View
223
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
FPA Environmental Summit
Energy Recovery
FPA Environmental Summit
Energy RecoveryA Viable Resource Management Option
Jon PyperSenior Leader, Plastics Business Public Policy
The Dow Chemical Company
February 11, 2010
1
Terminology Mattersgy
‘Waste’ Management vs Resource Management
Energy from ‘Waste’ (EFW)
‘Waste’ to Energy (WTE) vs Energy Recovery
‘Waste’ ‘Post‐consumer Packaging’“something rejected, worthless, A previously used resource which
f l ” vs till h l. . . of no value” vs still has value
2Packaging is not a waste
Packaging is a valuable resourceExtends shelf life
• Prevents food spoilage• Prevents food spoilage• So less people go hungryS hi l f tl• So we ship less frequently
• Consume less resources
G l i i• Generate less emissions
• Reduce impact of climate change
Protects against product theft and damage
Fosters a safer and healthier society
3
y
Trends and IssuesIncreased attacks on packaging
• Perceived as ‘excessive’ and a ‘waste’
• Limited recycling rates
Increased legislation• Climate Change bill (Renewable Energy Credits)• Climate Change bill (Renewable Energy Credits)
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), bans, taxes, de‐selection
Focus on climate change, energy and waste policies• Energy security and independence
• Reducing GHG’s
• Alternative energy sources (renewables)Alternative energy sources (renewables)
Drive for more diversion of ‘wastes’ from landfills• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle preferred options
4
• Role of Energy Recovery
U.S. Population 1960 2009
& MSW1960‐2009
320
MSW increasing 2X of population
270
320
Mill
ions
)
230
270
Tons
)
0 95 tons pp
170
220
ulat
ion
(M
190
Mill
ions
T0.95 tons pp
120
170
U.S
. Pop
u
110
150
MS
W (
“U.S. has 5% of world’s populationyet 40% of world’s waste”.
Source: ‘Green Sense’ Show Dec 5 2009
0.45 tons pp
701960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009
U
70Source: Green Sense Show Dec. 5, 2009
5
Population MSWSource: U.S. EPA
U.S. Power Generation by FuelU.S. Energy Generation by Fuel SourceQ d illi BTU 80 ( 28%) 102 ( 21%) 123
22%0% 8% 14%90%
100%Quadrillion BTU: 80 (+28%) 102 (+21%) 123
22%19%
18%70%80%90%
Renewables
54% 48% 47%50%60% Nuclear
Coal
12%
47%
20%30%40% Natural Gas
Oil
12%1% 1%
12%23% 21%
0%10%20%
6
1% 1%0%1980 2007 2030
Source: US Dept of EnergyRenewables only growing fuel source
Business‐as‐Usual and Ecological Debt
2006 2050World Population1 : 6 7 Billion 9 2 BillionWorld Population1 : 6.7 Billion 9.2 BillionPlanet Earth Demand2 1.3 earths 2.3 earths
For a sustainable future all resources need to be better managed via usingFor a sustainable future, all resources need to be better managed via using all 4 R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recovery) options.
