). Disadvantages: %lthough landfill gas is a useful fuel and direct use should increase in the future, estimates from the 7nited States indicate it will unli-ely ever contribute more than (.0? of national gas use (6esilind and .imer, 1 /1). % landfill must have a nearby consumer in order for wells to be economical (.icci, 1 3!). 2umar ('((() emphasi+es that typically =(? of the total plant cost is in the engines or turbines, meaning that either a consumer must be nearby, or utilities must purchase power from the landfill gas facility at a higher cost.

From a Bioreactor Landfill Process: % bioreactor landfill is similar to a regular landfill from which gas is collected, e&cept the waste is stabili+ed and degraded faster by adding li*uid and>or air to enhance microbial processes (;,%, '((!). 1hree ways of creating a bioreactor landfill include aerobic (with o&ygen), anaerobic (without o&ygen), and hybrid (partly with and partly without o&ygen) (;,%, '((!). %ll methods utili+e leachate recirculation to add moisture and aid with bacterial decay. %naerobic landfills result in earlier and more rapid methanogenosis (production of methane gas) and are therefore more common (;,%, '((!). Advantages: :ioreactor landfills provide decomposition and biological stabili+ation in years rather than decades or centuries, which is the case for Gdry tombH landfills, (those in which measures are not ta-en to enhance the rate of decay) (;,%, '((!E ,acey, 1 ). :ioreactor landfills also lead to less to&icity in the waste, reduced leachate disposal costs, a gain in landfill space of 10#A(?, increased landfill gas generation (but much less released into the environment), and reduced post closure care (.einhart and 1ownsend, 1 /E ,acey, 1 E ;,%, '((!E). :ioreactor landfills are more li-ely to allow for the actual methane potential of the MSW to be reali+ed, as compared to regular landfills (;,%, '((!). 1he methane potential of MSW ranges from 1((#13( mA of methane per tonne of MSW (1hompson and 1anapat, '((!). Disadvantages: Compared to the average sanitary landfill, bioreactor landfills produce more gas emissions and odours, have more physical instability of the waste, have increased liner instability, and have increased occurrences of surface seeps and landfill fires (;,%, '((!). 4n drier climates, such as the Canadian prairies, leachate re#circulation alone may not provide sufficient moisture balance to achieve the optimum moisture content, and moisture must be added from another source (,erera and 6an ;verdingen, '((0).

1(.).

2.3.( 9t%er 1ypes

1he following types of waste to energy are not as common as those already mentioned. )owever, they are briefly discussed here since they may become more popular in the future. Pelletization ,elleti+ation is the process of producing fuel pellets from solid waste (2umar, '(((), and involves drying, removal of non#combustibles, grinding and mi&ing. ,ellets have a calorific value roughly four times the amount of raw garbage (2umar, '(((). Thermo Chemical ed!ction 1his technology is more often applied to ha+ardous waste, though it has been used in Canada for municipal solid waste. 1he process is based on the gasphase thermo#chemical reaction of hydrogen with non organic and chlorinated organic compounds at elevated temperatures (around 1(((SC or more) ("CM, '((!). Plasma arc "Pyro#$lasma $rocess%

