Inc Inert or Project Final

Is Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration the Best Option for Waste Management in Cornwall?
A Quantitative Study of the Proposed Energy from Waste Plant in Cornwall
By
Nicholas M J Entwistle
5/1/2010
FdSc Renewable Energy Technologies (2008)Supervised by Michael Hunt
Is Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration the Best Option for Waste Management in Cornwall? Nicholas M J Entwistle
ABSTRACT
This project attempts to quantify claims made of the performance and energy available to the energy recovery plant proposed by Sita, as the replacement to land filling for waste management in Cornwall. This is done through collection of data from documents produced on behalf of Sita by its environmental consultant Environmental Resource Management, as part of its planning and environmental permit applications. Data is also collected from papers produced in a study of Cornwalls waste streams carried out by Measurement Evaluation and Learning on behalf of Cornwall County Council. This is done in order to evaluate the amount of energy in the waste, the energy output from the plant and the efficiency of the plant. This report concludes that ERM have overstated the amount of energy that there is available in the waste and thus the amount of energy the plant will generate annually. It is also concluded that the plant does not meet the levels of efficiency required by the EU to be considered a recovery plant.
2|Page
1 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 5 Questions Raised ................................................................................................................ 7 Limitations of Study ........................................................................................................... 9
METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate? ................................................................................... 11 Hydrogen Content Calculations ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. ERM NCV Calculation ....................................................................................................... 15 What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? ..................................................... 16 What is the efficiency of the CERC? ............................................................................... 16 What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant? .................. 21
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 NCV Calculation for ERM and CCC Compostions. ....................................................... 22 What is the efficiency of the CERC? ............................................................................... 25 What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant? .................. 26 Summary of Results.......................................................................................................... 26
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 26 4.1 4.2 Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate? ................................................................................... 28 Possible Source of ERM NCV figure ............................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Implication of Increased net GHG emissions ............................................................ 31 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 6 7 What is the efficiency of the CERC? Does the efficiency meet EU requirements for Method Improvements .................................................................................................... 34 Suggestions for Future Study ......................................................................................... 35 recovery?........................................................................................................................................ 32
THE CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 38 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. 40 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 43
3|Page
1. INTRODUCTION It has been widely recognised that the available landfill in Cornwall is rapidly becoming exhausted, of the two operational landfill sites in Cornwall one (United Mines) is due to cease operation in October 2010, the other site (Connon Bridge) is due to reach its consented capacity by 2014. However, an extension to the consented capacity at Connon Bridge could allow the site to operate until 2017 (Sita, 2009). In addition to the impending exhaustion of available landfill, the taxes for landfill are due to rise drastically in the coming years to encourage methods of waste management which do not result in the waste being land filled. These taxes, which are currently set at 48 per tonne from the 1st of April 2010, are due to rise to 72 per tonne by 2013 (Sita, 2009). Therefore, the need to find an alternative solution to waste management in Cornwall is an urgent issue. Sita are a waste management company who from 2006 hold a 30 year contract with Cornwall County Council (CCC) for the management of its waste. In order to manage the aforementioned issues Sita have proposed the construction of the Cornish Energy Recovery Centre (CERC,) an energy from waste (EfW) incinerator to deal with the countys waste whilst recovering useful electricity and heat from the combustion of the waste. In this report the author will quantify claims made by Sita of the proposed CERC, in respect to its suitability as a successor to majority landfill in Cornwall. A retrospective calculation will be made in order to ascertain whether the amount of energy in the input waste (Calorific Value, CV), stated as 9.8GJ/tonne by ERM, is accurate using their own waste composition breakdown and hence questioning its proposed energy output. The nature of the composition of Cornish waste will also be investigated and compared to the composition given by Environmental Resource Management (ERM) on behalf of Sita. The aim of this comparison will be to find out how the nature of the composition of the waste locally, and its associated differing
4|Page
CVs will affect the potential energy output of the Incinerator, production a more realistic figure and again questioning ERMs proposals. Although Sita and ERM make no claims about the proposed plants efficiency, they do provide sufficient information in their Environment Agency permit application document (ERM, 2008) to be able calculate it. Within this document they do make claims as to the calorific value (CV) of the waste which is to become the feedstock of the incinerator and hence energy produced by the incinerator. These claims are insubstantiated in the document, however they do give a breakdown of the waste that they are basing their calculations on, which quote national sources for the information. The generation figures which they give are based on this national CV, although the figure that they give is at odds with a figure for the CV of municipal solid waste (MSW), given by the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) which gives an estimated net CV figure of 6.7 GJ per tonne (DUKES, 2008), ERM give a figure of 9.8 GJ per tonne in their documentation (ERM, 2008).
1.1 Literature Review The contention surrounding the proposed CERC has reached a fever pitch in spring 2010 with the commencement of the appeals process by which Sita hope to overturn the previously refused planning permission for the plant. One reason for objecting to the plant is that it results in the destruction of the waste, much of which is an important reusable or recyclable resource. Broadhurst states that incineration is fundamentally wrong (Broadhurst, 2010) because it is a waste of resources in a world where resource depletion is an increasing problem. A further reason for objection to the incinerator is that suitable plant efficiency can only be achieved through the operation of one large plant for the whole of Cornwall which precludes localised operation (Broadhurst, 2010). The problem with one large plant is that road transport of waste from the whole of Cornwall, compared to
5|Page
alternative distributed recovery and recycling systems, produces over double the amount of CO2 emissions for road transport alone (Broadhurst, 2010). This objection is highlighted by Charmian Larke of Atlantic Energy, who has given figures of 6671tpa of CO2 emissions for centralised systems vs. 3000tpa for decentralised recovery systems, See figure 1 below (Larke, February 2009). Alongside increased road transport, Larke points out that the operation of the incinerator will increase CO2 equivalent (eq) emissions; The incinerator releases 3 million tonnes extra CO2 eq over 25 years from its operations, and compared to the landfill option releases an extra 3.6 million tonnes CO2 e over the same period. (Larke, February 2009) An alternative calculation of the comparative GHG emissions between waste management options can be found in Figure 1below. This calculation, produced on behalf of the Transition Cornwall Network, differs greatly from ERMs calculation due to the inclusion of biogenic GHG emissions, as much of these emissions are sequestered by land filling.
Figure 1 Emissions for each option tpa CO2e (avoided as -). (Larke, Charmian, 2010) i
This objection that the CERC will increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions highlights a further issue, since the UK government Planning Policy Statement advises planned provision for new development and its spatial distribution should contribute to mitigating climate change through improvements in carbon performance. (Department for Communities and Local Goverment, 2006). As
6|Page
pointed out in the previous paragraphs above by both Larke and Broadhurst improvements in carbon performance are challenged.
A key consideration to which the CERC development must adhere, is that they must meet efficiency targets in order to be classed as recovery rather than disposal on the waste hierarchy (Figure 2). The proposal given by the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste states that the settling of difficult distinctions via the setting of efficiency
Figure 2 (DEFRA, 2007)
criteria (Commision of European Communities, 2005) will help in the definition of a disposal or recovery operation. The efficiencies stated by the commission to distinguish energy recovery from disposal are 0.60 for installations in operation and permitted in accordance with applicable Community legislation before 1 January 2009 and 0.65 for installations permitted after 31 December 2008 (Commision of European Communities, 2005). The importance of this is supported by the UK government in its Planning Policy Statement 10, where it is stated that it intends to improve waste management in the UK Through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). This political intention enshrines the requirement for the CERC to move up the waste hierarchy in UK planning policy to permit its implementation.
1.2 Questions Raised Through an investigation of the literature four important questions have become apparent in order to allow an appraisal of the CERC. These are the questions on
7|Page
which this report will be focused and they are:
1. Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate?
This will be investigated by retrospectively calculating the NCV for ERM waste composition and Gross Calorific Values (GCV).
2. What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition?
This will be calculated similarly to above though using the CCC waste composition as its basis. This will allow a comparison between the NCV of local waste with the national waste breakdown given by ERM.
3. What is the efficiency of the CERC?
Through calculating the efficiency of the plant for both the CCC and the ERM input values a conclusion can be reached regarding the efficiency of the CERC incinerator and whether it reaches the EU requirements for recovery
