WASTE-TO-ENERGY ENERGY/CLIMATE GROUP SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES – Exploring Sustainability at the Cross-roads of Science and Technology Group Members: Veronica Carlsson, Stefanía Ósk Garðarsdóttir, Toni Gutknecht, Jean-Vianey Nyarubuye
OUTLINE • Introduction/Background • Waste-to-Energy concepts • Major Players • Challenges/Advantages • Case Studies • Biogas in Rwanda • Waste-to-Energy in Sweden • Waste-to-energy from sustainability perspectives • Summary
INTRODUCTION AND AIM • Waste is generated worldwide in large quantities • On average 1.2 kg/capita/day in urban areas. Expected to increase to 1.42 kg/capita/day in 2050 • Long-term sustainable solutions have to be implemented for waste management! • A set of many different solutions is needed • This project aims to highlight conditions where waste-to-energy has been successful • But also to point out its drawback and challenge the relation to sustainable development!
THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY CONCEPT Technology Type of waste Treated Energy Product Electricity, district Incineration MSW heating/cooling MSW, sewage sludge, biomass and Syngas, methanol, hydrogen, Gasification others synthetic fuel Pyrolysis Waste plastics, waste tires Syngas, biochar, oil products Biodegradable material, e.g. Anaerobic Digestion Biogas, fertilizer from sewage sludge, food waste, animal and Fermentation digestate manure
MAJOR PLAYERS • Waste generators (residents, industries, institutions, municipal services etc..) • Municipalities • Local government • Companies and institutions • End user/customer • Skilled labor • Academia • National and international governmental bodies • ….
CHALLENGES & ADVANTAGES — Many stakeholders involved, + Less waste landfilled cooperation is vital + Reduced emissions of methane — Requires organizational capacity and the + Does not compete with all recycling appropriate technical solutions + Avoided CO 2 emissions from fossil — Financial barriers fueled power plants — Social barriers, e.g. lack of information + Positive effect on recovery of ferrous and education for adapting and non-ferrous metals technologies + Can decrease pressure on natural — Incineration not the most efficient way resources (e.g. fuelwood in developing to manage waste countries) — Low electrical efficiency of incineration + Reduced deforestation and soil nutrient plants depletion — Well thought out collecting system + Social benefits e.g. reduced workload required and health benefits by improved indoor air quality — High cost compared to landfilling — Inconsistent composition of feed
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/rw.htm CASE STUDY I – BIOGAS IN RWANDA • Introduction • Geopolitical Circumstances • Massive deforestation • Soil erosion • Vision 2020 & EDPRSs • Energy Situation http://www.africaguide.com/country/rwanda/
POLICY MEASURES • Energy policy (mininfra, 2004) • The policy emphasized on the development and use of techniques that minimize the use of firewood and charcoals, whilst enhancing the use of alternative sustainable energy supply. • Biogas technology identified as one of the solutions • Closed-loop cycle
NATIONAL DOMESTIC BIOGAS PROGRAMME +5833 BIOGAS PLANTS + 30 SCHOOLS + 11 PRISONS + 3 RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS + 2 MILITARY CAMPS
NATIONAL DOMESTIC BIOGAS PROGRAMME • Benefits • Challenges + Environmental - Finance + Social - Minimal institutional capacity + Health - Lack of skilled personnel + Economical - Inadequate marketing and awareness campaign
WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SWEDEN Rwanda Sweden Population 12 500 000 9 700 000 Population 460 people /km 2 21 people/ km 2 Density 60 430 USD • There is a need for GDP per capita 638 USD (2013) (2013) heating in Sweden and to a certain degree cooling Mean July 20 °C July 16.8 °C Temperatures January 20.5 °C January -4.3 °C • In Rwanda the need for heating is less but the need for biofuels is higher.
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM
CASE STUDY II – SYSAV (MALMÖ) • Owned by 14 municipalities (635,000 people) • Each person in Sysav’s owner municipalities produced 510 kg of waste in total • 276 kg came from municipal collections of household waste • 234 kg was disposed of at a recycling centers. • Licensed to incinerate 630,000 tons/year • Produces (yearly) http://malmo.lokaltidningen.se/osterlensopor-kan-bryta-mot-lagen-/20150526/artikler/150529732/1466 • 1.5 TWh of district heating (60%) • 270 GWh of electricity
CASE STUDY II – SYSAV (MALMÖ)
WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SWEDEN • Why is Sweden a waste-to-energy success? • Policies favorable to waste-to-energy Price on carbon/Carbon tax • High landfilling taxes and fees/ban on landfills • Recognition of waste-to-energy as a renewable • resource Direct subsidies/Tax credits • • Extensive District Heating Networks • Absence of Cheap Domestic Sources of Energy • Higher Price of Electricity • Ample supply of Waste • Public Support • High recycling rate • Limited Land Resources
WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SWEDEN – CARBON TAX
Concepts ts and pe persp specti ctives
Inter ergen ener erational equity • Weak and strong sustainability • Rich - poor
Economi mic growt wth
Dilemmas
Sustainable e devel elop opmen ent g goals Goal 7 - Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Goal 11 - Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 13 - Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Learning pe persp specti ctives • Sort and manage waste • Material awareness – renew or reuse • Minimize consumption
CONCLUSIONS • Waste-to-energy is one of many options for sustainable waste treatment • It can produce biogas, heat, electricity as well as other valuable byproducts • Site-specific conditions are extremely important for choice of technology and chances of success • Many players have to cooperate for success • Financial aspects, who should bear which cost? • What is sustainable for one group of actors might not be for another social dilemmas and issues with intergenerational equity!
Recommend
More recommend