1his system uses a heat source called a plasma arc flame, which results in the utili+ation of all organic matter, including the non#biodegradable fraction (2umar, '(((). 1his process is still in the developmental stage, and no commercial scale units managing municipal solid waste in $orth %merica are in e&istence. )owever, different patented plasma arc systems are proposed for the treatment of ha+ardous waste ("CM, '((!). &arret Flash Pyrolysis 1his is low temperature pyrolysis (A0( to !0(SC) that produces fuel oil (2umar, '(((). Fermentation "ermentation is a biological conversion process used for the production of ethanol. 1he most suitable feedstoc-s are wood, agricultural residues, grasses, and the organic portion of municipal waste (:Celdanes and :eard, 1 =). ef!se Derived F!el " DF% .9" systems treat waste to produce fuel that can be used to substitute conventional fossil fuels, typically coal, in industrial manufacturing, utility power generation, and institutional applications (e.g., district heating). 4n Canada, one such facility is in operation in Caledon, 5ntario, however commercial use of their gas has yet to occur ("CM, '((!). Fl!idized Bed Com'!stion "luidi+ed bed combustors have been commercially used for homogenous wastes, though they can be used for municipal waste as well. 1he process is similar in some ways to pyrolysis and gasification. %ir is inCected and dispersed into a sand bed, decreasing the density of the sand mass to enable it to transport air and heat to the particles of waste substance to be treated (combusted). 1he temperature is raised to appro&imately /0(SC and the waste is moved into the body of the sand bed by the convection current movement of the air and sand particles. 1he waste is burned to produce carbon mono&ide and other volatiles that can be utili+ed. 1he bi#products are flue gases and ash ("CM, '((!).

1).Comparison of te#%nologies
S $o .
;b<ective o Study 3unctional =nit Mass of MSW set out for collection (MSW J nonha+ardous solid waste generated in residential, commercial, and institutional, sectors) Conclusions

1o present a set of life#cycle emission factors per unit of electricity generated for <"81; and W1; using the MSW#9S1 (Municipal Solid Waste # 9ecision Support 1ool).

When the obCective was to compare the per unit electricity generated, W1; was a better option than <"81;. When comparing emissions, W1; had lower $5&, S5&, and ,M emissions than <"81;.

'

1o compare SWM strategies that minimi+e cost and 8)8 emissions using the MSW#9S1. 1o compare two strategies for treatment of organic household waste using ;%S;W%S1; (;nvironmental %ssessment of Solid Waste Systems and 1echnologies)B (1) anaerobic digestion of organic household waste, (') combustion of organic household waste with residual MSW. 1o analy+e the validity of si& SWM models on three waste treatment scenarios for C5' emissionsB landfill, combustion, and material recovery facility. 1he models were %.;S, ;,4C>CS. (4ntegrated Solid Waste Management 1ool), MSW#9S1, 4WM' (4ntegrated Waste Management '), 5.W%.;, and 7M:;.15.

Mass of MSW set out for collection

When the obCective was to minimi+e cost, a recyclables drop#off facility was the cheapest SWM alternative. When the obCective was to minimi+e 8)8 emissions, a W1; facility was shown to be superior. 1he combustion scenario may supply more dwellings with energy for heating and electricity and reduce 8)8 emissions. )owever, large energy and resource savings occur with both scenarios. 1he results show that the combustion of organic waste is marginally better than anaerobic digestion with regards to global warming.

Mass of separated organic household waste in %arhhus, 9enmar-

Mass of household waste in 9resden, 8ermany

1o evaluate ten SWM options on collection, long haul transportation, recycling (including transfer stations and materials recovery facilities), combustion, and landfilling for 8)8, energy consumption, nitrogen o&ide emissions, and cost using the MSW#9S1. 1o evaluate alternative plans for SWM in the State of 9elaware for cost and 8)8 emissions considering curbside recycling, yard waste composting, and W1; to divert waste from landfills. 1he MSW#9S1 model was used. 1o establish a techni*ue for determining the carbon content of MSW and to use this techni*ue to analy+e the 8)8 impacts of W1; facilities and landfills. 1he MSW# 9S1 model was used for the <C%.