4. What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant?
Once the CVs calculated from ERM and CCC waste compositions are available it will be possible to make predictions as to their effect on the energy output of the CERC.
8|Page
1.3 Limitations of Study Although this study seeks to answer the questions raised in Section 1.2 as thoroughly and as accurately as possible, there are a few limiting factors which must be considered. The study will be limited to the use of secondary source data in order to produce figures comparable with those given by ERM. This limitation is because the time and resources required to carry out a detailed investigation into the composition of Cornish waste streams, are not available to this study. Similarly, to ascertain the CVs of waste through primary techniques is not a feasible for this study. This means that the same data for GCV of the fractions of the waste composition will be used in each case (ERM and CCC) to calculate net CV in order to produce comparable results. In order to calculate the efficiency of the plant it is only feasible that the author can do so through data available on technical papers provided by ERM. No primary study can be carried out in this respect as the plant is only in the planning phase and time and resources do not permit this. Due to time constraints, detailed calculations regarding the comparable CO2 eq outputs will not be calculated although previous studies in this area will be referenced in section 4.2.2. In this section there is also a simple calculation of the effect of differing CVs on avoided emissions, but no detailed modelling of the GHG emissions of the plant are included due to time constraints. This report is a basis for a comparison with alternative waste management technologies and techniques. This report quantifies the credentials of the CERC, however the comparisons are not contained in this report due to time constraints and the emphasis is placed on quantifying the CERC for the use in future comparisons
9|Page
Consequently, having reviewed the literature, raised the questions regarding the validity of the CERC proposed incinerator and highlighted the limitations of this study the remainder of this document will describe the methods used and results found.
10 | P a g e
METHODS
2.1 Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate? ERM documentation gives a figure of 9.8GJ per tonne for the waste feed stock for the CERC. This figure is an average net CV figure based on the individual gross CVs of the various fractions of the waste. See Table 1 below for each of the fractions of waste as specified by ERM in their Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre document (ERM, 2008). Net calorific value is the gross calorific value less the latent heat of evaporation of the water that formed during combustion of the fuel.
Table 1
Waste Composition Paper and card Plastic film Dense plastic Textiles Combustibles (Inc absorbent hygiene products) Non-combustibles Glass Organic (inc wood) Ferrous metal Non-ferrous metal Fine material WEEE Hazardous household waste
In order to ascertain whether the NCV value is true, the waste compositions which represent the feedstock from which the CERC will be generating energy were
11 | P a g e
obtained. These waste compositions are made available in the ERM document Assessment of Number of Facilities Final Report and can be found in Table 1 of Appendix 1. The formula used to calculate the NCV of each fraction of waste was retrieved from the Department for Energy and Climate Change guidance notes on combined heat and power stations (CHPQA) (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2008) and was: ( )
Where: GCVdry = gross calorific value, MJ/kg taken from Carbon Balances and The Energy Impacts of the Management of UK Waste. (ERM & DEFRA, 2006) NCVdry = net calorific value, MJ/kg H = hydrogen content, weight %. See section 2.2. 2.442 = latent heat of vaporisation of water at 25C, MJ/kg 8.936 = kg of water formed by combustion 1-kg of hydrogen
See the spreadsheet in Appendix 2 for the calculations for the NCVs of each fraction 2.2 Hydrogen Content Calculations In the formula above the hydrogen content of each fraction had to be calculated prior to calculating the NCV. It was calculated from data given by a paper entitled water content measurements in household waste using neutron probe; experiences from field digestion cell and laboratory (Bergund, 1999) see Table 2 below.
12 | P a g e
Table 2 H2 content of MSW
The hydrogen contents available did not fit exactly the same waste breakdown categories as ERMs own waste breakdown structure so some approximate calculations were made as to the hydrogen contents. For Paper and Card H2 contents for paper and cardboard were separately available from Bergund (1999). In order to calculate the H2 content of paper and card the subdivisions of the category given in Table 1 in Appendix 1, as given by ERM, were sorted into paper or card. It was calculated that 77.5% of paper and card was paper with 5% H2 content while 22.5% was card with 9.4%H2 content (see Table 3). Overall H2 content of the category was calculated by: ( Where: Paperc = Paper % composition of paper and card category Paperh2 = Paper % H2 content Cardc = Card % of composition of paper and card category Cardh2 = Card % H2 content. ) ( )
13 | P a g e
Table 3 H2 content from Paper and Card Composition
Plastic film, dense plastic and textiles: H2 contents for these fractions of the waste were taken directly from Table 2 above as the Bergund and ERM categories matched.
Non Combustibles, Glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals: H2 contents for these fractions of the waste were unnecessary as they contribute very little to the combustion process as they have very low or no calorific value, see Table 3 Appendix1.
Organic (Inc Wood): H2 content was calculated using the same technique as the paper and card fraction, see Table 4 below, allowing Bergunds categories of Wood and Food Waste to be accumulated under the ERM heading of Organic (inc Wood).
Table 4 Organic (inc Wood) H2 Content
Combustibles: As the breakdown of the waste category combustibles was made up of very vague sub categories; unspecified combustibles and other combustibles and furniture, it was not within the resources and time available to this study to produce an accurate H2 content for the
14 | P a g e
combustibles fraction. As all the categories in H2 content table (Table 2) were combustible, a figure for the average of all these H2 contents was taken and used as the H2 content for combustibles. Unclassified Fine Material: Is generally unidentified and so without primary study of the composition of miscellaneous fine material an accurate H2 content cannot be calculated. In order to obtain H2 content for this study the CVs of all the fractions were compared and the most similar to miscellaneous fines was assumed to have similar values for H2 content. Therefore unclassified fine material has been modelled as organic kitchen waste with an H2 content of 4.7%. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): similarly to fines was difficult to classify. The fraction of the waste was small and for the purpose of this study the effect of the net CV of WEEE is negligible and therefore it is acceptable to estimate it this way. Therefore WEEE has been modelled as textiles with an H2 content of 3.3% Hazardous Household waste: Again the HHW H2 content was not available from Bergund and its value was omitted, since the effect that the omission of a value on the CV calculation is negligible to the accuracy required by this study this was considered acceptable. 2.3 ERM NCV Calculation In order to check ERMs NCV of 9.8GJ/tonne, the NCV for each fraction needed to be weighted according to its percentage of the composition and its percentage dry matter (obtained from the ERM CERC Carbon balances document (Table 2, Appendix 1)).The moisture content of the waste does not contribute to the combustion and the, therefore it was important to calculate the % composition of each waste fraction adjusted for its moisture content using; ( ) (Table 5).
15 | P a g e
Table 5 Waste Composition Moisture content ERM Waste Composition Paper and card Plastic film Dense plastic Textiles Combustibles (Inc absorbent hygiene products) Non-combustibles Glass Organic (inc wood) Ferrous metal Non-ferrous metal Fine material WEEE Hazardous household waste Composition % 13.9% (1) 3.4% 4.0% 3.6% 11.5% 17.1% 5.4% 27.2% 1.8% 0.3% 4.9% 3.6% 3.3% % Dry Matter (3) 76.0% 71.5% 89.5% 80.9% 70.0% 94.4% 98.2% 49.3% 89.0% 84.6% 59.0% 89.9% 89.6% ERM % dry matter of waste 10.6% 2.4% 3.6% 2.9% 8.1% 16.1% 5.3% 13.4% 1.6% 0.3% 2.9% 3.2% 3.0%
The NCVs were subsequently calculated for each fraction and weighted according to dry matter and composition, see Appendix 2. These weighted NCV figures were then summed and the overall NCV of the waste was obtained. The sum of the weighted NCVs discounted the non combustible fractions of the waste which do not contribute to the production of energy. This enabled me to calculate an overall NCV for the ERM waste composition and thus answer question 1 in section 1.1. 2.4 What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? In order to answer Question 2 raised in Section 1.2, CCC data regarding the composition of waste in Cornwall was used to calculate a NCV for the local waste, based on the waste categories defined by ERM and shown in Table 1. The CCC data was obtained from a study carried out on behalf of the Council by Measurement Evaluation and Learning (MEL, 2007) and can be found in Appendix 1. The study of Cornwalls waste took into account waste from every economic demographic category and was divided into 2 phases, phase 1 and 2. The phases
16 | P a g e
represented the year split into 2, the winter months (phase 1) and the summer months (phase 2). In order to produce a fair representation of the composition of the waste it was important to take an average figure for the composition between these 2 phases. Where the CCC waste categories did not exactly match the ERM categories, categories were amalgamated and weighted according to each fraction percentage. These amalgamated categories were matched in both the ERM and CCC waste breakdown so that a direct comparison could be made. For example, the organic waste in the CCC study was named Putrescibles and included wood. In the ERM composition, wood was separate to organic matter so the categories could not be directly compared. Therefore, the wood category in the ERM breakdown was added to the organic category. Once the waste breakdown was obtained the same procedure was applied to determine the NCV for CCC as with ERM in Section 2.1 above. The same figures for; % dry matter, H2 content, and GCV were used, meaning that any differences highlighted by the comparison was purely due to variation in composition. 2.5 What is the efficiency of the CERC? In order to calculate the CERCs efficiency and position in the Waste Hierarchy efficiency calculation, in accordance with EU directives, was carried out using the stated figures for energy input and output given by ERM in their documentation. The formula used in the calculation was taken from the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste (Commision of European Communities, 2005) and was: ( (
Where: 17 | P a g e
) )
Ep = annual energy produced as heat or electricity. It is calculated with energy in the form of electricity being multiplied by 2.6 and heat produced for commercial use multiplied by 1.1 (GJ/year)
Ef = annual energy input to the system from fuels contributing to the production of steam (GJ/year)
Ew = annual energy contained in the treated waste calculated using the net calorific value of the waste (GJ/year)
Ei = annual energy imported excluding Ew and Ef (GJ/year) 0.97 is a factor accounting for energy losses due to bottom ash and radiation.
Guidelines for the use of the equation are as follows:

