43177679 Stage 1 Final 270810 · PDF fileThis report contains various estimates and cost projections and other forward looking financial ... (wet and dry Dirty MRF facility) ... 3.5

Final Report Pre-Feasibility Assessment of a Thermal Conversion Facility for the Australian Capital Territory

27 AUGUST 2010

Prepared for

Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water

Level 4, Macarthur House 12 Wattle Street Lyneham, ACT 2602

43177679

Pre-Feasibility Assessment

j:\jobs\43177679\6 deliv\stage 1 report_final\43177679_stage 1 final 270810.doc

Project Manager:

……………………………

Chani Lokuge Senior Associate Civil/Environmental Engineer

Project Director:

……………………………

Greg Loftus Principal Consultant

URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 4, 407 Pacific Highway Artarmon NSW 2064 Australia T: 61 2 8925 5500 F: 61 2 8925 5555

Date: Reference: Status:

27 August 2010 43177679/03/H Final

Document delivery

URS Australia provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. URS

considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s

convenience and URS requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is

maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements

of the Commonwealth Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2000.

Where an electronic only version is provided to the client, a signed hard copy of this document is held

on file by URS and a copy will be provided if requested.


43177679/03/H

Limitations

No representation, warranties or liabilities

No representation or warranty (either express or implied) is given by or on behalf of URS, EcoWaste

or the Australian Capital Territory (including without limitation their respective officers, employees,

agents, associates and advisors) (collectively the Parties) as to the quality, accuracy, reliability,

reasonableness or completeness of the information contained in this Report or any part of it or any

other information supplied by or on behalf of the Parties (collectively the Information) to a third party

reading this report.

The Parties expressly disclaim all liability, and any third party relying on this report irrevocably and

absolutely releases the Parties from all claims, (whether arising from negligence or otherwise) for, or

based on, or relating to the Information, or for any errors in, or omissions from, this Report, except for

any liability which cannot be excluded as a matter of law.

Limitations to the report

URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and

thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of DECCEW and only those third parties who

have been authorised in writing by URS to rely on the report. It is based on generally accepted

practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made

as to the professional advice included in this report. It is prepared in accordance with the scope of

work and for the purpose outlined in our proposal dated 1st June 2009.

The methodology adopted and sources of information used by URS are outlined in this report. URS

has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works and URS

assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found during our

investigations that information contained in this report as provided to URS was false.

This report was prepared between July 2009 and August 2010 and is based on the conditions

encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims responsibility for any

changes that may have occurred after this time.

This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any

other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to give legal

advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.

This report contains various estimates and cost projections and other forward looking financial

statements relating to the subject of the report. These estimates and assumptions are based on

events current as at the date of this report and factors in future events and actions that may not

necessarily take place and are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are outside

the Parties’ control. Actual future events may vary significantly from the assumptions behind the

estimates and no representation is made that any of these will be achieved.

Any third party reading this report should make its own enquiry and investigations regarding the

assumptions, uncertainties and contingencies which may affect the estimates and the impact that

different future outcomes may have on the estimates and therefore should not rely on the estimates.


43177679/03/H 5

Australian Capital Territory limitation

The Australian Capital Territory makes this report available for information only. Assumptions are

made in this report that have not been fully tested and may not correspond with any actual outcome.

Data used in this report has not been independently verified for its accuracy or completeness. The

views expressed in the report are not the views of the Territory Government and do not represent the

Territory’s commitment to any particular course of action. This report is released in order to promote

public discussion and consultation regarding the potential costs and benefits of establishing a thermal

conversion facility in the ACT. The Australian Capital Territory accepts no liability whatsoever

(including for negligence) arising from any reliance by any person on the contents of this report.


43177679/03/H i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................xi

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................1

1.1 Background issues and starting conditions ..................................................1

1.1.1 Progress to Date ..............................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Thermal Processing – A New Option under Consideration ........................................1

1.1.3 Opportunity Evaluation / Potential Feedstock Availability / Suitability .....................2

1.2 Summary of Adopted Approach......................................................................6

2 Waste Characterisation ....................................................................................9

2.1 Data Collection Methodology ..........................................................................9

2.2 Existing Waste Quantities................................................................................9

2.2.1 Summary...........................................................................................................................9

2.2.2 MSW Stream ...................................................................................................................10

2.2.3 C&D Waste......................................................................................................................12

2.2.4 C&I Waste .......................................................................................................................15

2.2.5 Urban Trees ....................................................................................................................16

2.2.6 Biosolids.........................................................................................................................17

2.3 Future Projections..........................................................................................17

2.3.1 Population Growth.........................................................................................................17

2.3.2 Waste Generation Growth.............................................................................................18

3 TCT Scenario Development............................................................................21

3.1 Analysis of Projected Material Flows Available for TCT..............................21

3.2 Phase 1: Existing Facilities and Material Flows...........................................21

3.2.1 C&D Sources ..................................................................................................................21

3.2.2 Urban Forest/Parks and Gardens.................................................................................27

3.2.3 Biosolids.........................................................................................................................28

3.2.4 Phase 1 Summary ..........................................................................................................31

3.3 Phase 2: C&I first point of receival (wet and dry Dirty MRF facility) in addition to C&D Waste .................................................................33

3.3.1 C&I Sources....................................................................................................................33

3.3.2 Phase 2 C&I Summary (Including mixed C&D Waste) ...............................................38

3.4 Phase 3 MSW Sources...................................................................................39

3.5 Tyres ...............................................................................................................42


43177679/03/H

3.6 Strategic Rationale Project Implementation Issues in Selecting Preferred Scenarios .......................................................................................44

3.7 Development of Practical Scenarios for Further Detailed Analysis ..........................................................................................................46

3.7.1 Proposed Scenario 1 – Base Case – Current Situation .............................................46

3.7.2 Proposed Scenario 2 – Power Production as the Main Focus..................................46

3.7.3 Proposed Scenario 3 – Iterative Development with Multiple Products....................47

4 Regulatory Overview ......................................................................................51

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................51

4.2 ACT Legislation and Guidelines....................................................................51

4.2.1 Environment Protection Act, 1997 ...............................................................................51

4.2.2 Planning and Development Act 2007...........................................................................57

4.2.3 Waste Minimisation Act, 2001 ......................................................................................58

4.3 Australian Guidelines/Code of Practice........................................................58

4.4 International Guidelines.................................................................................59

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidelines and Schemes .................................59

4.5.1 NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (GGAS) ...................................................59

4.5.2 Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET)............................................................60

4.5.3 Greenhouse Friendly .....................................................................................................62

4.5.4 GreenPower....................................................................................................................62

4.5.5 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) .............................................................63

4.5.6 Implications for the Project...........................................................................................64

5 Technology Overview .....................................................................................65

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................65

5.1.1 Pyrolysis .........................................................................................................................65

5.1.2 Gasification ....................................................................................................................66

5.1.3 Pyrolysis followed by Gasification ..............................................................................67

5.1.4 Plasma Arc Gasification................................................................................................68

5.2 TCF Potential Market Value ...........................................................................69

5.2.1 Power ..............................................................................................................................69

5.2.2 Biochar Benefits, Markets and Value...........................................................................71

5.2.3 Syngas and Bio-oils.......................................................................................................72

5.3 Indicative Capital and O&M Cost...................................................................72


43177679/03/H iii

5.4 Diversion Rate ................................................................................................73

5.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions...............................................................73

5.6 Air Emission Control......................................................................................74

5.7 Discussion of Potential International Service Providers.............................75

5.7.1 WasteGen (UK) Ltd ........................................................................................................75

5.7.2 Ebara Corporation .........................................................................................................76

5.7.3 Primenergy LLC .............................................................................................................77

5.7.4 Interstate Waste Technologies.....................................................................................78

5.7.5 AlterNRG.........................................................................................................................80

5.8 Discussion of Potential Domestic Service Providers ..................................83

5.8.1 Pacific Pyrolysis ............................................................................................................83

5.8.2 Crucible Carbon .............................................................................................................83

5.8.3 New Energy Corporation...............................................................................................85

5.8.4 Corky’s ............................................................................................................................88

5.8.5 Real Power Systems......................................................................................................89

5.9 TCT Summary.................................................................................................90

6 Case Studies....................................................................................................93

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................93

6.2 Scenario 2: Power production as main focus ..............................................93

6.2.1 Case Study 1: Biomass Gasification (Austria) ...........................................................93

6.2.2 Case Study 2: Gasification Facility Aomori, Japan....................................................94

6.3 Scenario 3: Iterative development with multiple products..........................98

6.3.1 Case study 1: Pacific Pyrolysis (formally BEST energies)........................................98

6.3.2 Case study 2: EDDITh thermolysis process (France) ..............................................105

6.4 Case Study Wollongong Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF)...........................................................................................107

7 Economic Model............................................................................................109

7.1 Objective.......................................................................................................109

7.2 Methodology.................................................................................................109

7.3 Key costs and benefits categories..............................................................109

7.4 Assumptions and Key Information Sources ..............................................110

7.4.1 Economic modelling parameters ...............................................................................110


43177679/03/H

7.4.2 Capital expenditure, renewals and salvage values ..................................................111

7.4.3 Operation and maintenance costs .............................................................................112

7.4.4 CO2 emissions..............................................................................................................113

7.4.5 Sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) ........................................................115

7.4.6 Electricity sales prices ................................................................................................115

7.4.7 Other benefits...............................................................................................................116

7.4.8 Gate fee .........................................................................................................................116

7.5 Results ..........................................................................................................116

7.5.1 Main results ..................................................................................................................116

7.5.2 Sensitivity analysis results.........................................................................................118

7.6 Conclusion....................................................................................................118

8 References.....................................................................................................121


43177679/03/H v

Tables

Table ES-1 Material Available for proposed TCF (dry tonnes, 2009)..................................................ix

Table 2-1 Waste to Landfill and Estimated Recycling....................................................................... 9

Table 2-2 Recycling Categories and Estimated Quantities .............................................................. 9

Table 2-3 Waste Disposed to Mugga Lane Landfill ........................................................................ 10

Table 2-4 Estimated MSW Waste Characteristics (ACT & Queanbeyan) ...................................... 11

Table 2-5 Estimated MSW Drop-Off Waste Characteristics ........................................................... 11

Table 2-6 Mixed C&D Sources – Estimated tonnes per annum ..................................................... 13

Table 2-7 Mixed C&D Characteristics – Estimated tonnes per annum........................................... 13

Table 2-8 Mixed C&D Characteristics Mugga Lane – Estimated tonnes per annum ..................... 14

Table 2-9 Estimated Mixed C&I as Proportion of Total Waste to Mugga Lane Landfill .................. 15

Table 2-10 Mixed C&I Material: Distribution of Bagged Wastes...................................................... 15

Table 2-11 Estimated Mixed C&I Material by Type........................................................................... 16

Table 2-12 ACT Population Growth Scenarios ................................................................................. 17

Table 2-13 Waste Projections to 2029 (assuming high population growth), tonnes......................... 19

Table 2-14 Waste Projections to 2029 (assuming moderate population growth), tonnes ................ 20

Table 3-1 Projected Timber Availability by Grade........................................................................... 22

Table 3-2 TCT Feedstock Quality Grades ...................................................................................... 22

Table 3-3 Projected Plasterboard Availability by Grade ................................................................. 24

Table 3-4 Projected Paper and Cardboard Availability by Grade ................................................... 25

Table 3-5 Projected Plastic Availability by Grade ........................................................................... 26

Table 3-6 Projected Green Waste Availability by Grade................................................................. 26

Table 3-7 Projected Urban Forest Wood Availability by Grade ...................................................... 27

Table 3-8 Gasification Technology Providers Processing sewage sludge or night soil sludge...... 29

Table 3-9 Projected Biosolids Availability by Grade ....................................................................... 31

Table 3-10 Consolidated Phase 1 potential TCT inputs ................................................................... 32

Table 3-11 Projected C&I Residual Paper/Cardboard Availability by Grade.................................... 34

Table 3-12 Projected C&I Organic Residuals Availability by Grade ................................................. 35

Table 3-13 Projected Wood & Timber Availability by Grade............................................................. 36

Table 3-14 Projected C&I Textile/Rubber/Plastics Availability by Grade.......................................... 38

Table 3-15 Consolidated Phase 2 Potential TCT inputs ................................................................... 39

Table 3-16 Gross Separation of Pre-treated Residual MSW............................................................ 40

Table 3-17 Combined Composition of End-of-life Tyres ................................................................... 42


43177679/03/H

Table 3-18 Feedstock Available for TCFs in Dry Tonnes (2009 Figures)......................................... 46

Table 4-1 Existing Air Emission Standards for Waste Incineration................................................. 55

Table 5-1 Estimated Energy Content of Waste Streams (with biosolids) ....................................... 69

Table 5-2 Estimated Energy Content of Waste Streams (without biosolids) .................................. 70

Table 5-3 Summary of Costs and Energy generation for Thermal Conversion Technologies ....... 73

Table 5-4 Ebara Reference Facilities.............................................................................................. 76

Table 5-5 Primenergy Reference Facilities ..................................................................................... 78

Table 5-6 Thermoselect Reference Facilities ................................................................................. 79

Table 5-7 Alter NRG Reference Facilities ....................................................................................... 81

Table 5-8 Summary Table of International MSW TCT Suppliers (Ref Juniper, 2008).................... 82

Table 5-9 Entech-WtGas-RESTM Operating Facilities..................................................................... 88

Table 5-10 Air emission test data from Corky's Gasifier ................................................................... 89

Table 5-11 TCT Overview ................................................................................................................. 90

Table 6-1 EDDITh Reference Plants............................................................................................. 105

Table 7-1 Costs and benefits categories summary....................................................................... 109

Table 7-2 Capex Gasification plant ............................................................................................... 112

Table 7-3 Capex Pyrolysis plant ................................................................................................... 112

Table 7-4 MRF Capex................................................................................................................... 112

Table 7-5 Opex Gasification plant................................................................................................. 113

Table 7-6 Opex Pyrolysis plant ..................................................................................................... 113

Table 7-7 MRF Opex..................................................................................................................... 113

Table 7-8 Landfill CO2-e emissions............................................................................................... 114

Table 7-9 CO2-e emissions from biosolids incineration ................................................................ 114

Table 7-10 CO2-e emissions from Gasification/Pyrolysis ............................................................... 114

Table 7-11 CO2-e prices.................................................................................................................. 114

Table 7-12 RECs prices .................................................................................................................. 115

Table 7-13 Wholesale electricity prices........................................................................................... 115

Table 7-14 Biochar prices ............................................................................................................... 116

Table 7-15 Main results................................................................................................................... 117

Table 7-16 Break-even gate fees.................................................................................................... 117

Table 7-17 Sensitivity analysis results ............................................................................................ 118


43177679/03/H vii

Figures

Figure 1-1 Current & Potential Streaming & Cascading Materials Flow in ACT ................................ 4

Figure 2-1 Waste & Recycling Growth 1994-95 to 2008-09 ............................................................ 18

Figure 2-2 Waste & Recycling Split 1994-95 to 2008-09 ................................................................. 19

Figure 3-1 Generic Structure and Composition of a Tyre ................................................................ 42

Figure 5-1 Typical Pyrolysis System for Biochar Production and Power Generation ...................... 66

Figure 5-2 Typical Gasification System for Power Generation or Chemicals .................................. 68

Figure 5-3 Conceptual Layout of Pyrolysis Facility .......................................................................... 84

Figure 5-4 Entech-WtGas-RESTM process....................................................................................... 86

Figure 6-1 Biomass Gasifier Process Flow Diagram ....................................................................... 94

Figure 6-2 TwinRec Gasification with Ash Melting........................................................................... 96

Figure 6-3 Combined energy and material recycling at the Aomori plant ........................................ 96

Figure 6-4 Simplified PacPyro Energies Slow Pyrolysis Process .................................................... 99

Figure 6-5 The EDDITh process flowchart ..................................................................................... 106

Plates

Plate 6-1 The TUV- FICFB Biomass Gasification Process: CHP Demonstration in Güssing (8 MWth capacity, 2.0 MWe + 4.5 MWth Heat, 50 tonnes/day of wood chips from forestry)........................................................................................................................................ 94

Plate 6-2 Shredder residue treatment plant in Aomori, Japan ....................................................... 95

Plate 6-3 Corn on the left shows the benefits of Agrichar addition, whereas the corn on the right was grown in this poor soil with no Agrichar and failed to produce a crop................... 102

Plate 6-4 Corn Greenwaste derived AgricharTM biochar product. .............................................. 103

Plate 6-5 Technology Development Life Cycle for PacPyro Slow Pyrolysis Technology ............ 104

Appendices

Appendix A Data Collection Methodology

Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis


43177679/03/H ix

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AD Anaerobic Digestion

C&D Construction and Demolition Waste

C&I Commercial and Industrial Waste

CCA Copper Chrome Arsenate treated timber

CHP Cogeneration of Heat and Power

CO2-e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

DECCEW ACT Government Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water

DECCW NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, previously Department of Environment and Climate Change

DII NSW Department of Industry and Investment, previously Department of Primary Industries

EOI Expression of Interest

EW EcoWaste Pty Ltd

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HCF High Calorific Fraction of waste stream

HHW Household Hazardous Waste

HNRV Highest Net Resource Value

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

LMWQCC Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre

MRF Materials Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NPV Net Present Value

PEF Process Engineered Fuel (same as RDF)

P&G Parks and Gardens

PP Polypropylene

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

PSD Pollution Solutions & Designs Pty Ltd

SWERF Wollongong Solid Waste Energy and Recycling Facility

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel (same as PEF)

TCF Thermal Conversion Facility

TCT Thermal Conversion Technologies

TPD Tonnes per day

tpa Tonnes per annum

URS URS Australia Pty Ltd

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment


43177679/03/H xi

Executive Summary

URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) in conjunction with Eco Waste Pty Ltd (Eco Waste) was commissioned

by the ACT Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water (DECCEW) to

undertake a Pre-Feasibility assessment of thermal conversion technologies for the Australian Capital

Territory (ACT). The pre-feasibility study consists of the following elements:

• Chapter 2: Waste characterisation;

• Chapter 3: Assessment of availability of waste material for the proposed TCF and description of

preferred scenarios;bn jm

• Chapter 4: Regulatory overview;

• Chapter 5: Technology overview;

• Chapter 6: Case studies; and

• Chapter 7: High level modelling of the economic impacts associated with the establishment of a

TCF in the ACT.

The approach adopted for this prefeasibility study is founded on a clear three stage process.

Stage 1 – Identify the available materials / feedstocks

This is covered in Chapter 2 of this report, and subsequently analysed in Chapter 3. The available

materials within and around the ACT needs to be thoroughly understood as to their generic

characteristics, the quality (purity or level of contamination) and their reliability of supply over the likely

life span of a TCF. This study addresses the option of an iterative or staged strategy implementation.

For this reason:

• Phase 1 is based on existing facilities and material flows.

• Phase 2 makes assumptions that a Commercial and Industrial Material Recovery Facility (C&I

MRF) has been established as a first point of receival for dry commercial wastes.

• Phase 3 makes assumptions that first point of receival / pre-treatment facility has been

commissioned for Municipal Solid Waste (a dirty MRF or AWT).

Based on our characterisation study, the following approximate quantities of material would be

available to the proposed TCF (in dry tonnes, 2009 figures, rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes).

Table ES-1 Available material estimates for a TCF (dry tonnes per annum, rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes 2009)

Phase Grade A Grade B Grade D Grades A & B & D

Phase 1 34,000 13,000 47,000

Phase 2 2,000 29,000 31,000

Phase 3 - 15,000 17,000 32,000

Total 110,000

It is noted that the economic modelling of the scenarios takes into consideration changes in waste

generation over the 20 years of modelling, as analysed in Chapter 2.


Executive Summary

xii 43177679/03/H

Stage 2 – Determine what products are most sustainable and/or commercially attractive as

feedstocks

The thermal processing of the predominantly biomass based materials, with thermal oxidation

discounted as an option, can only produce the following products:-

• Heat;

• Syngas;

• Bio-oils; and

• Biochars.

Secondary products are electricity generation and cooling.

Based on an understanding of the feedstock availability and characteristics (Chapter 2) and the likely

marketable products from a TCF in the ACT we have developed scenarios (described in Chapter 3).

Scenario 1 – Base Case – Current Situation

Modelling the current situation will establish the benchmark for any subsequent scenarios.

Scenario 2 – Power Production as the Main Focus

a) Whether to deliver gasification technology incrementally (based on 2009 (dry) figures);

Phase 1 – 45,000 tpa nominal capacity;



This approach will have three separate plants, sized for the available feedstocks at each phase, or

b) To consider a transitional strategy such that only one optimally efficient gasification plant is

developed at Phase 3 for some 100,000 tpa (dry) capacity.

Scenario 3: Iterative Development with Multiple Products

Under Scenario 3 the main TCT is the modular pyrolysis facility that aims to optimise biochar

manufacture, with syngas as the by-product for power generation. This scenario considers the

establishment of individual modular pyrolysis units at each Phase of the project.

Chapters 4 and 5 of this report provide an overview of the regulatory regime and types of TCT

technology available and their products, which provide further support to the preferred scenarios.

Stage 3 – Determine if the TCT scenarios developed result in a higher net present value to the

ACT Government compared to the current (baseline) situation

The selection of the specific technology and provider would be part of a detailed request for proposal

(RFP) process at a future date. As part of the pre-feasibility study, URS undertook a high level

economic modelling exercise of the scenarios described in Chapter 3 of the report, to provide

guidance on whether the scenarios identified result in a higher net present value for the ACT

Government, compared to the current waste management practices.

The modelling provides preliminary guidance on the economic benefit of establishing a TCF in the

ACT. However this will need to be confirmed at a latter stage of the project when updated details on

the available technologies and costs are obtained from suitable providers via the RFP process.


Executive Summary

43177679/03/H xiii

Background

Since the adoption of the ACT NoWaste 2010 Strategy, the ACT has been in the vanguard of

systematically recovering and realising inherent resource value in a wide range of materials including

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Construction and Demolition (C&D) and Commercial and Industrial

(C&I) waste streams. This NoWaste strategy has looked to programmes and initiatives that avoid

wastes being produced in the first place and minimising the quantum and impact of those wastes that

continue to be produced.

This approach has successfully optimised recycling across the MSW and C&D waste streams.

Initiatives include a comprehensive kerbside recycling service linked to an integrated suite of self-

haul/drop-off facilities. C&D sorting and recycling facilities (C&D MRFs), are now fully operational at

two sites around the ACT (Mugga Lane and Pialligo), which are recovering masonry, concrete and

road pavement materials. These facilities also recover various timbers and high calorific materials for

which there are limited market opportunities.

Building on the successful initiatives with C&D material flows, the ACT is now considering options for

the sorting of both “wet” and “dry” C&I wastes. Following an industry research process to identify the

practical options available for the Hume Resource Recovery Estate (HRRE), ACT are now moving

towards an Request for Tender for a Dry C&I MRF in 2010.

Landfill is the default disposal option for all materials that have not been, or cannot be avoided,

minimised, reused or commercially recycled to realise a better disposal outcome.

Thermal Processing – A New Option Under Consideration

Within this context DECCEW is considering the next generation of initiatives to reduce the amount of

material being sent to landfill. In this context, the introduction of thermal processing of currently

undervalued or wasted material flows is being considered, and is the specific subject of this study.

The elevated temperatures, at a range of possible operating conditions, that characterises thermal

processing, opens up a range of potential new products that could be made from the currently

undervalued or wasted resources in the ACT. The same thermal processes introduce a whole range

of complexities and collateral issues that must be systematically addressed. The quality of the

potential products, such as charcoal/biochar (soil productivity improvers and sustainable carbon

sequestration products), bio-oils, syngas (petrochemical industry precursors for liquid fuels or

sustainable heat/power generation) also stem from the rigorous operational management of the TCF

and its feedstocks.

Hence, the commercial and environmental risks and returns for adopting these relatively sophisticated

thermal processes are irrevocably linked to the supply and quality control of the available infeed

materials.

Opportunity Evaluation / Potential Feedstock Availability / Suitability

Before analysing specific technologies or various vendor offers, the first step must be to thoroughly

assess and analyse the available, appropriate and potential feedstock materials generated in the ACT.

In so doing, a wide range of thermal conversion options are kept in mind, to be more rigorously

assessed when the feedstock materials have been reviewed for quality, quantity, reliability of supply,

and sustainability (best and highest use of available materials).


Executive Summary

xiv 43177679/03/H

Sophisticated thermal processes also involve elevated capital and operating costs compared with

landfill disposal. The TCF will need to be justified on financial, environmental and social grounds, and

be able to adequately service the capital employed for the working life of the proposed project (at least

20 years). Once a sophisticated thermal conversion option is deployed, the applied capital needs

servicing by reliable and continuous waste feedstocks meeting tight specifications. Thermal processes

also prefer continuous operation, usually 24/7, to achieve maximum operational efficiency. This

determining issue revolves around the reliability of supply and can be problematic in a waste

management context.

Hence, “first point of receival” facilities are needed that are able to receive wastes as and when they

are generated, and then screen, sort, pre-treat and store materials to be made available to the

subsequent “value add” processes, and/or TCF in a manner that matches market requirements.

Further, with each subsequent stage of material processing and incremental value adding, a

cascading system emerges, if the realisation of Highest Net Resource Value (or Highest and Best

Use) recovery is to be achieved. Generally, the more specific or sophisticated a secondary resource

recovery facility is, the less tolerance it has for variation in quality, quantity and reliability of supply.

This factor favours the designing of plants to a capacity and for an input specification that can be

assured with the trade off that excess material flows will sometimes cascade down to lower value

applications and even landfill. As the system is optimised it will move towards a “No Waste” outcome

where over 95% of waste could be beneficially utilised.

This material “streaming and cascading” approach is illustrated in Figure 1.1 provided in Chapter 1.

Whilst the focus of this study is on the proposed TCF feasibility, as discussed above, the single

biggest defining factor in making such a recommendation is to thoroughly understand the sustainably

provided infeed materials to such a facility.

Once “first-point-of-receival” facilities are established in lieu of direct access to landfill disposal, sorted

and semi sorted material flows are available for subsequent more specialised secondary processing,

to produce final products to specifications that are recognised or accepted by the relevant markets.

This secondary processing may form part of the ACT network of installed capacity, such as the

proposed TCF or the existing compost markets, or may occur as a preliminary beneficiation stage at

the site of the ultimate customer/end user, such as glass, paper/cardboard, plastics, metals etc.

The crucial issue is that if such a suite of resource recovery facilities and options was available, a

pathway is established for all materials presenting in the MSW, C&I or C&D waste streams to achieve

their respective Highest Net Resource Value where the material streaming potential is realised, but the

cascading features ensure that at least a minimum level of inherent resource value is cost effectively

realised in preference to landfill disposal.

For example, paper/cardboard being discarded by households is encouraged to be presented to the

kerbside collection system, such that the existing HRRE clean MRF will recover all the best quality

material for direct recycling into more paper and cardboard.

Those materials that were of too low a quality to be forwarded by the MRF in accordance with the

receival specifications of the new paper and cardboard manufacture are then available to be

presented for a secondary use for thermal processing. Similarly the paper/cardboard discarded in the

MSW mixed residual bin, by mistake or due to food contamination etc. could then be recovered in the

High Calorific stream from a dirty MRF and would also available for a TCF.


Executive Summary

43177679/03/H xv

The end result of this cascading system is that no paper would go to landfill, and all the best material

would be returned for direct recycling with no inherent commercial pressure to down cycle.

Urban Trees & Biosolids

Urban forestry prunings and biosolids are two waste streams that have not been considered in

previous ACT Government waste strategies. Both are ideal feedstocks for a TCF.

Currently the ACT produces approximately 40,000 m3 per annum of prunings from its urban forests.

This is likely to increase in the coming years as mature trees reach the end of their life cycle and new

forests – such as at the Arboretum – require pruning and/or thinning. Much of this solid log and fire

hazard reduction material is stockpiled while the remainder is processed into mulch.

This study assumes 30 per cent of the urban forest prunings will be used as mulch for weed

suppression and moisture management across the city. This potentially leaves 70 per cent available

for thermal conversion.

The ACT currently produces approximately 38,000 tpa of biosolids. These are currently co-fired with

diesel at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre (LMWCC). This incinerator does not

currently recover energy. As the ACT’s population grows and the LMWCC moves to improve

biological nutrient removal there will be greater quantities of wetter biosolids. The ACTEW Strategic

Review of Sewerage Services is underway and numerous plant upgrades are being considered.

Hence, it is timely to reconsider the optimum biosolids management options that have come available

in the 40 years since the biosolids incinerator was designed and to expand the scope of this review to

include opportunities for the management of biosolids in conjunction with other ACT waste streams.

Technology Overview

The thermal processes being considered for the ACT Thermal Conversion study are technologies that

thermally convert waste material to other useful products and by-products. These technologies

include:

• pyrolysis;

• conventional gasification (fixed bed and fluid bed);

• pyrolysis/gasification; and

• plasma gasification.

This study does not include “conventional” mass-burn incineration.

Biochar Benefits, Markets and Value

Pyrolysis generates biochar as a solid by-product that can be sold to generate revenue, while also

sequestering carbon in the soil, thereby further reducing GHG emissions compared to landfill. Biochar,

at its simplest, is a charcoal product ideal as a coal replacement in metals smelting or as a

supplementary fuel (coal replacement) for power stations or cement kilns. An approximate value of

$100- $150/t was assumed in the scenario modelling.

If the feedstock is of the highest quality, such as the material from the urban forest prunings, an

activated carbon product could potentially be made for air and water filtration applications. Such

materials trade for over $1,000/t. However, these markets are currently well serviced.


Executive Summary

xvi 43177679/03/H

Biochars designed for agricultural applications (sometimes called agrichars1) are made from organic

material and sometime optimised by the addition of with certain minerals, clays, calcium carbonates

etc. Biochar is attracting significant interest from soil scientists, agronomists and land owners around

the world because of its connection with the ‘terra preta’ phenomenon.

It’s believed that the highly fertile Amazonian dark earths, or terra preta, were created by pre-

Columbian populations thousands of years ago through the addition of charred organic matter. In the

Amazon today, these highly fertile soils are valuable, and despite being intensively cultivated they

remain productive without the addition of fertilisers. The possibility that such productive soils could be

sustainably man-made presents a huge opportunity for agricultural land users.

Lehman (2006) notes that conversion of biomass carbon to biochar applied to soil can sequester

around 50% of the initial carbon content compared to 3% sequestered through burning and 10-20%

remaining in the soil after 5-10 years following composting and land application.

Compared with carbon found in humic material, the carbon in biochar generally resists degradation

and entering the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This means that sequestered carbon may be stored

within the soil for hundreds to thousands of years (Krull, 2009). The process of sequestering carbon in

the soil by biochar is considered “carbon negative”.

