WASTE-TO-ENERGY ENERGY/CLIMATE GROUP SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

Incineration MSW Electricity, district heating/cooling Gasification MSW, sewage sludge, biomass and

• thers

Syngas, methanol, hydrogen, synthetic fuel Pyrolysis Waste plastics, waste tires Syngas, biochar, oil products Anaerobic Digestion and Fermentation Biodegradable material, e.g. sewage sludge, food waste, animal manure Biogas, fertilizer from digestate

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

+ Less waste landfilled

+ Reduced emissions of methane

+ Does not compete with all recycling + Avoided CO2 emissions from fossil fueled power plants + Positive effect on recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals + Can decrease pressure on natural resources (e.g. fuelwood in developing countries)

+ Reduced deforestation and soil nutrient depletion + Social benefits e.g. reduced workload and health benefits by improved indoor air quality

— Many stakeholders involved, cooperation is vital — Requires organizational capacity and the appropriate technical solutions — Financial barriers — Social barriers, e.g. lack of information and education for adapting technologies — Incineration not the most efficient way to manage waste

— Low electrical efficiency of incineration plants — Well thought out collecting system required — High cost compared to landfilling — Inconsistent composition of feed

CASE STUDY I – BIOGAS IN RWANDA

• Introduction
• Geopolitical Circumstances
• Massive deforestation
• Soil erosion
• Vision 2020 & EDPRSs
• Energy Situation

http://www.africaguide.com/country/rwanda/ http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/rw.htm

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

+ Environmental + Social + Health + Economical

• Challenges
• Finance
• Minimal institutional capacity
• Lack of skilled personnel
• Inadequate marketing and

awareness campaign

WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN SWEDEN

• There is a need for

heating in Sweden and to a certain degree cooling

• In Rwanda the need for

heating is less but the need for biofuels is higher.

Rwanda Sweden Population 12 500 000 9 700 000 Population Density 460 people /km2 21 people/ km2 GDP per capita 638 USD (2013) 60 430 USD (2013) Mean Temperatures July 20 °C January 20.5 °C July 16.8 °C January -4.3 °C

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)
• 1.5 TWh of district heating (60%)
• 270 GWh of electricity

http://malmo.lokaltidningen.se/osterlensopor-kan-bryta-mot-lagen-/20150526/artikler/150529732/1466

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

• pmen

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!