Figure 3 (Commision of European Communities, 2005)
To use this equation a spreadsheet was produced to collate all of the relevant information (see Table 2, Appendix 2). It was also important to take into account that Use of electricity for the flue gas cleaning system is considered as being made available to users otherwise the threshold would have an inhibiting effect on strengthening the air polluting standards beyond the levels set by the Waste Incineration Directive. (Commision of the European Communities, 2005). This
18 | P a g e
means that the grid electricity used for flue gas treatment (FGT) was considered to be part of the energy produced (Ep). Other parasitic loads and losses, such as electricity used on site for administration (lighting etc), are taken into account in the 0.97 correction factor in the equation. The factors contributing to the efficiency calculation were assembled as follows:
Ew was taken from Table 5 below and checked against ERM annual waste through put of 240000tpa at 9.8 MJ using 2008) = 653333MWh/yr (ERM,
Ef was taken from Table 5 below. Taking note of the fact that only half of the oil used contributes to the generation of electricity only half the given oil consumption figure was used MWh/yr
Ep was calculated using 125,110MWh/yr taken from Table 5 plus the electricity used in FGT taken from Table 6, all multiplied by 2.6 as per EU guidelines. The heat was taken from Table 5 as 35800 MWh/yr and multiplied by 1.1 as per the guidelines. The resulting equation was: (( ) ( ) MWh/yr )
Ei Was taken as the annual parasitic imported MWh from Table 6 below and was 650 MWh/yr
19 | P a g e
Table 5; Breakdown of Annual Overall Delivered Energy Consumption, heat supplied to Goonvean and IMERYS. (ERM, 2008)
Table 6: Breakdown of Annual Delivered Energy Consumption by Activity Area (ERM, 2008)
After using the spreadsheet to collate or calculate the required information for the efficiency calculation as outlined above. It was possible to ascertain the efficiency of the plant and determine whether or not it meets EU guidelines to be classed as recovery.
20 | P a g e
2.6 What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant? To calculate the potential output of the plant based on the ERM and the CCC NCVs, its efficiency was a constant in order demonstrate of the effect of changing the NCV (see Section 4.5) Each factor in the efficiency calculation was calculated as a percentage of the total energy in the waste, for example for the electricity produce it would be: ( ) as a percentage, or ( ) showing that electricity
produced is 19.09% of the total feedstock value of 653333MWh. It was then assumed that for every initial amount of energy in the waste, that electricity would make up 19.09% of the total. This assumes that the efficiency of the plant remains the same even at differing calorific values which is unrealistic and a limitation of this research. This proportion was calculated for every part of the efficiency calculation. This was then the basis of the breakdown of the differing energies available under differing NCVs. The total energy in the waste was calculated as 240000tpa (annual waste throughput) multiplied by the NCV (divided by 3.6 to convert to MWh). Then each factor of the efficiency calculation was calculated using their percentage of the total energy in the waste for that NCV. Through the use of the methods outlined above, the intention was to gain the results required to allow the author to tackle the questions raised in Section 1.2. The results gained from these methods are outlined below in the Results chapter and followed by a discussion which summarizes the meanings and consequences of the results obtained.
21 | P a g e
3 RESULTS
3.1 NCV Calculation for ERM and CCC Compositions. In this section the results for the NCV calculation are displayed below in Table 7. This is in order to answer the questions; Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate? And what is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? as raised in section 1.2. These questions are combined in this section in order to allow a comparison to be drawn. The entire workbook can be found in Appendix 2.
Table 7 NCV per Waste Fraction with Overall NCV for ERM and CCC Compositions.
ERM
CCC
Waste Composition
Paper and card Plastic film Dense plastic Textiles Combustibles (Inc absorbent hygiene products) Non-combustibles Glass Organic (inc wood) Ferrous metal Non-ferrous metal Fine material WEEE Hazardous household waste Total
Net CV per fraction /MJkg 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4
5.6
Net CV per fraction /MJkg 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
6.6
These results show us that: The NCV based on ERM figures for composition, gross CV and moisture content prove to be considerably lower than their claimed 9.8MJkg-1 at just 5.6MJkg-1.
22 | P a g e
The NCV value based on the CCC figures for composition and ERM figures for moisture content and GCV is higher than the NCV based on ERM composition figures. However it is still lower than the stated 9.8MJ figure at 6.6MJkg-1
The results also show the calorific breakdown of the overall NCV, indicating which fractions of the waste composition differ between ERM and CCC. This is indicated in Figure 3 below.
Figure 4 Comparative NCV per Waste Fraction
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
ERM Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1
CCC Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1
From Figure 3 it is evident that the CCC composition contains higher NCVs for, most notably, dense plastic and organic (including wood). The ERM composition contains higher NCVs for Combustibles, Fines, WEEE and HHW. However, since the GCV, H2 content and moisture contents remained constant for the ERM and CCC,
23 | P a g e
the varying NCVs are indicative of the varying percentage compositions of each fraction.
24 | P a g e
3.2 What is the efficiency of the CERC? The result of the efficiency calculations are shown below in Table 8.
Table 8 Plant Efficiency Calculation based on ERM stated Figures
Energy efficiency = (Ep - (Ef + Ei))/(0.97 (Ew + Ef))

