TITECH

Sensor based sorting

By: Jacob Rognhaug, Sales Manager/Titech
October, 2010
 Content:
Introduction to TITECH

MSW:
Waste handling alternatives
Sorting of mixed Household Waste
Example of running cost for automatic sorting
Example of running cost for semi-automatic sorting
Example of running cost for manual sorting

1
 TITECH is 100% focused on:
Sensor based sorting

From waste to money: A wide range of high-tech sensors are utilised

to identify material on a conveyor belt and sort it out by air jets

2
 Movie NIR technology

Video

3
 still TITECHs involvement from an early stage
is relevant

Waste
Authorities Advice

Waste
consultant Advice

Plant
operator Advice

Plant Advice
builder
Equipment

4
Example: Dry Recyclables
- segregated at source

Beverage cartons

PET

PE
Inputmaterial packaging waste

PP

PS

Card boards

Sorting plant
De Inking
5
 Example of use Recovered paper

De Inking

Inputmaterial Recoered mixed Paper

Mixed paper

Card boards

Sorting plant
Beverage cartons
6
 Example of use Pre-sorted material

PET clear

Inputmaterial Mixed PET bottles

PET green/blue

PET brown
Sorting plant

7
Example of use Commercial and
industrial waste

RDF

Wood

Input material Mixed C&I waste

Mixed paper

Film

Sorting plant Mixed plastic

8
 Example of use Household waste

Beverage cartons Mixed paper

Inputmaterial Mixed household waste

PET

PE/PP

Sorting plant RDF

PE film
9
Example of use Electronic waste

ABS/PS

PE/PP

Inputmaterial Mixed electronic waste

Cu /Brass

Cable

Printed circuit boards

Sorting plant

10
TITECH Group The leading provider of sensor
based material sorting systems

Owner of TiTech Group

Listed on
Oslo Stock Exchange
Annual turnover
3-400 Mill Euro

TITECH GROUP - 160 employees in 10 countries

RECYCLING MINING FOOD

Plastics, paper, Minerals, gems, Meat and Seafood

metals etc. coal, etc.

11
 Installed base
More than 2400* units in 35 countries
Only Recycling
systems in
operation

Only Mining
systems in
operation

Both
Recycling and
Mining
systems in
operation

*Recycling: ~2250 machines

Mining: ~150 machines
Food: ~ 10 machines

12
 Titech Group history

Ultrasort Group
acquired.
Commodas
Mining
established.

CommoDas
Gmbh
acquired.

QVision AS
1990: TiTech established
TiTech Real Vision
started as R&D Visionsort AS Systems Gmbh
project in established. acquired.
Elopak.

TiTech Group
acquired by
Tomra Systems
ASA.

13
Municipal Soilid Waste (MSW)
sensor based sorting

Jacob Rognhaug
Sales Manager
 it all started with separate collection of
packaging in Germany
The national system for recycling of household packing got well
established during the first half of the 1990s at that stage based
on manual sorting.

this gave the foundation for development of advanced processing

technology and Titechs fist machine in 1996..

VS.

15
 today
this processing and sorting technology has proven efficient
sorting of recyclables from more complex input material like Mixed
Municipal Solid Waste.

Today Titech is sorting recyclables

out of MSW in ~25 plants:
Spain: ~20
Italy: 2
Germany: 1-3
Cyprus: 1

Titech is involved in 50-100 MSW projects world wide:

Russia, Greece, UK, Poland, Norway, Eastern Europe, Middle East

16
1 Plant lay out example for 100.000t/a
30 t/h household waste

* infeeder Bag opener

4 t/h screen
> 300mm D = 300mm
FE
metal

Misc.
Recycl.
screen < 60mm
1-2 t/h Magnet
D = 60mm 12 t/h

16 t/h 60 300mm
0,5 t/h

* FE NE Eddy
metals magnet
metals current

All plastic Residue or

TITECH NIR TITECH NIR
biological
5,8 t/h 2m 2m
treatment

2 Plant lay out example for 100.000t/a
After plastic sorter

Mixed paper TITECH NIR TITECH NIR

2,0m 2,0m
5 t/h

TITECH NIR
Mixed paper
*
2,0m

0,3 t/h

* 1500 eddy
NE metals
current

TiTech NIR
RDF
2,0m

optional

residue

3 Plant lay out example for 100.000t/a

Mixed plastic 5,8 t/h

Ballistik rolling
Separator
d= 50mm 3,3 t/h

To fines
TITECH NIR PET *
2,0 m clear
Fllat
fraction
TITECH NIR PET
1,4 m col.

TITECH NIR PP *
1,4 m

TITECH NIR *
2,5 t/h HDPE
1m

TITECH NIR *
2,8m film

RDF

 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

WASTE HANDLNG
ALTERNATVES

20
 Waste handling alternatives

Separate collection of

Glass Paper Packaging E-scrap Biodegradables misc.