Mass of MSW

Mass of MSW set out for collection

"ive of the si& models agreed that the M." scenario had the lowest C5' emissions, followed by either the landfill or incineration scenarios. )owever, the paper did not differentiate C5'#fossil and C5'#biomass, nor did the paper include fugitive C)! emissions. 1he results are, therefore, incomplete and misleading. When the obCective was to minimi+e cost, the scenario with '(? recycling and /(? landfilled waste with no gas collection and control was found to be the most cost effective option. When e&amining impact categories such as acidification, smog, net carbon emissions, and human health a A(? recycle rate with 3(? combustion using a W1; facility generating electricity and recovery of metals was the best scenario. Curbside recycling for only a fraction of the population was found to be the most cost effective strategy to achieve a state landfill diversion target. 1o meet 8)8 emissions at the minimum cost, using W1; for a fraction of the total waste was the optimal solution. When the obCective was to compare <C% results of W1; and various landfill designs for W1; emissions, W1; was found to mitigate more 8)8 due to electricity generation.

' million tons MSW

When the obCective was to compare 1o test the validity of a waste <C% results of landfilling, combustion, hierarchy by evaluating different and recycling, landfilling was found to be scenarios for SWM considering the least preferred option over a long landfilling, combustion with energy Mass of period of time. %s a general rule, the recovery, and recycling of newspaper and waste hierarchy is valid and should / newsprint and ,;1. ,;1 remain recycling, combustion, landfilling. 6egend: <"81; J landfill gas#to#energy W1; J waste#to#energy SWM J solid waste management MSW J municipal solid waste 8)8 J greenhouse gas ,M J particulate matter ,;1 J polyethylene terephthalate

%riterion 1 & 'rocessing %a acity 1he 1aCiguas <andfill currently disposes appro&imately ''(,((( tons per year (tpy) of postrecycled municipal solid waste (MSW). Criterion 1 considered the capability of a conversion technology (C1) to process this amount of MSW, if not initially, then within 1( years of the first operating year of the proCect. .ecogni+ing that some technologies may benefit by starting at a smaller capacity, while still being developed on a commercial scale sufficient to significantly increase diversion from landfill disposal, an initial minimum capacity of 1((,((( tpy was established. Specifically, Criterion 1 is as followsB Criterion 1: Any considered CT m!st 'e ca$a'le of $rocessing a minim!m of ()),))) tons $er year "t$y% of *S+ d!ring the first o$erating year of the $ro,ect, and m!st 'e ca$a'le of increasing ca$acity !$ to --),))) t$y .ithin () years of the first o$erating year of the $ro,ect. 1able !#' provides a summary of the processing capacity proposed by each respondent, along with an assessment of whether each respondent meets the criterion. %s summari+ed in the table, seven of the respondents have proposed an initial capacity at the full build#out of appro&imately ''(,((( tpy, and three have proposed lesser initial capacities with e&pansion over time. 5ne respondent (5WS) did not propose a capacity. Several respondents indicated some fle&ibility in the initial proCect capacity to meet the needs of the City and County (e.g., 4;S proposed and initial capacity of ''(,((( tpy, but would be willing to start smaller if desired by the City and CountyE )erhof proposed an initial capacity of ''(,((( tpy, but would li-e to consider a A=(,((( tpy facility if of interest to the City and County). 1able !#' also includes information on the acreage re*uired for proCect development. 4n most cases, the respondents estimate that the =#acre area would be sufficient for proCect development. Some respondents indicate the need for additional acreage, or the preference for more space if it could be made available. :ased on information available, eight respondents meet Criterion 1. %s summari+ed below, three respondents do not meet Criterion 1B N ;rganic 9aste Systems > 1naerobic Digestion) 5WS did not propose a proCect capacity for Santa :arbara, but provided general information supporting their ability to process between 1((,((( tpy and ''(,((( tpy of the sorted organic fraction of MSW. %lthough pre#processing is re*uired, 5WS did not specify a technology, indicating local firms typically provide that part of the proCect when re*uired. 5WS stated, however, that it could provide pre#processing. :ased on the information submitted in response to the ."4 and on %.4Fs previous review of 5WS for $ew Mor- City, its process is applied most