Energy in feedstock MWh / yr Electricity (MWh) Used in FGT (MWh) Electricity x 2.6 (MWh) Heat (MWh) Heat x 1.1 (MWh) Total Fuel oil (MWh)
Ep
ERM Stated 653333 125,110 6261 341564.6 35,800 39380 380,945 2,950 1475 1,475 240,000
Ef Ew Ei
System Efficiency
Total Annual tonnage
waste net CV GJ/tonne

Total (MWh) Electricity (MWh) Total
9.8
653,333 650 650
59.64%
As can be seen the efficiency of the plant, as per EU Combined Heat and Power Efficiency guidelines, was 59.64%. This shows us that the plant does not meet the EU guidelines of 65% efficiency, as required to be considered a recovery operation.
25 | P a g e
3.3 What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant?
The energy output from the CERC incinerator when both the ERM and CCC CV figure is input are summarised in Table 9 below. The spreadsheet used to calculate these figures along with the efficiency calculation is contained in Table 1Appendix 2.
Table 9 Showing Energy Input/output Altering with Alternative NCVs
ERM Stated waste net CV GJ/tonne Annual tonnage Electricity (MWh) Heat (MWh) Total Generated (MWh) Total Energy in Waste (MWh) % deviation from ERM Stated 9.8 240000 125,110 35,800 160911 653,333
ERM CCC Calculated Calculated 5.6 6.6 240000 240000 71468 84340 20450 24134 91918 108474 373,209 -42.7% 440,429 -32.4%
DUKES Stated (1) 6.7 240000 85257 24396 109653 445,219 -31.6%
Table 9 shows that with the calculated NCVs, the total energy in the waste is considerably lower than stated by ERM, and as a consequence the amount of electricity and heat generated is also considerably lower. This is highlighted by a percentage deviation from the stated 9.8 MJ/kg NCV given in Table 9, with the ERMs stated output being nearly double that as has been calculated in this research. For comparison reasons, a column entitled DUKES Stated has been added (1). This column is calculated based on the estimated NCV of MSW of 6.7GJ/tonne given by the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES, 2008). This is included to highlight the similarity between this and the CCC figure calculated by this study, and also because it is considered that DUKES are a respectable and un-bias source for this information. 3.4 Summary of Results
26 | P a g e
Is the ERM NCV Figure Accurate? The stated ERM NCV figure of 9.8GJ/tonne is inaccurate as, according to the results of this report the overall NCV of the waste composition given by ERM is 5.6GJ/tonne.
What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? According to this report the NCV for the waste composition given by CCC is 6.6 GJ/tonne. What is the efficiency of the CERC? With the stated ERM NCV figure of 9.8 GJ/tonne and with the calculations in this report carried out in accordance with EU guidelines, the efficiency of the plant is 59.64%.
What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant? The energy output of the plant would be reduced considerably from that stated in ERM documentation.
This section has introduced the reader to the results gained by using the methods outlined in chapter 2. These are the results required by this study to address the questions introduced in section 1.2. The following chapter will discuss the results and how they relate to the questions, answers for which are sought by this study.
27 | P a g e
DISCUSSION
In this section the results of the study will be analysed and the consequences of the results found will be discussed. The impact of the lower CVs, reduction in the energy output from the plant and the plants efficiency will be discussed in terms of their effects on the suitability of the CERC as a replacement for land filling in Cornwall. The impacts will also be discussed in terms of their effect on the position within the waste hierarchy that the CERC will occupy. Conclusions will be drawn as to whether the CERC is the best option and some comparisons will be made with alternative options in terms of their comparative global warming potential and position on the waste hierarchy and feasibility for Cornwall. 4.1 Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate? The results of this report have shown that the ERM NCV figure is inaccurate. In this section the possible reasons behind this inaccuracy are discussed. The fact that the NCV calculated from ERM data is much lower than that provided by ERM could be indicative of a few things; Over Estimation of NCV of MSW by ERM on behalf of Sita; it may be case that ERM and Sita have overestimated the amount of recoverable energy in the available waste deliberately in order to increase the energy outputs of the proposed plant (see Section 4.1.2). This seems unlikely though as it is a dangerous strategy for an application which is so clearly going to meet with much contention and scrutiny.
ERM figure was not based on waste composition; it is possible that ERM have not based their figure directly on the waste composition. The author has drawn this conclusion because the GCV is not made available in any of the CERC related documents or composition tables, nor any indication of where
28 | P a g e
the 9.8MJ/kg figure comes from is given. The GCVs used in this study were taken from a previous study by ERM and DEFRA not relating to the CERC (ERM & DEFRA, 2006) Error within the study; The guidelines provided by the CHPQA (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2008) document have provided a firm basis for the calculation of NCVs for combined heat and power, leading to the authors confidence in the results achieved. When the results achieved are compared with the estimated NCV stated by DUKES they stand up favourably with the DUKES figure standing at 6.7MJkg-1 compared with 6.6MJkg-1 resulting from local waste composition from this study.
4.2 Possible Source of ERM NCV figure Where did the ERM NCV figure of 9.8GJ/tonne come from? It is possible that ERM calculated their overall feedstock NCV retrospectively from plant output and volumes of waste input. ERM state that their method for calculating the electrical output of the plant is based on an extrapolation of electrical outputs from 3 plants of differing size (AEA, 2007). These figures can then be used to calculate the overall NCV as described below. This extrapolation could be interpreted as an erroneous calculation by ERM, being based on only 3 data points. If the curve represented by the data is recreated (Figure 6 below), and extrapolated using trend lines, the fit is good. However, it is clear that this model is not perfect because it shows a plant with 0 tpa capacity generating 360kwh/t, which is impossible.
29 | P a g e
Is Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration the Best Option for Waste Management in Cornwall? Nicholas M J Entwistle Figure 5 Table showing existing plants operating statistics with recreation of extrapolation used by ERM to determine output of a 240ktpa plant.
Figure 6 Extrapolation of Capacity vs. Output
Extrapolation of Capacity vs Output 800 700 600 kWh/t 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 ktpa 200 250 300 kWh/t Poly. (kWh/t) y = 0.0019x2 + 0.7692x + 370.72 R = 1
Since ERM have calculated their generating capacity through an extrapolation of data from existing sites; did they use this generating capacity to retrospectively calculate their NCV? The same document which explains the extrapolation outlined above (ERM, 2008), contains the following equation to calculate energy output:
( ) kWh/t
Rearranging this equation it is possible to recreate the 9.8MJ/kg figure given by ERM using the extrapolated electrical output as its basis. (In the source ERM quotes for the data found in Figure 5, Electrical output is entitled Output so the author assumes this includes heat)
) 30 | P a g e
Where: E= Energy Output as given by the extrapolation of AEA data = the efficiency of the incinerator, i.e. output/input not including factors in the EU calculation such as consideration for FGT, electricity or heat multipliers. Taking information for output given by ERM documentation/extrapolated input, an of ( C = Calorific Value ) = 0.24 is resultant.
Therefore
C = 9.8MJ/kg
This is exactly the figure that the ERM have used as their NCV. 4.2.1 Implication of Increased Net GHG Emissions Why should ERM be interested in using a higher NCV in its proposal documentation than that calculated here for either national or local waste? A higher NCV leads to higher energy output (see Section 3.3), and thus higher levels of displacement of energy generated from fossil fuel sources and better perceived carbon performance. The governments planning policy statement asserts that planned provision for new development and its spatial distribution should contribute to mitigating climate change through improvements in carbon performance. (Department for Communities and Local Goverment, 2006). This suggests that, in terms of GHG emissions, it would be advantageous for ERM to overstate the potential of the plant. The environmental credentials of the scheme suffer when the NCV is lower. In fact, if the worst case NCV of 5.6GJ/tonne is used (see section 3.1), it can be assumed that
31 | P a g e
the percentage reduction in annual energy produced equates to the percentage increase in avoided emissions. This effect of this is shown in Table 11.
Table 11 Consequences of lower NCV on Net GHG Emissions
9.8MJ/kg (1)
Energy in feedstock MWh / yr 653333
5.6MJ/kg
374422 42.70%
percentage difference Mobilisation emissions tpa CO2 eq Process Emissions tpa CO2 eq Disposal Emissions tpa CO2 eq Avoided Emissions tpa CO2 eq total tpa CO2 eq (1) Taken from (ERM, 2008)
3298 54130 808 -94847