Pacific Pyrolysis notes that “biochar is considered one of only a handful of technologies that remove

carbon from the atmosphere. Other technologies in this vein include carbon capture and storage (ed:

geo-sequestration), forestry and other soil carbon practices such as no-till farming. Biochar is

certainly not the silver bullet which will solve the global issue; however it is a readily deployable,

proven technology. It does not suffer from the uncertainties associated with no till farming or a

requirement to lock up large areas of land dedicated to perpetual forestry with insurance against a

residual risk of bushfire”.

Besides the direct sequestration benefit, there is evidence that biochar provides further mitigation of

greenhouse gas emissions through reduction in nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Furthermore,

biochar has been demonstrated to reduce fertiliser requirements, thus reducing indirect greenhouse

gas emissions from fertilizer manufacture. The syngas produced is a renewable energy source that

can provide additional greenhouse mitigation benefits through displacement of fossil energy sources.

Agricultural biochar are currently entering the market for approximately $300-$500/t.

Case Studies

The description of potential technology providers in Chapter 5, and case studies presented in Chapter

6, provide further examples of TCT developments in Australia and overseas. The international case

studies presented provide further support to the proposed scenarios, as described in Chapter 3 of the

report. The domestic case study on the Wollongong Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility

(SWERF) highlights some of the key risks associated with development of a TCF.

Different approaches and designs, including combination and hybrid concepts can cause significant

variation in cost and efficiency estimates. These case studies represent a small selection of the

technologies and providers available in the market and should not be relied on as criteria for decision

making regarding gasification or conversion technologies in general. The selection of a specific

technology and provider would be part of a detailed request for proposal and/or expression of interest

process at a future stage of the project.

1 This name has been trade marked by Pacific Pyrolysis for use in Australia


Executive Summary

43177679/03/H xvii

Economic Model

As part of the pre-feasibility study, URS undertook a high level economic modelling exercise of the

scenarios described in Chapter 3 of the report, to provide guidance on whether the TCF scenarios

identified result in a higher net present value for the ACT Government, compared to the current waste

management practices.

The modelling provides preliminary guidance on the preferred TCF scenario; however this will need to

be confirmed through a request for proposal process to better evaluate the available technologies and

costs.

• Sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

As the TCT facility is expected to be an eligible producer of renewable energy under the Renewable

Energy Target (up to 2030), a source of revenues for the project would be the sale of Renewable

Energy Certificates (REC). RECs are based on the quantity of electricity produced from eligible waste

(one REC per MWh of electricity). In each scenario, the quantity of eligible electricity produced has

been calculated and considered as attracting RECs sales benefit in the same year. It has been

considered that the percentage of eligible waste content to total waste delivered to the TCT facility

would be very high i.e. 98%.

• Electricity sales prices

One of the benefits of the TCF options will be the significant sales of electricity generated from gas

recovered during the waste treatment process. The wholesale electricity prices are relevant to value

these benefits.

• Sale of biochar

In Scenario 3, the pyrolysis process would produce biochar of low and high quality, which could be

sold. As the market for biochar is only emerging, there is significant uncertainty around biochar prices.

An approximate value of $100- $150/t was assumed in the scenario modelling. To be conservative,

the low estimates have been used for the key results and the high estimates in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

• Results of high level economic modelling

The main results presented in Table ES-2 correspond to the following assumptions: CPRS 5 prices for

CO2 and wholesale electricity and current REC prices (conservative estimates: $30/MWh) all through

the period. Revenues and Costs over 20 years have been discounted, then netted off. All options

have been compared to the Base Case. As an indication only (as this does not correspond to any

financial reality), the net costs have been annualised using the same discount rate as the Net Present

Value calculations. This amount is equivalent to the annual amount that would need to be paid to

finance a debt equivalent to the net cost over 20 years. It must be noted that the uncertainty around

the assumptions made means that results should be seen as an indicative order of magnitude, not

precise estimates. A difference of several million dollars between the Base Case and other scenarios

can be considered as non-significant.


Executive Summary

xviii 43177679/03/H

Hence, in these main results presented below (with biosolids), the Base Case and scenario 2b are

practically on par. Scenario 3 comes slightly behind, with $22 million in additional net present costs

compared to the Base Case. As noted above, though, staging investments over time in scenario 3

phase 3 could make it a more financially attractive proposition. Without considering biosolids, the

results are significantly less favourable.

Table ES-2 Main results for net present cost ($M)

Assumptions:

Scenario CPRS 5, current price estimates for REC

Landfill costs: $50/t

Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids in $M Revenues Costs Net costs

Comparison to Base Case

Annualised net costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $133 $484 $351 $68 $33.1

Scenario 2b $131 $415 $284 $1 $26.8

Scenario 3 $201 $507 $305 $22 $28.8

No biosolids in $M Revenues Costs Net costs



Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $108 $430 $322 $118 $30.4

Scenario 2b $107 $350 $243 $39 $22.9

Scenario 3 $158 $434 $276 $72 $26.0

As a complement to the analysis above, break-even thresholds for gate fees to be applied to the

waste accepted by the TCT facility have been calculated. The gate fee has been assumed to be

constant over the life of the facility (in real dollar terms) and represents the amount that would have to

be charged per tonne of waste to make the costs and revenues of the considered options break-even

(notwithstanding any comparison with the Base Case). The results of this analysis for the main results

presented above are shown in Table ES-3, and are mostly in the $100 to $200 per tonne range.

Table ES-3 Break-even gate fees

With biosolids

Revenues Costs Net costs

Break-even gate fee

$M $/tonne

Scenario 2a $484 $484 $0 $168

Scenario 2b $415 $415 $0 $138

Scenario 3 $507 $507 $0 $146

No biosolids Revenues Costs Net costs

Break-even gate fee

$M $/tonne

Scenario 2a $430 $430 $0 $204

Scenario 2b $350 $350 $0 $150

Scenario 3 $434 $434 $0 $174


Executive Summary

43177679/03/H xix

Sensitivity analysis results

The sensitivity analysis has been carried out by varying one parameter at a time and observing how

the results change in different circumstances (in particular different market conditions). In particular,

the following parameters have been tested:

• Discount rate: 4%,7%, 10%;

• Electricity prices and Carbon prices (correlated): CPRS 5, CPRS 15, no CPRS;

• REC prices: current prices, Dept of Climate Change modelling (McLennan Magasanik Associates,

(2009), consistent with CPRS 5), low estimates (URS estimated); and

• Landfill costs: $50/tonne, $100/tonne.

Some of the price assumptions have been combined: REC prices, electricity and carbon prices have

been varied together.

The full results are disclosed in Appendix B. Fourteen cases have been considered. Table ES-4

presents an overview of the range of results for each scenario. This shows that the results are very

sensitive to the assumptions made and market conditions encountered. It also shows that every

scenario, under the right circumstances may be equal to the Base Case or much more favourable. A

negative figure corresponds to a favourable scenario compared to the Base Case.

The most favourable configuration (for all scenarios) corresponds to high carbon, electricity and REC

prices (McLennan Magasanik (2009) prices have not been tested with this combination of other prices

but would only enhance the results) and a low discount rate.

The least favourable configuration (for all scenarios) corresponds to low carbon, electricity and REC

prices and high discount rates (10% discount rate not tested with this combination, but would enhance

the results).

Table ES-4 Sensitivity analysis results

Comparison to Base Case With biosolids ($M) MIN MAX MIN MAX

Scenario 2a -$57 $164

Scenario 2b -$142 $97

Scenario 3 -$138 $116

Scenario CPRS 15, discount rate 4%, Landfill costs : $100/t, REC current price

Low CO2 price scenario, discount rate: 7%, landfill costs $50/t, low REC price scenario

No biosolids

($M)

Scenario 2a $4 $206


Scenario 3 -$74 $157



Biochar prices were also tested and the results show that scenario 3 is very sensitive to these prices:

assuming “high estimates” biochar prices makes scenario 3 more favourable than the Base Case by

$40 million (everything else equal to the main results assumptions).


Executive Summary

xx 43177679/03/H

Findings from Stage 3

When considering the whole range of possible results as presented in the sensitivity analysis, it

appears that some of them present a significant advantage compared to the Base Case.

Market conditions and possible prices of carbon, electricity and RECs have a very significant influence

on the viability of the proposed project. Biochar prices have a significant impact on scenario 3.

It is recommended to look more closely into these key parameters, in particular the robustness of the

biochar market. The affordability of the break-even gate fee would also need to be assessed.

Based on the CBA undertaken, it is recommended to proceed to the next stage of the project and then

carry out a more detailed and precise feasibility analysis including information obtained from potential

vendors through a Request for Proposals.


43177679/03/H 1

1

1 Introduction

URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) in conjunction with Eco Waste Pty Ltd (Eco Waste) was commissioned

by the ACT Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water (DECCEW) to

undertake a Pre-Feasibility assessment of thermal conversion technologies for the Australian Capital

Territory (ACT). The pre-feasibility study consists of the following elements:

• Waste characterisation;

• Assessment of availability of waste material for the proposed TCF;

• Description of preferred scenarios;

• Technology overview;

• Case studies; and

• High level economic modelling of the preferred scenarios.

1.1 Background issues and starting conditions

1.1.1 Progress to Date

Since the adoption of the ACT NoWaste 2010 Strategy, the ACT has been in the vanguard of

systematically recovering and realising inherent resource value in a wide range of materials presenting

as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Construction and Demolition (C&D) and Commercial and Industrial

(C&I) waste streams.

This NoWaste strategy has looked to programmes and initiatives that avoid wastes being produced in

the first place and minimising the quantum and impact of those wastes that continue to be produced.

This approach has successfully optimised recycling across the MSW and C&D waste streams.

Initiatives include a comprehensive kerbside recycling service linked to an integrated suite of self-

haul/drop-off facilities. Plus C&D sorting and recycling facilities, now fully operational at three sites

around the ACT (Mugga Lane, Pialligo and West Belconnen), which are recovering impressive

volumes of masonry, concrete and road pavement materials and producing various timber and high

calorific material flows and currently attract soft market opportunities.

Building on the successful initiatives with C&D material flows, the ACT is now considering options for

C&I waste stream sorting of both the “wet” and “dry” streams. Following an Expressions of Interest to

identify the practical options available on the Hume Resource Recovery Estate, ACT are now moving

towards a Request for Tender for a Dry C&I MRF facility in 2010.

Landfill is the default disposal option for all materials that have not been, or cannot be avoided,

minimised, reused or recycled to realise a commercially better-than-landfill disposal outcome.

The consideration of further resource recovery options, via selected thermal processing is the next

logical stage, in consideration of the iterative options for the ACT waste streams.

1.1.2 Thermal Processing – A New Option under Consideration

Within this context DECCEW is considering the next generation of practical initiatives to reduce the

amount of material currently and potentially being wasted to landfill. In this context, the introduction of

thermal processing of currently undervalued or wasted material flows is being considered, and is the

specific subject of this prefeasibility study.


1 Introduction

2 43177679/03/H

The elevated temperatures, at a range of possible operating conditions, that characterises thermal

processing, opens up a range of potential new products that could be made from the currently

undervalued or wasted resources in the ACT, but the same thermal processes introduce a whole

range of complexities and collateral outcomes that must be systematically addressed in the formation

of any potential waste management scenarios that might include the thermal processing option.

DECCEW understands these complexities and has identified gasification and pyrolysis technologies

as being worthy of special attention because of their potential and emerging track record for

converting selected spent surplus or currently undervalued infeed materials into high value and/or

more readily marketable products.

At the same time, more traditional incineration has been discounted from further consideration due to

poor resource recovery. In its simplest form, disposal/destruction by incineration has no greater

resource recovery than disposal by landfill. However, thermal processes such as gasification and

pyrolysis (refer to Chapter 5 for definitions) derive their respective abilities, to produce high quality

products because of their relative technical complexity and sophistication.

In generic process engineering terms, the quality of the potential products, such as charcoal/biochar

bio-oils, syngas (refer to Chapter 5 for definition of these products) that themselves have the ability to

be converted into quality soil productivity improvers and sustainable carbon sequestration products

(biochar), petrochemical industry precursors or liquid fuels (bio-oils and syngas), or sustainable

heat/power generation sources (charcoals, bio-oils, syngas), all stem from the complexity of the

respective gasification and pyrolysis processes and the rigorous operational management of such

plants.

The commercial and environmental rewards for adopting these relatively sophisticated thermal

processes, and the quality of the products and outcomes that they have the potential to achieve, are

directly and irrevocably linked to the quality, specific characteristics and reliability of supply of the

available infeed materials.

1.1.3 Opportunity Evaluation / Potential Feedstock Availability / Suitability

Before analysing specific technologies or various vendor offers, the crucial first step must be to

thoroughly assess and analyse the available, appropriate and potential feedstock materials generated

in the ACT. In so doing, a wide range of thermal conversion options are kept in mind, to be more

rigorously assessed when the feedstock materials have been reviewed for quality, quantity, reliability

of supply, and sustainability (best and highest use of available materials).

Sophisticated thermal processes also involve elevated capital and operating costs per units

processed, especially as compared with the alternative landfill disposal option. This application of new

capital will need to demonstrate that it can be initially justified on financial, environmental and social

grounds, and adequately service the capital employed for the working life of the proposed projects.

One advantage of landfill disposal, is that it is “there when you need it”, but when reduced volumes of

waste are presented, the avoided air space consumption offsets the opportunity cost of having such

an option available. However, once a sophisticated thermal conversion option is deployed, the applied

capital needs servicing by reliable and continuous production of the proposed product range. Thermal

processes also prefer continuous operation, usually 24/7, to deliver their anticipated thermal efficiency

advantages. This determining issue revolves around the reliability of supply issue, and this is, in itself,

problematic in a waste management context.


1 Introduction

43177679/03/H 3

By definition “wastes” are indeterminate. Whether emanating from residents (MSW) or business (C&I)

or the development sector (C&D), the spent, surplus or otherwise (currently) unwanted materials,

certainly in the hands of the current owner, are discarded for a wide range of quite secondary reasons.

None of the three key sources of waste make waste as a primary consideration. Wastes are

generated as purely collateral, secondary or resultant activities, which possess a problem for a facility

that seeks to derive its optimum viability from processing such materials. Further, it is

counterproductive for societies to create incentives that encourage waste generation simply to

optimise the returns and/or efficiency of a facility dedicated to processing these wastes.

To accommodate the sporadic, occasional and impulsive nature of the waste generation process,

whilst providing assurance to the ever more dedicated and sophisticated resource recovery options

provided to accept and handle such materials, a process flow buffer needs to be established in the

systematic resource recovery systems, infrastructure and facilities. These “first point of receival”

facilities need to be able to receive solid wastes as and when they are generated and that such

materials are then screened, sorted, pre-treated and made available to the subsequent “value add”

processes, facilities or customers in the manner best suited to their respective needs and capabilities.

Further, with each subsequent stage of more focused material processing and incremental value

adding, a cascading system emerges, if the realisation of Highest Net Resource Value (or Highest and

Best Use) recovery is to be achieved. Generally, the more specific or sophisticated a secondary

resource recovery facility is, the less tolerance it has for variation in quality, quantity and reliability of

supply. This is especially true for the identified Thermal Conversion Technologies (TCT).

This factor favours the designing of plants to a capacity and for an input specification that can be

assured at the expense of potentially excess material flows that would need to cascade down to the

next available option.

This material “streaming and cascading” approach is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 describes a

practical “streaming and cascading” materials flow that might represent the eventual achievement of a

NoWaste strategy.

Figure 1.1: Current & Potential Streaming & Cascading Materials Flow in ACT

Do

mes

tic

Was

te S

trea

mC

&D

Was

te S

trea

mC

&I W

aste

Str

eam

Urb

an F

ore

st

Str

eam

Bio

solid

s S

trea

m

Do

mes

tic

Rec

yclin

g

Str

eam

Co

mp

ost

ing

S

trea

mInfeed Primary Separation Secondary Processing Disposal or Market

Domestic Waste

Domestic Waste Pretreatment

Organic Fraction

HC Fraction

Metals

Inerts

HazardousRejects

Wet Organic Processing (AD)

Power

PEF FacilitySupplementary

Fuel

C&DWaste

Timber

Plasterboard

Paper Carboard

Plastics

Dirty MRFExisting Facilities

Green Waste

Existing Inert

Markets

Metal

Thermal Conversion

Facility

Landfill(CCA & Others)

Existing Recycling Markets

Existing Fertiliser Market

C&IWaste

Timber

Clean Paper Cardboard

Metals

Plastics

C&I DryMRF

ResidualMaterials

Clean Chipped

Wood Waste

Urban ForestClean Wood

Chipped at Source

Existing Parks & Gardens

Mulch

Biosolids

Domestic Recycling

MRF

Green Waste

Composting

Existing Compost Markets

Inert

Syngas

C&I WetProcessing

Pre-SortTunnel

Composting


1 Introduction

43177679/03/H 5

Notes to Figure 1.1

Note 1: Material Streaming

Since resource recovery is impractical at the tip face, the three main waste streams can be directed to

their respective, non-landfill/non-disposal “First points of Receival”.

For MSW – As mentioned, targeted kerbside recycling arrangements are in place and operating as

planned. Further, local residents are encouraged to self haul/drop off source separated garden wastes

and miscellaneous household durables and household hazardous waste (HHW) (including oils) to well

established facilities. This has reinforced a strong culture in the local community to not only consider

the optimum post consumer fate of their individual waste streams, but also provided the actual

facilities and capabilities to be able to follow through on the various waste

avoidance/minimisation/recycling messages that selected education programmes have delivered over

time.

This leaves only the residual mixed MSW waste stream – which currently goes directly to landfill.

These materials contain additional “recyclables”, moist organics and food wastes, dry high calorific

materials, metals hazardous house hold wastes (HHW) and inerts . The proposed streaming and

cascading strategy will require an alternative first-point-of-receival for these materials – other than

landfill – so that the inherent resource value in these materials can also be systematically realised.

For C&D – Such facilities already exist and, in the future, attention could be given to optimising the

efficiency of such facilities – but no major capital expenditure is required.

For C&I – Currently, first-point-of-receival is landfill. If the generator hasn’t made separate recycling or

resource recovery arrangements with their selected waste “front lift” contractor, or some other third

party specialist, all such materials are destined to be wasted to landfill.

The C&I situation is currently being addressed via the HRRE development and the Government’s

ACTSmart Office and Business recycling programs that seek to facilitate increased sorting and

resource recovery. Tenders for a C&I MRF (first point of receival) are in development and could

incorporate findings from this TCF study.

Whilst the focus of this study is on the proposed TCF feasibility, as discussed above, the single

biggest defining factor in making such a recommendation is a thorough understanding of the

sustainably-of providing suitable in-feed materials to such a facility.

Note 2: Cascading End Uses

Once “first-point-of-receival” facilities are established in lieu of direct access to landfill disposal, sorted

and semi sorted material flows are available for subsequent, and much more specialised secondary

processing, to produce final products to specifications that are recognised or accepted by the market.

This secondary processing may form part of the ACT network of installed capacity, such as the

proposed TCF or the existing compost markets, or may occur as a preliminary beneficiation stage at

the site of the ultimate customer/end user, such as glass, paper/cardboard, plastics, metals etc.

The crucial issue is that if such a suite of resource recovery facilities and options was available, a

pathway is established for all materials presenting in the MSW, C&I or C&D waste streams to achieve

their respective Highest Net Resource Value where the material streaming potential is realised, but the

cascading features cut in to ensure that at least a minimum level of inherent resource value is cost

effectively realised in preference to being completely wasted to the landfill disposal default option.


1 Introduction

6 43177679/03/H

For example, paper/cardboard being discarded by households is encouraged to be presented to the

kerbside collection system, such that the existing HRRE MRF will recover all the best quality material

for direct recycling into more paper and cardboard,

Those materials that were of too low a quality to be forwarded by the MRF in accordance with the

receival specifications of the new paper and cardboard manufacture are then available to be

presented for a secondary use for thermal processing. Similarly the paper/cardboard discarded in the

MSW mixed residual bin, by mistake or due to food contamination etc. could then be recovered in the

High Calorific stream from a MSW pre-treatment plant, also available for subsequent TCT.

End result – no paper to landfill, with all the best material returned for direct recycling and no inherent

commercial pressure to down cycle.

Similarly with C&D wood waste, for example at the existing C&D sorting facilities, timber can be

recovered for direct recycling, reprocessing into chip and mulch or presented for thermal conversion of

various types depending on batch quality. Gross contaminants can be removed, such as copper,

chrome, arsenic (CCA) treated timber materials, as a “by-product” of the core activity. Again, no

inherent commercial pressure is built into the system for down cycling but all materials are presented

with a cascading option for value recovery depending on the prevailing market conditions.

1.2 Summary of Adopted Approach

The approach adopted for this prefeasibility study is founded on a clear three stage process.

• Stage 1 – Identify the available materials / feedstocks

This is covered in Chapter 2 of this report, and is subsequently analysed in Chapter 3.

The available materials emanating from the ACT (and surrounding jurisdictions) need to be thoroughly

understood as to their generic characteristics, the quality (purity or level of cross contamination), their

reliability of supply, especially over the likely life span of an eventual TCF, any likely competitive

pressures or issues that can be anticipated to affect the quality, quantity and reliability of supply over

the proposed life span of any process plant that might be established.

• Stage 2 – Determine what products are most ideal, sustainable or commercially attractive to

make from the, by now, clearly identified and characterised feedstocks

The thermal processing of the predominantly biomass based materials can produce the following

products:-

• Heat

• Syngas

• Bio-oils

• Biochars

Secondary products are electricity generation and cooling.


1 Introduction

43177679/03/H 7

Potential management issues associated with any thermal conversion facility will be emissions to

atmosphere as well as dust, odour, noise and air emissions associated with traffic movements. TCFs

convert in-feed materials, predominantly lignocellulosics, from complex cellular structures and

molecules, into the four products identified above.

Chapters 4 and 5 of this report provide an overview of the regulatory regime and types of TCT

technology available and their products, which provide further support to the scenarios developed in

Chapter 3.

With these strategic factors in mind, the proposed scenarios recommended in our report, are

discussed in the context of the logistics, sustainability, and ultimately, the policy issues and

consequences that will pertain.

• Stage 3 – Determine if the TCT scenarios developed result in a higher net present value to

the ACT Government compared to the current (baseline) situation

The selection of the specific technology and provider would be part of a detailed request for proposal

and/or expression of interest process at a future stage in the project. As part of the pre-feasibility

study, URS undertook a high level economic modelling exercise of the scenarios described in Chapter

3 of the report, to provide guidance on whether the TCT scenarios identified result in a higher net

present value for the ACT Government, compared to the current waste management method. This

high level modelling was undertaken following the ACT Government’s confirmation of the scenarios

presented in this report. The modelling provides preliminary guidance on the preferred TCT scenario;

however this will need to be confirmed at the next stage of the project when updated details on the

available technologies and costs are obtained from suitable providers.


43177679/03/H 9

2

2 Waste Characterisation

This section provides a detailed summary of the wastes types and quantities generated in the ACT.

This information is critical to determining the potential feedstock which would be available for the

proposed TCF.

2.1 Data Collection Methodology

Data for this project and which is used in this report has been obtained by reviewing and analysing

existing reports and audits provided by DECCEW as well as from direct consultation. Data sources

and references used in this project are provided in Appendix A. It is noted that the data presented is

based on best available information provided to URS at the time of the study, which has not been

independently verified. As such, the data can only be considered as a guide to meet the objectives of

this pre-feasibility study, and should not be relied upon for any other purpose.

2.2 Existing Waste Quantities

2.2.1 Summary

In 2008/2009 the wastes generated in the ACT totalled 872,612 tonnes with 640,643 tonnes recycled

and the remainder landfilled.

Table 2-1 Waste to Landfill and Estimated Recycling

Categories Tonnes % of Total

Recycling 640,643 73.4%

Waste 231,969 26.6%

TOTAL 872,612 100.00%

Reference: ACT TAMS data (September 2009)

ACT Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) data (2009) indicates the following characteristics of the

recycling stream as shown in the table below.

Table 2-2 Recycling Categories and Estimated Quantities

Recycling Categories Tonnes % of Total

Glass 15,996 2%

Paper/ Cardboard 56,946 9%

Rigid Plastics (PET, HDPE, PVC) 1,823 0%

Liquid-paperboard (inc in Paper above) 0 0%

Aluminium 1,897 0%

Steel cans 888 0%

Garden/ Compost 197,008 34%

Demolition 280,356 36%

Metals ferrous 34,836 6%

Cooking oil and fat 1,447 0%

Clothing 6,656 1%

Salvage & Reuse 1,320 0%



10 43177679/03/H

Recycling Categories Tonnes % of Total

Motor oil 2,296 1%

Wood/Timber** 27,824 6%

Tyres** 3,684 1%

Other** 7,666 2%

TOTAL 640,643 98.00%

Reference: ACT TAMS (2009) data

** Based on split derived from 2007/2008 Data

The latest TAMS (Sept 2009) states that the total waste to Mugga Lane landfill in the ACT in 2008/09

is 213,969 tpa (tonnes per annum) as shown in Table 2-3 below. The TAMS total figure is used in the

analysis as well as the tonnages of the individual waste categories.

Table 2-3 Waste Disposed to Mugga Lane Landfill

Waste Categories Tonnes % of Total

MSW * 81,130 38%

C&I ** 105,317 49%

C&D 27,522 13%

TOTAL 213,969 100%

Reference: TAMS (2009) reporting data

* Total includes domestic drop-off and Queanbeyan domestic waste

** Total includes C&I drop-off materials

It is noted that some C&D wastes were used as fill as part of the rehabilitation of the site at the

Canberra Concrete Recyclers (Pialligo) facility. However under a modified EPA authorisation, this

practice was discontinued in September 2009.

2.2.2 MSW Stream

Domestic Waste

A total of 81,130 tonnes of domestic waste are disposed to landfill each year (TAMS Sept 2009).

Based on TAMS there is 59,840 tpa of domestic waste collected in the bin-based system in the ACT.

This is confirmed by the APRINCE audit (2009). The total disposed to landfill is broken down into the

following categories and tonnages:

• ACT domestic waste (59,84 tpa);

• Queanbeyan domestic waste (7,980 tpa); and

• Private Drop-off (13,310 tpa). Description of the Private Drop-off (or Domestic Drop-off is noted in

the subsection below).

The domestic waste is characterised in Table 2-4 which has been summarised from the original 38

material categories in the original APRINCE Consulting (APC) Audit. This characterisation has been

used to assist in interpreting the raw data from the landfill audits completed by GHD in 2009, where a

significant quantity (65.9%) of the audited waste stream was classified as bagged waste. ACT



43177679/03/H 11

Government (TAMS) has indicated that additional audit work will be carried out on this waste stream in

the near future.

Table 2-4 Estimated MSW Waste Characteristics (ACT & Queanbeyan)

MSW Material Type Tonnes % of Total

Paper/Cardboard/Other Paper/LPB 3,575 5.3%

Disposable / Contaminated Paper 4,043 6.0%

Food / Kitchen 26,383 38.9%

Garden / Garden Organics 3,584 5.3%

Other Organic Wood / Timber 634 0.9%

Textiles / Clothing / Carpet 3,175 4.7%

Glass Generally 2,672 3.9%

Recyclable Plastic (non PVC) 1,233 1.8%

Plastic 3 PVC 62 0.1%

Polystyrene 412 0.6%

Other Plastics 5,310 7.8%

Metal (Ferrous & Non Ferrous) 1,664 2.5%

Hazardous/Medical/Chemicals 596 0.9%

Nappies 3,537 5.2%

Inert & Residual 10,939 16.1%

TOTAL 67,819 100.00%

Reference: TAMS (Sept 2009) & APC (2009) Domestic Audit Appendix B - Composition of Garage Stream

Domestic Drop-Off Waste

The composition of this waste stream has been compiled by reviewing the raw transfer station/landfill

audit data captured by GHD (2009). The quantum of waste in this stream is 13,310 tpa as noted

above which is included in the total of 81,130 tpa for the overall domestic waste stream. Table 2-5

below provides the material split for this waste stream based on the specific domestic waste disposed

of at the Mugga Lane and Mitchell transfer stations.

Table 2-5 Estimated MSW Drop-Off Waste Characteristics

MSW Drop-off Material Type Tonnes % of Total

Paper/Cardboard/Other Paper/LPB 407 3%

Disposable / Contaminated Paper 0 0%

Food / Kitchen 15 0%

Garden / Garden Organics 1,267 10%

Timber 2,748 21%

Textiles / Clothing / Carpet 1,190 9%

Glass Generally 180 1%

Plastics 157 1%

Rubber 82 1%

Polystyrene 0 0%



12 43177679/03/H

MSW Drop-off Material Type Tonnes % of Total

Other Plastics 1,022 8%

Metal (Ferrous & Non Ferrous) 1,054 8%

Hazardous/Medical/Chemicals 0 0%

Plasterboard 306 2%

Inert & Residual 2,563 19%

Other (Elect, Ducting & Insulation) 135 1%

Garbage Bags 2,008 15%

Luggage & Mattress 176 1%

TOTAL 13,310 100.00%

Reference: TAMS (Sept 2009) & GHD (2009) Landfill Audit. Data from specific locations

No attempt was made to assess the likely contents of the waste in garbage bags as there is no

certainty regarding their content and whether the wastes in the garbage bags could be characterised

as putrescibles domestic or hard wastes. In addition this stream only represented 15% of the total and

was therefore seen as less critical than the significantly greater percentage in the Domestic Waste

Stream data above. As noted above, further assessments are being undertaken of the wastes in

garbage bags.

2.2.3 C&D Waste

Overview

There are four Construction and Demolition (C&D) facilities in the ACT. It is understood that Mugga

Lane landfill takes a small portion of C&D waste directly (27,522 tpa (TAMS (Sept 2009)) and from its

2 feeder transfer stations at Mitchell and Mugga Lane. The majority of C&D wastes are disposed of to

Canberra Concrete Recyclers (Pialligo), Samarkos Earthmoving Builders Waste Recourse Recovery

(Mugga Lane) and Building Waste Recyclers (Belconnen)2. Much of the source separated C&D

wastes (concrete, bricks, asphalt and the like) are recycled and sold as product and the focus of the

consultation was on mixed C&D wastes. Data obtained during project interviews with C&D waste

contractors in the ACT in July 2009 and the latest TAMS data (Sept 2009) indicated that there was a

total of 150,935 tonnes of mixed C&D waste generated in 2008/2009. In addition it was reported that

there was approximately 2,037 tpa of source separated wood waste.

Total Mixed C&D Wastes

Mixed C&D from the commercial operators Concrete Recyclers, Samarkos and Building Waste

Recyclers total 123,413 tpa in total. An additional 27,522 tpa of C&D waste is disposed of at Mugga

Lane Landfill as noted in the latest TAMS (Sept 2009).