often to source#separated organic waste, and its e&perience in processing mi&ed MSW (including necessary front#end processing and the generation of mar-etable compost from mi&ed MSW) is limited. %s a result, 5WSDs ability to develop a large#scale plant processing mi&ed MSW (including !#' necessary pre#processing) is uncertain. 5WS reported that a 1((,((( tpy digestion facility would re*uire 0#3.0 acres. :ased on the information provided and %.4Fs evaluation of 5WS for $ew Mor- City, this area is believed to be for the digestion process only. "ull proCect development, including pre# processing and other proCect components, would li-ely re*uire 1(#10 acres for 1((,((( tpy and '( acres or more for full development at ''(,((( tpy. While not clear based on information provided, it appears unli-ely that 5WS could develop a proCect of the re*uired capacity within the available acreage. N 'rimenergy > Thermal Gasi ication) ,rimenergy proposed a ''(,((( tpy proCect consisting of a front#end M." followed by two gasification trains. 1he M." technology has not yet been selected so it could not be evaluated. 1he gasification technology is in operation commercially and at a scale comparable to that suggested for Santa :arbara, but not for MSW. ,rimenergy has a 00( tpd ('((,((( tpy) reference facility in %r-ansas, but the facility processes rice hulls. ,rimenergyDs gasification technology has been tested at only a small#scale (A( tpd) pilot installation, for an unspecified amount of .9". 1his is below the capacity re*uired to demonstrate the technology (see Criterion T/). :ased on the limited e&perience of the technology with MSW, its ability to operate at ''(,((( tpy is uncertain and Criterion 1 is not determined to be met. 4n addition, ,rimenergy has specified that the proCect will re*uire a total of 1' acres U = acres each for the M." and gasification facility, which is double the acreage currently available for a proCect. %lthough the two components could be physically separate, this would not be an ideal arrangement and would still re*uire additional land. N 9orld 9aste Technologies > Thermal Gasi ication) World Waste has stated that its technology platform is capable of accommodating up to '0(,((( tpy of MSW, using two gasification trains. World Waste further stated that the proCect configuration would fit within the =#acre site. 1he gasification technology proposed by World Waste is not yet in commercial operation, and has been tested at only a small#scale (0 tpd) pilot plant, for an unspecified type of waste. 1his is below the capacity re*uired to demonstrate the technology (see Criterion T/). :ased on the limited e&perience of the technology, its ability to operate at ''(,((( tpy is uncertain and Criterion 1 is not determined to be met. Ta$le 4(2) %riterion 1 & 'rocessing %a acity
Criterion 1: Any considered CT must be capable of processing a minimum of 100,000 tons per year (tpy) of MSW during the first operating year of the pro ect, and must be capable of increasing capacity up to !!0,000 tpy "ithin 10 years of the first operating year of the pro ect#

Table ,-!) Criterion 1 > 'rocessing Capacity

'ro*ect +evelo er and/or Tec!nology ,# lier *Li%ted +lp,a-etically -y Type o Tec,nolo"y. -nitial 'rocessing %a acity .#t#re 'rocessing %a acity

S $o.

Anaero$ic +igestion %A /enewa$le Tec!nologies (%A/T) / !#0# 1ncorporated /+rro2 3colo"y and 3n"ineerin" 4+naero-ic 5i"e%tion6

Ecocor 4+naero-ic 5i"e%tion6

'
0rganic 1aste ,ystems A (01,)