-36611
3298 54130 808

-54347.33 3889
This report shows that with the generating capacity 42.7% less than the ERM has proposed (worst case); the net GHG emissions are positive at 3888.7 tonnes per annum compared to ERMs stated negative 36611 tonnes per annum. The author acknowledges that this is a very simplified representation of the effects on GHG emissions and is intended only as an indication of the effects on GHG emissions from reduced output. In summary, the ERM propose that the CERC will be a negative emitter of -36611tpa of CO2 eq, however using the figure for NCV calculated by this study sees the CERC as a positive emitter of 3889tpa CO2 eq. This, alongside the arguments in the literature given by Larke (Larke, Charmian, 2010) and Broadhurst (Broadhurst, 2010) (Section 1.1) against the incinerator due to increased GHG, reduce its appropriateness as a new development since it certainly does not mitigate climate change through improvements in carbon performance as requested by the (Department for Communities and Local Goverment, 2006) 4.3 What is the efficiency of the CERC? Does the efficiency meet EU requirements for recovery?
32 | P a g e
The efficiency was calculated using EU guidelines as outlined in section 2.2. The same guidelines suggest that in order to qualify as a recovery operation, a CHP plant using MSW for feedstock must meet certain efficiency targets: 0.60 for installations in operation and permitted in accordance with applicable Community legislation before 1 January 2009 and 0.65 for installations permitted after 31 December 2008. (Commision of European Communities, 2005). The calculation carried out by this study shows that the proposed plant does not meet these guidelines, with an efficiency of 0.58 (section 3.2, Table 8). This means that the plant must be classified as disposal and not recovery and therefore occupies the same level on the waste hierarchy as the existing system of land filling. This indicates that according to EU guidelines, the CERC will not provide any environmental advantages when compared to the existing system. This backs up the argument of Broadhurst when he states that incineration is fundamentally wrong (Broadhurst, 2010) because it is a waste of resources in a world where resource depletion is an increasing problem. This should seen as a negative for the implementation of the CERC since in an Environment Agency guidance note entitled Your Waste, Your Responsibility which seeks to offer guidance to industry on the issues of waste and waste management, it is stated that You should also consider government policy. The Government wants the management of waste to move up the waste hierarchy (Environment Agency, 2007). This guidance from the EA seems especially applicable, as the information required to calculate the efficiency of the system was taken from the ERM environmental permit application, which are issued by the EA. However, it would be unfair not to point out that the proposal for defining recovery or disposal operation from efficiency are just that, a proposal. The difficulty with the equation is that it would apply to plants in the whole of Europe but contains no provision for variation in localised climactic conditions or weather, which would affect the efficiency (Commision of the European Communities, 2005). It is possible that if
33 | P a g e
the CERC efficiency were modelled taking climactic conditions into account it could lie within the 65% efficiency target.
A further argument, which could define the CERC as a recovery operation, is found in the UK Governments Waste Framework Directive (WFD) which defines an operation as recovery if its principal objective is to ensure that the waste serves a useful purpose by replacing other substances which would have had to be used for that purpose (thereby conserving natural resources) (DEFRA, 2009). By displacing fossil fuel generation, the proposed CERC plant satisfies this guideline and should under the UKs WFD be defined as recovery. This shows that current government policy is in fact in support of the energy from waste despite the EU recommending that efficiency restrictions should be applied. 4.4 What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? The NCV calculated for the CCC waste composition was 6.6GJ/tonne. This figure is higher than that achieved by calculating it using ERMs waste composition. It is also very close to the figure for the NCV of MSW given by dukes which was 6.7GJ/tonne. It is still considerably lower than the figure of 9.8GJ/tonne stated by ERM. The flaw in this result however is that this figure does not include the C&IW portion of the feedstock and so does require further refinement to more accurately represent the NCV of the feedstock.
4.5 Method Improvements The author of this report has confidence in these results and subsequent discussion. However, given more time and resources some parts of the methodology could benefit from refinements. These include:
34 | P a g e
The accuracy of the H2 contents. The H2 content has some effect on NCV and therefore is an important consideration. However, for the purposes of this study, with the result being sought in GJ, the H2 content used serves the purpose adequately. If any more depth and accuracy is required the H2 content would need to be ascertained through experiment.
The adequacy of the waste breakdown structures may need some review. The breakdown given by ERM is somewhat ambiguous due to being an average nationwide figure compiled from multiple sources. The Cornish waste breakdown, although more relevant, does not include Commercial and industrial Waste (C&IW) which would alter the resultant CV somewhat. A study into the actual feedstock destined for the CERC would be required to alleviate these concerns.
The equation used to calculate NCV from GCV is not 100% accurate. However with the accuracy being sought in MJ the equation is perfectly adequate. Should the NCV be required with any more accuracy it would be necessary to determine it through experiment on waste samples.
The alternatives for the energy generation output from the plant hinged on the calculated efficiency. This meant that the outputs with lower CVs are actually more generous than would be the case as a lower NCV would lead to a lower overall plant efficiency. However, this discrepancy is not to the advantage of the arguments made by this report and therefore cannot be considered deceitful. Given more time it would be possible to produce an efficiency value for each NCV value, which would further concrete the points made in this report.
4.6 Suggestions for Future Study The scope allowed to this project by the time and resources available have meant that there are matters, which pertain to this study, which it would be prudent to
35 | P a g e
consider for future study. The report itself has raised questions that it is not within the timeframe available to comment on. One of these tasks for future study would be to determine more accurately the average NCV of the waste feedstock, as would be provided to the plant and therefore the estimated output from the plant. This would require the determination of an average tonne of waste and compilation of said waste. The task from there would be to test, under lab conditions, the actual calorific value of the waste. Another way in which the results of the NCV calculation could be further honed would be in the study of the actual hydrogen contents of a sample from each of the fractions of waste. This should provide a more accurate figure for the calculation of the NCV but without the need to compile and test an average sample of the waste as described above. Another avenue for further investigation would be to request from ERM the details of how they calculated the 9.8MJ figure and whether or not it was based on a retrospective calculations carried out on output estimates extrapolated from the outputs of existing plants, as suggested in section 4.2.1. It is unexpected however that this area of future study should turn up much more information as the author believes, thanks to correspondence with professionals involved with the public enquiry, that ERM would not be forthcoming with any more data while the enquiry is underway. Another important avenue for further study, which would put this report in context, would be a comparatives study of alternative waste management systems which are available. The main factors for comparison would be the bankability of the comparatives systems, and their relative environmental impact in terms of depletion of resources and global warming potential (GWP). Possible systems to study would be; increased recycling and re-use using autoclaves for waste treatment and sorting, or anaerobic digestion to generate energy in the forms of both electricity and heat.
36 | P a g e
In order to carry out comparative studies it would be important to carry out a GWP appraisal of the CERC based on actual output which is calculated from the actual NCV of the feedstock waste. It would also be important to carry out an economic study of the CERC based on new figures for NCV and output. This would enable a financial comparison to be made with other alternatives
37 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
In order to evaluate the suitability of the CERC 4 questions were posed which have been answered throughout this report and are summarised below. Is the ERM NCV Figure Accurate? This report has shown that there is discrepancy within the data provided by ERM. The conclusion is based on the NCV resultant from calculations carried out using their own data, and techniques recommended by the UK Government. This is of vast important as the implications of getting the levels of energy available in the waste wrong undermine the environmental and economic credentials of the CERC. What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition? The data regarding the output of the plant is based on extrapolations of data, rather than detailed study of the local feedstock, this damages the respectability of the proposed plant before it is built. The feedstock data is compiled from national reports, which dont represent the actual Cornish waste composition or moisture content. This is done despite the fact that respectable and reliable studies into the Cornish MSW composition have been carried out at the black bag level and are readily available. The NCV calculated from these sources was shown to be lower than that stated by ERM but higher than that calculated from ERMs waste composition. What is the efficiency of the CERC? Does the efficiency meet EU requirements for recovery? The efficiency of the plant is not within proposals made by the EU to be classed as recovery, this show a disregard of the future, on the part of ERM and Sita. Sita are hoping to get their plant constructed to a technological level which experts in the EU consider inadequate to be classed as energy recovery. However, the definition of recovery was raised as an issue and SITA could argue this.
38 | P a g e
What affect do differing CVs have on the energy output of the plant? The proposed NCV leads to the highest energy output as desired, consequently the actual lower NCV leads to a lower output. The higher NCV that the ERM proposed leads to an increase in the avoided emission which could potentially balance the extra GHGs expected from the extra road transport a single large plant demands. Perhaps ERM have deliberately used a higher than actual NCV in order to maintain the relatively low GWP of a single large plant despite the extra road transport it represents. Sita have a vested interest in promoting a single large plant as it is the best way to achieve the higher efficiencies required to make the plant bankable. The author of this study is willing to concede that the hydrogen contents used in the calculation of the NCV may not be as precise as is desirable in a perfect world and lab work is required to rectify this. However the H2 content in the equation used, acts to reduce the final NCV and the omission of H2 altogether from the calculation still results in a NCV much lower than that presented by ERM.
In conclusion, is energy recovery from waste incineration the best option for waste management in Cornwall? No, planning permission should not be granted for the plant due to the carelessness of the studies seeking to justify it. The information provided, to argue for the incinerator by Sita, is built on arbitrary and deficient foundations.
39 | P a g e
GLOSSARY
CCC Cornwall County Council CERC Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre CHPQA Combined Heat and Power Quality Assured CO2 eq Carbon dioxide equivalent gasses CV Calorific Value DUKES Digest of UK Energy Statistics EfW Energy from Waste ERM Environmental Resource Management EU European Union FGT Flue Gas Treatment GCV Gross Calorific Value GHG Greenhouse Gasses GJ Giga Joule GWP Global Warming Potential HHW Hazardous Household Waste MEL Measurement Evaluation and Learning MJ Mega Joule MSW Municipal Solid Waste Tpa Tonnes Per Annum WFD Waste Framework Directive WEE Waste Energy and Electrical
40 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AEA. (2007, May). An assessment of costs and Environmental Impacts of Single and Multiple Facilities. Retrieved from www.cornwall.gov.uk: www.cornwall.gov.uk/m_pdf/8_f_AEA_May2007.pdf Bergund, C. (1999). Water Content Measurments in Houshold Waste using Neutron Probe; Experience from Field Digestion Cell and Laboratory. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Division of Hydraulic Engineering, Royal Institute of , 101. BERR. (2006). Carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the UK. Retrieved from www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43947.pdf Broadhurst, M. (2010). Power of Cornwall Document WS5 Witness Statement. Power of Cornwall Ltd. Commision of European Communities. (2005). Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste. Retrieved from www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Waste/WasteManagement Commision of the European Communities. (2005). Non-paper on the background of the development of the Commission proposal on the distinction between energy recovery and disposal of waste in municipal incinerators. 2. DEFRA. (2009, October). Environmental Permitting Guidance - The Waste Framework Directive. Retrieved from www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/permits/documents/wfd-guidance.pdf DEFRA. (2007). Waste Strategy for England. The Stationery Office. Department for Communities and Local Goverment. (2006, December). Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change. Retrieved from www.communities.gov.uk. Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2008). Combined Heat and Power - Quality Assured; Guidance Note 29 Alternative Fuels Energy Inputs. CHPQA programme , 4. DUKES. (2008). Estimated average calorific values of fuels (DUKES A.1-A.3). Department of Energy and Climate Change. Environment Agency. (2007, May). Your Waste, You Responsibility - Guidance Notes. Retrieved from environment-agency.co.uk: www.environmentagency.co.uk/static/documents/NetRegs/GEHO0507BMQS-e-e.pdf ERM & DEFRA. (2006, December). Carbon Balances and Energy Impacts of the Managment of UK Wastes - Defra R&D Project WRT 237. p. 18.
41 | P a g e
ERM. (2008, March). Assesment of Number of Facilities - Final Report. p. 7. ERM. (2008, March). CERC Carbon Balance - Final Report. p. 9. ERM. (2008). Cornwall Energy Recovery: Environmental Permit Application. Cornwall: Sita. Larke, C. (February 2009). TCN Incinerator Objection. Atlantic Energy. Larke, Charmian. (2010). Transition Cornwall Networ Proof of Evidence Proposed Incinerator Restorwrack Farm. MEL. (2007). Cornwall County Council Waste Compostion Study - Comparison Report Ref 07048. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Managment . The Stationary Office. Sita. (2009). Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre Appeal - FAQ. SVEZ Environment.
42 | P a g e
APPENDIX 1
43 | P a g e
Table 1 Waste Compositions Modelled (weights in tonnes, for year 2020) (ERM, 2008)
44 | P a g e
Table 2 Moisture & Carbon Content (ERM, 2008)
45 | P a g e
Table 3 Waste Screening Matrix (ERM & DEFRA, 2006)
46 | P a g e
Table 4 Kerbside Residual Composition (% Concentrations) Phase 1. (MEL, 2007)