2 Since finalisation of this report it is understood Builders Waste Recyclers has gone into receivership



43177679/03/H 13

Table 2-6 Mixed C&D Sources – Estimated tonnes per annum

Mixed C&D Material Sources Tonnes % of Total

Commercial Operators 123,413 81.8%

ACT Mugga Lane Landfill** 27,522 18.2%

TOTAL 150,935 100.0%

Reference: Data obtained by personal interviews July 2009

** TAMS (Sept 2009) Data

Conversion factor m3 to tonne= 3m

3 to 1 tonne

C&D Characterisation

Audit data on the C&D waste streams from commercial operations were not available. Data for the

Mugga Lane landfill was available through the TAMS (Sept 2009) and GHD landfill audit (May 2009)).

A review was undertaken to assess C&D characterisation from NSW (DECC Report into the

Construction and Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2000-2005 – Sydney Metropolitan Area). The DECC

Report stated that mixed waste comprised of 20% wood wastes, 17% plasterboard, 3% paper &

cardboard and 3% plastics (by weight). The 20% wood waste percentage was confirmed by a number

of the operators. The following table lists the percentage split in the waste characterisation of mixed

C&D waste based on the total mixed C&D waste presented in the ACT (as determined by this study).

Table 2-7 Mixed C&D Characteristics – Estimated tonnes per annum

Mixed C&D Material Type Tonnes % of Total

Concrete 34,509 22.9%

Fines (<4.75mm) 32,499 21.5%

Timber 30,153 20.0%

Clay products 13,402 8.8%

Natural aggregate 8,376 5.6%

Ferrous metals 7,706 5.1%

Plasterboard 5,696 3.8%

Paper and cardboard 4,691 3.1%

Plastic 4,356 2.8%

Garden and vegetation 2,680 1.8%

Textiles 2,010 1.3%

Non-ferrous metals 1,005 0.7%

Glass 670 0.5%

Asphalt 503 0.3%

Miscellaneous 2,680 1.8%

TOTAL 150,936 100.00%

Reference: Percentages from DECC Report into the Construction and Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2000-2005 – Sydney Metropolitan Area

Reference: Mixed C&D waste data obtained from interviews undertaken in July 2009 by the URS/EW Team



14 43177679/03/H

Source separated wood is delivered to the various C&D operators as a source separated stream but in

the main is delivered as part of C&D mixed waste loads. It was reported that there are two sources of

source separated C&D wood waste (Canberra Concrete Recyclers and Thiess (Mitchell transfer

station) totalling around 2,037 tonnes.

C&D Wastes to Mugga Lane

As a sub-set of the total C&D wastes the mixed C&D wastes as reported in the GHD Landfill and

Transfer Station Audit (2009) (total of 27,522 tonnes per annum (TAMS Sept 2009)) appear to have

different characterisation of the material types presented in the mixed C&D stream noted above. An

analysis was undertaken of the material types of vehicles classified as C&D entering the Mugga Lane

Landfill and also the Mugga Lane Transfer Station suggests the following breakdown as noted in the

table below.

Table 2-8 Mixed C&D Characteristics Mugga Lane – Estimated tonnes per annum

Mixed C&D Material Type (Mugga Lane Tonnes % of Total

Concrete 952 22.9%

Fines (<4.75mm) 4,731 21.5%

Timber 3,745 20.0%

Clay products 2,165 8.8%

Natural aggregate 4,731 5.6%

Ferrous metals 229 5.1%

Plasterboard 2,308 3.8%

Paper and cardboard 699 3.1%

Plastic 701 2.8%

Garden and vegetation 400 1.8%

Textiles 2,445 1.3%

Non-ferrous metals 708 0.7%

Glass 127 0.5%

Asphalt 133 0.3%

Miscellaneous 3,448 1.8%

TOTAL 27,522 100.00%

Reference: TAMS (Sept 2009) & GHD 2009 Landfill Audit.



43177679/03/H 15

2.2.4 C&I Waste

The TAMS data (Sept 2009) states that the C&I Waste Stream is 105,317 tonnes per annum in

2008/09. This represents the largest of the waste streams disposed to landfill.

Table 2-9 Estimated Mixed C&I as Proportion of Total Waste to Mugga Lane Landfill

Waste Categories Tonnes % of Total

Domestic * 81,130 38%

C&I ** 105,317 49%

C&D 27,522 13%

TOTAL 213,969 100%

Reference: TAMS (2009) reporting data

* Total includes domestic drop-off and Queanbeyan domestic waste

** Total includes C&I drop-off materials

One of the more significant issues in assessing this waste stream is the high percentage of bagged

waste recorded in the GHD audit (51.1%). However, a detailed assessment has been made of the

raw data provided by GHD whereby all specific data from all of the C&I designated vehicles disposing

at all three facilities (Mugga Lane landfill, Mugga Lane Transfer Station and Mitchell Transfer Station)

over the audit period have been extracted so as to obtain a better understanding of the waste

characterisation of the C&I category. The percentage split of the various wastes types are shown in

Table 2-10 below. The first column presents the percentage of Mixed C&I Material Types including

the percentage for Bagged Waste; the second column distributes the likely contents of the Bagged

Waste and distributes these amongst through the other Mixed C&I Material Types.

Table 2-10 Mixed C&I Material: Distribution of Bagged Wastes

Mixed C&I Material Type % of Total (incl Bagged Waste)

% of Total (Bagged Waste distributed)

Paper and cardboard 11.3% 19.7%

Organics 10.6% 43.8%

Wood and timber products 6.6% 6.6%

Textiles and rubber 4.0% 5.0%

Glass 0.6% 1.1%

Plastics 6.0% 13.7%

Metals 1.5% 1.8%

Building material 7.5% 7.5%

Hazardous 0.0% 0.0%

Bags and loose garbage 51.1% 0.0%

E-waste and office equipment 0.2% 0.2%

Other 0.6% 0.6%

TOTAL 100.00% 100.00%

Reference: GHD (2009) waste audit data as analysed by URS/EW



16 43177679/03/H

This has resulted in the tonnages apportioned to the C&I stream and as used in the analysis as

follows:

Table 2-11 Estimated Mixed C&I Material by Type

Mixed C&I Material Type Tonnes % of Total

Paper and cardboard 20,722 19.7%

Organics 46,146 43.8%

Wood and timber products 6,974 6.6%

Textiles and rubber 5,242 5.0%

Glass 1,121 1.1%

Plastics 14,431 13.7%

Metals 1,921 1.8%

Building material 7,909 7.5%

Hazardous 0 0.0%

Bags and loose garbage 0 0.0%

E-waste and office equipment 220 0.2%

Other 631 0.6%

TOTAL 105,317 100.00%

Reference: TAMS data (Sept 2009) & GHD (2009) waste audit data as analysed by URS/EW

2.2.5 Urban Trees

Information has been gathered from officers of the Urban Forest Renewal Program (UFRP) of TAMS

(July, 2009). There are approximately 630,000 trees in the urban forest and the Department is

currently developing an urban forest renewal strategy. Currently 6,000 trees are removed annually but

this is likely to increase in the coming years as mature trees reach the end of their life cycle. Currently

40,420m3 of wood by-product is generated from the urban forest annually. Based on a 2.5:1 volume

to tonnage ratio this equates to 15,062 tonnes per annum. The current volume is made up of two

streams:

• Log by-product and fuel reduction solid by-product (10,000m3); and

• Prunings (30,420m3) based on the productivity of three teams working 260 days per annum

producing 39m3 of prunings per day

TAMS UFRP officers stated that the number of pruning teams will increase to four in 2009/10 with the

likely total wood by-product from this stream increasing to 20,000 tonnes per annum. Much of the

solid log and fire hazard reduction by-product material is stockpiled and later processed into mulch.

Some of this material was recently used in spreading on a complete landfill cell to assist in

remediation. Currently most of the chipped prunings and processed mulch is used for weed

suppression and moisture management in shrub beds across the city. In future there will be a

continuing need for a portion of this material to be used for this purpose and 30% was discussed with

potentially 70% being available for its thermal conversion, although the exact percentage would

require further study. Our pre-feasibility analysis for the TCT uses 70% of 20,000 tonnes per annum.



43177679/03/H 17

The current system is a cost to the ACT and the following costs per annum figures were quoted:

• $70,000 to $100,000 to process in storage; and

• $100,000 to $150,000 to transfer and spread mulch.

2.2.6 Biosolids

Data from the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre Biosolids Options Review prepared by

Pollution Solution & Design Pty Ltd for ActewAGL in September 2008 (PSD, 2008) was used for our

analysis on the availability of biosolids for a potential TCT. The tonnage quoted in this report is that in

2008 the existing sewerage treatment facility produced 13,373 dry tonnes of sludge per annum. The

sludge is delivered to the current incinerator facility with a 65% moisture content which would indicate

that the total tonnage delivered is 38,209 tpa.

Tonnages in 2028 have been estimated by PSD to be 16,318 dry tonnes of sludge per annum (45,328

tpa). The effects of the proposed de-nitrification at the existing sewerage treatment facility on future

tonnages is discussed in Section 3.2.3.

2.3 Future Projections

2.3.1 Population Growth

The ACT had an estimated residential population of 334,200 at June 2006 (ABS 1307.8 - Australian

Capital Territory in Focus, 2007). The Canberra-Queanbeyan Statistical District had an estimated

residential population of 381,400 at June 2006.

During 2005-06, the population of the ACT increased by nearly 4,000 people (from 330,300 at June

2005 to 334,200 at June 2006), equating to a population growth rate of 1.2%. From June 2001 to June

2006 the population increased by 14,900 (ABS, 2006).

By June 2008 the estimated resident population had grown to 345,551 (ABS, 2009) an increase from

June 2006 of 11,351.

Projections forward over 20 years have been generated using the ABS Population Projections

Australia 1999 to 2101 (August 2000) based on the Series I (high growth) and Series II (moderate

growth) scenarios only as shown in Table 2-12.

Table 2-12 ACT Population Growth Scenarios

Year Projections Population (Series I)

% Change Population (Series II)

% Change

2009 (Baseline) 350,135 - 350,135 -

2014 370,659 5.93% 360,333 2.93%

2019 390,692 5.46% 369,600 2.58%

2024 410,136 5.03% 377,726 2.21%

2029 428,204 4.44% 384,190 1.72%

Average Annual Change 1.02% 0.50%



18 43177679/03/H

2.3.2 Waste Generation Growth

General Overview

In its report to the Department of Environment and Heritage (now Department of the Environment,

Water, Heritage and the Arts) titled Waste and Recycling in Australia (Hyder, 2006) projected future

disposal and recycling quantities up to 2022-23 based on an average annual per capita GDP growth of

1.88 percent and an average annual population growth of 1.13%. Hyder have calculated that there is

likely to be an annual increase of 3.5% in waste and recycling generation based on the GDP average

annual population growth rates noted above.

ACT Overview

The specific characteristics of the ACT indicate that the likely GTP (Gross Territory Product) will be

approximately 1.4% and the population growth average of between 0.5% to 1.02%, depending on the

growth scenario.

ACT Waste & Recycling Growth

Based on the data provided by TAMS (Sept 2009) there has been an average growth in waste and

recycling generation of 6% since 1994-95 through to 2008-09 compared with an average per capita

increase in GTP of 2.4% over the same period.

Figure 2-1 Waste & Recycling Growth 1994-95 to 2008-09

Source: URS/Eco Waste Analysis

In terms of the relative growth in waste and recycling, the ACT has reached a plateau with recycling

rates at or around 71-75% % for the past five years.



43177679/03/H 19

Figure 2-2 Waste & Recycling Split 1994-95 to 2008-09

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Waste

Recycling

Source: URS/Eco Waste Analysis

For the purposes of this analysis the waste/recycling split will be projected forward on a 25/75% split

as listed in the following table and does not account for any additional recycling or resource recovery

infrastructure. It is noted that the total amount of waste presented in the following tables includes

biosolids and urban trees. Also, we have not included the C&D recycled material that does not first

pass through a MRF. Changes to the waste/recycling split will be discussed in more detailed in

Chapter 3 of this report.

Table 2-13 Waste Projections to 2029 (assuming high population growth), tonnes

Waste Stream 2009 (Baseline)

2014 2019 2024 2029

MSW Kerbside Waste (plus Queanbeyan)

67,820 77,423 87,558 98,138 108,670

MSW Drop-off Waste 13,310 15,195 17,184 19,260 21,327

Mixed C&D Waste (plus Wood Waste)

152,972 174,633 197,493 221,357 245,111

C&I Waste 105,317 120,230 135,968 152,398 168,752

Urban Trees 15,000 17,124 19,366 21,706 24,035

Bio-Solids 38,209 43,619 49,329 55,289 61,223

Total 392,628 448,223 506,898 568,149 629,118



20 43177679/03/H

Table 2-14 Waste Projections to 2029 (assuming moderate population growth), tonnes

Waste Stream 2009 (Baseline) 2014 2019 2024 2029

MSW Kerbside Waste (plus Queanbeyan)

67,820 72,674 77,275 81,468 84,918

MSW Drop-off Waste 13,310 14,263 15,166 15,988 16,666

Mixed C&D Waste (plus Wood Waste)

152,972 163,920 174,299 183,755 191,537

C&I Waste 105,317 112,854 120,000 126,510 131,868

Urban Trees 15,000 16,074 17,091 18,018 18,782

Bio-Solids 38,209 40,943 43,535 45,897 47,841

Total 392,628 420,728 447,366 471,636 491,612


43177679/03/H 21

3

3 TCT Scenario Development

Chapter 2 of the report presented a detailed waste characterisation for the ACT. Chapter 3 analyses

the data from Chapter 2, to determine what material would be potentially available to the proposed

TCF taking into consideration quantity, quality and reliability of supply for the various materials. This

information is then used to identify the suitable scenarios for establishing a TCF in the ACT.

3.1 Analysis of Projected Material Flows Available for TCT

This study addresses the option of an iterative or staged strategy implementation. For this reason:

• Phase 1 is based on existing facilities and material flows.

• Phase 2 makes assumptions after a C&I first point of receival facility (wet and dry Dirty MRF

facility) has been commissioned.

• Phase 3 makes assumptions after an MSW first point of receival/pre-treatment facility has been

commissioned.

3.2 Phase 1: Existing Facilities and Material Flows

3.2.1 C&D Sources

The three C&D sorting and recycling facilities in the ACT receive materials in preference to landfill

because they offer lower gate fee/receival prices than the mixed waste landfill alternative. Even lower

receival/gate fees are available for source separated loads that meet merchantable standards as

recognised products. The incoming C&D materials can be sorted into at least the following generic

groupings:

• Timber;

• Plasterboard;

• Paper and cardboard;

• Plastics; and

• Greenwaste.

C&D Timber

• Quantity

Table 3.1 indicates that these facilities recover an average (2009) 26,692 tonnes per annum and that

under the moderate population projections (2029) M, they might produce 33,422 tonnes per annum or

under high population projections (2029)H – 42,770 tonnes per annum.

• Quality

Of the 26,692 tonnes per annum (2009), certain assumptions can be made on the potential quality

subcategories contained in these average numbers. Table 3-2 provides the key criteria adopted,

based on our industry experience, for the different grades of quality for potential TCT feedstock

material recovered from the waste streams in the ACT. As presented, the entire 26,692 tonnes per

annum of C&D timber could be classified as Grade B and systems established to sort the material to

stay within this default quality parameters. However, all three existing operators have the ability to

recover a Grade A stream from the main material flows. In addition, a certain volume can be, and is,

recovered as directly recyclable timber and/or products (pallets etc.). Therefore, a reasonable carry

forward estimate for Grade A and B material is represented in Table 3-2a.



22 43177679/03/H

Table 3-1 Projected Timber Availability by Grade

Suitable for Grade:

2009

tonnes per annum

2029 (M)

tonnes per annum

2029 (H)

tonnes per annum

A 10,000 12,000 15,000

B 12,190 15,784 20,555

C - - -

D - - -

Treated timber for disposal/ treatment 2,466 3,087 3,951

Directly recyclable 2,037 2,551 3,264

Totals 26,692 33,422 42,770

Table 3-2 TCT Feedstock Quality Grades

Adopted Grade

Criteria

A “Dry”, clean wood, timber, paper/cardboard and garden/parks wastes

Max. average moisture up to 65%

Minimal engineered timber products

Treated (especially CCA) timber products removed

Minimal < 1% w/w plastic content – No PVC

B “Dry” wood, timber, paper/cardboard and garden/parks wastes

Max. Average moisture up to 65%

Treated (especially CCA) timber products removed

Non PVC plastic contamination approximately 10% w/w

C “Wet”, clean organic food wastes, vegetative materials or sludges

Average moisture content > 65%

Minimal < 1% w/w plastic content –No PVC

Minimal heavy metal content (see Appendix A)

Minimal inerts < 5% w/w (see Appendix A)

D “Wet” organic residuals, food and vegetative materials and sludges

Average moisture content > 65%

Non PVC plastic content approximately 10% w/w

Minimal heavy metal content (see Appendix A)

Minimal inerts < 5% w/w (see Appendix A)

Reliability of Supply

Currently, the three C&D processing facilities receive their material because they:-

a) Offer recycling services; and

b) Accept the material at a lower gate/receival fee than the alternative mixed landfill disposal option.

All three then seek the best possible return for the range of recycled products they present.

Currently, recovered timber, especially Grade B, is presenting in larger volumes than there is a market

for, and when interviewed, all three facilities have expressed enthusiasm for a TCT option being

available in the region.



43177679/03/H 23

However, this will be a market based decision, with the C&D recyclers always motivated to sell their

material for the best available net return.

As discussed above, reliable and assured supply of feedstock will be an important viability issue for

any future TCT. If an assured flow, at an agreed Grade, can be established, the TCT selection can

favour the more technologically advanced plant, with better control of collateral impacts and the

highest practical quality of end products (including the net energy values). Conversely, where potential

feedstocks present on a “last resort” basis, the TCT selection process will be determined by this factor.

For the purposes of this prefeasibility study we will make an assumption that has been tested in

interview with the three C&D recyclers, that they would be amenable to entering into a secure “supply”

contract with a potential TCF operator such that:-

a) Subject to actual ACT waste generation rates – an issue quite beyond their control – they could

enter into minimum volume supply arrangements in preference to directing any portion of this

minimum volume to higher value market opportunities – should they ever exist.

b) Any available material available over this contracted minimum to be made available on a “spot”

basis.

In these circumstances, any “spot” material not taken up by the TCF operator, would then be available

to the next best reuse opportunity in accordance with the “cascading” structure of this proposed

streaming and cascading approach to the ACT NoWaste management system.

NB: This study will assume similar arrangements can be developed for every other potential TCT

feedstock discussed.

Table 3-2a assumes an 80% assured availability value for the Grade A material and defaults the

surplus to Grade B as the basis for establishing final value to include into the final option evaluation.

Table 3-2a Projected Timber Availability by Grade

Projected Availability Carry forward, assured supply

Suitable for Grade: 2009 tonnes per annum

2029 (M) tonnes per annum

2029 (H) tonnes per annum

2009 tonnes per annum



A 10,000 12,000 15,000 8,000 9,600 12,000

B 12,190 15,784 20,555 14,190 18,184 23,555

C - - -

D - - -

Treated timber for disposal/treatment

2,466 3,087 3,951

Directly recyclable 2,037 2,551 3,264

Totals 26,692 33,422 42,770

C&D Plasterboard

NB: Plasterboard would not normally be singled out for consideration as a feedstock into a TCT,

however certain thermal facilities can benefit from the pH correcting effects of some minor gypsum

“contamination” in the feedstock and currently some ACT originating plasterboard is being forwarded

to Incitec for inclusion in fertilizer products. The recovered paper (some 50% of the original volume) is



24 43177679/03/H

then presenting as a waste. Hence the opportunity to consider this material as a minor additive

ingredient in future plans, especially if biochar emerges as a viable option – since such a product

would directly link the initiative with the fertilizer/soil improvement sector.

• Quantity

Table 3-3 Projected Plasterboard Availability by Grade

Projected Availability




Separated gypsum 2,600 3,500 4,500

Paper only 2,057 2,331 2,962

Totals 4,657 5,831 7,462

• Quality

All the recovered plasterboard from the existing C&D recyclers can be considered to be of similar

quality, unless a market for the gypsum (with paper) is found to be more valuable than presentation to

a TCT facility – in which case only the gypsum “contaminated” paper, as removed from the whole

product would be available.

• Reliability of Supply

Currently plasterboard is a widely used building product, but there is no guarantee that a new product

might not be introduced in the next 20-30 years, so the material should be treated as a non critical

input and only provisional allocation made for the material in estimating potential feedstock

characteristics. It should be noted that recycled plasterboard is currently used in the fertilizer industry

therefore 50% of the quantities are carried forward.

Table 3-3a Projected Plasterboard Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







Separated gypsum 2,600 3,500 4,500

Paper only 2,057 2,331 2,962

Totals 4,657 5,831 7,462 2,329 2,916 3,731

C&D Paper/Cardboard

• Quality and Quantity

Paper and cardboard are inherently recyclable materials for which strong post consumer markets exist

and recovery and supply systems well established from both the MSW (dry recyclable sorting) and the

C&I (direct collections from major generators) waste flows. However, paper and cardboard does

present (approximately 3%) in C&D “as presented” waste flows where they have failed to be

recovered by such existing systems.



43177679/03/H 25

These materials should always be considered for streaming towards direct recycling where practical,

but where they do still present in C&D waste flows, they are ideal for thermal conversion – especially

waxed or coated materials, or composite materials, with perhaps a plastic coating etc.

The fillers in paper and cardboard, calcium carbonate and bentonite etc. are ideal “contaminants” in

biochar products – if such biochar production proves to be viable in the final analysis. If not, such

minerals would report benignly to the ash phase of any other TCT.

Table 3-4 Projected Paper and Cardboard Availability by Grade





A 3,260 4,082 5,224

Potential for direct recycling 575 720 922

Totals 3,835 4,802 6,145


All non recycled material presented in C&D flows would be suitable for TCT at an estimated 80% of

projected flows.

Table 3-4a Projected Paper and Cardboard availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A 3,260 4,082 5,224 2,608 3,265 4,179

Potential for direct recycling

575 720 922 - - -

Totals 3,835 4,802 6,145

C&D Plastics

PVC is the predominant plastic used in the building sector, as pipes and vinyl coatings and conduit

and electrical wire coatings etc. This material should be limited or avoided in the feed material to

thermal processing to avoid unnecessarily complex emissions management issues. Such materials

now have direct recycling markets where they can be positively sorted from C&D waste flows. This

practice should be encouraged. However, since there will be such a preponderance of PVC in C&D

plastics, not all will be sorted out and as such, plastics from C&D waste flows should not be

specifically advocated for inclusion in the planned feedstocks to a TCT.

Within this framework, C&D plastics do also contain “benign” plastics in the form of low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) (e.g. pallet shrink wrap), polystyrene (PS) (e.g. parts packaging and insulation),

polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (containers etc.). Again, all these materials

have strong and existing recycling markets if recovered by polymer type. This study must assume that

such avenues are optimised and only some plastics will present in the feed streams to a potential TCF

as minor contaminants in grade A & B fuels.



26 43177679/03/H


Table 3-5 Projected Plastic Availability by Grade





A 100 200 300

B 2,036 2,475 3,126

Directly recovered for recycling, est. 1,425 1,784 2,283

Totals 3,561 4,459 5,706


The issue here is more about the estimates concerning the proactive plastic removal and recycling

initiatives, rather than assuring dependable volumes to any subsequent TCF. Say 80% of projected

total for Grade B for calorific value assessment purposes.

Table 3.5a: Projected Plastic Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A 100 200 300 100 200 300

B 2,036 2,475 3,126 1628 1980 2,500

Directly recovered for recycling, est.

1,425 1,784 2,283 - - -

Totals 3,561 4,459 5,706 1728 2180 2800

C&D Green Waste


This material is only an occasional and minor material flow in the C&D waste streams. The main

generators of such material are residents and parks and gardens etc. (see below). Where this material

presents at C&D processing facilities, it can either be positively sorted out and streamed to the MSW

and P&G processing options or added to the processed wood streams – Grades A and/or B. The

assumption in this study being that woody material/roots and stumps etc. will be added to the Grade A

flow (for subsequent size reducing etc.) and the tops added to the grade B engineered timbers etc.

Table 3-6 Projected Green Waste Availability by Grade





A 1,000 1,300 1,700

B 1,192 1,444 1,812

Totals 2,192 2,744 3,512



43177679/03/H 27


The assumption that at least 80% of the projected materials will be available to a subsequent TCT.

Table 3.6a: Projected Green Waste Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A 1,000 1,300 1,700 800 1,040 1,360

B 1,192 1,444 1,812 954 1,155 1,450

Totals 2,192 2,744 3,512 1,754 2,195 2,810

3.2.2 Urban Forest/Parks and Gardens

This material flow emanates from the ACT urban forest management program.

• Quantity

The material indicated in Table 3.7 reflects some 15,000 tonnes per annum being immediately

available, with this volume growing to a sustainable 20,000 tonnes per annum.

Of this relatively homogeneous and consistent supply of quality biomass, there are existing uses that

whilst minor in volume, must be given priority, such as providing the mulch products required, or even

access by local artisans to selected bowers for creative purposes.

• Quality

As mentioned, this must be regarded as “high” quality material in that apart from hardwood/softwood

species variation, this material is not so much an “indeterminate waste stream” as a high quality by-

product of urban forest management, presenting as a potentially assured input stream to a permanent

value adding process, which requires such characteristics, such as a TCF.

Table 3-7 Projected Urban Forest Wood Availability by Grade





A 10,500 13,147 16,824

B - - -

C - - -

D - - -

Mulch & artisans etc. 4,500 5,635 7,211

Totals 15,000 18,782 24,035

•



28 43177679/03/H


The driver for the generation of this material flow is a clearly articulated urban forest management plan

which is entirely within government control. For this reason, this material is not only a reliable or

assured resource flow, but it is of such quality that conversion through a TCT facility needs to

demonstrate that such an outcome would represent the highest and best use of the material. This is

especially so, as the ability of the ACT Government to “contract” a minimum volume of such material

to a TCT, to underpin overall feedstock/supply certainty, will remove the “cascade” option to highest

and best use, should such an option arise in the future.

For example, such is the quality of this material that perhaps it could sustain the development of a

local wood pelletizing operation to supply commercial and domestic space and water heating

initiatives.

Whilst it is beyond the scope of the current brief to review such options and the cross cutting policy

issues that might arise, such a study might be beneficial before moving to a subsequent feasibility

study of any options that arise from this current study.

Our study assumes 100% of the projected materials will be available to a subsequent TCT.

3.2.3 Biosolids

Background

Consideration of Biosolids in this study is a specific requirement of the brief. PSD consultants are

currently engaged by the operator of the Lower Molonglo, ActewAGL, to review sewage sludge

treatment options going forward. PSD consultants have been interviewed for this study and extracts

of their recent report (PSD, 2008) provided. In summary, the situation is that:-

• For the last 30 years all ACT sewage sludge has been dewatered and incinerated at LMWQCC.

• The ACTEW Strategic Review of Sewerage Services is underway and numerous plant upgrades

are being considered, hence it is timely to reconsider the optimum sewage sludge management

options that have come available in the 40 years since the biosolids incinerator was designed and

to expand the scope of this review to include opportunities for management in conjunction with

MSW.

• Whilst the actual plant and the dual incinerators, are reported to be in good condition, with many

more years of service possible in the current duty, if an upgrade is undertaken to address the

emissions issue a budget of some $4M-$85M will be required, depending on the actual upgrade

specifications selected and if energy capture is included.

• The current practice of incineration has provided assured Biosolids disposal for the last 30 years,

and as such, has provided an important level of management simplicity, but in the current social

and political climate such a practice is not sustainable in a carbon constrained, resource depleted

and environmentally conscious context.

As reported by PSD (PSD, 2008), “Compared with most sewage treatment plants in Australia, the

LMWQCC Biosolids are a very high quality Biosolids product. This is due in part, to the lime added to

the process”.

This “...very high quality...” is also due to the lack of any concentration of heavy industry in the ACT, or

conversely, the residential/light commercial catchment for the plant. This issue is likely to be a

continuing situation for the foreseeable future.



43177679/03/H 29

In terms of the ACT Government’s ambition to move towards carbon neutrality, the current practice of

incinerating the post centrifuge Biosolids product, which is potentially a “very high quality” source of

organic carbon and soil nutrients, with some $400,000 per year worth of fuel oil seems inappropriate,

and well worth a thorough review at this time.

It is informative to note that Sydney Water now beneficially applies 100% of the Biosolids under

management to agriculture and composting (Sydney Water, 2009). This would suggest that the ACT

Biosolids could be excellent candidates for sustainable and cost effective return of nutrients to land,

either in a similar manner to NSW or as pyrolysis chars.

The biosolids in question are of “very high quality” and at the very least the organic carbon and

nutrients could be returned to the land for the benefit of Australia’s organic carbon depleted soils and

demonstrating a significant saving on the $20-50Million mooted for the proposed LMWQCC incinerator

upgrades.

Our review of international technology suppliers (Section 5.6) highlights two suppliers (Primenergy and

Ebara Corporation) who claim to be operating gasification facilities processing sewage sludge or night

soil, as summarised in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8 Gasification Technology Providers Processing sewage sludge or night soil sludge

Facility City Country Throughput tonnes/year

Feedstock

Primenergy LLC:

Sewage Sludge Destruction

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

U.S. 87,600 75% moisture content sewage sludge

Ebara Corp: Sakata area refuse disposal union

Sakata City Japan 70,000 MSW and sewage sludge

Ebara Corp: Ube City Environmental Preservation Centre Waste Disposal Centre

Ube City Japan 72,000 MSW, sewage sludge

Ebara Corp: Nagareyama Clean Centre

Nagareyama City

Japan 75,000 MSW, sewage sludge

In addition, further evidence of sewage sludge treatment using TCTs is provided by marketing

information from the following technology providers:

• Pacific Pyrolysis provided information which lists sewage sludge, along with several other potential

feedstock which have been successfully trialled at their pyrolysis facility near Sydney (refer to

Section 5.7 for further details on Pacific Pyrolysis);

• Waste to Energy, a UK based company indicates on its web page www.waste-to-energy.co.uk that

is has a small scale gasifier that can convert sewage sludge cake to a combustible gas and reports

a project with Anglican Water to process 1,100 tonnes of dry sludge a year, producing up to 330

kW electricity in a module;

• AE&E Australia (formerly known as Austrian Energy and Environment) report that several plants

use a combination of sewage sludge and wood, but more specifics were not available. Potential

issues are the metal content of the sludge and also plastics which could result in complex

emissions management issues (if chlorine-based plastics such as PVC are present); and



30 43177679/03/H

• Splainex Ecosystems Ltd based near the Hague, Netherlands appears to have a pyrolysis process

which converts both woodchips and sewage sludge (not explicitly mentioned if mixed, but should

not be a problem). Their web page http://www.splainex.com/waste_recycling.htm gives details of a

pyrolysis technology which lists sewage sludge and other biomass sources as feedstocks. Their

web page claims: "Splainex" - industrial environmental friendly technologies: waste-to-energy, bio

fuel and electricity generation, pyrolysis and gasification, biomass treatment, soil remediation,

sewage sludge treatment, sales and marketing, technology adaptation, equipment fabrication and

commissioning.