Sources: 1 Data from United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. 2 Data/Chart from WWF - Living Planet Report 2008
U.S. MSW Generation, Recycling, Energy Recovery & L dfill 1960 2007& Landfill 1960-2007
100%
MSW Generation (Million Tons)88 121 152 205 239 250 254
MSW grown 3X last 47 yrs
57% 56% 54%70%80%90%
100%
94% 93% 89%69%
57% % %
%50%60%70%
29% 32% 33%15%
14% 13% 13%
2%20%30%40%
6% 7% 10% 16%29% 32% 33%%
0.30%0%
0%10%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007
8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007
Recycling (incl compost) Energy Recovery Discards to LandfillSource: US EPA
Packaging in the ‘Waste’ StreamPackaging in the Waste Stream
Packaging ‘Waste’(Milli f T )
Packaging ‘Waste’(% f T t l W t St )
Packaging Recycling(%)(Millions of Tons) (% of Total Waste Stream) (%)
1960 27.4 31.1 % 11%
1980 52.7 34.7% ‐‐
1990 64.5 31.4% ‐‐2.7X Flat 3.5X
2000 75.3 32.5% ‐‐
2003 74.8 31.7% 39%
Recycling of flexible packaging has its challenges
9Source: U. S. EPA
Recycling of flexible packaging has its challenges
Landfills are Not the AnswerWasting Valuable Energy
Visual Pollution
LandfillsHigh $ Costs‐ Tipping Fees‐ Shipping
Water table Contamination
Chemical InstabilityLimited Space
Methane Emissions
Number of Landfills in U.S. 1988-2007
79247379
7000
8000
9000
78% Reduction in 19 yrs 6326
58125386
4482
35583197 3091
2514 2314 2216 1967 1858 1767 1754 1754 17542000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000(‐ 6,170 landfills)
10
1767 1754 1754 1754
0
1000
2000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05 ’06 ‘07
Mechanical Recycling is Major Part of the l i h i i iSolution ‐ But has Limitations
TechnicalTechnical– Foodservice ware – Multi‐layer packaging– Difficult to show material codes
Unrealistic to expect mechanical recycling
Difficult to show material codeson all materials
Costs
alone will meet the required diversion goals
Costs– Collection, Sorting, Cleaning
Lack of infrastructure– Inconsistent national approach
• Curbside vs Deposits vs Depots vs Retail stores
11
p p• Not compatible with collection and recycling needs of flexible packaging
– End markets are not being supported
Must Utilize All EOL Resource Mgt OptionsU.S. EPA’s Integrated Solid ‘Waste’
Management HierarchyEmerging TechnologiesE G ifi ti P l i
S lid R F l
Eg. Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasma Arc, Microwave
Solid Recovery FuelEg. Cement / Coal Plants
Combustion with Energy RecoveryEnergy
Recovery
All options are needed to minimize disposal
Combustion No Energy Recovery
in landfills. Resource conservation is key.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Conversion TechnologiesThermal/Chemical
• Combustion / Mass Burn
‐ O2 free ‘burn’.‐ Produces syngas (CO + H2)‐ Used to create fuel andchemical feedstock‐ Small scale
‐Most common in U.S. ‐ Proven technology‐ Creates electricity fromsteam
• Combustion / Mass Burn• Acid Catalysis & Distillation• Gasification / Pyrolysis• Microwave Processes• Plasma Arc
‐ Proven technology‐ Solid Recovery Fuel (SRF)• Plasma Arc
• Thermal Decomposition
Biological Processing
(SRF)
Biological
• Aerobic Composting• Anaerobic Digestion• Biodiesel
Processing
• Fiberboard & ConstructionCompositesR f D i d F l (RDF)
‐ Breaks down oforganics in the absence of oxygen. A ti
• Biodiesel• Bioethanol• Biological Pretreatment• Vermicomposting
• Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF)
13
‐ A compostingsystem with energyas bi‐product.
Energy Recovery Facilities
Modern Energy Recovery Facilities
Outdated Incineration Facility
14
Energy Recovery: Common MisconceptionsMYTH #1: Emits massive amounts of GHGsFACT: ‐ One of the cleanest forms of energy generation available today
‐ Operates within strict emission standards (US EPA ‐Maximum Control Technology (MACT) St d d E U i C di A 7 G id li )(MACT) Standards; European Union, Canadian ‐ A‐7 Guidelines)
‐ Cleaner than coal utilities
MYTH #2: Reduces mechanical recycling ratesMYTH #2: Reduces mechanical recycling rates FACT: ‐ Does not compete with recycling, rather complements it
‐ Locations with E.R. experience recycling rate 4%‐5% > national average
MYTH #3: Economically uncompetitiveFACT: ‐ Combustion: High capital costs but competitive pay‐backs (B.C. facility 8 years break‐even)
‐ Emerging Technologies: Lower upfront costs.