Primary categories Sub-categories Newspapers and magazines, brochures and catalogues Other recyclable paper- white envelopes, junk mail Yellow Directories and white directories Shredded Paper All Non-recyclable paper & card inc Brown Envelopes Tetrapak Cartons Corrugated cardboard, Egg Boxes & Toilet Tubes All Thin card inc packaging Packaging film Supermarket Carrier Bags Other Carrier Bags Other film PET bottles Type 1 HDPE bottles Type 2 Vinyl Bottles Type 3 Other plastic bottles Polystyrene Plastic Food Packaging Trays , Containers and Pots Other packaging also flower pots Other dense plastic Reusable Textile Clothing Duvets, Sheets, Blankets, Curtains, Towels & Other Soft Toys Material Handbags & Hats Pairs of Shoes Rags Unclassified Disposable nappies Treated wood Non treated wood Non-Hazardous Clinical Waste Cooking Oil Unclassified Green Bottles Brown Bottles Clear Bottles All Jars Other glass Cans Aerosols Other Ferrous Packaging Other ferrous Cans Aluminium foil & Aluminium Food Trays Aerosols Other Non-ferrous Soft garden waste Woody garden waste Raw fruit and vegetable matter Cooked & Prepared fruit and vegetable matter Raw / Uncooked meat and fish Prepared / Cooked meat and fish Soil Unidentified Particles < 10mm List all inc paint cans, including Batteries & Cooking Oil List all Total Weight POTENTIALLY RECYCLABLE ACORN 1 3.74% 2.23% 0.03% 0.22% 4.32% 0.42% 1.29% 2.01% 2.73% 0.77% 0.38% 1.29% 0.57% 0.65% 0.05% 0.07% 0.23% 2.23% 0.85% 3.20% 0.22% 0.48% 0.02% 0.01% 0.39% 0.87% 2.14% 4.51% 2.08% 0.41% 0.00% 0.00% 1.21% 0.51% 0.25% 0.58% 0.68% 0.37% 0.73% 0.10% 0.17% 3.48% 0.12% 0.21% 0.09% 0.02% 6.83% 0.00% 18.88% 0.80% 0.67% 15.00% 0.00% 5.25% 3.05% 1.08% 1.53% 100.00% 21.54% ACORN 3 ACORN 4 Concentration (%) 4.55% 9.12% 2.45% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.04% 4.74% 4.41% 0.42% 0.25% 1.37% 2.53% 2.52% 2.56% 2.95% 2.31% 0.96% 0.84% 0.37% 0.45% 1.12% 1.15% 0.54% 1.31% 0.56% 1.18% 0.11% 0.11% 0.15% 0.05% 0.17% 0.06% 2.37% 2.04% 0.62% 0.33% 2.70% 1.88% 0.57% 0.75% 0.63% 0.00% 0.31% 0.06% 0.08% 0.57% 0.62% 1.08% 1.21% 0.63% 3.15% 5.92% 6.16% 4.21% 3.74% 0.01% 0.11% 3.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.84% 0.90% 0.51% 0.72% 0.10% 0.18% 0.11% 1.27% 0.70% 2.72% 0.23% 0.04% 0.91% 1.72% 0.12% 0.10% 0.25% 0.00% 0.49% 0.56% 0.05% 0.35% 0.18% 0.30% 0.07% 0.15% 0.01% 0.00% 11.27% 1.22% 0.00% 0.00% 15.88% 12.69% 0.74% 7.35% 0.60% 0.52% 14.18% 10.34% 0.00% 0.00% 3.17% 5.78% 2.05% 1.87% 0.39% 0.14% 0.83% 0.28% 100.00% 100.00% 27.31% 27.34% ACORN 5 9.75% 3.47% 0.41% 0.41% 2.74% 0.30% 1.83% 2.61% 2.07% 0.94% 0.17% 0.97% 1.19% 0.97% 0.15% 0.08% 0.07% 2.02% 0.44% 2.22% 1.11% 1.46% 0.09% 0.42% 0.86% 1.16% 4.34% 1.67% 0.95% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.70% 1.76% 0.43% 0.91% 1.28% 0.08% 1.67% 0.26% 0.00% 0.44% 0.26% 0.20% 0.07% 0.00% 9.23% 0.00% 11.08% 0.54% 1.07% 19.06% 0.00% 2.33% 1.54% 0.71% 1.47% 100.00% 35.37% Weighted Average 5.47% 2.60% 0.06% 16.83% 0.16% 4.27% 0.38% 1.55% 2.33% 2.66% 5.05% 0.86% 0.36% 1.17% 0.74% 0.73% 0.09% 7.43% 0.09% 0.17% 2.22% 0.66% 2.74% 0.52% 0.59% 2.99% 0.13% 0.16% 0.61% 0.99% 3.25% 4.65% 10.80% 2.21% 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 1.31% 1.31% 0.70% 0.22% 2.75% 0.56% 1.03% 0.24% 1.04% 3.04% 0.13% 0.15% 1.73% 0.14% 0.46% 0.21% 0.09% 0.01% 7.85% 0.00% 16.10% 45.14% 1.61% 0.68% 14.63% 0.00% 4.27% 2.38% 2.38% 0.68% 0.68% 1.13% 1.13% 100.00% 100.00% 25.94%
Paper and card
Plastic film
Dense plastic
Textiles
Misc. combustible
Misc. noncombustible Glass
Ferrous metal
Non-ferrous metal
Putrescibles
Fines HHW WEEE
47 | P a g e
Table 5 Kerbside Residual Composition (% Concentrations) Phase 2. (MEL, 2007)