4+naero-ic 5i"e%tion6

) 1007000 tpy ) 2/line plant at 150 tpd eac, line *300 tpd total.8 2/%,i t operation 2it, 13.5 producti$e ,our% per day ) Similar re erence acility in Sydney7 +u%tralia *MS97 2/line plant at 1007000 tpy. i% under con%truction8 %maller re erence acility operational in Tel +$i$7 1%rael *MS97 1/line plant at 507000 tpy. ) 1nitial pro:ect re;uire% 3.5 acre%8 ront/end and -ac</end o %y%tem do not ,a$e to -e conti"uou%8 initial %ite layout 2ould -e de%i"ned to acilitate uture e=pan%ion ) 2207000 tpy ) (um-er and capacity o unit% not %peci ied8 a$aila-ility not %peci ied ) !ompara-le re erence acility *?arcelona7 Spain. proce%%e% 3307000 tpy o MS9 ) >ro:ect re;uire% 5.5 acre%7 includin" a 307000 % indu%trial -uildin" * or pre/ proce%%in" and po%t/proce%%in". ) !apacity not propo%ed ) 3=ample pro$ided o an anaero-ic di"e%tion acility *e=cludin" pre/proce%%in". t,at could di"e%t t,e %orted7 or"anic raction o up to 2007000 tpy o incomin" MS98 no detail% or pre/ proce%%in" ) 3=perience i% predominantly 2it, %ource/ %eparated or"anic 2a%te ) #e erence acility *@itoria7 Spain. proce%%e% 1207000 tpy o mi=ed 2a%te8 compara-ility o 2a%te to MS9 un<no2n ) 1007000 tpy di"e%tion proce%% re;uire% 5/7.5 acre%8 ull pro:ect 2ould li<ely re;uire t2ice a% muc, %pace8 acrea"e not %peci ied or 2207000 tpy acility

) 2207000 tpy ) 3=panded -y modula de%i"n ) >otential or economie% o % at e=panded capacity ) !+#T e=pec ull -uild/out can -e con%tructed on t acre %ite

Same a% initial capacity

!apacity not propo%ed

T!ermal 'rocessing Ada tive"/2 4T,ermal A >la%ma Ba%i ication6

) 2197000 tpy ) 3i",t *8. %tandard %iCe7 100/tpd reactor% *model %-2000.7 6 o 2,ic, are proce%%in" at all time% *600 tpd total capacity. ) Modular de%i"n7 -ut multiple/reactor pro:ect% not pre$iou%ly in%talled ) #e;uired ootprint i% appro=imately 6 acre%7 inclu%i$e o %pace or uture up"rade% to lar"er capacity i de%ired *i.e.7 addition o %upplemental reactor% and po2er "enerator%. ) 2207000 tpy ) 3 proce%%in" train%7 de%i"ned to proce%% 125 tpd dry 2a%te eac, or 200 tpd a%/recei$ed MS9 ) Multiple/unit acility not pre$iou%ly in%talled ) 3=i%tin" re erence acility in #omoland7 !+7 ,a% a capacity o 50 tpd8 125/tpd %y%tem i% under de$elopment ) >ro:ect re;uire% appro=imately 5 acre% ) 2207000 tpy ) 2 unit% at 352 tpd eac, *704 tpd total.7 85.6D "uaranteed a$aila-ility ) !ompara-le re erence acility *Eura%,i<i7 Fapan. proce%%e% 1907000 tpy o MS9 ) >ro:ect re;uire% minimum o 6 acre%7 -ut 8 acre% 2ould -e pre erred8 19T 2illin" to incur co%t to reclaim additional property at t,e %ite or purc,a%e additional land ad:acent to t,e %ite ) 1507000 tpy ) 4 unit% at 110 tpd eac, ) Multiple/unit acility not pre$iou%ly in%talled ) #e erence acility in &tta2a7 !anada7 con%i%t% o 1 unit o t,e %ame capacity *110 tpd. ) >ro:ect re;uire% 6 acre% ) 2207000 tpy ) 2 M#G proce%%in" line% *%peci ic

Same a% initial capacity

-nternational Environmental ,ol#tions (-E,) / 13S /&ne >lanet 3ner"y / #ain-o2 5i%po%al / ?ro2nco 4T,ermal A >yroly%i%6

Same a% initial capacity7 unle%% San ?ar-ara c,oo%e% to %tart %maller and e=pand to 2207000 tpy