The above review indicates that conversion of sewage sludge together with wood chips via pyrolysis,

gasification or combustion is technically feasible and has been conducted to some extent, although

not commonly practiced. During any subsequent feasibility studies, a strategy of inviting technology

vendors to establish demonstration plants could provide complete assurance of technological

capability and process capability provided by the multi unit/modular nature of pyrolysis plants. This

would enable satisfactory redundancy to be built into an integrated ACT system thus maximising

resource (and nutrient) recovery for considerably less than the budgeted amounts proposed, that

would only achieve simple resource value destruction. Currently, operational redundancy is achieved

by having duplicate incinerator capacity on permanent standby, in the event that the primary unit has

to be decommissioned for maintenance, or experiences unscheduled failure of any sort. In the event

of these biosolids being presented, in part or whole, as ingredients in the prepared infeed materials to

a TCF, similar operational redundancy could be accommodated. In fact, pyrolysis technologies in

particular are often supplied in modular units (see Section 5.7) which would be ideal for systematically

addressing this issue.

• Quantity

Currently LMWQCC produces some 38,209 tonnes per annum (35% solids) or 13,373 dry tonnes per

annum and with population growth, this volume is due to increase to 47,841 tonnes per annum

(16,318 dry tonnes per annum) by 2029.

• Quality

As mentioned, this material is considered to be of very high quality, and is classified as Grade B (PSD,

2008) based on the NSW EPA (part of NSW DECCW) Environmental Guidelines for the Use and

Disposal of Biosolid Products (NSW EPA, 1997). It would meet the biosolids Grade A criteria but for

very minor exceedences in the average values for copper and zinc. This material could ideally be

mixed 25/75% with Grade A wood waste to provide an assured infeed to a selected TCF. Based on

the information available within the PSD (2008) report, we have assumed the Biosolids would meet

our adopted Grade A criteria for suitable TCT feedstock.

This material could certainly be beneficially applied to forestry or agriculture in its current form,

however, in light of this current TCT prefeasibility study, perhaps this material could be more efficiently

concentrated/beneficiated to optimise its application to land and soil productivity improvement.



43177679/03/H 31

Table 3-9 Projected Biosolids Availability by Grade





A 38,209 47,841 61,223

B - - -

C - - -

D - - -

Total 35% solids. 38,209 47,841 61,223

Totals 13,373 16,744 21,428


This is one material that could be defined by its reliability of supply. Biosolids production is closely

related to population in combination with the level and efficiency of the solids removal process.

LMWQCC is planning to upgrade de-nitrification at the plant which will increase the volume of waste

activated solids and complicate the dewatering process generally.

However, this material flow has a much higher value use as a soil productivity improver which is not

realised by the current practice of incineration without energy recovery.

A further and most significant advantage of this material is that flow control is entirely within the ACT

Government’s control, where any subsequent TCT might rely on certain assured supply volumes to

underpin financial viability.

Table 3.9a Projected Biosolids Availability by Grade


100% of Totals







A 38,209 47,841 61,223 38,209 47,841 61,223

B - - - - - -

C - - - - - -

D - - - - - -

Total 35% solids. 38,209 47,841 61,223

Totals 13,373 16,744 21,428 13,373 16,744 21,428

3.2.4 Phase 1 Summary

Phase 1 is considered as those potential material flows that could be available as inputs to a new

TCT(s) without further development of first-point-of-receival facilities for the C&I and MSW streams.

Biosolids have been considered in Phase 1 because their current treatment option is under strategic

review. A suitable TCT initiated on the basis of Phase 1 feedstocks may have a role to play in

processing a portion of existing kerbside recycling MRF rejects, but the volume and impact is low and

this has not been considered at the prefeasibility stage.



32 43177679/03/H

Also, this study has sought to avoid including the existing green waste composting operations. These

operations have taken time to develop to their current levels of product and operation assurance under

the umbrella of the longstanding NoWaste strategy. Existing operators were interviewed for this study

to establish what commercial effect the establishment of a TCT facility might have on their existing

operations: negative impact points and/or positive impact sensitivity points, and such feedback has

been taken into account in the development of the proposed scenarios.

The adopted philosophy has been to not propose anything which would negatively impact the existing

composting sector, or hamper its organic growth over time.

Potential Phase 1 TCT Feedstocks

Table 3.10 consolidates the reliable carry forward volumes of potential TCT inputs adjusted for

moisture, available from existing first-point-of-receival infrastructure (based on 2009 data).

Table 3-10 Consolidated Phase 1 potential TCT inputs

Grade A Grade B

Material As presented

% moisture

Dry tonnes

% of mix

As presented

% moisture

Dry tonnes

% of mix

Notes

C&D timber 8,000 15 6,800 20 14,190 15 12,062 95 See 1 below

C&D plasterboard

2,329 10 2,095 6 See 2 below

C&D paper/cardboard

2608 15 2217 6 See 3 below

C&D plastics 1,728 15 1,469 4 See 4 below

C&D green waste

800 30 560 2 954 30 668 5

Urban forest 10,500 30 7,350 22

Biosolids 38,209 65 13,373 40

Totals 64,174 47 33,865 100 15,144 16 12,729 100

Combined A & B 79,318 41 46,594

Notes:

1. Perhaps some 80% Grade B could be upgraded to be suitable as Grade A if necessary 2. Non essential TCT input. 3. Presented predominantly as an unnecessary contaminant. 4. Included on the assumption that higher and better uses are not identified, such as pelletising for local use for space and

water heating.

NB: If A & B are combined then collective quality will be “B”.

TCF Operational Assumptions

Advanced TCT’s operate at their most efficient if operated continuously, rather than stopped and

started on a shift basis. Continuous operations are traditionally interpreted as 8,000 working hours per

year/per unit to allow for regular scheduled maintenance and the like.



43177679/03/H 33

Therefore:

• 1 dry/t/hr = 8,000 tpa

• 2 dry/t/hr = 16,000 tpa

• 3 dry/t/hr = 24,000 tpa

• 4 dry/t/hr = 32,000 tpa

Key Findings from Analysis of the Data in Table 3.9

• The total of dry Grade A material indicates a TCT facility in the 4 t/hr range as being

practical/optimal.

• Such a conclusion is dependent on thermal conversion being the optimum use of both the Urban

Forest and Biosolids material, both of which are material flows that the ACT Government can

control, and which present with well defined characteristics.

• An option that could be modelled would be to include the 12,763 tonnes per annum of Grade B

materials, instead of either the Urban Forest material or Biosolids, or both.

• As will be discussed in the subsequent scenario and iterative development possibilities below, 1

t/hr or 2 t/hr plants could be commissioned initially to demonstrate product quality, efficiency and

reliability whilst incineration options are still available for bypass/fallback management of Biosolids.

3.3 Phase 2: C&I first point of receival (wet and dry Dirty MRF facility) in addition to C&D Waste

3.3.1 C&I Sources

The Territory Government is currently assessing the costs and benefits to the ACT of establishing a

first point of receival for MSW waste flows i.e. a dry C&I MRF and a dirty MRF.

Whatever the final sorting/MRF technologies finally adopted, flows of potential TCT in-feed material

will arise – to varying levels of consistency.

For the purpose of this prefeasibility study, we will adopt the wet/dry MRF concept being promoted. In

this scenario the C&I contractors will be encouraged to introduce dedicated “slops runs” to collect food

and wet waste directly from recognisable generators (restaurants, food markets, hotels, hospitals and

any other generators of such materials). These materials could then be directed to a specialist facility

that would realise the highest net resource value from the materials.

This strategy will have the significant collateral benefit of removing the majority of the “wet” materials

from the residual C&I waste stream, thus making the dry MRF easier and cheaper to design and

operate and improve the quality of the proposed products, especially those products that would be

significantly degraded by cross contamination with food waste, such as paper/cardboard.

C&I Paper/Cardboard

As with C&D paper/cardboard, the primary end use is for recycling back into new paper/cardboard.

The large generators, such as supermarkets, avail themselves of the services of specialty

paper/cardboard collectors, who will install dedicated containers, even balers/compactors, to optimise

paper/cardboard recovery.



34 43177679/03/H

The adoption of a TCT in the ACT should do nothing to undermine this activity, and should instead

focus on providing the “cascading” option to ensure that any such material that isn’t, or can’t be

beneficially recycled by this method, will at least have its inherent “renewable” energy quotient, and

carbon content, realised in lieu of being wasted to landfill disposal.

• Quantity and Quality

An important function of a dirty C&I MRF must be to optimise paper/cardboard recovery and recycling

for direction into the strong existing markets for such materials. In fact, paper/cardboard presenting as

a residual at the end of a dirty MRF process will be mostly secondary materials, with coated and

plasticised materials or with entrapped plastic film etc.

Table 3-11 Projected C&I Residual Paper/Cardboard Availability by Grade





A - - -

B 8,722 9,946 13,204

C - - -

D - - -

Encourage recycling 12,000 16,000 20,000

Totals 20,722 25,946 33,204


The scenario described above where major generators have direct recycling services available from

specialist cardboard collection companies, and that a major operational task of a C&I dirty MRF is to

recover as much paper/cardboard as practical, the carry over estimates for a possible TCT facility will

not be an assured volume, but more in the nature of a next best option for MRF residuals. So as only

a small fraction should be carried forward as a reliable supply to a potential TCT facility.

Table 3-11a Projected C&I Residual Paper/Cardboard Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A - - - - - -

B 8,722 9,946 13,204 6,631 8,303 10,625

C - - - - - -

D - - - - - -

Encourage recycling 12,000 16,000 20,000

Totals 20,722 25,946 33,204

- - -



43177679/03/H 35

C&I Organics

In the adopted scenario the major sources of such material would be source separated and collected

by a dedicated “slops run”.

Only small individual amounts would remain in the Dry C&I front lift collection, although such small

individual amounts may be numerous and represent perhaps half of the total volume reported to be in

the C&I gross flows.


Such organic wastes presenting in “dry” loads to a C&I MRF will pass through into the C&I residual

stream.

Table 3-12 Projected C&I Organic Residuals Availability by Grade





A - - -

B 21,146 29,780 37,941

C - - -

D - - -

Recovered by “slops run” 25,000 28,000 36,000

Totals 46,146 57,780 73,941


These organic materials will present in the Dry MRF rejects stream, as a contaminant on the residual

paper/cardboard etc. This will not present a major problem for a subsequent, Grade B, TCT process,

but other bypass/pass through residuals in the Dry MRF rejects might be much more problematic

(glass, metals, building materials, Hazardous, WEEE etc.). The Dry C&I MRF should be designed to

optimise residual quality to suit potential TCT requirements.

Table 3.12a: Projected C&I Organic Residuals Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A - - - - - -

B 21,146 29,780 37,941 18,458 23,112 29,576

C - - - - - -

D - - - - - -

Recovered by “slops run” 25,000 28,000 36,000

Totals 46,146 57,780 73,941

- - -



36 43177679/03/H

C&I Wood and Timber Products

These materials could be presented by self haul to existing C&D facilities, but the main source would

be as readily identifiable materials for separation at the proposed C&I dry MRF.

Once separated, they should be available as A and B Grade (no CCA treated). If commercially viable,

Grade A could be directed to the (Grade A) TCT infeed preparation facility, or to local mulch/compost

operations, or directed to the proposed PEF manufacturing facility, which could be co-located with the

proposed C&I (dry) MRF.

This is another example of the streaming/cascading strategy proposed to ensure that highest and best

uses are always available and giving priority access to available materials, but if market conditions

change, the same materials can cascade down to their next best use without jeopardising the highest

use opportunity, but avoiding waste to landfill disposal.


The amount of C&I wood and timber products depends on overall commercial activity (as does most

C&I waste) and packaging trends. In the absence of data to the contrary, we make the assumption

that clean, untreated wood (pallets, packing cases etc.) will present in approximately 50/50

relationship with engineered timbers.

Table 3-13 Projected Wood & Timber Availability by Grade





A 3,139 3,929 5,029

B 3,138 3,930 5,028

C - - -

D - - -

Treated Timbers 697 873 1,117

Totals 6,974 8,732 11,175


In developing an estimate of assured supply to a TCT, 90% of Grade A is carried forward with any

balance cascading down to Grade B should it arise.



43177679/03/H 37

Table 3.13a Projected Wood & Timber Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A 3,139 3,929 5,029 2,511 3,144 4,023

B 3,138 3,930 5,028 2,510 3,144 4,023

C - - - - - -

D - - - - - -

Treated Timbers 697 873 1,117

Totals 6,974 8,732 11,175

- - -

C&I Textiles, Rubber, Plastics

A strong market /approved end uses exist for reclaimed textiles, tyres and most plastics. Even PVC

has a recognised reuse if separated out, bulked up and forwarded, and it will be assumed that a new

C&I dry MRF will be designed and operated to achieve this outcome.


These “synthetic”, hydrocarbon based materials can present as “calorific value enhancers” in Grade

B type “fuels” if undesirable polymers such as PVC have been minimised or eliminated from the

combined or separated material flows.

As complex polymer materials made from non renewable fossil resources, these materials should all

be recovered for recycling/reuse wherever practical. Any reclaimed net energy value is preferable, in a

cascade of possible end use applications, to wasting such materials to landfill disposal. The highest

and best use will always be recycling/reuse. For example, the original virgin polymers, employed in the

original products and packaging presenting in these C&I material flows, had commercial values of

$3,500-$10,000/t in the initial manufacturing process. To recover only the net energy value (say $30-

$50/t coal equivalent) represents an unsustainable “down cycling” of the inherent resource value, even

if the landfill alternative is some minus $150/t – in net realisable value.

The C&I dry MRF should be specifically designed to recover the optimum range of polymers from the

considerable plastic input available. The assumptions made in this study are that 80% of the plastic

stream would be recovered for recycling with the remainder directed to a thermal conversion facility.



38 43177679/03/H

Table 3-14 Projected C&I Textile/Rubber/Plastics Availability by Grade





A - - -

B 8,128 10,178 13,024

C - - -

D - - -

Recover for recycling 11,545 14,456 18,499

Totals 19,673 24,633 31,523


If the design specification of the proposed C&I Dry MRF includes:-

— To optimise the recycling of the textile/rubber/plastic fractions;

— To remove gross contaminants (such as PVC);

— Present Dry MRF residual/by materials as

o Suitable for PEF production; and

o Suitable for treatment/disposal only,

then the project High Calorific material flow will be quite reliable as an input into a subsequent PEF

production facility.

Table 3.14a: Projected C&I Textile/Rubber/Plastics Availability by Grade


50% of Totals







A - - - - - -

B 8,128 10,178 13,024 7,722 9,669 12,373

C - - - - - -

D - - - - - -

Recover for recycling 11,545 14,456 18,499

Totals 19,673 24,633 31,523

- - -

3.3.2 Phase 2 C&I Summary (Including mixed C&D Waste)

The C&I waste streams, as currently presented include:-

• Some self haul to landfill;

• Specialty paper/cardboard collections for recycling;

• Speciality glass (pubs, clubs etc.); and

• Private “front lift” mixed collections.



43177679/03/H 39

The C&D mixed waste is material disposed of the Mugga Lane Landfill and is exclusive of the C&D

wastes discussed in the previous section. The total tonnage (2009 data) is 27,522 tonnes per annum

It is likely that in Phase 2 this tonnage of waste will be processed through the C&D recycling

operations discussed in the previous section.

This latter material all currently goes to landfill disposal and if the wet/dry MRF strategy is

implemented, the proposed TCT facility could see the following (Table 3.15) as potential inputs as a

result of the proposed “streaming and cascading” overall strategy (based on 2009 data).

Table 3-15 Consolidated Phase 2 Potential TCT inputs

Grade A Grade B

Material As presented

% moisture

Dry tonnes

% of mix

As presented

% moisture

Dry tonnes

% of mix

Notes

C&I paper/ cardboard

- 8 - - 6,631 8 6,101 21 See 1 below

C&I organic residual

- 60 - - 18,458 60 7,383 26 See 1 below

C&I wood 2,511 15 2,134 100 2,510 15 2,134 7 See 2 below

C&I textiles/rubber / plastics

- 2 - - 7,722 2 7,568 26 See 1 below

Mixed C&D Waste - - - - 6,821 15 5,768 20

Totals 2,511 15 Av 2,134 100 42,142 34 28,952 100

Combined A & B 44,653 33 31,087

Notes:

1. Organic residuals will present combined with paper/cardboard and textile/rubber/plastic fractions in the proposed Dry

C&I MRF (decontaminated) residuals stream.

2. The wood and timber stream would more usually be positively sorted out, with only trace amounts reporting with the

other residual stream. This allows the best of the wood and timber stream to be directed to Grade A uses – where

they exist.

NB: Totals carried forward to Table 3.18 for scenario scoping and summarisation.

3.4 Phase 3 MSW Sources

As discussed in Section 1.1.1 and 1.1.3, the ACT NoWaste strategy has, to date, been directly

focused on resource recovery (and waste minimisation/landfill avoidance) from the MSW (domestic)

waste stream. The ACT Government has retained flow control over the MSW stream, as compared to

the C&D waste stream, where similarly significant results have been achieved but by providing

incentives to commercial customers, such as reduced gate fees.

Phase 3 refers to the outcomes that could be achieved following the establishment of a residual mixed

MSW, first point of receival, or pretreatment facility to replace direct access to (landfill) disposal.

Technologies to perform this task are well established and assured outcomes could be achieved from

a tightly defined and proactively focused vendor enquiry process.



40 43177679/03/H

To provide an objective basis for the following assessment of potential feedstock to a TCF, the

following assumptions are drawn:-

• Basic pretreatment will separate the raw, as delivered, MSW into six basic product streams as

shown in Table 3.16 which will represent:

• Positively sorted carry over dry recyclables for channelling to markets with existing (kerbside) MRF

product streams.

• Gross contaminants removal, (gas bottles, HHW (whole containers/items only), W.E.E.E., batteries,

PVC (if obvious), bulk items etc. all for specialist return (for e.g. linked to Product Stewardship

schemes etc.).

• A processed, mainly “moist” organic material, ideal for A.D. processing (energy recovery) and the

(plastic contaminated – Grade B) digestate for PEF production (indirect TCT) or a suitably non

selective TCF directly.

• A processed, mainly “dry” High Calorific material, ideal for PEF productions (indirect) or a suitably

non selective TCT facility directly.

• Metals (ferrous and non ferrous)

• Inerts, non-putrescible residuals, for selected civil applications.

• From the domestic drop-off waste stream of 13,310 tpa it is estimated that 2,333 tpa of mixed

waste will be added to the overall domestic kerbside mixed waste.

Table 3-16 Gross Separation of Pre-treated Residual MSW

Resolved into:

Material TONNES PER ANNUM

Dry recycling

Gross contaminants

< 40mm moist organics

> 40mm Dry HC fraction

Metals Inerts

Paper/cardboard 3,698 1,403 1,102 1,193

Contaminated paper / cardboard

4,182 4,182

Food/kitchen 27,304 27,304

Garden organics 3,707 3,707

Wood/timber 656 656

Textiles/clothing/carpet 3,284 3,284

Broken glass 2,764 2,764

Recyclable plastics 7,182 742 6440

PVC 65 65

Metals – Fe & Non Fe 1,721 1,721

HHW 617 617

Nappies 3,659 3,659

Inert residuals 11,315 11,315

70,154 2,145 681 39,954 11,572 1,721 14,080 Totals

3.1% 1.0% 57.0% 16.5% 2.5% 20.1%

With such a tightly specified MSW pretreatment facility, issues of quality, quantity and reliability of

supply will resolve as Table 3.16a.



43177679/03/H 41

Table 3-16a Projected Residual MSW Available for TCT – Grade B

“Wet Organics” Dry HCF

Material TONNES PER

ANNUM

% moisture

Dry

TONNES PER

ANNUM

% of mix

TONNES PER

ANNUM

% moisture

Dry tonnes

% of mix

Paper/cardboard - clean 1,102 15 937 5 1,193 8 1,097 11

Paper/cardboard - contaminated

4,182 15 3,555 20

Food/kitchen 27,304 70 8,191 47

Garden organics 3,707 50 1,854 11

Wood/timber 656 15 557 6

Textiles/clothing/carpet 3,284 15 2,792 28

Plastics 6,440 15 5,474 55

Nappies (plastics) 3,659 20 2,927 17

Totals 39,954 56 (Av) 17,463 100 11,572 14 (Av) 9,920 100

NB: The analysis is drawn from sources the specific ACT data, and the consultant’s own experience and is expressed in terms that provide order of magnitude or indicative values sufficient to inform scenario development at this prefeasibility stage.

Residual MSW Moist Organics Value Recovery

The most significant fraction of the pretreated residual MSW is the combined food/kitchen/garden

wastes fractions which represent approximately half of the total volumes when combined with

“contaminated” paper/cardboard (usually food wrappers/pizza boxes etc.).

Determining when and how to recover the highest net resource value from these materials is a very

complex logistical, socio-political, cost/benefit assessment that is recommended as a separate and

specialist study or investigation, to provide certainty around projecting available infeed volumes to a

proposed TCF.

One obvious option is to provide a third bin to residents for the specific discard of food/kitchen/small

garden wastes – or a bio-bin. This is an expensive but readily definable and budgetable option. Such a

strategy would collect more bio-wastes at a higher quality than extracting the same volume from MSW

pre-treatment. The issue then becomes, the cost ($ and carbon) of collection versus the extra material

and the improved quality of that material.

The ACT NoWaste strategy has now instilled a very strong culture of self hauling, source separated

garden waste for composting – would this practice be devalued by the introduction of a bio-bin, and

would the actual quality of the collective bio-bin system ensure a higher and better use for the

material? In the case of an anaerobic digestion (AD) treatment option, only the digestate would be

impacted and if this was destined for TCT, the impact would be minimal, since any residual physical

contamination with plastics or inerts could be accommodated within the Grade B classification.

In making these assessments, the net value of composts needs comparing to the net energy values of

AD and/or TCT and the net carbon profiles of the options. AD processes generate “Biogas” as their

primary, energy recovery products, and the digested solids report as a digestate “sludge”. If the

digestate is of sufficiently high quality, this is ideal for aerobic re-stabilization (composting) and

subsequent application to land as a valuable soil productivity improver with a similar commercial value

to other compost products. The commercial viability of such AD plants usually relies on a sustained

income stream from the digestate materials.



42 43177679/03/H

Where the digestate contains certain physical contaminants, as might be the case where the organic

fraction of MSW pre-treatment is the primary feedstock, then the digestate would present as a waste

disposal cost or problem, unless a suitable TCF was available to realise the resource value of the

material, without necessarily being detrimentally affected by the same physical contaminants.

Recent studies (Lundie et.al 2005) have shown that to obtain the very highest volume and quality of

food/kitchen organics recovery from high rise/multi unit dwellings, insinkerators avoid any reverse

logistics impacts, as long as the STP is recovering the biosolids and nutrients efficiently.

Further, a bio-bin option could discourage all those who home compost or worm farm.

3.5 Tyres

Tyres are an item that is currently presenting as a waste stream in ACT, and consideration of tyres as

a potential input to a future TCF was specifically requested.

A tyre is a complex, highly engineered item consisting of natural and synthetic rubbers, different

grades of carbon black, steel wire/textile reinforcement and all bound and mixed with an extensive mix

of specialty chemicals.

Figure 3-1 Generic Structure and Composition of a Tyre

Source: Kumho Tyres Website 2005

End of life tyres present with the following characteristics:

Table 3-17 Combined Composition of End-of-life Tyres

New Tyres Rubber (% & kg) Steel (% & kg) Textile (% & kg)

Motor cycle tyres 70% 2.8 18% 0.7 12% 0.5

Passenger tyres 72% 5.7 21% 1.7 6% 0.6

Specialty tyres 70% 28.1 30% 11.9 0% 0.0

Light & medium commercials 69% 11.1 25% 4.0 5% 1.0

Truck & bus tyres 68% 27.2 32% 12.8 0% 0.0

OTR tyres 70% 562.5 30% 234.5 0% 0.0

Source: URS Analysis



43177679/03/H 43

The original materials of construction for, say a standard passenger tyre cost the original manufacturer

approximately $3,000/t to assemble and apply to tyre manufacture. In the first instance it is valuable to

compare this value with the potential value an end of life tyre would realise if presented systematically

for thermal conversion for a one-off recovery of the inherent Calorific Value. As a coal replacement to

a cement kiln for example, the Calorific Value of tyres and the value of the steel as a substitute for

other Ferrous materials applied in the manufacture of clinker might, optimistically, have a net resource

value of between $100-$150/t. In simple commercial terms, this presents an unsustainable “down

cycling” for materials that had an original value of some $3,000/t.

Now, unlike glass or metal or lube oil recycling, the full initial resource value of some $3,000/t for tyre

manufacture is not directly recoverable because of the complex cross linking and vulcanisation

chemistry involved in tyre manufacture. However, this same manufacturing process produces an end-

of-life product that:-

a) Presents as a highly engineered “donut” if practical applications can be found to fully realise these

properties, or

b) If shredded, crumbed or powdered, the steel and fibre are directly recyclable and the residual

rubber retains its highly engineered original properties of UV resistance, compressive strength with

rebound memory and impact resistance. Further, such crumbs and powders can be surface

modified or even (partially) devulcanised for inclusion in a wide range of new rubber or polymer

products.

Such applications have a benchmarked commercial value (as compared with virgin products to

achieve similar results) of some $1,000-$1,500/t or some order of magnitude more than simple CV or

energy recovery. Where the likely or proposed end of life tyre recycling sector generates “by-product”

rubber materials, energy recovery would be an entirely suitable outcome where the receiving facility

could accommodate sporadic supply or occasional supply of such material, could ensure complete

control of any resultant emission and avoid the problematic ash/residual material. Around the world,

cement kilns have proved most satisfactory in this role (see 3.7.2 re PEF capability).

However, a current market failure exists where capital has not been systematically applied to achieve

these higher order outcomes with the result that tyres continue to present today as more of a

waste/disposal problem, rather than as a strongly viable resource recovery opportunity. This problem

was first acknowledged in 2001 when the tyre industry and the Commonwealth government first met

and agreed to establish a voluntary, industry driven product stewardship scheme to “systematically

and comprehensively” address the clearly identified market failure.

The finally negotiated, co-regulated Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme is being considered by EPHC.

A strategic framework for the realisation of the full inherent resource value available from end of life

tyres is intended to be established through this process. The proposed scheme has been specifically

designed to reward the highest product value realised from used tyres as the major focus of

redressing the prevailing market failure.

The recovery of calorific value alone will be one of the lowest value applications under the scheme

and it is anticipated that eventually used tyres will attain a small but positive value as feedstock to

specialised crumbing, powdering and devulcanising facilities.

In this anticipated market place, few tyres are expected to be presenting in the ACT waste streams

and therefore it is not recommended to specify an eventual TCF that might seek to rely on tyres to

ensure its viability.



44 43177679/03/H

Further, the thermal processing of tyres is problematic due to the very complex chemical mixture of

the original materials of construction.

For simple calorific value recovery, industrial kilns, such as cement kilns have proved ideal for burning

tyres, but only because kilns offer:-

• High operating temperatures (1200°-1400°C);

• Long residence time in the kilns (2-5 sec) to ensure complete burn out;

• Very effective off gas clean up capabilities to ensure no diminution in emissions quality; and

• No residual ash – since all such materials and the steel cords are absorbed into the final clinker.

To create such specialised conditions purely for those diminishing volumes of used tyres arising from

the ACT is not recommended. However, the highest net resource value recycling, anticipated by the

proposed product stewardship scheme, will result in some 25,000-35,000 tonne per annum, of tyre

recycling scrap, rejects and geographically inconvenient used tyre arisings for which appropriate

energy recovery may well prove the most sustainable and practical outcome.

Further, the ACT has a significant repository of end of life tyres in the West Belconnen landfill. These

casings will no longer be suitable for reprocessing for high quality crumb or powders, but would be

ideal as an energy source.

So, whilst the national agenda will be towards end of life tyre recycling for high quality Tyre Derived

Products (TDP’s), the ACT is in position to source casings from:-

• existing historical repositories;

• surplus casing from recurrent arisings;

• interstate end of life tyre recycling by-products and rejects;

and to provide a reliable flow of specifically processed Tyre Derived Fuels (TDF’s) for the local cement

kiln (already licensed to receive such material) or for a local TCF, if such a facility could provide the

appropriate conditions for efficient energy recovery from such materials.

3.6 Strategic Rationale Project Implementation Issues in Selecting Preferred Scenarios

As clearly articulated in the URS/Eco Waste proposal, and as reiterated at meetings to date, the

logical approach being adopted for this prefeasibility study is founded on a clear three stage process.

• Stage 1 – Identify the available materials

This is covered by the analysis in Chapter 2 of this report, and as subsequently analysed in Chapter 3.

The available materials emanating from the ACT (and surrounding jurisdictions) need to be thoroughly

understood as to their generic characteristics, the quality (purity or level of cross contamination), their

reliability of supply, especially over the likely life span of an eventual TCF, any likely competitive

pressures or issues that can be anticipated to affect the quality, quantity and reliability of supply over

the proposed life span of any process plant that might be established on the basis of an identified

strategic need, and/or identified feedstock.

Finally, the legislative, regulatory or commercial measures the ACT Government currently employs or

might employ in the future to provide “flow control” to any resultant TCF.



43177679/03/H 45

• Stage 2 – Determine what products it is most ideal, sustainable or commercially attractive to make

from the, by now, clearly identified and characterised feedstocks

The thermal processing of the predominantly biomass based materials, with thermal oxidation

discounted as an option, can only produce the following products:-

• Heat;

• Syngas;

• Bio-oils; and

• Biochars.

A secondary product from all four primary products is power (electricity generation).

Potential collateral impacts of any such thermal processing facility will be emissions to atmosphere

(and perhaps lesser impacts of dust, odour, noise, traffic etc.) and the irreversible conversion of the

infeed materials, predominantly lignocellulosics, from complex cellular structures and molecules, into

the four more generic products identified.

Thermal conversion is a binary decision that has the considerable potential to transform certain

materials into more valuable resultant products. But if undertaken without due consideration,

unsustainable “down cycling” can ensue.

A further strategic implication relates to process efficiency. In simple terms, an inefficient thermal

conversion is manifested where a disproportionate proportion of the inherent energy value of the

feedstock materials is lost or dissipated during the process (parasitic load) rather than being available

as a product of the process. Generally, smaller process plants require a greater proportion of the

inherent energy in the selected feedstock to drive the process and “heat up” the equipment itself.

Once the primary process has produced heat or syngas, the conversion of this produced energy into

power or electricity (or electrons in the wires) represents a further potential step down or utilization of

the originally available inherent energy potential to support the conversion from heat to electrons. For

example, the most efficient modern fossil fuelled power stations are struggling to be 40% thermally

efficient. That is, that 60% of the inherent energy in the original fuel is utilised to support the process,

and only 40% of the energy value of the original fuel can be measured as the final product – electricity.