Primary categories Sub-categories Newspapers and magazines, brochures and Other recyclable paper- white envelopes, junk mail catalogues Yellow Directories and white directories Shredded Paper All Non-recyclable paper & card inc Brown Envelopes Tetrapak Cartons Corrugated cardboard, Egg Boxes & Toilet Tubes All Thin card inc packaging Packaging film Supermarket Carrier Bags Other Carrier Bags Other film PET bottles Type 1 HDPE bottles Type 2 Vinyl Bottles Type 3 Other plastic bottles Polystyrene Plastic Food Packaging Trays , Containers and Pots Other packaging also flower pots Other dense plastic Reusable Textile Clothing Duvets, Sheets, Blankets, Curtains, Towels & Other Soft Toys Material Handbags & Hats Pairs of Shoes Rags Unclassified Disposable nappies Treated wood Non treated wood Non-Hazardous Clinical Waste Cooking Oil Unclassified Green Bottles Brown Bottles Clear Bottles All Jars Other glass Cans Aerosols Other Ferrous Packaging Other ferrous Cans Aluminium foil & Aluminium Food Trays Aerosols Other Non-ferrous Soft garden waste Woody garden waste Raw fruit and vegetable matter Cooked & Prepared fruit and vegetable matter Raw / Uncooked meat and fish Prepared / Cooked meat and fish Soil Unidentified Particles < 10mm List all inc paint cans, including Batteries & Cooking List all Oil Total Weight POTENTIALLY RECYCLABLE ACORN 1 ACORN 3 ACORN 4 ACORN 5 Weighted Average 4.94% 2.74% 0.02% 17.88% 0.12% 5.26% 0.40% 2.18% 2.21% 2.39% 4.49% 0.52% 0.43% 1.15% 0.52% 0.59% 0.01% 6.77% 0.12% 0.17% 2.01% 0.90% 2.45% 1.29% 0.88% 4.34% 0.01% 0.34% 0.53% 1.29% 0.93% 4.48% 6.21% 0.75% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 2.87% 2.87% 0.80% 0.26% 3.49% 1.11% 0.74% 0.58% 1.21% 2.79% 0.20% 0.16% 1.22% 0.19% 0.59% 0.28% 0.04% 0.08% 1.75% 0.00% 13.09% 45.11% 4.54% 0.79% 15.93% 0.00% 9.01% 2.65% 2.65% 0.52% 0.52% 2.29% 2.29% 100.00% 100.00% 20.69%
Paper and card
Plastic film
Dense plastic
Textiles
Misc. combustible
Misc. noncombustible Glass
Ferrous metal
Non-ferrous metal
Putrescibles
Fines HHW WEEE
3.33% 1.89% 0.00% 0.20% 6.10% 0.43% 1.22% 2.05% 2.39% 0.48% 0.47% 1.32% 0.44% 0.49% 0.00% 0.07% 0.21% 2.00% 1.02% 2.41% 1.95% 1.44% 0.01% 0.30% 0.26% 1.17% 0.99% 4.42% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.75% 0.90% 0.08% 0.53% 0.68% 0.69% 0.96% 0.28% 0.15% 0.97% 0.17% 0.27% 0.02% 0.13% 2.24% 0.00% 13.60% 4.85% 1.10% 15.10% 0.00% 12.48% 2.89% 0.30% 1.31% 100.00% 19.29%
Concentration (%) 4.67% 6.83% 2.33% 2.31% 0.06% 0.00% 0.07% 0.11% 4.66% 5.05% 0.44% 0.27% 2.12% 2.10% 2.08% 2.30% 2.51% 2.38% 0.60% 0.44% 0.45% 0.30% 1.11% 0.87% 0.33% 0.72% 0.50% 0.96% 0.00% 0.06% 0.18% 0.08% 0.17% 0.05% 2.15% 2.04% 1.03% 0.45% 2.23% 3.01% 0.23% 0.75% 0.17% 1.48% 0.01% 0.03% 0.11% 0.62% 0.50% 0.27% 1.26% 1.56% 1.20% 0.70% 5.53% 6.13% 1.10% 0.67% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.55% 2.74% 0.72% 0.72% 0.54% 0.00% 1.80% 1.29% 0.75% 0.60% 0.64% 0.10% 0.81% 1.82% 0.14% 0.21% 0.13% 0.25% 2.09% 0.72% 0.23% 0.13% 0.31% 0.30% 0.07% 0.03% 0.04% 0.06% 1.44% 1.80% 0.00% 0.00% 13.72% 13.97% 4.11% 4.84% 0.69% 0.28% 16.70% 17.72% 0.00% 0.00% 9.47% 3.89% 2.44% 3.50% 0.64% 0.91% 1.00% 1.58% 100.00% 100.00% 19.13% 22.53%
8.98% 7.04% 0.00% 0.00% 4.32% 0.37% 5.53% 3.00% 2.09% 0.53% 0.43% 1.01% 1.09% 0.80% 0.00% 0.14% 0.16% 1.64% 0.64% 2.57% 2.42% 0.26% 0.00% 0.75% 1.75% 1.47% 0.24% 0.21% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.63% 0.72% 0.35% 1.02% 1.09% 0.59% 2.49% 0.07% 0.20% 0.28% 0.19% 0.22% 0.06% 0.03% 0.90% 0.00% 8.88% 4.32% 0.54% 14.80% 0.00% 1.78% 1.48% 0.54% 9.65% 100.00% 27.41%
48 | P a g e
APPENDIX 2
49 | P a g e
Table 1: Spreadsheet used to Calculate Efficiency and Energy Outputs ERM Stated % of total Energy in feedstock MWh / yr 653333 Electricity (MWh) Used in FGT (MWh) 125,110 6261 341564.6 35,800 39380 380,945 2,950 1475 Total Annual tonnage Total (MWh) Total Input (Ef + Ew + Ei) Electricity (MWh) Total 1,475 240,000 653,333 655,458 650 650 19.09% 0.96% 52.11% 5.46% 6.01% 58.12% % difference from stated value 0.45% 0.23% 0.23% 36.62% 99.68% 100.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 371 438 843 240000 994 240000 1,005 0 240000 ERM Calculated CCC Calculated DUKES Stated 374422 71468 3577 195115 20450 22495 217,610 42.7% 1685 441861 84340 4221 230257 24134 26547 256,804 32.4% 1989 446667 85257 4267 232762 24396 26836 259,597 31.6% 2010
Ep
Electricity x 2.6 (MWh) Heat (MWh) Heat x 1.1 (MWh) Total Fuel oil (MWh)
Ef Ew
waste net CV GJ/tonne 9.8
5.6
373,209 374,422 371
6.6
440,429 441,861 438
6.7
445,219 446,667 443 0 443
Ei
System Efficiency 59.64%