-nterstate 1aste Tec!nologies (-1T) 4T,ermal A Ba%i ication6

Same a% initial capacity

3 /
'lasco Energy 2ro#

) 2207000 tpy ) +ddition o 2 unit%

4T,ermal A >la%ma Ba%i ication6

*110 tpd eac,. ) 9ill re;uire 2 additi acre% or a %eparate %ite 2it, 4 acre%

'rimenergy 33%

Same a% initial capacity

4T,ermal A Ba%i ication6

Ta*ig#as 'artners /9a%te to 3ner"y7 LL! / 3ntec, Solution% / ?ur-an< #ecyclin" / ?ed ord 3nterpri%e%

M#G tec,nolo"y not yet %elected. ) 2 "a%i ication't,ermal train% ) #e erence acility in Stutt"art7 +r<an%a% *3 unit%7 550 tpd total.7 proce%%e% rice ,ull%7 -ut not MS98 limited MS9 e=perience A demon%tration unit in Tul%a7 &<la,oma *1 unit7 30 tpd. ,a% te%ted #5G ) M#G and "a%i ication acility 2ould eac, re;uire 6 acre% * or a total o 12 acre%.. +lt,ou", acilitie% could -e p,y%ically %eparated7 re;uire% dou-le t,e a$aila-le acrea"e ) 2207000 tpy ) 1nitial acility de%i"n or e=pan%ion to lar"er M#G capacity ) Site layout pro$ided %,o2in" %uita-ility o 6/acre area ) Suita-le re erence acilitie% ) up to 2507000 tpy ) 2 re u%e deri$ed uel proce%%in" *#5G. line% and one t,ermal proce%%in" line *"a%i ier7 tur-ine'"enerator7 air pollution control.8 no detail% pro$ided ) 500/ tpd acility *2 line%. commi%%ioned in +na,eim7 !+ in 2006 *#5G proce%%in" to -ioma%% eed%toc<8 no "a%i ication.8 ,o2e$er7 t,i% i% not t,e propo%ed ront/end %y%tem ) Limited e=perience or "a%i ication tec,nolo"y8 lar"e%t e=i%tin" in%tallation i% a 5/tpd pilot unit ) +ppro=imately 6 acre% re;uired or pro:ect de$elopment ) 2207000 tpy ) 13 -iolo"ical dryin" -o=e% *350ton capacity eac,. and 2 mec,anical proce%%in" line% ) !ompara-le re erence acilitie% *7. in Bermany7 1taly and ?el"ium ran"in" rom 857000 to 1557000 tpy MS98 2207000 tpy acility *Bermany. %c,eduled to -e complete in 2008 ) 6/acre %ite i% %uita-le or pro:ect de$elopment

) >otential uture e=pan%ion o M#G capacity to mana"e !05 and %in"le %tream recycla-le% *to -e in%talled

1'

4T,ermal A Ba%i ication6 1orld 1aste Tec!nologies

2it,in ootprint o initial pro:ect de%i" Same a% initial capacity

4T,ermal A Ba%i ication6

11

0t!er Tec!nology 4er!of %alifornia*1. 4&t,er A ?iolo"ical 5ryin"'Mec,anical Separation' !om-u%tion & /%ite6

Same a% initial capacity

1'

1*.!doption of te#%nology 1*.1. G-0/ 19 0N010!, !&& &&M N1 98 ! P91 N10!, P69= C1
1his section describes the general steps that a procurer of a waste management service or processing facility should ta-e in assessing the viability of the proCect. 1he guide is then rounded off with e&amples of specific issues to be considered and the conse*uences of failing to ade*uately assess and address these issues at an early stage.

1*.1.1.

