MBT/MRF state of art and possible development in...

MBT/MRF state of art and possible development in Norway

24. May 2011

Hannover

Frode Syversen

Mepex Consult

www-mepex.no

Today menu

Starter

– Background

– Project

Main course

– Norwegian waste management with focus on MBT potential

Dessert

– Project presentations

– Future perspectives

National MBT-project Norway

Project phases:

1. Survey about international experience connected to Norwegian condition

2. Practical MBT test-program in full scale and test reactors for biological stabilization

Project owners;

Waste Norway (NGO)

10 Municipal waste companies

Private WtE company

Project goals

Document potential to optimize utilizations of resources from residual waste in Norway with MBT

– Supplementary to source segregation

Document need for changes in landfill ban regulation and better incentives

– Stabilization of residuals

– Incentives towards increased recycling

Preliminary conclusions

MBT gives a potential for environmental improvements

Represent the waste hierarchy

Need better incentives and probably changes in landfill ban

Challenges;

Cost/benefit – market situation

Quality of CLO for soil

improver or landfilling

MBT drawback from 1980’s

Solutions based on mixed waste failed;

Organic compost was contaminated with heavy metals

Quality of paper and plastic achieved was poor – bad economy

REO-plant 1985

Sorting line for recycling140.000 tons

7

Norway – a green country ?

5 mill citizens430 kg/inhabitant100 waste facilities

Residual waste to energy recovery

50 – 70 % could have been recycled

– Plastic

– Paper/cardboard

– Food

– Wood

– Textiles

– Hazardous waste

– Gypsum

7,89

7,79

29,56

2,31

7,90

1,56

42,99

paper/cardboard

Plastic packaging

Bio-waste

Glass/metal packaging

Clothes/textiles

WEE/harzardous

Elements in Norwegian solutions

Biological treatment

Optical bag-sorting

Incineration

Source sep. packaging

Landfill regulation – too much?

1998 – restriction on landfilling residual waste without source segregation food waste

1999 – landfill tax – 60 EUR/tonn in 2009

2009 – final landfill ban for waste more than 10% TOC and 20% LOI with no expectation for CLO

04.03.2010 MEF - Avfallsdagene 14

One result is sub-optimalization

Residuals from sorting plants are mixed into other residual waste and sent to incineration• Fine fraction (sand/gravel, so.)with 20-30 % TOC• Heavy fraction with concrete, bricks, porcelen

Project plans sorting lines for MSW

«Material loop Follo»

MBT plant

– Dry biogas

– Fertilizer

– RDF

– Plastic material

ROAF -Sorting plant based on sensor technology

Output:Organic waste in green bagsPlastic – PE, PP, PET

Input:50.000 mixed waste

IVAR sorting plant – focus on plastic

Results from international survey

Other countries have regulation that opens up for MBT

Landfill ban – 10 %

Landfill tax

Optimal MBT structure in Norway ?

Mechanical pre-treatment

plant

RDF-plant at WtE plant

MRF sorting for plastic

Local solution biostabilization

Mechanical pretreatment test

Different configurations will be tested HHR

– Shredder 250 mm

– Drum siever 65 mm

– Fine shredder 100 mm

Veolia

– Shredder 250 mm

– Drum siever 100 mm

– Air swifter

Ødegård

– Shredder 250 mm

– Vibrosiever 0-20-40 mm

– Fine shredder

Biological treatment tests

About 100 tons per test

In vessel composting Bioplan– 60-90 days

Ag-Bag treatment Lindum– Aerobic step 1 and then anaerobic

Possible reactor biocell treatment

Incineration test BioEl

CFB plant 10 tons/hour

– Eddy current separation

– 12-24 hours

– 100 mm fuel

Registrations

– Bottom ash

– Emissions

Overview plan tests – 3 places

Parameter Oslo-area In countryside West-coastResidual waste source

Household, Bærum50% food

Household HIAS

25% food

Household, IHM and SIMAS

Waste morphology

2009/2011 2010 New analysis

Mechanical shredding and sorting

NG at Tønsberg,

Ødegard, Fredrikstad

HRR, pretreatment plant Hamar

Temporary mobile shredding and drumsorting

Fuel fractions size 0-100 mm(Hafslund Bio-El)

65-100 mm(Hafslund Bio-El)

80-250 mm(Hafslund BWtE)

Residual fraction for stabilization

Heavy fraction0-100 mm

Fine fraction0-65mm

Fraction 0-75 mm

Biological stabilization

AgBag anaerobic(Lindum)

Not finally decided(Lindum)

Closed in vessel composting (Bioplan Florø)

Stabilization test and biological parametres

Biological methane potential BMP100

– Before and after stabilization

Final remarks

MBT is on agenda

Have a significant potential in Norway

Solutions according to waste hierarcy

Market situation for WtE make it less profitable

Need for changes in landfill ban

Better incentives for recycling

Thank you for your attention !

Frode Syversen

Mepex Consult AS

frode@mepex.nowww.mepex.no