Older, smaller units can present as only 15-20% thermally efficient. This represents a waste of the

original resource in that maybe 20% of the original fuel source is consumed and lost purely because

the selected conversion process was inappropriate or inefficient. When reviewing the available

feedstocks from the ACT region, an important feature of demonstrating sustainability will be to

minimise process losses or inefficiencies.

• Stage 3 - Determine if the TCT scenarios developed result in a higher net present value to the ACT

government compared to the current (baseline) situation

In this strategic framework the technology is the “servant” not the “master”, performing the clearly

articulated need as efficiently as possible.

There is an often an adopted approach where the technology is selected first with only scant regard to

the facts evidenced in stages 1 and 2. In such a TCT technology selection approach the technology

becomes the “master”: the fixed and determining factor around which the inherent need or demand or

actual characteristics of the input materials or the quality of the products become secondary

considerations.



46 43177679/03/H

The selection of the specific technology and provider would be part of detailed request for proposal

and/or expression of interest process at a future stage in the project. As part of the pre-feasibility

study, URS undertook a high level economic modelling exercise of the scenarios described in Chapter

3 of the report, to provide guidance on whether the TCT scenarios identified result in a higher net

present value for the ACT Government, compared to the current waste management method. This

high level modelling was undertaken following the ACT Government’s confirmation of the scenarios

presented in this report. The modelling provides preliminary guidance on the preferred TCT scenario;

however this will need to be confirmed at the next stage of the project when updated details on the

available technologies and costs are obtained from suitable providers.

3.7 Development of Practical Scenarios for Further Detailed Analysis

During the phased implementation of the proposed C&I and eventually, MSW first point of receival

capabilities, available feedstocks for a potential TCF present iteratively as shown in Table 3-18 (based

on 2009 data). It is noted that these figures include biosolids.

Table 3-18 Feedstock Available for TCFs in Dry Tonnes (2009 Figures)

Phase Grade A Grade B Grade D Grades A & B & D

Phase 1 33,865 12, 729 46,594

Phase 2 2,134 28,952 31,087

Phase 3 HCF - 9,920 9,920

- - 17,463 Dry 17,463 Phase 3 Wet

(39,954) Wet

Phase 3 Domestic Drop Off 4,681 4,681

Totals 35,999 43,553 17,463 109,745

3.7.1 Proposed Scenario 1 – Base Case – Current Situation

Modelling the current situation will establish the benchmark for any subsequent scenarios.

The model of the current situation will quantify the cost of managing those materials currently

presenting for landfill disposal and those materials which are currently diverted but whose current

market value is limited e.g. C&D timber or Grade B materials created by current sorting facilities, for

which no current market exists. These are the materials that under the alternative scenarios

described below would be potentially available for the TCF.

3.7.2 Proposed Scenario 2 – Power Production as the Main Focus

In selecting this scenario focused on power generation, gasification is considered the most appropriate

technology to convert the Type B materials identified into electricity. Whilst gasification and pyrolysis

are much more sophisticated thermal processes and have the potential to generate much higher value

products than simple thermal oxidation (incineration), the determining factor in every such

situation is control of feedstock quality, quantity and reliability of supply – not the generic

technology itself.



43177679/03/H 47

The modelling of this scenario will include:-

1) Whether to deliver gasification technology incrementally (based on 2009 dry tonnages);

Phase 1 – 45,000 t/yr nominal capacity;




2) To consider a transitional strategy such that only one optimally efficient plant is developed at

Phase 3 for some 100,000 t/yr (dry) capacity.

This strategy is supported by the proposal to establish a Process Engineered Fuel (PEF) capacity

adjacent to or as an integral part of the proposed Dry C&I MRF, which is soon to enter a tender

process. The rationale for this recommendation is as follows:-

— The material conversion sophistication possible with modern gasification is greatly optimised by

standardising feedstock quality (See SWERF case study in Chapter 6).

— The current and proposed “first-point-of-receival” facilities (C&D, C&I and MSW) will produce

generic product streams, but not necessarily tightly specified fit-for-purpose feedstocks for an

optimally efficient gasification plant, so a PEF capability is strongly recommended.

— A proven and established PEF capability will establish the precise feedstock specification

whenever a TCF is procured.

The option to install three separate plants at phases 1, 2 and 3 will lose some thermal efficiency,

but provide some operational flexibility. The quantification of these values will emerge from the

modelling. If, however, the one, 100,000 t/yr capability plant is selected, PEF produced in the

interim could be directed to a regional cement kiln customer or the Port Kembla Steel Works, for

whom such materials would be valuable, but not critical. This could have the beneficial result that

during the time the PEF was applied to the kiln, product quality would be less critical, whilst the

PEF plant operators perfected their processes and procedures, such that if:-

a) The gasification plant was acquired, the infeed quality, quantity and reliability of supply would

be established, rather than assured, at a crucial point of review by the community and

assessment by the vendor engineers; or

b) The TCF was not procured, the type B materials would continue to be converted into cement

clinker for a sustainable resource use outcome.

3.7.3 Proposed Scenario 3 – Iterative Development with Multiple Products

This scenario will model the phased implementation of C&I and MSW pre-treatment first-point-of-

receival facilities where facilities are established to optimise the quality, quantity and reliability of

supply issues for each type of feedstock identified. This scenario aims to generate the most valuable

products from the available materials.

The main TCT is the modular pyrolysis facility that aims to optimise biochar manufacture, from the

Grade A feed stocks, with syngas as the by-product for heat and/or power generation, where

produced in excess of the parasitic loads required for the plant itself. As a guide, an energy balance

benchmark considered for evaluating available technologies is that for every 20 gigajoules (GJ) of



48 43177679/03/H

available fuel, some 10 GJ should present as biochar, 9 GJ should present as syngas and only 1 GJ

be required as a parasitic requirement to run the plant.

(Note: A mass balance will differ proportionately depending on the actual calorific value (CV) per tonne

of the available materials).

Pyrolysis (as discussed further in Chapter 5) involves the heating of the biomass material in a

chamber with reduced or no air/oxygen to produce the range of products - heat/syngas/bio-

oils/biochar.

Externally heating such vessels has a natural rate of heat transfer constraint, whereby the ability to

heat the biomass by externally heating the vessel is constrained to units that process approximately 4

t/hr or less.

By way of confirmation, the current selection of Australian developed technologies (see Section 5.7)

all offer actual pyrolysis units in the 1-4 t/hr range for this very reason.

This issue is not a constraint in the context of this TCT pre-feasibility study, since a pyrolysis function

as proposed in Scenario 3 could consist of a single materials receiving, preparation, and presentation

plant, with single product recovery, finishing and presentation. The concept of multiple individual

pyrolysis units is comparable with a single internal combustion engine having multiple cylinders to

deliver the single power source.

Having multiple individual pyrolysis units in a single processing plant provides strategic advantages,

such as:

1) Always having some units functioning whilst others are shut down for maintenance

2) Built-in redundancy to provide assured process capability when processing time-critical

materials such as biosolids

3) Providing flexibility to process different grades of input material to produce different grades of

product simultaneously.

For comparison, one 4 t/hr unit will process some 60-70,000 tpa of raw biomass (depending on

moisture content). This volume is entirely in proportion to the volume of potential infeed materials

identified in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report.

For example – some units process Grade A material for agricultural Biochar production, which is

considered to achieve the highest market price for the biochar. Some units might process Grade B

material for use in iron and steel manufacture with the surplus syngas used for power production.

The issue of whether to compost the wet C&I for sale and whether to compost the MSW pre-treatment

wet residual prior to processing as Grade B materials, or whether either of these two wet streams

should be anaerobically digested first for optimum net resource recovery realisation, is outside the

direct scope of this study, but generic values can be applied to the model to provide an indication of

relative benefits. Such a separate study may prove to be valuable before final decisions are made.

This integrated scenario does present the advantage of providing flow control buffering in the system.

First-point-of-receival facilities need to be available to handle whatever materials are generated by the

community and whenever they are presented and to forward them as value added and primarily

streamed flows ready for direction to the next, more specialised processing option. A PEF facility, if

adopted, will not only improve product quality for subsequent uses, but will also provide flow control



43177679/03/H 49

buffering to better service the more highly specialised and less flexible TCT options. The phased

development process applied in Scenario 3 is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

The following sections of the report, including the Regulatory Review, Technology Overview and Case

Studies provide further support for the rationale behind selection of the preferred scenarios described

above.


43177679/03/H 51

4

4 Regulatory Overview

4.1 Introduction

As part of the review process, an assessment of the current regulatory and legislative framework

governing waste in general and waste management facilities, including air emission criteria, and any

land application guidelines and thresholds.

As these types of technologies are relatively new to Australia and are still not seen as part of the

waste management solution, several regulatory bodies throughout Australia may have an interest in a

waste-to-energy development. These include planning and environmental agencies; state-based

electricity regulators, and National Electricity Market bodies.

4.2 ACT Legislation and Guidelines

4.2.1 Environment Protection Act, 1997

Objectives

The particular objectives of the Environment Protection Act 1997 (the Act) with respect to this project

are:

• to protect and enhance the quality of the environment; and

• to prevent environmental degradation and adverse risks to human health and the health of

ecosystems by promoting pollution prevention, clean production technology, reuse and recycling of

materials and waste minimisation programs; and

• to require people engaging in polluting activities to make progressive environmental improvements,

including reductions of pollution at the source as such improvements become practical through

technological and economic development; and

• to regulate, reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants and hazardous substances into the air,

land or water consistent with maintaining environmental quality; and

• to provide for the monitoring and reporting of the environmental quality on a regular basis in

conjunction with the commissioner for the environment; and

• to control the generation, storage, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste with a

view to reducing, minimising and, where practical, eliminating harm to the environment; and

• to adopt a precautionary approach when assessing environmental risk to ensure that all aspects of

environmental quality, including ecosystem sustainability and integrity and beneficial use of the

environment, are considered in assessing, and making decisions in relation to, the environment;

and; and

• to coordinate all activities as are necessary to protect, restore or improve the ACT environment;

and

The operation of an incineration facility for the destruction of waste by thermal oxidation (including

biological, veterinary, medical, dental, quarantine and municipal wastes) and the operation of a

commercial landfill facility that receives, or is intended by the operator to receive, more than 5,000

tonnes of waste per year is considered a class A activity and as such categorised as an activities

requiring environmental authorisation.



52 43177679/03/H

ACT Air Environment Protection Policy

The Air Environment Protection Policy has been prepared by the Environment Management Authority

(the EMA) in accordance with Part IV of the Environment Protection Act 1997. The objectives of the

ACT Air Quality Policy are, within the limits of its applicability, to ensure air quality in the ACT at least

meets national standards for ambient air and to minimise environmental harm from local emissions of

air pollutants consistent with the requirements and Objects of the Act.

The Air Environment Protection Policy has been developed in accordance with the following principles

that in the view of the EMA are derived from, or consistent with, the objects and provisions of the Act

and Regulations:

• Regulatory limits should minimise environmental harm to local and ambient air quality while

enabling necessary or socially acceptable activities to take place, subject to appropriate controls.

Examples of such activities include hazard reduction burning and the use of solid fuel burning

appliances for domestic heating.

• The EPP should be consistent with national agreements relating to air quality.

• The EMA should work with other regulatory agencies, such as planning and public health

authorities, to ensure an integrated approach is taken to maximising air quality.

In many cases, emissions can be minimised through the use of appropriate technology and ensuring

equipment is properly maintained and operated in accordance with its design parameters. Fugitive

emissions, in particular, can be minimised in this way but the approach is also valid for reducing

emissions through chimneys and stacks etc.

For industrial emissions not specifically regulated (i.e. either emission through a chimney of pollutants

not covered by the national emission guidelines or fugitive emissions), the general environmental duty

still applies. Under Part III of the Act, that duty requires a person to take “such steps as are

practicable and reasonable to prevent or minimise environmental harm or environmental nuisance

caused, or likely to be caused, by an activity conducted by that person.”

To comply with the general environmental duty, the EMA expects that a person undertaking an

industrial activity would:

• have installed, or be in the process of installing, pollution control equipment at least of a standard

matching general industry practice elsewhere in Australia;

• properly maintain and use any pollution control equipment and any other equipment, the condition

or use of which impacts on the level of pollutants emitted;

• ensure that any person involved in undertaking the activity (e.g. employees, contractors) is

competent to do so; and

• appropriate systems and procedures are in place to minimise the risk of causing environmental

harm.

In the case of Class A or Class B activities listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, specific conditions relating

to the above may be included in the conditions of an environmental authorisation or an environmental

protection agreement. Persons undertaking other industrial activities who are unsure as to whether

they are complying with the general environmental duty are encouraged to seek the advice of the

EMA.



43177679/03/H 53

Likely Air Emission Standards for Proposed Thermal Conversion Facility

There is currently no ACT air emission standard developed for a pyrolysis or gasification thermal

conversion facility; however the proposed facility would be required to meet the principles and

objectives of the air environmental protection policy as noted above. It is envisaged that as part of the

environmental planning approval process for the TCF, the ACT Environmental Protection Authority

would work with the proponents of the TCF to develop a set of suitable air emission standards. These

standards are likely to be based on existing national and international air emission standards for

similar facilities located in similar environments. Outlined in Table 4-1 are currently applicable

emission standards including the Stericorp Medical Waste Incinerator which was operating at Mitchell,

ACT. These standards provide some guidance on likely applicable emission standards for the

proposed TCF.



43177679/03/H 55

Table 4-1 Existing Air Emission Standards for Waste Incineration

Contaminant

Commonwealth Consolidated

Regulations - Airports (Environment Protection)

Regulations 1997

NSW Protection of the Environment

Operations (Clean Air) Amendment - Industrial and

Commercial Activities and Plant Regulation,

2005

US EPA Limits for new large (>250tpd) municipal waste

combustion units, 2006

US EPA Limits for new small municipal waste combustion units, 2000

Stericorp Incinerator, Mitchell, ACT, 2006

Directive 2000/76/EC, European Parliament of the Council, 2000~

Total Solid Particles 250 mg/Nm3 (expressed at 12% CO2 level)

50 mg/Nm3 (at 12% CO2 level)

18.635 mg/Nm3 22.362 mg/Nm3 34 mg/Nm3 (expressed at 12% CO2 level)

10 mg/Nm3

Carbon Monoxide 1000 mg/Nm3 125 mg/Nm3 114.56 mg/Nm3 Up to 171.84 mg/Nm3 51 mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3

Nitrogen Oxides (expressed as NO2)

90 – 800mg/Nm3 350 mg/Nm3 338.69 mg/Nm3 / 282.24 mg/m3 after 1st year operation

338.69 mg/Nm3 / 282.24 mg/Nm3 after 1st year operation

350 mg/Nm3 400 mg/Nm3

Fluorides (expressed as HF)

50mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3 - - 5 mg/Nm3 1 mg/Nm3

Total Organic Compounds

Referred to, no specific limits for TOC

40 mg/Nm3 (Volatile Organic Compounds expressed as n-propane equivalent)

- - 20 mg/Nm3 (expressed as carbon)

10 mg/Nm3

Heavy Metals 10 mg/Nm3 (aggregate Sb, As, Cd, Pb, Hg, V)

- - - 10 mg/Nm3 (expressed as total metals)

0.5 mg/Nm3

Mercury See heavy metals 0.2 mg/Nm3 0.0466 mg/Nm3 0.0745 mg/Nm3 2 mg/Nm3 0.05 mg/Nm3

Lead See heavy metals - 0.1304 mg/Nm3 0.1863 mg/Nm3 3 mg/Nm3 See heavy metals

Cadmium 3 mg/Nm3 0.2 mg/Nm3 0.0093 mg/Nm3 0.0186 mg/Nm3 1 mg/Nm3 0.05 mg/Nm3 (total Cadmium and Thalium)

Hydrogen chloride - 100 mg/Nm3 37.28 mg/Nm3 37.28 mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3 10 mg/Nm3

Sulphur Dioxide and Sulphur Trioxide

100 mg/Nm3 (for SO3 only)

100 mg/Nm3 (as SO3) 78.61 mg/Nm3 (for SO2 only)

78.61 mg/Nm3 (for SO2 only)

50 mg/Nm3 50 mg/Nm3 (for SO2 only)

Dioxins and Furans - (at 11% O2 level) 0.1 ng/Nm3 (at 11% O2) 12.113 ng/Nm3 12.113 ng/Nm3 0.1 ng/Nm3 (1-TEQ) 0.10 ng/Nm3

Reference conditions: Dry, 273 K, 101.3 kPa and 7% O2.



43177679/03/H 57

Restrictions on feedstocks

Restrictions are placed on the fuels and wastes which can be burnt in Part IV of Schedule 2 of the Act

(petrol), clause 3 of Schedule 2 of the Act and Regulation 9 (fuel oil) and Regulation 11 (plastics,

wood, chemicals and wastes).

Under Regulation 9, the sulphur content of fuel oil is restricted to minimise emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Restrictions on substances which may be burnt

Under Regulation 11, specified substances may not be burnt except in an incinerator authorised

(under the conditions of an environmental authorisation) to burn those substances.

The substances which may not be burnt are:

• synthetic plastics or other synthetic polymers; wood that is painted, chemically treated or

contaminated with chemicals; and chemicals other than those recommended by the manufacturer

as a fuel. The ban on burning these substances has been imposed because of the risk of toxic

emissions (e.g. fumes from burning PVC plastic).

• unseasoned wood. Wood which is burnt as a fuel should be properly seasoned to minimise smoke

emissions.

• wastes. Recycling and, where this is not possible, disposal to landfill, are considered the most

appropriate forms of disposal for general wastes. Certain types of waste which are not suitable for

recycling or landfill, such as clinical waste, may be incinerated at an authorised facility.

4.2.2 Planning and Development Act 2007

The objectives of this Act are to provide a planning and land system that contributes to the orderly and

sustainable development of the ACT:

• consistent with the social, environmental and economic aspirations of the people of the ACT; and

• in accordance with sound financial principles.

Note This Act, like all Territory Acts, has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the

national capital plan, but is taken to be consistent with the national capital plan to the extent that it can

operate concurrently with it (see Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act

1988 (Cwlth), s 11 (1)).

Development proposals requiring EIS relevant to this project includes

proposal for the construction of a waste management facility for—

(a) the destruction of waste, including biological, veterinary, medical, clinical, dental, quarantine and municipal waste, by incineration (that is, thermal oxidation); or

(b) the storage, treatment, disposal, processing, recycling, recovery, use or reuse of regulated waste

proposal for a transfer station or material recycling facility that sorts, consolidates or temporarily stores solid waste (including municipal waste) for transfer to another site for disposal, storage, reprocessing, recycling, use or reuse, that—

(a) is intended to handle more than 30kt of waste each year; or

(b) is to be within 2km of a residential zone and, taking into consideration the topography and local weather conditions, is likely to significantly affect the amenity of the neighbourhood because of noise, odour, dust, vermin attracted, lights or traffic



58 43177679/03/H

If an environmental assessment is required for this development, the following key environmental

issues have been identified as being relevant to the assessment:

• Air quality;

• Health impact;

• Land use and socio-economic impact;

• Noise and vibration;

• Visual amenity; and

• Traffic.

It is anticipated that a preliminary siting analysis will be undertaken, taking into account the following

additional issues:

• Preferred technologies and locations;

• Regulatory and Permitting Issues (Air emissions and permit requirements, water discharges, and

waste); and

• Public acceptability.

4.2.3 Waste Minimisation Act, 2001

An Act relating to the management, regulation and reduction of waste, and for other purposes with the

main objects as follows:

• to establish a waste management hierarchy of the following order:

— avoidance;

— reuse;

— recycling and reprocessing; and

— disposal.

• to ensure that government, industry and community representatives are involved in the

development of ACT-wide waste policy;

• to minimise the consumption of natural resources and the final disposal of waste by encouraging

the avoidance of waste and the reuse and recycling of waste;

• to ensure that industry shares with the community the responsibility for minimising and managing

waste;

• to promote and ensure the efficient resourcing of waste service planning and delivery;

• to achieve integrated waste planning and services;

• to promote and ensure environmentally responsible transporting, reprocessing and handling of

waste.

Although this facility will be beneficial to waste minimisation, this ACT will need to be adhered to on a

policy and management level.

4.3 Australian Guidelines/Code of Practice

NHMRC National Guidelines for Waste Management in the Health Industry, March 1999

These guidelines outline procedures for the classification, segregation, safe packaging (containment),

labelling, storage, transport and disposal of clinical wastes. They are intended to assist authorities and

practitioners, as well as other people involved (whether directly or indirectly), in determining an

appropriate waste management strategy. These guidelines provide design guidelines for the proposed

incinerator, as it will be disposing of some clinical waste.



43177679/03/H 59

National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, Control of Major Hazard Facilities, National Standard [NOHSC: 1014(2002)], National Code of Practice [NOHSC: 2016 (1996)], October 2002

This standard provides certain control measures to be adopted by Major Hazard Facilities. It is

considered unlikely that proposed ACT facility would be defined as a Major Hazard Facility; however

this should be confirmed prior to completion of the detail environmental assessment and design of the

facility, based on the types and quantities of chemicals to be present at the facility.

4.4 International Guidelines

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty to protect human health

and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become

widely distributed geographically and accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife. Exposure

to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) can lead serious health effects including certain cancers, birth

defects, dysfunctional immune and reproductive systems, greater susceptibility to disease and even

diminished intelligence. Given their long range transport, no one governing acting alone can protect is

citizens or its environment from POPs. In response, the Stockholm Convention, which was adopted in

2001 and entered into force 2004, requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the

release of POPs into the environment. The Convention is administered by the United Nations

Environment Programme and based in Geneva, Switzerland.

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity;

The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its relevant provisions, are the

conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable

sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate

access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account

all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidelines and Schemes

This summary addresses the following schemes:

• NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme

• Mandatory Renewable Energy Target

• Greenhouse Friendly

• GreenPower

• Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (proposed)

It should be noted that the above schemes are in a state of flux and therefore implications for this

project may change.

4.5.1 NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (GGAS)

GGAS commenced on 1 January 2003 in NSW and 1 January 2005 and the ACT. It is one of the first

mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes in the world. GGAS aims to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and consumption of electricity.



60 43177679/03/H

GGAS established an annual State-wide greenhouse gas benchmark for the electricity sector and then

requires individual benchmark participants to meet their allocation of the mandatory greenhouse gas

benchmark, based on their share of electricity demand.

Benchmark participants achieve this by surrendering abatement certificates created from project-

based emission reduction activities. Project based emission reduction activities, from which abatement

certificates can be created by accredited abatement certificate providers include low emission

generation of electricity or improvements in emission intensity of existing generation activities, demand

side abatement activities, large user abatement activities and carbon sequestration in forests.

Abatement certificate providers (ACPs) can sell NSW Greenhouse Abatements Certificates (NGACs)

on the market. Each certificate is the equivalent of one tonnes of CO2 equivalent. In recent months the

market price for NGACs has been in the vicinity of AUD$3 to AUD$7 per NGAC. GGAS therefore

provides an additional revenue stream to ACPs for projects that may not otherwise be financially

viable.

With the introduction of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), it is intended that

GGAS will discontinue (the Demand Side Abatement activities of GGAS have recently been migrated

to the NSW Energy Saving Scheme). The announcement by the Commonwealth Government in April

2010 to delay the commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), means that

GGAS is likely to continue for another three years or until the CPRS starts although new

accreditations are not currently being accepted. The NSW Government is negotiating with the

Commonwealth seeking to ensure a smooth transition to the CPRS when if/when it commences.

Companies particularly adversely affected in the transition into the CPRS have been identified and

negotiations are in progress to address the impact of the early closure of GGAS on those companies.

www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au/

4.5.2 Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET)

The Australian Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) was established on 1

April 2001 to encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and

achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The MRET scheme places a legal liability on

wholesale purchasers of electricity to proportionally contribute to an additional 9,500 gigawatt hours

(GWh) of renewable energy per year by 2010. It also sets the framework for both the supply and

demand of renewable energy certificates (RECs) via a REC market.

To deliver on the Government's goal of 20 percent renewable energy in Australia's electricity supply by

2020, a national Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme was established which expands MRET

over four times to achieve a target of 45,000 GWh in 2020. The national RET scheme, which absorbs

existing and proposed state and territory targets, was designed in cooperation with the states and

territories through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

The Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) is designed to increase the amount of electricity

generated from eligible renewable energy sources. Renewable energy power stations increasing their

output of electricity above 1997 levels can contribute towards the achievement of the RET. This

includes new power stations constructed since 1 January 1997 and pre-existing power stations

increasing output or generating from renewables for the first time.



43177679/03/H 61

Eligible parties include renewable energy sourced power stations such as wind, hydro, landfill gas,

solar and bagasse, owners of solar water heaters and small generation units, and agents of solar

water heaters and small generation units. Since 2008 REC prices have generally been between

AUD$35 and AUD$50. RET therefore provides an additional revenue stream to accredited generators

for generating systems that may not otherwise be financially viable.

Power stations, if accredited by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER), are eligible to

create renewable energy certificates (RECs) through an internet based registry system, known as the

REC-registry, for their eligible generation output. Once the RECs are created and registered, through

a validation and audit process, the RECs can be traded independently of the physical electricity to

third parties and provide a second revenue stream for eligible power stations.

To become an accredited renewable energy power station, the power station must:

• use one or more of the eligible renewable energy sources to generate electricity;

• have obtained, and comply with the provisions of, all relevant environmental and other approvals

for the operation of a power station;

• be able to measure the amount of electricity being generated; and

• supply the generated electricity to directly meet demand for electrical energy

Baselines for individual power stations are determined and set as part of the power station

accreditation process.

The eligible sources are provided below:

• hydro;

• wave;

• tide;

• ocean;

• wind;

• solar;

• geothermal-aquifer;

• hot dry rock;

• energy crops;

• wood waste;

• agricultural waste;

• waste from processing of agricultural products;

• food waste;

• food processing waste;

• bagasse;

• black liquor;

• biomass-based components of municipal solid waste;

• landfill gas;

• sewage gas and biomass-based components of sewage;

• any other energy source prescribed by the regulations.

http://www.orer.gov.au/



62 43177679/03/H

4.5.3 Greenhouse Friendly

Greenhouse Friendly™ aims to help meet the challenge of climate change by providing businesses

and consumers with the opportunity to sell and purchase greenhouse neutral products and services by

broadening the basis for investment in additional greenhouse gas abatement and engaging

consumers on climate change issues.

Through Greenhouse Friendly™, Australian businesses can market greenhouse neutral products or

services, deliver greenhouse gas abatement and give Australian consumers greater purchasing

choice.

Changes to Greenhouse Friendly that were announced on 4 February advised that no new

applications for abatement projects would be considered from that date. Some stakeholders may have

benefitted from longer notice of the closure of the abatement provider component. As such,

organisations wishing to lodge an Eligibility Statement to become an abatement provider had to do so

up to 27 May 2009.

www.climatechange.gov.au/greenhousefriendly/

4.5.4 GreenPower

The GreenPower accreditation program aims to drive investment in renewable energy in Australia and

make Australia's electricity supply sustainable. It does this by raising awareness of GreenPower

accredited renewable energy products to increase their uptake and by helping consumers feel more

confident when choosing these products.

The objectives of the National GreenPower Accreditation Program are to:

• Facilitate the installation of new renewable energy generators across Australia, beyond mandatory

renewable requirements, thereby decreasing greenhouse pollution.

• Encourage growth in consumer demand for renewable energy.

• Provide consumer choice for, and increase confidence in credible renewable energy products.

• Promote the renewable energy industry through the rigorous accreditation of generators.

• Increase consumer awareness of the benefits of renewable energy.

• Increase the sustainability of Australia’s electricity supply.

• Eligible renewable resources under GreenPower include:

• solar power

• wind

• biomass (landfill gas, municipal solid waste, agricultural wastes, energy crops, wood wastes)

• hydro-electric power (small-scale or on existing dams)

• geothermal energy

• wave and tidal power.

Only wood waste sourced from existing sustainably managed forestry plantations and clearing of

specified noxious weeds are eligible. Use of any materials from high conservation-value forests is not

eligible. Only crops grown on land cleared prior to 1990 are eligible under the GreenPower program.

Hydro-electric power projects must have adequate environmental flows. Projects that involve

construction of new dams or diversion of rivers are not acceptable under GreenPower.



43177679/03/H 63

Under GreenPower product providers are currently required to source GreenPower Rights and RECs

from GreenPower Accredited Generators. These requirements are currently in the process of

transition and from January 2011 GPRs will no longer be required or accepted by the program.

Instead, GreenPower currency will be through the acquisition and surrender of RECs only.

GreenPower has provided accredited GreenPower generators with an additional revenue stream

through the sale of GPRs. However, in recent time the value of GPRs has diminished and are

understood to be trading in some cases for AUD$0.5.

www.greenpower.gov.au/

4.5.5 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)

In 2009 the Government proposed a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) which, if

implemented, would place a limit, or cap, on the amount of carbon pollution industry can emit. It will

require affected businesses and industry to buy a 'pollution permit' for each tonne of carbon they

contribute to the atmosphere, giving them a strong incentive to reduce pollution.

On 27 April 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided to delay the

implementation of the CPRS until after the end of the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol

and only when there is greater clarity on the action of other major economies including the US, China

and India.

Because the carbon pollution reduction scheme would concentrate on the biggest polluters, it would

have placed obligations on around 1,000 Australian companies in total, those that produce more than

25,000 tonnes of carbon pollution each year.

Under the CPRS the Government would set a cap on the total amount of carbon pollution allowed in

the economy by covered sectors. The Government would issue permits up to the annual cap each

year. Industries that generate carbon pollution would need to acquire a 'permit' for every tonne of

greenhouse gas that they emit. The quantity of carbon pollution produced by each firm would be

monitored and verified. At the end of each year, each liable firm would need to surrender a permit for

every tonne of carbon pollution the firm produced in that year. Firms compete in the market to

purchase the number of permits that they require. Firms that value the permits most highly would be

prepared to pay the most for them, either at auction, or on a secondary trading market. For some

firms, it would be cheaper to reduce emissions than to buy permits. As a transitional assistance

measure, certain categories of firms might receive some emissions permits for free. These firms could

use these permits or sell them.

The price of permits is not set by the Government- rather, it emerges from the market. If a firm can

reduce carbon pollution more cheaply than the prevailing market price of permits, it would choose to

reduce carbon pollution rather than buy permits. Therefore, this kind of scheme provides a strong

incentive for participants to reduce their own carbon pollution. By making this business decision

around whether to reduce carbon pollution or trade in permits, firms operate within the overall cap at

least cost.



64 43177679/03/H

4.5.6 Implications for the Project

In summary, this project could be eligible for accreditation as an Abatement Certificate Provider under

GGAS if accreditations are reopened in response to the recent announcement of delaying the CPRS

until at least 2013. However, GGAS has a limited duration and will cease following the introduction of

CPRS. Current GGAS accredited LFG generation project(s) in the vicinity of this project may have

questionable viability after GGAS ends. This may provide a source of LFG for this project.

The project will not be eligible for Greenhouse Friendly accreditation.