MYTH #4: Low public acceptance ‐ N.I.M.B.Y.FACT: ‐ Canadian study shows 83 % public support E.R. technologies (~ 24% increase last 4 yrs)
10 of 15 ‘Most Livable Cities in the World’ have Energy Recovery facilities
15
‐ 10 of 15 Most Livable Cities in the World have Energy Recovery facilities(Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver, Dusseldorf, Munich, Frankfurt, Bern, Toronto, Helsinki)
Sources: Canadian EFW Coalition, 2009 / Mercer’s ‘Quality of Living Survey’, 2009 / The Economists ‘World’s Most Livable Cities’, 2009
Energy Recovery Facilities GloballyEnergy Recovery Facilities Globally
# Facilities MSW Processed % Total Annually MSWAnnually MSW
N.A.U.S.A. 89
dCanada 5 94 30 million tonnes 13%
Europe 390 60 million tonnes 40%
Asia 301 70 million tonnes 75%Asia 301 70 million tonnes 75%
Total: 785 160 million tonnes 29%
Japan accounts for 83%
16Source: Energy Recovery Council, Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council, Columbia University, US EPA, Canadian Plastics Industry Council
Energy Recovery ‐ USA
89 facilities operating in 29 States‐ Down 12% since 2000
‐ 75% use mass burn technology
‐ > 6,000 workers
Dispose of 94,721 tons of material per day‐ Generates 2,700 MW of electricity (2.3 Million households)Generates 2,700 MW of electricity (2.3 Million households)‐ Saves about 30 Million barrels of oil per year
According to US DOE, prevents the annual release of;g , p ;‐ 40 million tons of GHG as CO2 equivalents‐ 25,000 tons of nitrogen oxides‐ 2.6 million tons of volatile organic compounds
17Source: Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council / Joseph Trieshler, Covanta Energy, NAWTEC 2009
Energy Recovery Can Play a Major Role in ‘Waste’ Diversion
Mech. Recycling* (All Mtls) Avg. 17%
Diversion
Ann al ‘Waste’ Energy Recovery (Plastics) Avg. 67%Mech. Recycling (Plastics) Avg. 24%
Energy Recovery (All Mtls) Avg. 57%
Austria
Belgium
Annual ‘Waste’ per capita (Tons)
0.70
0 52Belgium
Denmark
France
0.52
0.79
0.62
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
0.68
--
0.66
Canada
Switzerland
U.S.A.
--
0.95
1.14
18Sources: European Environmental Agency / Plastics Europe / U.S. EPA / CPIA / Covanta Energy
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
* USA & Cda includes composting
60Material Energy Values
48 4550
kg)
2630
40
(MJ/
Average MSW = 12 MJ/kg)
26
15 1720
30
Valu
e
15
10
20
ergy
V
-20
Heating Oil Plastics (PE) Coal Wood Paper Metal
Ene
MetalPaperWoodCoalPlastics (PE)Heating Oil
19-10
Heating Oil Plastics (PE) Coal Wood Paper Metal
Yet we tend to mine coal and bury plastics Source: CPIA
MetalPaperWoodCoalPlastics (PE)Heating Oil
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and the EnvironmentMSW contains thousands of chemicals, including di i ti l t tt t l i i
Environment
dioxins, particulate matter, metals, microorganisms
All ‘ aste’ management options in ol e the destr ctionAll ‘waste’ management options involve the destruction of some chemicals and the creation of others– None of these chemicals are unique to waste managementq g
Hazard vs Risk (exposure)
Need to manage MSW effectively to minimize risks to
20
human health and environmentSource: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of Surrey
Energy Recovery and Air EmissionsEnergy Recovery and Air Emissions
“Modern energy recovery facilities meet or exceed the most stringent environmental standards in the world and use the most advanced emission control equipment available”.