/efine Pro>e#t 9b>e#ti"es ? Constraints

1he first step in a proCect should be to define the desired outcome and the constraints that will limit the options available. % list of the main criteria that may be relevant to a waste thermal treatment proCect are given belowB The 9aste Stream 1) )ow much waste is there to be treatedV ') What type of waste is to be treatedV "or e&ample does it contain Cust MSW or does it include commercial waste, sewage sludge, tyres etc.V A) What are the characteristics of the waste in terms of chemical composition, calorific value, particle si+e, moisture, *uantity of ash, and properties of ashV Energy =tilisation !) 4s there a suitable mar-et for heat sales nearbyV 0) 4s there a suitable mar-et for the syngas product nearby such as a power station or industrial plantV =) 4s it possible to connect to the local electricity distribution networ- or large power consumers at a reasonable costV 'rocurement and 3inance 3) 4s the intention to procure a waste treatment plant or a waste treatment serviceV /) )ow will the proCect be financedV 1he re*uired method of finance may preclude certain procurement strategies and some technologiesE ) What are the budget and other financial constraintsV 'ermitting 1() What are the li-ely planning constraintsV 11) What is the li-ely acceptability of the proCect and technology to interested partiesV

1*.1.2.

!ssess 6is@s

1he main ris- issues to be assessed as early as possible areB 1) Will the plant perform reliably and efficiently over the proCect lifeV a) %re there comparable reference plantsV

b) 9o the contractors and suppliers have ade*uate and relevant trac- recordsV c) "or imported technology, how will the plant be delivered in the 72 and supported throughout its operating lifeV ') %re the estimates of plant economics and plant performance realisticV a) )as the technology supplier built any similar plants to base their estimates of plant costs and plant performance onV b) What is the basis of the estimatesV c) What are the conse*uences of estimating errorsV A) %re the contract structure, guarantees, and warranties ade*uateV a) 9o the guarantees accurately reflect the performance obCectives and are they provableV b) %re the guarantees realistic when compared with the performance of the supplierFs reference plantsV c) Can the guarantors afford to honour their guarantees in the event of claimsV What are their financial strengths and credit ratingsV !) Some of the potential conse*uences of failure will be reduced for the purchaser if the facilities are to be built and owned by a service provider for a gate fee. )owever, the purchaser will still be left with the cost of alternative disposal or penalties for failing to achieve landfill diversion targets if the proCect fails to deliver.

1*.1.3.

!ssess /eli"erability

1he main hurdles to delivery of a proCect are the ability to obtain finance, necessary permissions to build and operate the plant, and the ability of both the contractor and the technology supplier to deliver the performance re*uired by the proCect. 1he means of overcoming these hurdles must be clear from the outset to avoid the ris- of spending time and resources pursuing options that cannot be delivered.

1*.1.4.

!bility to !ttra#t 8inan#e

1) )ow will the proCect be financedV a) "ew organisations will be able and willing to finance large proCects from theirbown balance sheetsE b) 4f debt finance is re*uired then the ris- of unproven technologies is unli-ely to be accepted by lenders. ') 4s the intention to purchase the facility outrightV 4n this case, the purchaser will procure the facility re*uiring significant capital e&penditure. a) "or proCects that depend on debt finance, the ris- of multiple contracts is unli-ely be acceptable to lenders unless the technology is mature and proven, the proCect management team has a sound trac- record and a 72 cost record establishedE

b) ,rocurement by means of a lump sum design and build turn-ey contract will be more acceptable to lenders but will significantly increase costs, since the main contractor will charge a fee for ta-ing on the overall ris- for the proCectE c) 1here are very few remaining maCor contractors in the 72 mar-et willing to offer contracts on a design and build lump sum basis, against firm performance guarantees, for proCects based on proven technology and none for proCects based on unproven technology. A) %lternatively, is it intended to let a waste treatment contract in which the service provider finances the facilityV a) 1he purchaser re*uires little or no capital and is not subCected to these ris-sE b) 1he service provider will ta-e on the tas- and ris-s of obtaining capital. 1he same considerations listed in item ') above will applyE c) 1he purchaser will still need to consider the ris- and conse*uences of having no waste treatment facility if the service provider fails to deliverE d) 1he purchaser will pay a premium to the service provider to cover ris-s, financing and operation of the plant.