50 | P a g e
Table 2: Spreadsheet used to Calculate Calorific Values

ERM CCC ERM CCC ERM CCC
Waste Composition Composition % (1) Composition % (2) 17.4% 4.8% 7.1% 3.7%
Paper and card 13.9% Plastic film 3.4% Dense plastic 4.0% Textiles 3.6% Combustibles (Inc absorbent hygiene products) 8.5% 70.0% 11.5% Non-combustibles 2.1% 94.4% 17.1% Glass 3.1% 98.2% 5.4% Organic (inc wood) 45.1% 49.3% 27.2% Ferrous metal 2.9% 89.0% 1.8% Non-ferrous metal 0.5% 84.6% 0.3% Fine material 2.5% 59.0% 4.9% WEEE 1.7% 89.9% 3.6% Hazardous household waste 0.6% 89.6% 3.3% Total (1) Source: SITA Cornwall CERC Carbon Balance, (2008), Suk-yi Lo ERM (2) Source: MEL Cornwall County Council Waste Composition Study, 2007
% Dry Matter (3) 76.0% 71.5% 89.5% 80.9%
Composition Composition x Moisture x Moisture content content 10.6% 13.2% 2.4% 3.4% 3.6% 6.4% 2.9% 3.0%
H2 content % 5.99 13.80 13.80 3.30
GCV kJ/kg (3) 12600.0 23600.0 26700.0 15900.0
NCV kJ/kg (5) 11293.8 20590.6 23690.6 15180.4
ERM Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.4
CCC Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.5
8.1% 16.1% 5.3% 13.4% 1.6% 0.3% 2.9% 3.2% 3.0%
6.0% 2.0% 3.1% 22.2% 2.6% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5%
6.00
4.80
4.70 3.30
15600.0 2800.0 1500.0 6895.8 0.0 0.0 4800.0 7600.0 12400.0
14291.6 2800.0 1500.0 5849.1 0.0 0.0 3775.1 6880.4 12400.0
1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4

5.6
0.9 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

6.6
(3) Source Carbon Balances and Energy Impacts of the Management of UK Wastes, Table A1.26 Estimated UK MSW Composition, ERM 2006 (4) Source: Table 1. Hydrogen content in household waste components (Cossu et al, 1996; Holmen,1999). (5) Source: Guidance note 29 , quality assured for combined heat and power, dept of energy and climate change 2008 51 | P a g e
(6) Source Pushpa Iyengar, East point college of Engineering, Bangalore, fuel
52 | P a g e
53 | P a g e

Inc Inert or Project Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inc Inert or Project Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is Energy Recovery from Waste Incineration the Best Option for Waste Management in Cornwall?

A Quantitative Study of the Proposed Energy from Waste Plant in Cornwall

FdSc Renewable Energy Technologies (2008)Supervised by Michael Hunt

which this report will be focused and they are:

1. Is the ERM NCV figure Accurate?

2. What is the NCV for the CCC Waste Composition?

3. What is the efficiency of the CERC?

Table 2 H2 content of MSW

Table 3 H2 content from Paper and Card Composition

Table 4 Organic (inc Wood) H2 Content

Guidelines for the use of the equation are as follows:

Figure 4 Comparative NCV per Waste Fraction

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

ERM Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1

CCC Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1

Energy efficiency = (Ep - (Ef + Ei))/(0.97 (Ew + Ef))

Total Annual tonnage

waste net CV GJ/tonne

Figure 6 Extrapolation of Capacity vs. Output

3298 54130 808 -94847

3298 54130 808

Table 2 Moisture & Carbon Content (ERM, 2008)

Table 3 Waste Screening Matrix (ERM & DEFRA, 2006)

Table 4 Kerbside Residual Composition (% Concentrations) Phase 1. (MEL, 2007)

Paper and card

Misc. noncombustible Glass

Fines HHW WEEE

Table 5 Kerbside Residual Composition (% Concentrations) Phase 2. (MEL, 2007)

Paper and card

Misc. noncombustible Glass

Fines HHW WEEE

waste net CV GJ/tonne 9.8

System Efficiency 59.64%

Table 2: Spreadsheet used to Calculate Calorific Values

% Dry Matter (3) 76.0% 71.5% 89.5% 80.9%

H2 content % 5.99 13.80 13.80 3.30

GCV kJ/kg (3) 12600.0 23600.0 26700.0 15900.0

NCV kJ/kg (5) 11293.8 20590.6 23690.6 15180.4

ERM Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.4

CCC Net CV per fraction /MJkg-1 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.5

8.1% 16.1% 5.3% 13.4% 1.6% 0.3% 2.9% 3.2% 3.0%

6.0% 2.0% 3.1% 22.2% 2.6% 0.4% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5%

15600.0 2800.0 1500.0 6895.8 0.0 0.0 4800.0 7600.0 12400.0

14291.6 2800.0 1500.0 5849.1 0.0 0.0 3775.1 6880.4 12400.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4

0.9 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

You might also like