– Scrubbers to control acid gasses
– Fabric filters to control particulatesFabric filters to control particulates
– Selective Non‐Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to control nitrogen oxides
– Carbon Injection to control mercury emissions and dioxins
21Source: Canadian EFW Coalition (John Foden)
Dioxins
All combustion generates dioxins
Dioxins are hazardous – cancer, nervous systems, reproduction
Dioxins are persistent in the environment and come f i ffrom a variety of sources– Only 1% of dioxins in U.S. come from Energy Recovery
Main source of exposure is not via air emission but through diet (fish)
22
through diet (fish)Source: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of Surrey
Distribution of Dioxin Sources in the U.S.1987‐2004
Energy Recovery accounts for only 1% of total dioxin emissions in U S
Energy Recovery99% reduction
Source: WTE Research & Tech Council, Columbia University
emissions in U.S. 99% reduction
Dioxin Emission Levels
628700
98/y
r)
500
600
-HW
O9
Energy Recovery facilities emit;
300
400
TEQ
df
gy y ;* 3 X less dioxin levels than diesel trucks* 5 X less than coal‐fired utilities* 52 X less than backyard burning
200
300
ns (g
T
60 36 120
100
mis
sio
24
Backyard Barrel Burning Coal-fired Utilities Diesel Trucks Municipal Solid WasteIncinceration/EFW
Em Backyard Burning Coal-fired Utilities Diesel Trucks MSW/Energy Recovery
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Maintaining Perspective – Dioxin Exposure
1. The 15 minutes London Millennium fireworks display produced emissions equivalent to 120 years from a single Energy Recovery facility
2. BBQ for 2 hours results in higher dioxin exposure than residing beside an
energy recovery facility for 10 years
25
Source: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of SurreyAPSWG briefing on Energy from Waste; UK Environment Agency 2000Magnus Schonning, Embassy of Sweden; Carl Lilliehöök, Waste & Recycling, Tekniska Verken AB, Linköping Sweden
Air Emissions from Top Ten Energy Recovery Plants at WTERT Awards
Average WTE EU Standard US EPA Standard(mg/Nm3) (mg/Nm3) (mg/Nm3)
Particulates (PM) 10 11
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 10 29
<<
3.1
8.5
Sulphur Oxides (SOx) 50 63
Nirogen Oxides (NOx) 200 264
<<
3
112
Mercury (Hg) 0.05 0.06
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 50 45
<<
0.01
24
Total Organic Carbon 10 n/a
Dioxins 0 10 0 14
<<
24
1.02
0 02
26
Dioxins 0.10 0.14
Source: Gershman, Brinkner & Bratton, Inc., Waste to Energy Research & Technology, Columbia UniversityAll well within EU and U.S. Standards
<0.02
Coal vs Energy RecoveryCoal Energy Recovery
Air Emissions
Dioxin² 60 12CO2³ 2 249 837Dioxin²
CO2³CO2 2,249 837SO2³ 13 1.3NOx³ 6 5
CO2³
SO2³
NOx³
Mercury 41 2
Calorific Value¹ 26 45 (Plastics)
Mercury4
Calorific Value¹ 26 45 (Plastics)
Current Source of Energy 48% < 1%
27
Units: ¹ MJ/Kg ² g TEQdf‐HW098/Yr ³ Comparative units used Tonnes/Yr
Source: WTE Research and Technology Council, Columbia University, New York
4
Energy Recovery & Renewable Energy
The US EPA recognizes energy recovery as “a clean, reliable, renewable source of energy” having “less environmental impact than almost anygy g p yother source of electricity”
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines renewable energy“as an energy source that is regenerative or virtually inexhaustible”
24 States + District of Columbia define Energy Recovery as Renewable energy
U.S. Government Agencies & RegulationsAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill), Energy Policy Act (2005), FederalAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill), Energy Policy Act (2005), Federal Power Act, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulations, The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (944 Mayors), President Obama’s Executive Order Re: Energy Performance (Oct. 2009), US EPA, US DOE
28
Proposed ‘Climate Change’ bill?
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Plasticsd f if i
MR:Mechanical Recycling
End‐of‐Life Options ‐ Japan
FR3: Feedstock Recovery (Gasification)
ER1 C b i i h E80
100
LF )
ER1: Combustion with EnergyRecovery
ER2: Cement Kiln (SRF)
LF L dfill
60 MR
act (
Hig
her
LF: Landfill
“Energy recovery (ER1,ER2, 20
40 ER1
ER2
onm
enta
l Im
pa
FR3 gy y ( , ,FR3) is more eco‐efficient than Mechanical Recycling (MR) & Landfill (LF)”
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Envi
ro
Source: Plastics Waste Management Institute Japan, 2005
Economics (Higher Costs )
Energy Recovery & Recycling – U.S.A.
Option #7‐Mechanical Recycling (30%) & Energy Recovery (70%)‐ Lower GHG emissions and Net Energy consumption vs other options. ‐ But higher costsBut higher costs
30Source: Battelle – Flexible Packaging Sustainability Assessment; “Moving from Solid Waste Disposal to Materials Management in the United States” Susan A. Thorneloe*, Keith A. Weitz**, and Jenna Jambeck*
Net Energy Consumption (billion BTU’s)
Green House Gas Emissions (million tons of carbon equivalent) Net Annualized Cost by Scenario
Energy Recovery & Recycling ‐ Europe
100
1 : 15% Recycling / 85% E.R.2 : 25% Recycling / 75% E.R.3 : 35% Recycling / 65% E.R.