Sorting Sorting Sorting Sorting Sorting Sorting

plant plant plant plant plant plant

+
Precious recyclables are being collected
-
High logistical effort
Every fraction has to be sorted because none are clean enough for immediate
recycling
High space requirements in cities
Expensive System

Cost intensive system and today outdated from a

technological point of view!
21
 Waste handling alternatives
Collection Collection Collection

Landfill Incineration Waste Sorting

+ + +
Cheap Waste is being inert, no All resources are being
- harm recovered
Waste of resources - Positive CO2 Balance
Negative CO2 Balance Waste of ressources Cost efficient system
Very expensive < 25% Residue (depending
Approx. 26% Residue on waste composition)
Approx. 2% Hazardous w. -
Relatively low energetic Residues are not fully inert
yield

The economical and ecological best system is the

sorting of waste collected all-in-one-bin
22
Cost overview collection, sorting and
disposal of waste
100 100 %

90 The economical and

ecological best way to treat
80 waste is to sort out the
recyclables.
70

60
54 %
50

40
33 %
30
20 %
20
14 % 15 %

10 5%

0
Residue Organics Packaging Paper Sum All in one bin All
Separate Collection incinerated
23
 Running cost calculation for MSW sorting

EXAMPLE: AUTOMATC,
SEM-AUT. AND MANUAL

24
 Basic data for the calculation
Calculation and plant design made for 100.000 t/a
Energy costs 0,06 USD per kWh
Personnel overall costs
Manual pickers 320 USD per month
Shift leader, technician, 760 USD per month
Plant manager 1.900 USD per month
Office staff and drivers 1.300 USD per month
Cost for area, not included, ~the same for all three alternatives.
Depreciation time, technology 6 years, buildings and area 15 years.
Interest for investment 6%
Price for fuel 0,5 USD per liter
Insurance 1% yearly from total invest
Cost for disposal from residue, 13 USD/t
Waste composition estimated.

25
 Estimated composition of MSW

26
 General benefit for different recyclables

material Benefit per ton material

RDF 0 USD/t

Fe-metals 180 USD/t

NE-metals 820 USD/t
Mixed paper 45 USD/t
PE film 110 USD/t
HDPE 140 USD/t
PP 80 USD/t
PET
clear 355 USD/t
blue 140 USD/t
green 115 USD/t

residue -13 USD/t

Sales Recyclables per ton, baled

Price development Film Price development Hollow bodies

(post consumer/market average) (post consumer/market average)

PP mixed hard HDPE hollow bodies (C 29)

LDPE foil colored PE-mixed film (90 /10) PET bottles transparent PET bottles mixed colored
Crude Oil Type 'Brent'
PE-mixed film (80 /20) Crude Oil Type 'Brent'
350 350

The market for recyclables300is a 300

growing one, even though also hit by

250 250
the financial recession in 2008.
200 200

150 150

100 100

Source: EUWID 50 50
Source: EUWID

0 0

Plant design for 100.000t/a, automatic.

30 t/h household waste

infeeder Bag opener

4 t/h screen
> 300mm D = 300mm
FE
metal

Misc.
Recycl.
screen < 60mm
1-2 t/h Magnet
D = 60mm 12 t/h

16 t/h 60 300mm
0,5 t/h

FE NE Eddy
metals magnet
metals current

All plastic Residue or

TITECH NIR TITECH NIR
biological
5,8 t/h 2m 2m
treatment

Plant design for 100.000t/a, automatic.
After plastic sorter

Mixed paper TITECH NIR TITECH NIR

2,0m 2,0m
5 t/h

TITECH NIR
Mixed paper
2,0m

0,3 t/h

1500 eddy
NE metals
current

TiTech NIR
RDF
2,0m

optional

residue

Plant design for 100.000t/a, automatic.

Mixed plastic 5,8 t/h

Ballistik rolling
Separator
d= 50mm 3,3 t/h

To fines
TITECH NIR PET
2,0 m clear
Fllat
fraction
TITECH NIR PET
1,4 m col.