It should be confirmed whether the project will be eligible for RET accreditation. Revenue for the sale

of RECs could be material if RET accreditation is achieved. Based on eligible renewable energy

sources as included in Section 17 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, this project is likely

to be eligible for RECs. As such the revenue from RECs has been taken into consideration in our

financial modelling of the preferred scenarios.

The project might be eligible for GreenPower accreditation although there might be little benefit to this

as GPRs are phased out. However, the price of RECs from GreenPower accredited generators could

demand a higher price than those of non GreenPower accredited generators.

The owner of the project would need to determine whether it has future liabilities under any future

carbon emission trading scheme and the magnitude of these.


43177679/03/H 65

5

5 Technology Overview

5.1 Introduction

The thermal processes being considered for the ACT Thermal Conversion study are technologies that

thermally convert waste material to other useful products and by-products. These technologies

include:

• Pyrolysis;

• Conventional gasification (fixed bed and fluid bed);

• Pyrolysis/gasification; and

• Plasma Gasification.

As noted in the brief for this project, this study does not include “conventional” mass-burn incineration.

The following section provides a brief overview of the alternative thermal conversion technologies.

5.1.1 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis has a long history of industrial use. Pyrolysis systems utilise a wide range of designs,

temperatures, and pressures to initiate the pyrolysis reactions. Typically pyrolysis systems use a

drum, kiln-shaped structure, or pyrolysis tube, which is externally heated using either recycled syngas

or anther fuel or heat source to heat the pyrolysis tube/chamber.

Pyrolysis involves the thermal degradation of organic carbon-based materials through the use of an

indirect, external source of heat, typically at temperatures of 400°C to 900°C (750°F to 1,650°F), in the

absence or almost complete absence of oxygen or air. This thermally decomposes and drives off the

volatile portions of the organic materials, resulting in a syngas composed primarily of hydrogen (H2),

carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). In some systems the volatile

components maybe turned into tar and oil, which can be used as a fuel. Most pyrolysis systems are

closed systems and there are no air emissions sources (if the syngas is combusted to produce

electricity, the power system will have air emissions through an air emissions control system and

stack). After cooling and cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas can be utilised in boilers,

gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity or used to make chemicals. It

should be noted that some systems use thermal oxidizers to combust syngas directly without cleaning.

A typical pyrolysis unit processing MSW can produce around 580 to 650 kWh per tonne of waste

processed (average 615 kWh/ton). The balance of the organic materials that are not volatile or liquid

that is left as a biochar material, can be further processed or used for its adsorption properties (to

make activated carbon etc). Inorganic materials form a bottom ash that requires disposal, although

some pyrolysis ash can be used for manufacturing brick materials. This solid by-product is mostly

char. If other nonorganic exist it will be solid by-products not ash.

Feedstock

Pyrolysis systems can process a wide range of carbon-based materials. Any organic or thermally

degradable material can be processed by pyrolysis. Historically, pyrolysis was used to make charcoal

from wood. Currently, some manufacturers are using pyrolysis to make activated carbon using

coconut shells or wood as feedstock. If a homogenous feedstock is processed by pyrolysis it

produces high quality by-products. In order to make the pyrolysis process more efficient, pre-

processing of mixed waste is required. The pre-processing may include drying to enhance the heat

content of the feedstock and/or separation of thermally non-degradable material like metals, glass and

concrete debris. Also, for some pyrolytic processes, size reduction and /or usually a pre-processing

step is required to remove non heat degradable material from the feedstock.



66 43177679/03/H

Pyrolysis Reactor 400

OC to 900

OC

Water Quenching/Condenser

Refining

Power Generation or Chemicals

Pre-sorted waste material

Syngas or Liquid

Clean Syngas

Emission Control System

Ash Biochar Metals Silica

Tar, Heavy Liquid

(Bio-oil)

The typical conventional pyrolysis process is shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Typical Pyrolysis System for Biochar Production and Power Generation

5.1.2 Gasification

Gasification involves the thermal conversion of organic carbon-based materials in the presence of

internally produced heat, typically at temperatures of 760°C to 1400°C (1,400°F to 2,500°F), and in a

limited supply of air/oxygen (less than is needed for complete combustion) to produce a syngas composed

primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide. Inorganic materials are

converted either to bottom ash (low-temperature gasification) or to a solid, vitreous slag (high

temperature gasification that operates above the melting temperature of inorganic components).

Some of the oxygen injected into the system is used in reactions that produce heat, so that pyrolysis

(endothermic) gasification reactions can initiate; after which, the exothermic reactions control and

cause the gasification process to be self-sustaining. Most gasification systems, like pyrolysis, are

closed systems and do not generate air emission sources during the gasification phase. After cooling

and cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas can be utilised in boilers, gas turbines, or

internal combustion engines to generate electricity, or to make chemicals.



43177679/03/H 67

The use of gasification for MSW began in the 1980’s in the US, Europe and Japan. In these units, the

use of unprocessed MSW resulted in many technical problems, primarily due to the heterogeneous

nature of MSW. This caused handling and feeding problems, as well as issues with temperature and

process control, ash removal and overall cost. Many of these facilities were shut down. With the

worldwide success in coal and petroleum coke gasification, regulatory requirements in Europe and

Japan for increased diversion of MSW from landfill, and difficulties in siting and permitting

conventional incineration, gasification became a major alternative treatment technology for MSW.

Most of the development has occurred in Japan and Europe, at first utilising MSW combined with

other feedstocks such as sewage sludge and industrial wastes.

Feedstock

Prior to entering the gasifier, some pre-processing of the mixed waste streams will be required as

described above in the section on pyrolysis. Some gasification technologies (primarily fixed–bed

designs) may accept a minimum amount of pre-processing, such as removal large appliances,

shredding and sorting. Others may require a significant amount of removal of recyclables, sorting,

shredding and drying, in order to provide a more homogenous feedstock, suitable for gasification.

The typical conventional pyrolysis process is shown in Figure 5-1.

5.1.3 Pyrolysis followed by Gasification

The thermal conversion unit for this type of technology (pyrolysis-gasification) combines pyrolysis

reactor and high temperature gasification or char oxidation chambers. The char from pyrolysis is

introduced to a high temperature reactor (temperature up to 2,000 °C) for gasification. In this chamber

additional syngas and a vitrified slug type solid by product is produced. Energy production occurs

when the syngas is cleaned and combusted in reciprocating engines.



68 43177679/03/H

Figure 5-2 Typical Gasification System for Power Generation or Chemicals

5.1.4 Plasma Arc Gasification

This technology make use of alternating current (AC) and/or direct current (DC) electricity passed

through graphite or carbon electrodes, with steam and/or oxygen/air injection (less than

stoichiometric), to produce an electrically conducting gas (a plasma) typically at temperatures greater

than 3900°C. This system converts organic carbon-based materials, including tar, oil, and char, to a

syngas composed primarily of H2 and CO with inorganic materials converted to a solid, vitreous slag.

Like pyrolysis and conventional gasification, plasma arc gasification is a closed system; therefore

there are no air emission sources in the plasma gasification conversion process. After cooling and

cleaning in emission control systems, the syngas produced by plasma arc gasification can be utilised

in boilers, gas turbines, or internal combustion engines to generate electricity or to make chemicals.

The quality of the syngas produced from thermal conversion technologies varies based on the pre-

processing technology utilised as well as the characteristics of the conversion process.

Gasifier 760°C to 1400°C

Emission Control System

Chemical Production

Power Generation

or Chemicals

Pre-sorted waste material

Clean Syngas or Liquid

Ash or Slag Air or Oxygen



43177679/03/H 69

Natural gas, which is primarily methane, has a heating value of about 1,000 British thermal units

(Btu)/cubic foot. Syngas from these thermal conversion technologies are composed primarily of CO

and H2, which have a heating value of 100-700 Btu/cubic foot depending on the composition of

feedstock. If used for power generation, the quality of the syngas generally determines what kind of

power generation equipment can be utilised. For example, low heating value syngas is easily

combusted in a boiler, but may not be usable in a commercially available reciprocating engine due to

ignitability issues and flame characteristics. Some manufacturers of reciprocating engines and gas

turbines produce equipment with modified combustion chambers to deal with lower heating value

syngas.

5.2 TCF Potential Market Value

As discussed above the primary products from advanced thermal processing of the identified in-feed

streams available are heat, syngas, bio-oils/tars and biochars.

All these products can be converted to electrical power (or used for cooling) as a secondary process,

either as a main outcome, or as a logical use of by-products.

5.2.1 Power

Power generation by a thermal conversion technology (TCT) facility processing MSW or mixed waste

depends on the following factors:

1. Throughput of the facility (tonnes/year)

2. Energy content of the feedstock (kJ/kg)

3. Efficiency of TCT and their electrical generation system (boiler, generator etc)

Outlined in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 is the approximate energy content of different feedstock’s available in

the ACT as characterised in Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the percentage of each of the different

waste streams at each Phase of implementation, we have estimated the energy content of the

combined waste stream as presented to the TCF, both with and without biosolids. These values will

be used in our financial model to estimate the electricity generated from each of the scenarios

considered.

Table 5-1 Estimated Energy Content of Waste Streams (with biosolids)

Percentage of Waste Stream Material

Energy Content (kJ/kg) of material as presented (wet)

Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2 Phase 1, 2 & 3

Organic Residual waste 4,700 0% 15% 32%

Domestic HCF to Thermal 25,000 0% 0 7%

Timber 18,700 28% 22% 16%

Plasterboard 1,700 3% 2% 1%

Paper/cardboard 16,300 3% 7% 5%

Plastics 32,500 2% 8% 6%

Green waste 6,500 2% 1% 2%

Urban forest 6500 13% 8% 6%

Biosolids (wet) 6300 48% 31% 21%

Mixed C&D waste 10500 0% 6% 4%

Total quantity of waste (tpa wet) 2009 data 79,300 124,000 181,600

Energy Content of Combined Waste (kJ/kg) 10,564 11,690 11,272



70 43177679/03/H

Table 5-2 Estimated Energy Content of Waste Streams (without biosolids)

Percentage of Waste Stream Material

Energy Content (kJ/kg) of material as presented (wet)

Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2 Phase 1, 2 & 3

Organic Residual waste 4,700 0% 22% 41%

Domestic HCF to Thermal 25,000 0% 0% 9%

Timber 18,700 54% 32% 20%

Plasterboard 1,700 6% 3% 2%

Paper/cardboard 16,300 6% 11% 7%

Plastics 32,500 4% 11% 7%

Green waste 6,500 4% 2% 2%

Urban forest 6500 26% 12% 7%

Mixed C&D waste 10500 0% 8% 5%

Total quantity of waste (tpa wet) 2009 data 41,100 85,700 143,400

Energy Content of Combined Waste (kJ/kg) 14,528 14,092 12,597

From the above analysis it is evident that the energy content of the waste as presented to the

proposed TCF would vary between 10,500 to 11,600 kJ/kg (with biosolids) and 12,600 to 14,500 kJ/kg

(without biosolids).

Analysis of a wide range of thermal conversion technologies from different suppliers shows that they

can produce between 450 to 850 kWh/ton net. Throughput of these facilities assumed to be 150

tonnes/day with energy content of 11,000 kJ/kg. In lieu of producing electricity, the steam generated

by these facilities also could be used for other industrial purposes. It also should be noted that

pyrolysis and low temperature gasification technologies electricity generation are very close and vary

in a wide range depending on the manufacturer design and efficiency of the system. The final

estimation of electricity generation for these technologies can be accomplished only when specific

designs are under consideration. In general, based on URS review of technologies, the following

numbers can be used to estimate electricity generation for different technologies:

• Pyrolysis: 580 – 650 kWh/ton (Average 615 kWh/ton);

• Gasification: 600 – 700 kWh/ton (Average 650 kWh/ton);

• Pyrolysis/Gasification: 650 – 750 kWh/ton (Average 700 kWh/ton); and

• Plasma Gasification: 750 – 850 kWh/ton (Average 800 kWh/ton).

The actual market value for electrical power will be determined by a number of factors, including:-

i) Whether a definable portion of the power generated can be classified as “renewable” in either

the voluntary market, or any formal legislated scheme and what premium can be negotiated.

ii) The quality of the power on offer.

� The quantity of power being offered.

� The level of assurance as to continuity of supply

iii) Local supply and demand issues



43177679/03/H 71

Assumptions will be made in the development of the various scenarios, but it is reasonable to assume

that any power generated by even the scenario 2 TCF will not be able to compete with nationally

supplied base load power. As such, local, social and political considerations will need to be brought to

account in the final feasibility analysis.

Quantification of these “local” considerations will be able to be determined once the three scenarios

are complete and the attractiveness of power generation as a primary focus, or as a by-product

optimisation measure, has been scoped.

5.2.2 Biochar Benefits, Markets and Value

Pyrolysis generates biochar as a solid by-product that can be sold to generate a source of revenue,

while also sequestering carbon in the soil, thereby further reducing GHG emissions compared to

landfill. Biochar, at its simplest, is a charcoal product ideal as a coal replacement in metals smelting

or as a supplementary fuel (coke/coal replacement) to power stations etc. An approximately value of

$100-$150/t will be assumed in the high level modelling process. If the feedstock is of the highest

quality, as the material from the urban forest management sources has the potential to be (Grade A),

even highly specified, activated carbon products are possible for air and water filtering applications.

Such materials trade for >$1,000/t. Whilst these markets are constrained and currently well serviced,

this application will at least be modelled.

Biochars designed for agricultural applications are substantially defined by their residual mineral (ash)

content, and are optimised by being processed with certain minerals, clays, calcium carbonates etc.

These products are currently entering the market for approximately $300-$500/t, supplied fit-for-

purpose.

Regarding carbon sequestration benefits of biochar, as noted by Pacific Pyrolysis “As a source of

carbon offset, biochar is one of the few sources of carbon sequestration. There is a proliferation of

projects and technologies seeking to reduce carbon emissions to an optimal level, however biochar is

considered one of only a handful of technologies that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Other

technologies in this vein include carbon capture and storage, forestry and other soil carbon practices

such as no-till farming. Biochar is certainly not the silver bullet which will solve the global issue;

however it is a readily deployable, proven technology that is of a scale that is accessible to customers

seeking to sequester carbon at a project level. It does not suffer from the uncertainties associated

with no till farming or a requirement to lock up large areas of land dedicated to perpetual forestry with

insurance against a residual risk of bushfire”.

Compared with carbon found in humic material, the carbon in biochar generally resists degradation

and entering the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This means that sequestered carbon may be stored

within the soil for hundreds to thousands of years (Krull, 2009). The process of sequestering carbon in

the soil by biochar is considered “carbon negative”. This is due to the carbon being held in the biochar

would have otherwise remained in the natural photosynthesis cycle and would have been released to

the atmosphere during decomposition. Lehman (2006) notes that conversion of biomass carbon to

biochar applied to soil sequesters around 50% of the initial carbon content compared to 3%

sequestered through burning and 10-20% through biological decomposition (after 5-10years). It is

noted that not all biochar technologies are carbon negative due to carbon leakage and poor

combustion systems. It is essential that understanding, monitoring and auditing of the system is

carried out to verify carbon offsets generated.



72 43177679/03/H

Enquiries by Eco Waste (August 2009) have established the following:

i) PEF manufactured to a pre-agreed specification (not onerous) would be attractive to a local

kiln operator for $50-$100/t, but price negotiations would need to include quality, quantity and

reliability of supply issues.

ii) Grade A and B materials would be immediately attractive at the Port Kembla steel works for

carbonising into coal/coke replacements, at a finished product value of between $150-$200/t

depending again on quality, quantity and reliability of supply. Port Kembla steel works has a

potential demand for between 1.5 MT and 2MT/pa of finished product.

iii) Two national fertilizer companies have been identified that have immediate demand for Grade

A sourced biochar for agricultural purposes at prices in the $300-$500/t range as previously

discussed and in volumes of 20,000 tpa to >100,000 tpa respectively; again final pricing

dependent on quality, quantity and reliability of supply.

These values will be further verified before including in the finally accepted scenarios for modelling.

5.2.3 Syngas and Bio-oils

The assumption proposed for the scenarios is that bio-oils be presented as syngas and/or biochar,

since these materials are currently problematic to refine into recognisable products due to their

molecular complexity.

Bio-oils may well be valuable products in the future, when specialist bio-refineries have been

established nationally, but in the short to medium term it is proposed that any subsequent vendor

enquiries or EOI/tender processes stipulate that bio-oil production be minimised, or completely

avoided in favour of increased syngas or biochar production.

Syngas (pyrolysis) can be directly converted to power via turbines or reciprocating engines. Such

power would be marketed as noted above.

Syngas and bio-oils can also be applied directly in a pyrolysis process to provide the parasitic energy

requirements for the process heat necessary. In the scenarios, the potential syngas volumes available

will be discounted by the likely internal process consumption, before estimating possible power

generation.

5.3 Indicative Capital and O&M Cost The costs estimate for thermal conversion technologies provided by the suppliers varies greatly. This

large variation in the costs between suppliers resulted for the following reasons:

• Some supplier submitted information for systems larger or smaller than that envisioned for this

waste disposal facility. URS had to adjust and re-scaled these costs.

• Most of the “emerging technology” firms (those without commercial facilities) do not have strong

cost and revenue data. For example, some plasma technology supplier with energy production

does not have substantiated data and/or long track records utilizing MSW as feedstock.

Revenue generated by thermal conversion technology facilities depends on the sale of electricity. A

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a local utility company can be signed with a fixed cost of

electricity ($/MWh). Table 5-3 summaries the costs associated with different conversion technologies.



43177679/03/H 73

Table 5-3 Summary of Costs and Energy generation for Thermal Conversion Technologies

Technology Throughput (Wet TPY)

Approx Capital Cost ($M)

Annual Net O&M Cost ($M/yr)

Average

Energy

Generation

(kWh/ton)

Annual Energy Generation (MWh) 50,000t/yr

Approx No of Canberra homes (based on 8000 kWh/yr per home)

Pyrolysis 50,000 50 5.0 615 30,750 3,844

Gasification 50,000 40 7.0 650 32,500 4,063

Pyrolysis/ Gasification

50,000 70 8.1 700 35,000 4,375

Plasma Gasification

50,000 90 8.5 800 40,000 5,000

Assumptions:

• Conversion technology capital and annual O&M costs are based on information provided by

different international technology suppliers. It is noted that locally based suppliers have indicated

the capital cost of a 50,000tpa (wet) pyrolysis plant would be in the range of AUD $20 to 30m

depending on the extent of works and material / labour prices. The actual cost of a TCT suitable

for the ACT would need to be confirmed through a call for tender process.

• The costs of preprocessing, and land acquisition is not included.

5.4 Diversion Rate

Thermal conversion technologies in general (pyrolysis, gasification, pyrolysis /gasification, and plasma

gasification) have a diversion rate between 80- 98 %. If the solid by products from high temperature

gasification and plasma gasification (slag) can be used as road base or as construction material, the

diversion rate can be nearly 100%.

Diversion rate for Anaerobic Digestion is lower (approximately 60%) because it generates up to 40%

digestate or solid by products. Some suppliers are processing the digestate further to make compost.

5.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The results of several life cycle assessments performed indicate that GHG emissions of thermal

conversion technologies are much lower than any other alternative of MSW disposal including landfills.

GHG emissions for each technology can be calculated based on the diversion rate from the landfill

and in metric ton carbon equivalent (MTCE). Life Cycle Assessment indicated that the annual

emissions from a thermal conversion facility with 1,200 tonnes/day throughput are estimated to be up

to 300,000MTCE. If requested in the future, URS can provide support as part of a detailed feasibility

study to estimate MTCE numbers for each category of technologies and compare them with other

landfill disposal.



74 43177679/03/H

5.6 Air Emission Control

TCTs are quite different to direct incineration facilities in terms of their design, and therefore air

emissions characteristic differ as well. Some of the key design and operational characteristics of

TCTs in relation to generation and management of air emissions include:

• Since pyrolysis and gasification processes occur in a reducing environment, typically using indirect

heat, and without free air or oxygen, or with a limited amount of air or oxygen, the formation of

unwanted organic compounds or trace constituents is minimised.

• Pyrolysis and gasification reactors are typically closed, pressurized systems, so that there are no

direct air emission points. Contaminants are removed from the syngas and/or from the flue gases

prior to being exhausted from a stack.

• Incorporating first point of receival material recovery facilities, in order to produce a more

homogeneous feedstock; this provides the opportunity to remove significant amounts of chlorine-

containing plastics (as recyclables), which may otherwise contribute to the formation of organic

compounds or trace constituents.

• The volume of syngas produced in the conversion of the feedstock is considerably lower than the

volume of flue gases formed in the combustion of MSW in incineration facilities. Smaller gas

volumes are easier and less costly to treat, and allow for the use of a wider variety of control

technologies.

• Pre-cleaning of the syngas is possible prior to combustion in a boiler, and is required when

producing chemicals or prior to combustion in a gas turbine in order to reduce the potential for

corrosion in this sensitive equipment. Syngas precleaning serves to reduce overall air emissions.

• Syngas produced by thermal conversion technologies is much more homogeneous and cleaner-

burning fuel than from incineration of MSW.

Air emission control and processing systems that may be required by a TCF in the ACT include:

• When the syngas is combusted in a boiler, or gas turbine, automated combustion controls and

furnace geometry (for boilers) designed to optimize residence time, temperature, and turbulence to

ensure complete combustion.

• For combustion of syngas in a boiler, low-NOx burners and/or a Selective Non-catalytic Reduction

(SNCR) system for reduction of NOx emissions. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is typical for

exhaust gases from reciprocating engines and gas turbines.

• Baghouse (fabric filter) for removal of particulate matter from flue gases.

• Activated carbon injection (followed by a baghouse) for removal of trace metals (such as mercury).

• Wet scrubber for removal of chlorides/HCl (may produce saleable HCl).

• Wet, dry, or semi-dry scrubber for SO2 (may produce saleable gypsum).

• Final baghouse for removal of fine particulate matter after dry or semi-dry scrubbers.

Air emission control equipment to accomplish this syngas and/or flue gas cleanup is commercially

available, and could be applied to the proposed facility in the ACT to meet the likely emission limits as

discussed in Section 4.2. Local TCT suppliers such as Pacific Pyrolysis and Crucible Carbon would

be able to carry out pilot plant testing of ACT waste samples, to assess potential air emissions against

proposed emission limits.



43177679/03/H 75

5.7 Discussion of Potential International Service Providers

The discussion presented below of potential international service providers is based on information

obtained from the URS (2005) study for the City of Los Angeles, and additional marketing information

provided in the respective company websites. No independent assessment of the information

provided has been undertaken by URS as part of this study. It is understood that as part of the next

stage of the project a more detailed request for information or expression of interest would be

submitted to the potential providers to obtain further updated information.

5.7.1 WasteGen (UK) Ltd

Internet Site Address: http://www.wastegen.com/

Overview

WasteGen (UK) Ltd. is an energy from waste venture that supplies and operates materials and energy

recovery plants for municipal wastes. The core technique of the company is to generate electricity

and heat from solid waste and wastewater sludge by using Pyrolysis Energy Recovery. This

technique has been widely used in Europe to treat solid waste and wastewater sludge for many years.

The waste treatment plants at Burgau and Hamm-Euentrop in Germany with a separate treatment

capacity of 36,000 tonne per year and 100,000 tonne per year respectively are successful applications

of this technique.

Technology Process

The materials and energy are recovered from the incoming waste stream in a conventional materials

segregation process, followed by a pyrolysis gas production process. The gas is subsequently burnt

in either a Gas Turbine or a burning chamber to raise steam to drive a Steam Turbine. The materials

segregation is designed to remove the unsuitable material, the material for composting and the

recyclable materials both mechanically and if required, by manual selection.

The process can be designed to maximise the amount of recycling and composting required by a

particular customer and varied in operation to respond to changing market opportunities. The

pyrolysis process is capable of significant variations in fuel input and is capable of far exceeding the

requirements of all known and anticipated legislative requirements. No waste is burnt in this process

and the gas that is produced is burnt in controlled conditions to generate electricity.

Commercial Status

The plant at Burgau was engineered in the 1970’s and was commissioned in 1984. It has operated

continuously since then with an annual input of 34,000 tonnes of municipal waste. Its kilns are rated

at 2.6 tonnes per hour. The 100,000 tonne/year facility at Hamm-Uentrop went into service in 2001.

Its kilns are rated at 7.3 tonnes/hour each. The service provider claims an electricity production rate of

675 kWh/ton net of feedstock.



76 43177679/03/H

5.7.2 Ebara Corporation

Overview

Ebara Corporation is a large Japanese engineering firm established in 1912 with over 16,000

employees and net sales of A$5.7 billion in 2009. The environmental engineering arm of Ebara

provides a range of solutions for managing solid waste including gasification technologies. To date,

Ebara have successfully developed and implemented over 100 waste processing plants, including

MSW incinerators and gasifiers

Technology Process

The Twin Rec technology is one of Ebara’s most advanced technologies for gasification of MSW and

other solids and liquid wastes. Twin Rec is a combination of fluid bed gasification and ash melting,

coupled with immediate combustion of the syngas in a high-temperature chamber. This gasification

process converts the MSW to syngas, and the combustion of the syngas in the high temperature

combustion chamber cause the inorganic component of the MSW (ash) to be converted to a molten

slag.

Ebara’s waste management solution combines the following goals in the thermal treatment process:

• Complete destruction of toxic potential of waste

• Maximised recycling of metals and construction materials, and

• Efficient energy recovery.

Commercial Status

The TwinRec process has been in commercial operation since 2000. Ebara Corporation has

approximately 11 gasification facilities currently in operation, collectively processing 1,462 tonnes of

MSW, 1,063 tonnes of industrial waste and 16 tonnes of sewage sludge per day, and is considered to

be in full-scale development. Key reference facilities are outlined in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Ebara Reference Facilities

Facility City Start-up Feedstock Throughput (TPY)

Power output

Aomori Renewable Energy Recycling Corporation

City of Aomori, Japan

2000 Shredder residue, sewage sludge

20t/h 17MW

Sakata Area Clean Union Sakata City, Japan

2002 MSW, sewage sludge 70,000 2MW

Ube City Environmental Preservation Centre Waste Disposal Centre

Ube City, Japan 2002 MSW, sewage sludge 72,000 4.1MW

Asahi Clean Centre Kawaguchi City, Japan

2003 MSW, fly ash 168,000 12MW

Chuno Union Seki City, Japan 2003 MSW 60,000 2MW

Minami-Shinshu Japan 2003 MSW 35,000 0.8MW

Nagareyama Clean Centre Nagareyama City, Japan

2004 MSW, sewage sludge 75,000 12MW



43177679/03/H 77

5.7.3 Primenergy LLC

Website: http://www.primenergy.com/

Overview

Primenergy, L.L.C. is an Oklahoma based corporation founded in 1995 with principal offices located in

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Their primary business is engineering; procurement and construction of turnkey,

biomass fueled energy conversion and recovery facilities. Their primary products are a unique and

proprietary thermal oxidizers, gasification technology and gas cleaning processes.

The gasification technology employed by Primenergy is air blown, updraft, fixed bed and operates at

sub-atmospheric, sub-stoichiometric conditions. Solid fuel feed rate into the gasifier is modulated

based on an energy demand or may be manually controlled. Air flow into the gasifier is controlled to

maintain a pre-set optimum operating temperature. Negative pressure within the gasifier is controlled

by an induced draft fan that is located down-stream of heat recovery. Their commercial systems vary

in size (converting from 70 to 550 tonnes of biomass per day) and purpose (providing hot air for drying

or steam for various process applications and producing up to 12.8 megawatts of electricity).

At their Tulsa headquarters, Primenergy has a fully functional, commercially sized, gasification test

facility complete with a low-pressure boiler and spark ignited internal combustion engine generator.

This demonstration complex has the capacity to gasify up to thirty tonnes per day or a nominal gross

heat release of about eighteen million Btu's per hour, and they have to date successfully tested over

twenty-five different feedstocks including rice hulls and straw, sugar cane bagasse, poultry litter,

refuse derived fuel, paper plant pulp sludge, and sewage sludge (biosolids) etc. For each new

biomass gasification test, Primenergy employs a third party testing company to conduct stack

compliance testing in accordance with U.S. EPA test methods and reporting protocol, and for all

biomass materials tested to date, the process is autogenetic, requiring no auxiliary fossil fuel to

maintain continuous operation.

There are many possible equipment configurations which can be designed by Primenergy and utilised

downstream of the gasifier.

• The synthetic gas produced by the gasifier may be used as boiler fuel and the flue gas directed to a

boiler to produce medium or high-pressure steam.

• Medium pressure steam has been used for various processes; i.e. rice parboiling or soybean

processing.

• High-pressure steam has been used to drive steam turbines for the production of electricity.

For some of the systems, all or a portion of the flue gas has been used both directly and indirectly to provide dry heat for material drying operations.

Technology Process

Primenergy has developed and patented a method of cooling and cleansing the synthesis gas to a

specification necessary for use as a fuel source in an internal combustion engine, Particulate and

Aerosol Removal System (PARS). Coupled to an electrical generator, this method of electrical

generation requires less capital investment and is more efficient than electrical production using steam

for applications under five megawatts. The wet scrubbing of the synthesis gas does not recover the

thermal energy of the gas in usable energy output, but this sacrifice is offset by the reduction in capital

expense of the internal combustion engines. A second use synthesis gas produced by the gasifier and



78 43177679/03/H

cleansed by PARS™ may be the production of synthetic organic liquids such as ethanol, acetic acid or

synthetic crude oil stocks by either fermentation or catalytic conversion. A third use may be as a fuel

for gas turbines. For large-scale energy production, the use of a synthesis gas fueled turbine may offer

increased efficiency in energy output.

Feedstocks that have undergone some type of post-harvest processing, such as poultry litter, or

animal waste, human waste, paper pulp sludge, and refuse derived fuel, often contain contaminants,

which potentially limit their use as fuels In an intermediate step between the gasifier and a thermal

conversion system, the hot syngas is dry scrubbed in a process, which is called Synthesis Gas

Scrubbing Systems or S3 Technology. After hot cleansing, the synthesis gases from contaminated

biomass may be safely and cleanly burned. Examples of these fuels and their markets are poultry litter

– poultry integrators; sewage sludge – municipal wastewater treatment; and co-firing of refuse derived

fuel in electric utility boilers – electric utilities.

Commercial Status

Primenergy’s claims that its gasification technology is proven at commercial scale at throughputs over

100,000 tonnes/year. Primenergy’s first commercial facility employing its gasification technology has

operated continuously for over eighteen years. There are seventeen other Primenergy gasifiers in

commercial operation worldwide, using a wide range of biomass feedstocks.