1*.1.$.

Planning ? 6eg'latory 0ss'es

1) What is the planning application process li-ely to involve and is it li-ely to be successfulV a) 9oes the proCect conform to government and local waste strategiesV b) )as a case been Custified for the proCect as the best practicable environmental optionV c) What is the li-ely acceptability of the proCect to local residents, local businesses, politicians, and environmental pressure groupsV d) 4s a public in*uiry li-ely to be re*uiredV e) 9oes the political will necessary for the approval of the proCect e&istV ') Will the proCect comply with the stringent emission re*uirements of the Waste 4ncineration 9irective (W49)V A) 4s the environmental case for the proCect robust enough to achieve authori+ation under the ,,C .egulationsV

1*.1.(.

Contra#ting 9rgani<ation

1he si+e, financial position, and e&perience of the contractor and technology supplier are critical in determining whether a particular proCect will be delivered on time, to budget and to specification.

1*.1.).
worthB

!ssess 7enefits

1) %ssess the availability of .5Cs (renewables obligation certificates) and their a) Chec- whether the technology will *ualify for .5CsE

b) 4f the technology *ualifies, assess what portion of the power generated will be classed as renewable and therefore *ualify for .5CsE c) "inancial bac-ers for the proCect may insist on a long#term power purchase agreement with an electricity supplier, which will reduce the value of the .5Cs. 9irective '(((>3=>;C, '(((, on the incineration of waste G1he ,,C .egulationsH, S4'(((>1 3A). %s amended by S4'((1>0(A Statutory 4nstrument '((' $o 1! G1he .enewables 5bligation 5rder '(('H ') %ssess materials recoveryB a) %re the claimed materials recovery rates proven or Cust theoretical estimatesV b) 4s the materials recovery due to the choice of thermal treatment technology or due to pre#treatment systems that could be applied regardless of technology to obtain similar benefitsV c) %re there ade*uate mar-ets for these recovered materials or will they be classed as a waste that re*uires disposalV d) %re the recovered materials of ade*uate *uality for the intended useV e) What is the net cost>revenue for disposal>sale of these recovered materialsV A) %ssess energy recovery ratesB a) %re the energy recovery efficiencies, heat and>or power, provenV b) %re there ready mar-ets for heat and>or powerV c) What is the net cost>revenue for disposal>sale of the heat and>or powerV !) %ssess alternative uses for the product syngasB a) %re there ade*uate proven mar-ets for the syngasV b) 4s the syngas clean enough to satisfy these mar-etsV c) What is the net revenue for sale of syngasV

1*.1.*.

!ssess 8inan#ial Costs

1) What is the li-ely capital cost of the entire proCectV 1he capital cost should includeB a) Cost of the plantE b) ;nabling costs such as electrical connectionsE c) <and costsE d) 9evelopment fees and costsE e) 4nterest during construction. ') What is the li-ely operating cost for each year of the proCectV 1he operating costs should includeB a) <abourE b) Short#term and long#term maintenanceE c) ConsumablesE d) "i&ed costs such as rates and insurance. A) What are the financing costsV

1*.1.3.

!ssess n"ironmental 0mpa#ts

What is the environmental impact of the proCect including emissions to land, air and waterV 4t is important to consider the overall impact of the proCect including the impact of processes that ta-e place before the waste arrives on site and after the products and residues leave the plant. ;nergy recovery from waste is the conversion of non#recyclable waste materials into useable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion, gasification, pyroli+ation, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas (<"8) recovery. 1his process is often called waste#to#energy (W1;). ;nergy recovery from waste is part of the non#ha+ardous waste management hierarchy. Converting non#recyclable waste materials into electricity and heat generates a renewable1 energy source and reduces carbon emissions by offsetting the need for energy from fossil sources and reduces methane generation from landfills.

G1echnology choices are important but the *uestion is not technological, it is political.H