80LF
r
)
Excludes collection costs
3 : 35% Recycling / 65% E.R.4: 50% Recycling / 50% E.R.
LF: 100% Landfill40
60
mpa
ct (H
ighe
r
“Increasing recycling rates increases costs but has no
201 2
viro
nmen
tal I
m
3 4
improved environmental impact than lower rates”
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
( C )
Env
Source: Plastics Europe “Assessing the Eco‐efficiency of Plastics Packaging Waste Recovery” 2000
Economics (Higher Costs )
Recycling AND Energy Recovery
Mechanical Recycling is important but will not solve ‘ ’ d ‘ ’ i i‘waste’ and ‘energy’ issues on its own
Energ Reco erEnergy Recovery …– Safe and technically provenCompatible with recycling– Compatible with recycling
– Environmentally sustainable• Generates clean renewable energyGenerates clean renewable energy• Reduces GHG emissions (vs coal & landfilling)
– Promotes energy independence
32
– ‘Green’ jobs
What Now? Let’s Work Together . . .To advance;
– acceptance and use of energy recovery as a recognized part of resource management hierarchyg y
– perception of flexible packaging as;• captured energy• a valuable resource even after its original use
t ib t t ti l l ti• a contributor to a national energy solution– education & communication with key stakeholders and decision‐
makers• Case Studies, consistent messaging, joint advocacy
– change• Drive change ourselves before change is forced upon us
– Mandated discriminatory legislation & regulations
33
How Can We Drive Change?1. Create ‘Model Legislation’
• Based on successes from other countriesk i d dfill i i• EU Packaging, Waste and Landfill Directives
• Germany ‘Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal” Act
• Support U.S. EPA’s Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
• Common national infrastructure
• Role of packaging as part of national energy solution
• Recognize E R as a renewable and sustainable energy source withRecognize E.R. as a renewable and sustainable energy source with climate change benefits
• Tax credits / incentives – existing & emerging E. R. technologies
T d b l dfill• Taxes and bans on landfills
2. Promote ‘100% Recycling’ of all packaging
34
y g p g g= Mechanical Recycling + Composting + Energy Recovery
Why ‘100% Recycling’¹?
Makes it easy for consumers– Eliminates confusion
– No sorting at homeNo sorting at home
– Able to participate more easily
Increases collection and reduces packaging going to landfills
Captures energy value of hard to mechanically recycle packaging– Eg. Flexible packaging
I i f k i f ‘ t ’ t thi f lImproves image of packaging from ‘wastes’ to something of value
Provides a sustainable energy source & reduces need for foreign oil
35¹ 100% Recycling of Packaging = mechanical recycling + composting + energy recovery
‘100% Recycling’ Approach
High Energy
Large Volume Mono Materials
Mechanical Recycle
High Energy Content
Low Volume and Mi d M t i l
Energy Recovery
Used PackagingFood and Lawn Waste
Mixed Materials
Compost
Recovery Chemicals Fuels
1.2.
Low Energy Content
Compost Facilities
Landfill:Non-compostable
Materials
36
3.
Marketing the Concept: Plastics P k iPackaging
Value Multiplier: > 15
Plastics Packaging
~ 80%
Oil TransportationValue Multiplier: 1Coal
Natural GasHeating & Cooling
Power
PE retains most of its original energy content ‐ so let’s not waste itPE retains most of its original energy content so let s not waste it
Stop burying oil ‐ instead extend the life of this valuable resource!
37Sources: American Chemistry Council; U.S. Energy Information Administration; Canadian Plastics Industry Association.
Let’s Seize the Opportunitypp y• Packaging helps ‘people, planet, and profit’I d t d t• Industry needs to;‐ communicate the benefits of sustainable packaging and positive role of Energy Recoverypositive role of Energy Recovery
‐ educate key stakeholders and decision‐makers
‐ change perceptionsg p p
• Pursue ‘Model Legislation’ & ‘100% recycling’ goals• Coordination and collaboration
38
Th k YThank You
http://www.AmericanChemistry.com/plastics/
http://wwwCPIA ca/epic/http://www.CPIA.ca/epic/
Jon PyperSenior Leader, Plastics Business Public Policy
The Dow Chemical Companyp y
February 11, 2010
39
Recommended