Table 5-5 Primenergy Reference Facilities


Feedstock

Riceland Foods (steam and power production)

Stuttgart, AR U.S. 195,000 Rice hulls

Rice processor Jonesboro, AR U.S. 115,000 Rice hulls

Olive processing plant (olive wastes to syngas combusted in internal

combustion engines for power)

Rossano Italy 35,000 Olive waste

Wood Waste Gasification & Thermal Oxidation

Little Falls, Minnesota

U.S. 100,000 waste wood or other biomass materials

Sewage Sludge Destruction Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

U.S. 87,600 75% moisture content sewage sludge

5.7.4 Interstate Waste Technologies

http://www.iwtonline.com/

Overview

IWT is a development company that privately finances, designs, constructs, and operates waste

processing facilities. IWT uses the Thermoselect technology, a patented process, incorporating high

temperature gasification to recycle municipal waste into clean energy and useful products.

IWT maintains offices in: Middleburg, Virginia; Charles County, Maryland; and Malvern, Pennsylvania.



43177679/03/H 79

Technology Process

The Thermoselect technology requires no pre-processing, and no recyclables are removed from the

MSW. Very large pieces of MSW, such as engines and white goods, are typically removed as rejects

in the tipping hall. The Thermoselect technology is a combination of pyrolysis, followed by high

temperature, oxygen-blown, fixed bed gasification. A “plug” of MSW is fed into an externally heated

“degassing” channel, where pyrolysis of the MSW occurs. Syngas is produced, leaving a char and ash

material which is then gasified with oxygen in the directly coupled gasification portion of the process.

The addition of oxygen and natural gas into the lower portion of the gasifier chamber results in

extremely high temperatures, and the inorganic portion of the MSW (ash) is converted to a molten

stream of metals and slag. The molten stream is quench-cooled, forming metal shot and a vitrified

(glass), non-hazardous slag aggregate material.

Following production of syngas, the Thermoselect technology incorporates significant syngas clean-

up, recovery of marketable byproducts, and process wastewater treatment and clean-up. The cleaned

syngas is combusted in reciprocating engines for generation of 11 MW net of electricity for the

100,000 tonnes/year facility, and 124 MW net for the 990,000 tonnes/year facility.

Metals and slag are recovered as byproducts from the gasification, and salts, zinc concentrate, and

sulfur are recovered from the syngas and process water clean-up systems.

Thermoselect has been able to market most or all of the byproducts at other facilities, and IWT

expects to be able to market all of the byproducts generated at the proposed facility for the City of Los

Angeles. Overall diversion from landfill is essentially 100%.

Commercial Status

To put the potential merits of the Thermoselect process to the test, a 110-ton per day demonstration

facility was constructed in Fondotoce, Italy. Research was performed by a variety of universities,

technical institutes, and independent laboratories. After detailed government testing and an extensive

monitoring program, the facility received its commercial license in 1994. After finalizing the

development and optimization of the technology, Thermoselect decommissioned the facility in 1999.

With several commercial plants currently in operation in Japan, using the Thermoselect gasification

technology, this process is considered to be in full-scale development. The approximate total existing

capacity for the Thermoselect process is almost 400,000 tonnes/year.

Table 5-6 Thermoselect Reference Facilities


Feedstock

Chiba Chiba Japan 103,500 MSW, and combinations of MSW and industrial waste

Mutsu Facility Mutsu Japan 47,850 MSW

City of Nagasaki Nagasaki Japan 103,125 MSW

Mizushima Eco Works Kurashiki Japan 191,250 MSW and industrial waste

Yorii Orix Eco Service Yorii Japan 155,000 Industrial Waste

City of Tokushima Tokushima Japan 47,000 MSW

Kyokuto Kaihastsu Izumi Japan 32,800 Industrial waste



80 43177679/03/H

5.7.5 AlterNRG

http://www.alternrg.ca/

Overview

Alter NRG Corp (Alter), based in Calgary, is an energy company that focuses on gasification to create

alternative energy solutions to meet the demand for environmentally responsible energy. Alter NRG

was formally established in March 2006. Alter NRG has established “Alter NRG” a company whose

focus is on the sale of plasma gasification technology which includes the proprietary plasma torch

technology of our wholly owned Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC).

Technology Process

The feed material is dropped in to the Alter NRG Plasma Gasifier which operates at a slightly sub-

atmospheric pressure. A superheated blast of air, provided at the bottom of the reactor, is heated by

passing part of the air through a non-transferred arc plasma torch. Only part of the required

stoichiometric air is provided, yielding a fuel gas mixture containing hydrocarbons, CO, hydrogen and

CO2.

The plasma torch provides approximately 2-5% of the heat input into the reactor vessel, minimizing

the electrical power required in the process. With the plasma heated air entering the plasma gasifier at

10,000oF (5,500

oC).

In a traditional combustion process, an ash film forms on the material which restricts the passage of

oxygen into the feed material limiting the rate of the chemical reactions. To penetrate this ash film

traditional designs increase the operating pressure, concentration and/or quantity of oxygen required

in the process. The additional volume of process oxygen increases velocities in the reactor, increasing

the carryover of particulate and tars which can occur in competing designs.

The elevated temperatures in the plasma gasification zone prevent the formation of ash film on the

feed material. As ash is formed it will quickly melt allowing the oxygen free access to the feed to

continue the gasification process. As such, the plasma gasifier can operate on air only with oxygen at

reduced quantities improving the overall process. Inorganic material in the feed melts to form a liquid

slag which, when quickly cooled, forms a vitrified glass demonstrated to pass TCLP testing for

leachate. The slag material can be used as an aggregate, and eliminating land filled of hazardous ash

which can be required with other gasification or incineration technologies.

Foundry coke, in measured batches, is added to the plasma gasifier with the feed material to form a

porous bed at the bottom of the plasma gasifier. The porous coke provides avenues for the plasma-

heated air to travel throughout the inside diameter of the plasma gasifier contacting a wide area of

feed material. Additionally with the porous bed the molten metals and slag can easily flow by gravity to

the bottom of the reactor where they can be removed.

According to Alter NRG the plasma gasifier needs little pre-treatment of feed material with only

primarily external drying required for high moisture fuels, and reducing the sizing of large materials to

meet the specifications for the plasma gasifier selected for the project.

According to Alter NRG high moisture feeds can be handled in the plasma gasifier, including slurries

and liquids. Our research testing has indicated that the overall energy efficiency of our plasma gasifier

can be increased as the moisture content in the feed materials is reduced.



43177679/03/H 81

Commercial Status

In the mid 1990s WPC in cooperation with Hitachi Metals began a pilot testing program to confirm the

capability of the plasma system to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) and other waste materials to

produce a syngas which could be used in a power plant for the production of steam and electricity.

A series of tests were completed at the WPC Plasma Center in Madison, US, using a variety of feed

materials and at varying moisture contents. These tests requested by Hitachi Metals provided the

technical basis for the design and installation of a pilot scale 24 ton/day MSW gasification plant in

Yoshi, Japan.

The Japanese government awarded a process certification of the technology in September 2000, and

the Westinghouse Plasma Gasification Vitrification Reactor was established (now called the Alter NRG

Plasma Gasifier).

Lessons learned at Yoshi were applied to full scale facilities in Mihama-Mikata and Utashinai Japan,

which both began commercial operation in 2002 and 2001 and continue operating today.

Two installations in India to treat common hazardous wastes are currently under construction near the

cities of Pune and Nagpur.

The facility in Pune began commercial operation at 50% capacity during April 2009, and is expected to

increase in capacity after the plant power generating equipment is installed. The Nagpur facility is

under construction and is slated to begin operation in late 2009.

A project for the treatment of 144 tons/day of chemical waste for a client in Turkey is completing the

engineering design and the plasma torch systems are expected to ship in 2010. Alter NRG reference

facilities are outlined in Table 5-7

Table 5-7 Alter NRG Reference Facilities

Date Installed Buyer

Application

Plasma Torch Systems

2009

Expected

Start-up – Q4

SMS Infrastructure, Ltd.

Nagpur, India

Commercial Gasification of Common Hazardous Waste

2 - Marc-3a

2009

Under going Start-up – Q1

SMS Infrastructure, Ltd.

Pune, India

Commercial Gasification of Common Hazardous Waste

2 - Marc-3a

2002 Hitachi Metals Ltd.

Mihama/Mikata, Japan

Commercial Gasification of MSW & Waste Water Sludge

4 - Marc-3a

2001 Hitachi Metals Ltd.

Utashinai, Japan - Eco-Valley Waste-to-Energy Facility

Gasification of Auto Shredder Residue & Refuse Derived Fuel

8 - Marc-3a

Attached below is a summary table of international suppliers with commercial references processing

MSW/RDF on a sustained basis overseas:



82 43177679/03/H

Table 5-8 Summary Table of International MSW TCT Suppliers (Ref Juniper, 2008)

Process Supplier

Country of supplier

No. of Plants

Location of plants

Min/Max throughout ktpa

Configuration of commercial reference projects

Ebara Japan 8 Japan 21 – 183 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Energos / EnerG

Norway / UK 8 Norway, Germany, UK

37 -875 gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

Foster Wheeler

1

Finland 1 Finland 100 gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

Hitachi Ltd Japan 3 Japan 11 – 78 pyrolysis + close coupled comb. of gas

Hitachi Metals (Alter NRG)

Japan 22 Japan 7 – 55

plasma gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

Hitachi Zosen

Japan 7 Japan 17 – 135 gasification + melting + close couple combustion of syngas

IHI Japan 4 Japan 27 – 80 pyrolysis + melting _ close coupled combustion of syngas

ITI Energy UK 1 Turkey3 12 gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

JFE Japan 16 Japan 32 – 185

1. pyrolysis + gasification + melting + close coupled comb. of syngas, gasif. + melting + syngas to gas engine, gasif. + melting + close coupled comb.

Kawasaki Giken

Japan 5 Japan 12 – 55 gasification + melting close coupled combustion of syngas

KHI Japan 2 Japan 25 – 100 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Kobelco Japan 7 Japan 20 – 76 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Mitsubishi Heavy

Japan 1 Japan 80 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Mitsui Japan 6 Japan 47 – 133 pyrolysis + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Nippon Steel Japan 26 Japan 22 – 240 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Sumitomo Heavy Ind.

Japan 1 Japan 44 gasification + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Takuma Japan 3 Japan 42 – 54 pyrolysis + melting + close coupled combustion of syngas

Techtrade Germany 2 Germany 32 – 100 pyrolysis + syngas over-the-fence

Thide France 1 France 50 pyrolysis + close coupled comb. of gas

Toshiba Japan 1 Japan 30 pyrolysis + gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

TPS Sweden 1 Italy 50 Gasification + close coupled combustion of syngas

Source: Juniper database, 2008

Note to table: 1Seems to now be focussing on biomass, not waste 2also act as references for Canadian company Alter NRG who own the underlying (Westinghouse) technology and have announced a number of new projects 3Plant in Turkey, but no longer appears to cite this as a reference plant.



43177679/03/H 83

5.8 Discussion of Potential Domestic Service Providers

Outlined below are potential local service providers who have undertaken their own research and

development of gasification and pyrolysis TCT’s. This information was obtained directly from the

suppliers and from available published information. No independent assessment of the information

provided has been undertaken by URS as part of this study. It is understood that as part of the next

stage of the project a more detailed request for information or expression of interest would be

submitted to the potential providers to obtain further updated information.

5.8.1 Pacific Pyrolysis

Refer to Chapter 6 for a detailed case study on the Pacific Pyrolysis Process.

5.8.2 Crucible Carbon

Company Overview

Company website: www.cruciblecarbon.com

Crucible Carbon Pty Ltd was formed by a partnership between The Crucible and Warnken ISE in

2008. The Crucible is a research and consulting organisation that links sustainability, business

strategy, innovation and science, with a strong industry focus. Warnken ISE is an environmental

business development consultancy. Crucible Carbon headquarters are in Sydney, with a research

and development centre in Newcastle (two hours north of Sydney).

Technology Overview

The Crucible Carbon Pyrolysis technology produces a syngas that can be used for electricity

generation, in addition to biochar. The pilot plant was commissioned in late 2008 and has a capacity

of approximately 100 to 400 kg/hr (depending on the feedstock).

According to Crucible Carbon, their pyrolysis technology can process a wide range of biomass

sources. Potential sources include:

• Purpose grown woody crops for example, interspersed mallee in wheat country

• Woody weeds

• Sawmill residues

• Plantation forestry residues

• Urban wood residues (demolition)

• Agricultural residues such as straw and bagasse

• Pulp and paper residues

• Other organic and industrial residues

A schematic of the Crucible Carbon plant layout is shown in Figure 5-3 below. Biomass is unloaded in

the tipping area at minus 150mm sized particle. A front end loader mixes biomass as required and

loads into the hammer mill hopper.



84 43177679/03/H

The hammer mill processes product down to minus 20mm particle size. These particles pass through

quality assurance (QA) screening such as magnets (to remove metal) and trommels (to remove

oversize particles). End sized product is fed into a dosing bin which then feeds to the pyrolysis

reactor. The commercial module will have the capacity to process one dry tonne per hour. The

generated biogas is fed to a stand alone 1 MW nominal capacity electricity generator via a handling

unit if required. Biochar is conveyed to storage for transport to metallurgical, thermal or agricultural

markets. Pyrolysis water is fed to handling tanks and is used in biochar densification or used off site.

The capital cost of the whole facility will vary according to material accepted onsite, feedstock pre-

processing requirements, storage needs, electrical connections, number of module installed at a

facility and other regional specific (such as cost and availability of land).

Figure 5-3 Conceptual Layout of Pyrolysis Facility

Key competitive features of the technology, as claimed by the company (not independently verified by

URS) include:

• No pre-drying of biomass required unlike other pyrolysis technologies. Biomass containing up to

50 percent moisture can be processed directly without requiring expensive drying equipment.

• Processing for a wide variety of type and size in feedstock enables wider and easier supply of

feedstock with less cost to process and simple infrastructure and operating requirements..

• Multiple product streams of biochar and biogas increase market options- heat and power from the

biogas and large scale agricultural, thermal coal and metallurgical markets fro the biochar.



43177679/03/H 85

• Each dry tonne equivalent of biomass processed will generate approximately 1MWh of electricity

(from biogas and genset) and 350kg of biochar. It is noted that this net electricity generation is

highly dependent on the energy content of the feedstock used in the process, and is considerably

higher than other pyrolysis systems evaluated.

• Effective carbon abatement estimated at above 1.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne

of biomass (dry weight basis)

Commercial Status

A commercial module is being designed for construction and deployment in 2010 for Rainbow Bee

Eater Pty Ltd in Western Australia. This module will have an annual capacity of approximately 8000

dry tonne equivalent.

5.8.3 New Energy Corporation

New Energy Corporation Pty Ltd (New Energy) based in Perth, Western Australia, has exclusive rights

to the Entech-WtGas-RESTM renewable energy technology for Australia and New Zealand. In

Australia, New Energy operates in an alliance with Instant Waste Management Group of Companies

(IWM). IWM is one of WA’s largest privately owned waste management companies. New Energy

plans to augment IWM’s existing waste separation operations by the inclusion of the Entech-WtGas-

RESTM renewable energy process, to utilise non-recyclable “waste streams” as an energy source and

thereby achieve significant or total waste utilisation, with associated renewable energy benefits. New

Energy will establish stand-alone storage and waste separation facilities in “key” strategic regional

areas incorporating the Entech-WtGas-RESTM renewable energy process.

Overview of Entech-WtGas-RESTM Technology

The Entech-WtGas-RESTM technology is based upon:

• conversion of the chemical compounds in waste or biomass from their solid to gaseous form to

produce syngas (a methane based gas); and

• firing of the syngas to produce renewable energy.

The Entech-WtGas-RESTM process is illustrated in Figure 5-4.



86 43177679/03/H

Figure 5-4 Entech-WtGas-RESTM process

Key stages of the process are described in the following sections.

Feeding Device (FD) receives RDF from the materials handling stage

The Gasification Chamber receives the RDF and heats it to the required ignition temperature in a sub-

stiochiometric environment. The RDF is converted from solid to gaseous phase. The syngas is volatile

and energy rich and is used downstream in the process. Large volume and low sub-stiochiometric air

flow minimises process velocity (1/50th that of combustion). Unique churning and stoking device

(patent applied for) required due to absence of the pneumatic action of air.

Syn-Gas Manufacture Stage –Solid Residue Discharge

The RDF feed is subjected to the gasification process for 16-24 hours. All carbon and organic matter

is converted to syngas. The remaining small portion of incombustible matter and ash is discharged as

solid residue. It is biologically inert and relatively carbon free and therefore suitable for landfill disposal

and complies with stringent leachate regulations. It is also suitable as a constituent for concrete and

fertiliser, or can be granulated into a ceramic type inert road base.

Syngas Firing Stage

The syngas burner receives the syngas and fires it instead of fossil fuels. The syngas burner is a

technologically advanced high efficiency, 3-stage low NOx gas-burner. The syngas burner is used to

fire the downstream steam boiler or other energy utilisation devices.

SYN-GAS BURNER ENERGY UTILISATION HEAT EXCHANGER

PYROLYTIC GASIFICATION CHAMBER TURBINE / GENERATOR

AIR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM



43177679/03/H 87

Energy Utilisation Stage

The syngas fired steam boiler utilises the heat energy for steam generation, which is subsequently

utilised downstream for electrical power generation. Through a distinct “over-design” basis, a corner-

tube design, water-tube type steam boiler is adopted to produce high-pressure steam. It is designed

for high solids content of inlet gas, but is applied to ultra-low solids content, so as to maximize

efficiency and minimise down-time for cleaning

Air Quality Control Stage

The Air Quality Control System (AQCS) receives the cooled off-gas for cleaning. The untreated off-

gas from syngas burner firing is environmentally superior to firing of many conventional fossil fuels,

even-so cleaning is undertaken to enable compliance with stringent environmental regulations and to

provide minimal environmental impact. The AQCS design is based upon “best available control

technology” (BACT).

Flow Control Stage

The cleaned exhaust gas exiting the AQCS is induced through the Duplex Induced Draft Fan System

(DIDFS). Pressure controlled variable speed drive of the ID Fans is adopted so as to maintain the

entire system under vacuum. Additionally all feed and discharge orifices of the entire system are

pressure sealed or valve sealed to eliminate the potential escape of fugitive emissions.

Steam Turbine & Power Generator Stage

The high pressure steam produced by the EUHX is connected via a steam manifold to the Steam

Turbine & Power Generator System (ST&PGS). Key features of the ST & PGS are:

• it generates 11kV, 3 ph, 50 Hz electrical power;

• the complete system includes: Multi-stage turbine, turbo-alternator and voltage regulation;

• automatic voltage regulation (AVR);

• an air/water-cooled condenser to recover steam as condensate for re-use in the steam circuit; and

• a closed loop glycol-based air/water turbine cooling system.

Commercial Status

New Energy consider the technology to be well proven, with over 100 facilities (according to New

Energy) installed world wide. Table 5-9 provides a summary of four commercially operating

installations of the Entech-WtGas-RESTM technology located in Asia.



88 43177679/03/H

Table 5-9 Entech-WtGas-RESTM Operating Facilities

PROJECT NO. 1134

PROJECT NO. 1123

PROJECT NO. 1106

PROJECT NO. 1072

THERMAL CAPACITY (MW)

6.9 5.8 5.7 3.5

APPLICATION RDF RDF RDF RDF

RDF TYPE MSW(@ 10.0 MJ/kg)

Byproduct of Food Processing (@ 7 MJ/kg)

Industrial (@ 25.0 MJ/kg)

MSW (@ 10.0 MJ/kg)

RDF CAP (tonnes/day) 60 72 25 30

ENV. STD Not Available Compliance to equal of US-EPA

Compliance to US-EPA

Compliance to US-EPA

CUSTOMER: Sri Layang Municipality

Singapore Food Industries

LG Engineering Chung Gung Municipality

DATE INSTALLED 1998 1997 1997 1991

LOCATION: Malaysia Singapore Korea Taiwan

It is interesting to note from a Corporate Risk Management perspective that following several years of

extensive due diligence the Entech-WtGas-RESTM renewable energy process has secured Aon / QBE

/ AIG underwriting support, including for:

• Construction Phase: covers loss of anticipated revenue and increase costs of construction due to

the delay in the completion of the construction phase;

• System Performance Insurance (underwrites performance upon start-up); and

• Maintained Availability Insurance (underwrites performance after start-up for agreed periods

ranging from 12 to 60 months).

As an example, New Energy noted that they would insure that the plant would be available for 8,000

hours per annum (91% availability). The expected revenue from 8,000 hours operation in terms of

gate fees and energy sales is covered by the insurance policy. Any shortfall in expected revenue is

covered by the policy. According to New Energy this is a feature that no other gasification company

can offer and gives clients certainty about future revenue streams.

5.8.4 Corky’s

Corky’s is a gasifier technology provider based in Mayfield, NSW. The Company is structured into

three separate companies:

• Corky’s Carbon and Combustion (IP development and research company)

• Corky’s Carbon and Consultancy (Provider of skilled consultants), and

• Corky’s Sustainable Energy (Supply, project delivery, and plant operation)

Overview of Technology

Corky’s have developed an updraft gasifier with dry scrubbing and catalytic conversion, gas quenching

and bag house. The power plant is combined cycle using Otto and Rankine cycles with waste heat

used for drying. Corky’s have recently exported their first system to Jordan in October 2009, and are

developing three other facilities. The throughputs of the facilities currently under development vary

between 1tpd and 50tpd. The types of feedstock considered suitable for the Corky’s system include



43177679/03/H 89

MSW, greenwaste and manures. The power produced per tonne of waste processed varies

depending on the size of plant and moisture content of the feedstock. According to Corky’s the plant

efficiency varies between 11% and 33%, for a feedstock with 50% moisture. In theory, according to

Corky’s, based on a throughput of 72,000 tonnes per annum of MSW at 50% moisture, a facility based

on the Corky’s technology would yield approximately 3.6MWe net electricity. Corky’s were able to

provide recent emission testing data for their 50tpd facility processing MSW, as given in the table

below.

Table 5-10 Air emission test data from Corky's Gasifier

Parameter Corky’s 50t/day plant test results US EPA Standard for small MSW Incinerators (less than 250t/day)

VOC 15 to 25 ppm (v) -

NOx 100 to 200 ppm (v) Up to 150 ppm(v)

Phenol 20 to 50ppb (v) -

Cresol 10 to 20 ppb (v) -

Total Particles 5 to 15 mg/ Nm3 dust 24 mg/dscm

Dioxin and furan <0.1 ng/Nm3 (to be confirmed) 13 ng/Nm

3

5.8.5 Real Power Systems

Real Power Systems (RPS) is a Canberra based firm run by Peter Davies and Kerry Davies. RPS has

developed relatively small scale (100 to 500kg/hr throughput) biomass gasifier’s.

Overview of Technology

RPS describes their gasification unit as a mature first generation linear hearth design, which can be

referred to as a downdraft tar burning gasifier. The system produces a clean “tar” free syngas suitable

for engine or boiler use. The first prototype system developed by RPS has been tested with a

throughput of 150kg/hr. A new system recently built has a capability of around 250kg/hr and will

commence independent testing shortly. A third smaller trailer mounted system used by RPS engine

suppliers for generator load testing and fuel intake design optimisation, has a throughput of 100 kg/hr.

A fourth system intended as the standard module for commercial scale industry production, has

recently commenced fabrication and has a planned throughput of 500kg/hr of biomass.

The following material has been successfully gasified using the prototype systems developed by RPS:

• Hardwood & softwood chips & chunks;

• Fine ground mixed species garden mulch chips;

• Macadamia shell;

• Shredded woody residues from composting operations including some mixed plastics (<5%);

• Mixed transformer waste including compressed cardboard, bakelite insulators, lump tar, oil soaked

timber, aluminium coated paper rolls, polyethylene cable sheathing;

• Cotton trash;

• Sugar cane trash;

• Oil Mallee residues (leaf and stem);

• Sawdust briquettes;

• Cattle manure briquettes (40% ash);

• Anthracite briquettes; and



90 43177679/03/H

• Lignite briquettes.

Restrictions: So far problems have occurred with ash slagging where the materials used are

contaminated with iron/steel or ground glass.

Generally RPS expects carbonaceous materials will be suitable subject to their ability to form a porous

char bed or are placed in a mixture with other materials that do.

Based on processing 8 tonnes per day of tonnes of wood wastes and/or equivalent plantation sourced woody fuels, operating, 24/7 the power generated is claimed by RPS to be approximately 2100 MW per annum.

5.9 TCT Summary

Outlined in Table 5-3 is a summary of the suitable feedstock, key risks, potential suppliers and major

products for each of the thermal technologies discussed above.

Table 5-11 TCT Overview

Technology Suitable Feedstock Key Risks/Issues Potential Suppliers Major Products

Pyrolysis Bio-solids (dewatered sewage sludge)

Wood waste

MSW

Plastics

Plasterboard

Paper/ Cardboard

Capital costs of the facility and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost;

Air Emissions from combustion of Syngas;

Markets for char products; Volume and quality of the syngas produced; Cleaning of the syngas before combustion;

International

Waste Gen (UK)

Global Energy Solution

International Environmental

Solutions (IES)

GEM America

Green Energy Corporation

BTG

Domestic

Pacific Pyrolysis

Crucible Carbon

Syngas

Biochar

Biooils

Gasification Bio-solids (dewatered sewage sludge)

Wood waste

MSW

Plastics

Plasterboard

Paper/ Cardboard

Costs of establishment and operation;

Solid residue (ash) management; visual impact assessment Emissions from fugitive release and combustion of Syngas;

All thermal technologies to some degree have air emissions issues.

International

Ebara Corporation

Energy Product of Idaho

Enerkem Technologies

FERCO Enterprises Inc.

Primenergy LLC,

BTG

Foster Wheeler

Domestic

New Energy Corporation

Real Power Systems

Corky’s

Syngas



43177679/03/H 91

Technology Suitable Feedstock Key Risks/Issues Potential Suppliers Major Products

Pyrolysis/

Gasification

Bio-solids (dewatered sewage sludge)

Wood waste

MSW

Plastics

Plasterboard

Paper/ Cardboard

Costs of establishment and operation;

Odour;

Emissions from fugitive release and combustion of syngas;

International

Interstate Waste Technologies (IWT)

Global Energy Solution, LC

Syngas

Plasma Arc Gasification

Bio-solids (dewatered sewage sludge)

Wood waste

MSW

Plastics

Plasterboard

Paper/ Cardboard

Capital and operational cost.

Heterogeneous like MSW feedstock. No large units are available to process MSW.

Air emissions and other environmental issues,

International

Geoplasma LLC

Plasco

Alter NRG

Syngas


43177679/03/H 93

6

6 Case Studies

6.1 Introduction

The following case studies present further examples of TCT developments in Australia and overseas.

The international case studies presented provide further support to the proposed scenarios, as

described in Section 3.7 of the report. The domestic case study on the Wollongong Solid Waste Solid

Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF) highlights some of the key risks associated with

development of a TCF.

Different approach and design, including combination and hybrid concepts, applied by each supplier

cause significant variation in cost and efficiency estimates. These case studies represent a small

selection of the technologies and providers available in the market and should not be relied on as

criteria for decision making regarding gasification or conversion technologies in general. The selection

of a specific technology and provider would be part of a detailed request for proposal and/or

expression of interest process at a future stage of the project.

6.2 Scenario 2: Power production as main focus

Scenario 2, as described in Section 3.7.2, considers two options:

i) Whether to deliver gasification technology incrementally (based on 2009 (dry) figures);





ii) To consider a transitional strategy such that only one optimally efficient gasification plant is

developed at Phase 3 for some 100,000 t/yr (dry) capacity.

The following two case studies present examples of both small and relatively large gasification

facilities, supporting the feasibility of the above scenario.

6.2.1 Case Study 1: Biomass Gasification (Austria)

This case study outlines a gasification facility in Austria, processing 50 tonnes per day (or around

15,000 tpa) of biomass woodchips. This is smaller than the Phase 1 gasifier, however does provide

guidance on the smaller types of gasification facilities currently available, which may be feasible for

the ACT.

The Technical University of Vienna (TUV) successfully developed the Fast Internal Circulating

Fluidized Bed (FICFB) Process which employs indirect-heating to gasify biomass with air to produce

syngas. The first application for the FICFB process is to service the heat and power needs in the town

of Güssing.


6 Case Studies

94 43177679/03/H

Figure 6-1 Biomass Gasifier Process Flow Diagram

Plate 6-1 The TUV- FICFB Biomass Gasification Process: CHP Demonstration in Güssing (8 MWth capacity, 2.0 MWe + 4.5 MWth Heat, 50 tonnes/day of wood chips from forestry)

The gasifiers including the gas-cleaning units were

commissioned at the end of 2001. The calorific value

of the product synthesis gas is 12–14 MJ/Nm3 and the

tar content after gas cleaning is < 20 mg/Nm3. R&D is

continuing to further reduce the tar content. The

scrubbed, clean product gas was first used to

generate electricity using GE-Jenbacher IC engines

in April 2002. The entire cogeneration heat and power

(CHP) system is performing as per design

specifications in a 3-year demonstration phase (2001

to 2003). At the end of January, 2006, the 8 MWth

capacity demonstration plant had logged-in nearly

22,000 hours of gasifier operation which includes almost 18,000 hours of integrated operation with

GE-Jenbacher engines, producing ~2 MW electricity and 4.5 MW thermal heat for district heating.

6.2.2 Case Study 2: Gasification Facility Aomori, Japan

The following case study outlines a gasification facility in Japan processing around 120,000 tonnes per

annum of automobile shredder waste along with sewage sludge. This case study provides some

guidance on the feasibility of the second option considered under Scenario 2, which is the

establishment of a relatively large gasification facility in Phase 3.


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 95

A waste management solution was sought for the combined residues of five automobile shredding

facilities in the northern part of Japan’s main island. Like in many other regions, landfilling of such

material is undesirable for three reasons: lack of (affordable) landfill capacity, long-term pollution

threat arising from landfills plus recycling targets which have to be met. In addition, capacities for

treatment of mechanically dewatered sewage sludge were needed by the City of Aomori.

Plate 6-2 Shredder residue treatment plant in Aomori, Japan

In a pioneering decision, the Ebara Corporation technology “TwinRec” was chosen for this project,

which became world’s largest thermal shredder residue treatment plant. Commissioning started in

February 2000. It has a thermal capacity of 80 MWth, corresponding to 120,000 tonnes of shredder

residues per year. All shredder residues, including non-metal fractions from heavy liquid separation

units, are fed to the TwinRec gasifier without any further pre-treatment. After the shredder process, the

waste size fits perfectly with the waste specifications for the TwinRec technology.

In addition to the shredder residue up to 30% of the plant feedstock is mechanically dewatered

sewage sludge. Other waste plastic materials are treated at times. A hospital waste feeding system

was installed, which is now feeding sealed boxes of hospital waste directly into the TwinRec gasifier.

Recently, bone meal became another major feed to the plant. As of April 2004, 300,000 tonnes of

shredder residues and 60,000 tonnes of sewage sludge were treated. The flexibility concerning

sewage sludge co-treatment was demonstrated with various amounts of sludge, including shredder

residue treatment alone.