TITECH NIR PP
1,4 m

TITECH NIR
2,5 t/h HDPE
1m

TITECH NIR
2,8m film

RDF

 Mass balance from automatic plant

material Input Output fraction

PE film 10.200 t/a 8.700 t/a

Mixed paper 27.000 t/a 16.200 t/a

NE metals 1.100 t/a 970 t/a

PET bottles 5.300 t/a 4.900 t/a

HDPE 2.800 t/a 2.500 t/a

PP 3.700 t/a 3.200 t/a

FE 3.000 t/a 2.940 t/a

Total: 53.100 t/a 39.410 t/a

32
 Automatic sorting, needed pickers
material Tonnage per No of sorting No. of pickers
hour units in total

PE film 2.3 t/h 1 NIR unit -

Mixed paper 4,1 t/h 3 NIR units -

NE metals 0,2 t/h 2 Eddy current -

PET bottles 1,5 t/h 2 NIR unit 4

PP 0,9 t/h 1 NIR units 1

HDPE 0,7 t/h 1 NIR units 1

FE 0,7 t/h 2 magnets

>300mm 1,5 t/h - 8

Total 11,9 t/h 10 NIR units 14

33
 Cost overview automatic sorting plant for
MSW; landfill is 13 $/t

34
Plant for 100.000 t/a, semi-automatic.
30 t/h household waste

infeeder Bag opener

4 t/h screen
> 300mm D = 300mm

recyclables
FE
metal
1-2 t/h

screen < 60mm

Magnet
D = 60mm 12 t/h

16 t/h

NE Eddy
60 300mm metals current

< 60mm
Flat
fraction
Ballistic Ballistic
Flat
residue
fraction

Plant for 100.000 t/a, semi-automatic.

Ballistic rolling

FE
magnet
metals

1500 eddy
NE metals
current

Residue`s recyclables

36
Mass balance from semi-automatic plant

material Input Output fraction

PE film 10.200 t/a 3.700 t/a

Mixed paper 27.000 t/a 11.600 t/a

NE metals 1.100 t/a 970 t/a

PET bottles 5.300 t/a 4.000 t/a

HDPE 2.800 t/a 1.600 t/a

PP 3.700 t/a 1.500 t/a

FE 3.000 t/a 2.940 t/a

Total: 53.100 t/a 26.310 t/a

37
Semi-automatic sorting, needed pickers
material Tonnage per What one No. of pickers
hour picker can do in total

PE film 0,8 t/h 50 kg/hour 32

Mixed paper 2,7 t/h 160 kg/hour 34

NE metals 0,2 t/h (2 Eddy current) -

PET bottles 1,2 t/h 120 kg/hour 20

PP 0,4 t/h 100 kg/hour 8

HDPE 0,4 t/h 140 kg/hour 6

FE 0,7 t/h (2 magnets) -

>300mm 1,5 t/h - 8

Total 7,9 t/h 108

>200 Pickers are needed for the same amount of recyclables as for Autom. Sorting
38
Cost overview semi-automatic sorting plant
for MSW; landfill is 13 $/t

39
 Plant for 100.000t/a, manual sorting
30 t/h msw

infeeder Bag opener

screen FE
Magnet
D = 80mm metals
15 t/h

15 t/h

film residue

paper
Picking station
PET
bottles

NE
PP/HDPE
metals

> 60mm

FE
Magnet
metals

residue

 Mass balance from manual plant.

material Input Output fraction

PE film 10.200 t/a 3.000 t/a

Mixed paper 27.000 t/a 9.300 t/a

NE metals 1.100 t/a 500 t/a

PET bottles 5.300 t/a 3.000 t/a

HDPE 2.800 t/a 1.300 t/a

PP 3.700 t/a 1.300 t/a

FE 3.000 t/a 2.940 t/a

Total: 53.100 t/a 21.340 t/a

41
 Manual sorting, needed pickers
material Tonnage per What one No. of pickers
hour picker can do in total

PE film 0,9 t/h 50 kg/hour 36

Mixed paper 2,8 t/h 160 kg/hour 36

NE metals 0,15 t/h 50 kg/hour 6

PET bottles 0,9 t/h 120 kg/hour 16

PP 0,4 t/h 100 kg/hour 8

HDPE 0,4 t/h 140 kg/hour 6

FE 0,9 t/h (2 magnets)

>300mm - Incl. above -

Total 6,45 t/h 108

>240 Pickers are needed for the same amount of recyclables as for Autom. Sorting
42
Cost overview manual sorting plant for MSW;
landfill is 13 $/t

43
 summary
The automatic version has the highest Invest, but with distance the
lowest running costs, if the estimated waste composition is close to
reality and if one picker creates full costs from 320 USD per month.

This is an example and the calculation needs to be done with real

input data for the specific projects.

Running costs from these versions are:

Manual half automatic full automatic
23,1 USD/ton 19,7 USD/ton 11,4 USD/ton

44
 Typical solutions in 1990
Manual sorting in rough conditions, litle recovery rate and high costs

 Typical modern solution
High degree of automation for higher efficiency and lower costs

 Modern automatic sorting is key

in modern waste handling (waste hierarchy)

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)

47
 PCTURE ARC.

48
 MSW input with 30-40% organic waste

49
 NE fraction from 42% org. in input

50
 FE fraction from 42% org. in input

51
 PET fraction from 42% org. in input

52
 PE fraction from 42% org. in input

53
 PP fraction from 42% org. in input

54
 Mixed paper fraction from 42% org. in input

55
 PE film fraction from 42% org. in input

56