TwinRec is a process that combines fluidized-bed gasification with an ash melting furnace. It can treat

a variety of waste materials, such as waste shredder residues and waste plastics, but also electronics

waste and other industrial residues, municipal waste and sewage sludge. The gasifier features internal

bed circulation combined with external metals separation. It is operated between 550 - 650°C at

atmospheric pressure conditions. The metal in the waste is recovered, as it is neither burned nor

molten or sintered in the process. The fine ash, char and combustible gas is transferred to the second

stage, the cyclonic combustion chamber, where air is added to release the energy necessary to vitrify

the ash to be recycled as stable glass granulates. Heat generated from the process is used to produce

steam for electricity production in steam turbines. In this way, TwinRec turns waste materials into

useable end products – recyclable metals, construction materials and energy – utilising up to 95% of

the waste.


6 Case Studies

96 43177679/03/H

Figure 6-2 TwinRec Gasification with Ash Melting

Figure 6-3 summarises the dual energy and material recycling demonstrated in Aomori. Useful by-

products generated in a year include 5.525 net MW or 37.5 million kWh of electricity, 1,228 tonnes per

year of metals and 11,350 tonnes of slag.

Figure 6-3 Combined energy and material recycling at the Aomori plant


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 97

Magnetic metals, after their separation at the TwinRec plant, are delivered to the shredder plant and

recycled to the scrap industry. Non-ferrous metals (mainly copper and aluminium, and also stainless

steel) as well as the gasifier bottom ash fraction are pre-separated on the plant, and then processed to

a specialized non-ferrous separation plant. With that scheme, the existing equipment optimised for

metals separation can be used.

Copper, aluminium and stainless steel of good quality are sold to the respective metal markets. The

molten glass product fulfils the stringent Japanese soil standard. After grinding, it is sold to the

construction industry, where it is currently used as filler in asphalt. The zinc-rich filter ash is recycled in

the zinc industry.

The energy content of the shredder residues is converted to electricity, which is used to operate other

plants of the same company; the excess is fed to the grid.

Slag can be readily sold for sand-blasting grit, asphalt filler or for manufacture of cement and roofing

tiles.

Overall thermal treatment process is designed to minimise environmental issues. A slight negative

pressure is maintained on the tipping floor to control odours with the air used in the gasification and

combustion processes. The air from combustion is cleaned within the emission control systems before

it is released to the atmosphere to ensure that all regulated emissions, including air toxics, are well

below the applicable EU emission limits. In addition, water is recycled and reused slag cooling, gasifier

cooling water, in the gas cooler, and for conditioning the ash. Following treatment of the wet scrubber

blow down, a 100 Litre per minute stream would be discharged. Depending on the feedstock

composition, between 5-15% of the inlet stream is unmarketable, including non-combustibles removed

from the bottom of the gasifier and conditioned ash from the boiler and fabric filter, and can be

stabilised with water, ferrite and cement for disposal.

The pre-processing, conversion unit and power generation subsystems will be operated on a

continuous basis (24/7) producing syngas and generating electricity for 283 days per year. Staffing is

based on two 12-hour shifts per day with 7 employees per shift with 4 crews. In addition, a manager,

two supervisors, weigh bridge operator and two waste receiving-platform operators will be required

during the day shift. Total staff is 34.

In 2000, the Aomori plant was a pioneer installation. It was the first commercial-scale TwinRec plant

(scaled up by a factor of 10 from the pilot installations) treating a waste material where only limited

experience from thermal treatment was available. Taking this into consideration, the core components

worked satisfactorily from start-up. The shredder residue was found to have more ash and a lower

heating value than original design, so that the thermal capacity allowed for more tonnage to be fed.

Some adaptations in the ash separation system were made to accommodate for the increase in total

ash amount, while the metals separation was adapted to the specific needs of the owners metal

recycling facilities. More work was required to modify the heat recovery boiler. At the conditions of the

ash melting chamber, large amounts of metal and metal compounds are evaporated and condensed

at lower temperature in the boiler. More boiler surface and more advanced boiler cleaning was

required to achieve sufficient cooling of the flue gas. Combined with additional design optimizations,

the desired availability was achieved. Currently, the waste throughput per line is about 20% higher

than the design figures, and each of the additionally co-treated waste materials increases the success

of this breakthrough waste gasification installation.


6 Case Studies

98 43177679/03/H

Ebara’s record using TwinRec technology demonstrates experience and success in design, build and

operation of solid waste management facilities. Even though, this case study presented a facility

taking primarily automobile shredder residue and sewage sludge, as noted in Section 5.6.2, Ebara has

several reference facilities using the TwinRec technology taking MSW and sewage sludge.

6.3 Scenario 3: Iterative development with multiple products

Under Scenario 3 the main TCT is the modular pyrolysis facility that aims to optimise biochar

manufacture, with syngas as the by-product for heat and/or power generation. The following two case

studies provide examples of operating pyrolysis systems, which support the feasibility of this scenario.

6.3.1 Case study 1: Pacific Pyrolysis (formally BEST energies)

Company Overview

Pacific Pyrolysis Pty Limited (PacPyro), based in Somersby, NSW has an exclusive license to exploit

proven pyrolysis technology in the Asia Pacific region through commercial deployment to solve a

number of the sustainability issues facing businesses. The company was formed recently by the

founders in conjunction with the technology licensor, BEST Energies Inc. (BEI). PacPyro has also

purchased the pyrolysis business interests and assets of BEI’s Australian subsidiary BEST Energies

Australia Pty Limited (BEA), including the integrated pyrolysis demonstration plant located at

Somersby.

Technology Overview

The PacPyro technology platform is based on slow pyrolysis, which is the thermo-chemical

decomposition of organic material (biomass) at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This

technology provides carbon negative (removing CO2 from the atmosphere) renewable energy. The

technology recycles waste (non-food) biomass such as animal manures and greenwaste to produce

renewable energy and a very stable form of carbon which can be sequestered beneficially over the

long-term in soils as natural, low-risk sinks. It also products a proprietary biochar called AgricharTM that

has been proven by independent trials to increase food production and sequester carbon over long

periods of time.

Figure 6-4 below shows the technology process in simplified form.


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 99

Figure 6-4 Simplified PacPyro Energies Slow Pyrolysis Process

The technology platform has been engineered to heat organic matter in a vessel, which is designed to

provide an oxygen free environment whilst allowing continuous processing. The organics held under

these conditions do not have the oxygen required to combust, instead they undergo pyrolysis

reactions. The decomposition of the organics at temperature leads to the liberation of a combustible

gas (syngas), a process known as devolatilisation.

The process also yields a solid product, called biochar. The biochar is a concentrated carbon product

which is chemically very stable due to its aromatic structure. The organics entering the process are

prepared to a specification.

The technology is capable of processing feed streams with a large range of particle size distributions

(from dust up to 40mm) and moisture contents (from bone dry to 70%). Notionally any organic

feedstock, which can meet the materials handling specification, either biomass (anything that was

once growing) or fossil (coal, plastics, etc) could be pyrolysed in the system. A wide range of

feedstocks have been demonstrated in the PacPyro trial facilities, many of which present a waste

management issue looking for solutions:

• municipal green waste;

• wood waste (including processing plants, mills, forest residue, packaging timber, construction and

demolition);

• woody weeds;

• bagasse (sugar cane trash);

• paper sludge;

• biosolids (waste water sludges);

• animal manures and bedding;

• nut shells and husks;

• crop residue;

• distillers grain; and

• industrial organic waste.


6 Case Studies

100 43177679/03/H

Contaminants in the feedstock, such as metals and glass, which often prevent the beneficial use of the

organic materials, if within size specification can pass through the process and are comparatively easy

to separate from the friable biochar product. Organics feedstocks are often contaminated with film

plastics, which make them difficult to market. The pyrolysis process is well suited to processing

organics with these contaminants, as they have high energy densities that are converted to syngas,

offering a true alternative to landfill for these materials. It is understood that plastic contamination

levels between 5 to 10% by weight of the feedstock have been successfully treated within the PacPyro

process.

The process operates on a continuous basis, meaning the feed material is constantly fed into the first

unit operation, the rotary drier, from a feed hopper. The drier uses waste heat from the process,

making the overall process very efficient. If the feed material is very wet, syngas produced in the

process may be used to supplement the waste heat. The technology, unlike other applications of

waste organics drying, does not require a large external energy source, which is vulnerable to

increasing energy prices.

Once dried to less than 5% moisture content the organics are fed to an intermediate storage hopper.

This intermediate storage is designed to buffer inevitable variability in the moisture content of the

feedstock, meaning a slug of wetter material coming through the drier does not cause a decrease in

the overall output of the plant. The feedstock is then conveyed from this storage though an air lock

that prevents unwanted air being drawn into the kiln and ensures oxygen-free reaction conditions. The

feedstock is passed through a conditioning screw, which is aligned above the kiln within the kiln jacket,

to enhance the energy recovery from the kiln burners by pre-heating the feedstock. The feedstock falls

from the screw into the main pyrolysis kiln. The kiln design is very robust and economical to

manufacture due to its fixed, mild steel design. Syngas produced in the process is combusted in off-

the-shelf burners sourced from a specialty burner manufacturer in the US who has optimised the

burners for low-NOx production and maximized heat transfer.

As the syngas is evolved it is continuously removed from the kiln, maintaining slight positive pressure.

The syngas is processed through a series of proprietary clean-up operations, which represent the core

of the licensed technology. This eliminates any bio-oils or tars which may be present in the gas

stream, reducing them to smaller hydrocarbon molecules which can be utilised for electricity

production without condensing out and causing fouling. Particulates and moisture are also removed,

however due to the pre-drying the amount of waste water produced is minimal. The syngas is then

suitable to be cooled and utilised for its energy content. This may be in a gas engine/generator for

electricity production, or may be for several thermal energy applications such as raising steam and hot

water, space heating, drying etc. It should be noted that thermal energy applications, where the

syngas energy is used instead of fossil fuel gas inputs such as natural gas, LPG or even coal and

electricity for heating, require closer process integration with other operations onsite. When electricity

is produced, it can be either embedded for use by an onsite customer, who would otherwise have the

expense of retail priced electricity from the grid, or can be sold via a local distribution network (or

national grid) at wholesale rates. The biochar is also continuously removed from the kiln. The heating

rate and highest heating temperature is controlled with extensive substantiating research and

development supporting the biochar characteristics it invokes. The biochar is then introduced to the

biochar conditioner, which facilitates partial activation with steam for enhanced surface area and

polishing of condensates. Partial gasification is also a possibility for increased energy production. The

decoupling of the pyrolysis kiln and biochar conditioner offers a high degree of process control and

hence control of product quality. It also allows for flexibility in optimising the outputs to meet the

market opportunities, whether they are energy or biochar driven.


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 101

This technology description generically describes the process operations, however not all aspects will

necessarily be essential to each project application. The technology is flexible in its ability to

accommodate different feedstocks and produce a range of products. Given that projects have vastly

different objectives the technology can be optimised to provide the case specific outcomes required.

Slow pyrolysis has distinct advantages over other technologies in that it combines solutions for

biomass waste management and resources recovery, with the production of renewable ‘green’ energy,

the increased sustainability of agriculture, increased energy efficiency in industry, carbon

sequestration and rural development. Each solution potentially brings its own income stream,

contributing to the overall feasibility of a project. The potential of this technology to mitigate climate

change can only be realised with the large-scale commercial uptake of the technology, hence the

feasibility of running of pyrolysis plants as a business is considered essential.

As a renewable energy solution, this technology is remarkably flexible and is suitable for

implementation in rural and remote communities. For example, agricultural wastes, instead of

presenting an environmental risk, can be used as a resource and converted to energy in rural areas

where conventional energy sources are stretched and expensive. The syngas stream can be

converted to electricity and/or thermal energy which can then be used either by industry or

domestically. The energy efficiency of several industries can be increased significantly through

producing their energy requirements from their waste biomass resources which are currently sent to

landfill.

AgricharTM

Agrichar is attracting significant interest from soil scientists, agronomists and land owners around the

world because of its connection with the ‘terra preta’ phenomenon. It’s believed that the highly fertile

Amazonian dark earths, or terra preta, were created by pre-Columbian populations thousands of years

ago through the addition of charred organic matter. In the Amazon today, these highly fertile soils are

prized, and despite being intensively cultivated they remain productive without the addition of

fertilisers. The possibility that such productive soils could be sustainably man-made presents a huge

opportunity, and challenge, for agricultural land users, whose current systems cause soil degradation.

New South Wales Department of Industry and Investment (NSW DII, previously Department of

Primary Industries) has formed a research partnership to investigate Agrichar products as agronomic

amendments to increase the productivity and sustainability of agriculture. They are also investigating

the role of Agrichar in climate stabilisation through sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gas

emissions from agricultural soils. As part of a collaborative research program partly funded by the

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), Agrichar was found to increase

agricultural productivity and fertilizer use efficiency by restoring organic carbon and enhancing the

physical, chemical and biological soil properties. The results from initial pot trials were so successful,

with some char amended treatments yielding 266% of the controls, that field trials have been initiated.

This work has also confirmed findings from other international research groups which have reported

improvement to soil health factors including: water holding capacity, soil pH, cation exchange capacity

(CEC), and tensile strength.


6 Case Studies

102 43177679/03/H

Plate 6-3 Corn on the left shows the benefits of Agrichar addition, whereas the corn on the right was grown in this poor soil with no Agrichar and failed to produce a crop

The carbon dynamics experts from NSW State Forests were also engaged to make a Life Cycle

Assessment across the whole process. Besides the direct sequestration benefit, there is evidence that

Agrichar provides further mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through reduction in nitrous oxide

emissions from soil. Furthermore, Agrichar has been demonstrated to reduce fertiliser requirements,

thus reducing indirect greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer manufacture. The syngas produced is

a renewable energy source that can provide additional greenhouse mitigation benefits through

displacement of fossil energy sources.

Pyrolysis of biomass to produce Agrichar to be used as a soil amendment is a process that captures

atmospheric carbon and stores it safely in the soil, providing additional greenhouse gas mitigation

benefits along the way. U.S. researcher Johannes Lehmann from Cornell University estimates that by

the end of this century, terra preta schemes and pyrolysis programs could store up to 9.5 billion

tonnes of carbon a year.

In summary, PacPyro has research collaborations with a number of organisations including:

• NSW DII under a MOU to facilitate several research grants;

• University of New South Wales, via an Australian Research Council funded project;

• Cornell University (USA), pioneers of Terra Preta research;

• Waginengen University (Netherlands), one of the most respected Agricultural Universities in the

world;

• CSIRO, through various research programs including GRDC and DAFF funded projects;

• University of Sydney, supply of biochar samples;

• SARDI, including a RIRDC funded project on Arondo Donax (Giant Reed);

• Diggers Organic gardening group, including trials at their prestigious Heronswood public gardens in

Victoria;


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 103

• University of New England, through a federally funded soil carbon project;

• Massey University (New Zealand), through their MAF funded Biochar Initiative; and

• Catchment Management Authorities, two trials underway in SA and VIC on commercial farms.

Plate 6-4 Corn Greenwaste derived AgricharTM biochar product.

Commercial Status

Over the past decade, PacPyro have accepted the significant risks and investments required to

develop slow pyrolysis technology to a scale that can make a globally significant impact on removing

CO2 from the atmosphere. The first semi-continuous pyrolysis reactor built by BEA was based at

Moree (NSW) and was constructed with financial assistance from the NSW state government.

Advances in technology and knowledge led to the construction of the second generation semi-

continuous unit “El Toro” which has a 40kg/hr feed capacity. El Toro was exported to Green Bay,

Wisconsin, USA and has been used to produce biochar samples for research programs. Outlined in

Plate 6-5 is the Technology Development Life Cycle for PacPyro Slow Pyrolysis Technology.


6 Case Studies

104 43177679/03/H

Plate 6-5 Technology Development Life Cycle for PacPyro Slow Pyrolysis Technology

The continuous slow pyrolysis plant, named PyroChar 300, has a capacity of approximately 300kg/hr

(dry basis) of biomass material and is capable of powering a 200 kW electrical generator which is

integrated on site. The PyroChar 300 pilot plant has been used to produce quantities of Agrichar™

soil amendment for research programs since 2006 and has a fully documented set of run logs dating

back to this time. PacPyro has designs for 48 (2 tph) and 96 (4 tph) dry tonne-per-day commercial

units (PyroChar 2000 and PyroChar 4000 respectively).

The existence of a pilot plant significantly de-risks the purchasing process for potential new projects

and represents a clear advantage over other competitors who have been unable to construct a pilot

demonstration plant on any meaningful scale to date. The demonstration facility fulfils a number of

key roles including:

• Providing data required for the development of detailed process flow diagrams (mass and energy

balances) of the technology and verification of unit operation modelling for scale-up de-risking;


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 105

• Production of AgricharTM biochar product samples for use in market development;

• Gas analysis of syngas for energy use specification; and

• Materials handling and operations experience with the different feedstocks.

Ownership of the pilot plant will be critical in completing the scale up to commercial demonstration

plant as it provides the specific unit operations data required for the detailed design of commercial

scale process equipment.

6.3.2 Case study 2: EDDITh thermolysis process (France)

In the Review of Small Scale Waste to Energy Conversion Systems prepared as part of the IEA Bio-

Energy Agreement – Task 36 (Stein and Tobiasen, 2004), the EDDITh thermolysis process was

identified as a small-scale waste to energy system that parallels Scenario 3.

The EDDITh process was developed by IFP (the French Institute for Petroleum). The French company

Thide Environment (www.thide.com) is now in charge of the commercialisation/operation of the

process. In 1999 a license for the EDDITh process was sold to Japanese Hitachi, who built three

commercial plants based on the technology in Japan – see reference plants below.

EDDITh is essentially a pyrolysis process by IFP (French Institute for Petroleum) specially designed

for MSW at small scale. It employs an indirectly heated atmospheric pressure rotary kiln pyrolysis unit

to generate a solid fuel and non-condensable gases.

Since 1999, three plants based on the EDDITh process have been erected in Japan. In addition, one

is currently at the end of start-up operation stage in France (the Arthelyse Plant) for the treatment of

50,000 tonnes of waste per year. The technology is based on a 500kg per hour pilot plant in

Vernouillet, France.

Table 6-1 EDDITh Reference Plants

Plant Date Operational

Fuel Fuel Consumption Comments

Nakaminto Plant, Japan

1997 MSW 1,000 kg per hour or approx 8,000 tonnes per annum

Pilot plant

Itoigawa Plan, Japan

April 2002 MSW 18,000 tonnes per annum

Produces hot water for a fitness centre close to the plant. Solid fuel product sold to a cement plant.

Itzumo Plant, Japan

N/A- MSW 70,000 tonnes per annum

There can be various flow-diagram configurations depending on where the gas and solid fuels are

used.


6 Case Studies

106 43177679/03/H

Figure 6-5 The EDDITh process flowchart

The EDDITh process was specially developed for small-scale MSW, suitable size range between

10,000 and 80,000 tonnes per annum. This process has been used for a number of feedstock

including MSW, RDF, auto shredder residue, industrial waste, electronic waste, sewage sludge, etc

which is ground and dried prior to the thermolysis reactor. The French Arthelyse plant consumes

40,000 tonnes per annum of domestic waste, 8,000 tonnes per annum of general industrial waste and

2,000 tonnes per annum of waste treatment sludge. The fuel moisture content is 31-44% and has a

Lower Heating Value of 7.5 to 9.4 MJ/kg

The fuel is combusted in an indirectly heated atmospheric pressure rotary kiln pyrolysis unit

("thermolysis process"). The heating rate is 10-50K/min up to a final temperature of 400-700°C, which

yields a residence time of 45-60 minutes. Metals and inerts are separated out of the thermolysis

reactor. The main product from the EDDITh thermolysis process is a solid fuel product (Carbor®) that

can be used for combustion, and hence electricity production. The process is not directly coupled to

an electricity generating unit (if deemed viable) however according to IFP, it is expected that power

generation will not always be a financially viable solution in small-scale installations. The solid fuel

yield is approximately 45% of the waste energy content. Gases are used for thermal energy such as

drying, hot water or steam or power production after conditioning.

In the future, it is anticipated that the EDDITh system will develop further with gas upgrading and

conditioning and continued work to develop use of solid fuel.


6 Case Studies

43177679/03/H 107

6.4 Case Study Wollongong Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF)

Aims

Brightstar Environmental, a subsidiary of Energy Developments Limited, an ASX listed company set

out to develop a waste minimisation and electricity generating technology in conjunction with

Wollongong City Council at Kembla Grange, Wollongong. The plant was originally to process a wide

variety of wastes, but this was subsequently narrowed down to household waste. An objective of the

project was to reduce the amount of waste being deposited in Wollongong’s landfill by 90 percent.

Brightstar Environmental’s aim was to develop a new, modular gasification technology for both local

use and for international application.

SWERF had the specific aims to

• reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

• reduce reliance on precious fossil fuels such as coal, diesel and natural gas;

• utilise landfill gas at Whyte’s Gully Waste Disposal Depot;

• provide a ‘green’ electricity option for the people of Wollongong;

• recover more recyclables than was then possible; and

• although still under development, produce a bio-fertiliser product.

A secondary aim was to provide additional employment in the Wollongong area.

History

The demonstration project at Whyte’s Gully commenced in 1998, following Council’s approval to

proceed. There was a comprehensive community education program on the project. An artist’s

impression of the site was unveiled in March 1999 to mark the commencement of site construction. In

October 1999 the next stage of the community education program began which included resident

briefings and setting up special community representative groups to act as a formal link between

Council, Brightstar Environmental and the community. In October 2000, Brightstar Environmental set

up a SWERF community liaison committee to address issues and queries of the community in relation

to the SWERF. In addition, Brightstar Environmental implemented a community contact hotline for the

purpose of receiving and addressing any complaints and queries from members of the public.

The major components of this project were to be:

• Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) receiving facilities;

• MSW processing and resource recovery;

• Gasifier, and

• Power generation.

The demonstration plant was built and trial operation commenced in 2000. The front end of the plant

consisted of an autoclave which processed unsorted waste. This ‘cooked’ waste was then separated

into a number of streams for beneficial reuse. The organic pulp from the autoclave, including

putrescible and film plastic material, was converted to a fuel gas using an externally heated pyrolytic

gasification process, which was adapted from a US relationship with Brightstar from the USA.


6 Case Studies

108 43177679/03/H

Brightstar Environmental initially invested approximately $40m into the total project with additional

funding assistance of $2m from the Australian Greenhouse Office under the ‘Showcase’ program and

a further $1m from the Sustainable Energy Development Authority of NSW. Council also provided

$1.5m to build necessary infrastructure.

The plant was officially opened in February 2001 with much fan-fare prior to the technology

development being completed. The demonstration plant was not very suitable for making

modifications for the plant development, as it required a substantial shut down and work to make even

relatively minor modifications. The plant did not meet its design objectives, in that about 15 percent of

the carbon in the feedstock was not converted to energy and emissions would not comply with the

NSW regulatory requirements. The plant was under intense investor scrutiny at that time. EDL

summarised the status of the project to the ASX on 8 November 2001 (see

http://www.energydevelopments.com.au/01_cms/PublicDocuments/20011108_AGMSWERFPresentati

on.pdf) noting the problems with the char gasifier and its integration into the overall plant. When it

became apparent that the technology was not complete, investors lost confidence in the technology,

and coupled with a general downturn in economic conditions, the EDL share price rapidly dropped

from $14.75 to $2.50 (at 29 October 2002).

Outcomes

The inability to deliver the technology operating to meet both its full design specification and regulatory

requirements resulted in loss of investor confidence, management ructions and eventual sale of the

company to new owners, who chose to cease development of the SWERF technology. The total loss

of investor funds was reputed to be in excess of $120 million from the failure of the SWERF

technology.

Lessons Learned

It is apparent that the SWERF technology was not fully developed before the marketing and business

development activities got into full swing. There were huge expectations on what the technology

would be able to deliver, even though the technology was not fully developed and could not meet

performance and regulatory requirements. The gasifier needed substantial development at the stage

when it was officially launched. The plant’s operation was complicated by using unsorted household

waste. The pre-processing ran into problems with wastes such a plastic film and carpets, which

regularly jammed the feed systems. The SWERF plant proved to be both a financial disaster plus an

undelivered technological solution.


43177679/03/H 109

7

7 Economic Model

7.1 Objective

As part of the pre-feasibility study, URS undertook a high level economic modelling exercise of the

scenarios described in Chapter 3 of the report, to provide guidance on whether the TCT scenarios

identified result in a higher net present value for the ACT Government, compared to the current waste

management method. This high level modelling was undertaken following the ACT Government’s

confirmation of the scenarios presented in this report. The modelling provides preliminary guidance

on the preferred TCT scenario; however this will need to be confirmed at the next stage of the project

when updated details on the available technologies and costs are obtained from suitable providers.

7.2 Methodology

The preliminary economic model was built using a benefit-cost analysis framework to evaluate the

economic efficiency of the proposed scenario. Benefit-cost analysis (BCA), through discounting

procedures, converts future flows of benefits and costs to a comparable basis at a common point in

time. The BCA is used to assess the marginal change in benefits and costs associated with the TCT

(‘with scenario’) relative to a Base Case (‘without scenario’).

The model can be considered as an economic model in that it incorporates CO2 costs, which are not

currently priced on a market. It also considers the benefits of producing electricity and by-products

such as biochar (using their sale prices as proxy). However, the model does not consider more

general benefits to society, such as the innovative character and demonstration effect of a TCT facility.

In this respect, the model is very close to a financial model. However, the model does not include any

funding costs or tax impacts.

7.3 Key costs and benefits categories

Table 7-1 presents a summary of the costs and benefits considered in the economic model. Additional

detail is provided in the following sections.

For each scenario, two sub-options have been considered, depending on whether biosolids would be

managed as part of the waste stream or not. The summary in Table 7-1 describes the sub-option with

biosolids included.

Table 7-1 Costs and benefits categories summary

Scenario Costs Benefits

Capital and operational expenditure for landfill: included in a per unit cost of landfill (Wright, 2008)

Capital and operational expenditure for biosolid management: incineration Capex for upgrades Current Practice 1 Scenario (PSD, 2008)

Associated carbon costs

Sale of electricity generated from 2023 (PSD, 2008)

Sale of lime products from 2010

(as per report by “pollution solutions and designs’ (PSD, 2008)

Scenario 1 Base Case

C&I and MSW MRF- Capital and Expenditure costs (Ref Estimate based on URS /EW internal database)


7 Economic Model

110 43177679/03/H

Scenario Costs Benefits

Capital and operational expenditure for the gasification facilities (Ref Estimate based on URS internal database)

Associated carbon costs (negligible – may be avoided as renewable energy)

Electricity sales

Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) sales

Residual (inert) waste disposal costs (linked to the residual volume of waste going to landfill)

Scenario 2a – Gasification, staged implementation

C&I and MSW MRF- Capital and Expenditure costs as per the Base Case

Capital and operational expenditure for the gasification facilities, built in 2012 at the beginning of Phase 2 (Estimate based on URS internal database)


Electricity sales



During phase 1 (2010 and 2011), the same costs as for the base case have been considered (except Capex in biosolid incineration facility).

Scenario 2b – Gasification, implementation at the beginning of Phase 3

C&I and MSW MRF- Capital and Expenditure costs slightly lower than in the Base Case because of efficiency of scale in building a combined facility

Capital and operational expenditure for the pyrolysis facility (Estimate based on URS internal database)


Electricity sales


Biochar sales (high and low quality product prices assumed) (EW estimates)


Scenario 3 – Pyrolysis, staged implementation

C&I and MSW MRF- Capital and Expenditure costs as per the Base Case

Note: Associated carbon costs obtained from emission estimates calculated using NGERS Technical

Guideline, 2009 and National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors 2009, and carbon price obtained

from DRAFT CPRS legislation, CPRS 5 and 15 Scenarios (ref Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

7.4 Assumptions and Key Information Sources

7.4.1 Economic modelling parameters

Discount rate and analysis period

The analysis has been carried out over a horizon of 20 years, covering the period from 2010 to 2029

inclusive, as 20 years can be considered as the useful life of the TCT investment. 2010 is the first year

of the period and has been discounted over one year, i.e. costs can be considered as discounted back

to 2009.


7 Economic Model

43177679/03/H 111

In line with previous reports and with the recommendations of Infrastructure Australia for investment

assessments, the key discount rate used was 7% (real), and 4% and 10% discount rates were used in

the sensitivity analysis. As a real discount rate has been used, current prices, costs and benefits have

been used throughout the model.

7.4.2 Capital expenditure, renewals and salvage values

Apart for landfill costs, initial capital expenditures and renewals of pieces of equipment have been

included in the model as cashflows at the time of the expenditure.

Capital expenditure (Capex) costs have been estimated on a per unit cost basis (i.e. per tonne of

waste processed) depending on the size of the facility or module (see below Table 7-2 and Table 7-3).

The timing of the capital expenditure was determined in line with each scenario’s respective

assumptions, that is at the beginning of each phase for scenarios 2a and 3 and at the beginning of

phase 2 for scenario 2b. The separate investments have been essentially considered as separate

plants (rather than additional modules to an existing plant).

It must be noted that in some cases this means investing early in significant processing capacity that

may not be required until later, which has a financial impact by bringing forward the capital outlay.

There may be possibilities to optimise the investment by fine-tuning the timing of the investment.

It has been considered that a major refurbishment (renewals) would be necessary after 10 years for all

gasification or pyrolysis facilities. The expenditure was estimated at 25% of the initial capital

expenditure.

All scenarios (including the base case) assume the building of a MRF facility for C&I and MSW waste,

but the facility is assumed to be built as a combined facility only in scenario 2b. In the other cases, it is

built in two stages (Table 7-4).

At the end of the 20 years period, no salvage value has been considered, although some components

would have some residual useful life. This may need to be explored in subsequent more detailed

analyses.

Landfill costs used are annualised values from the Wright Corporate Strategy report (Wright, 2008): a

figure of $50/tonne of waste has been assumed. It must be noted that the calculations for these

annualised values are unlikely to be consistent with the calculations carried out in the model. In

particular, no discounting seems to have been included in these calculations. The costs also appear

low and while they have been tested for sensitivity ($100/tonne), further analysis may be warranted.


7 Economic Model

112 43177679/03/H

Gasification plant

Table 7-2 Capex Gasification plant

Gasification Cost per tonne of capacity Total Replacement cost (AUD)

Plant capacity (tpa, wet) USD AUD

Total Capex ($M) At 10y – per t

At 10y – total ($M) % Capex

50,000 700 778 38 194 10 25%

100,000 600 667 67 167 17 25%

150,000 585 650 97 163 24 25%

200,000 570 633 127 158 32 25%

250,000 550 611 153 153 38 25%

Pyrolysis plant

Table 7-3 Capex Pyrolysis plant

Pyrolysis Cost per tonne of capacity Total Replacement cost (AUD)

Plant capacity (tpa, wet) USD AUD

Total Capex ($M) At 10y – per t

At 10y – total ($M) % Capex

50,000 930 1033 52 258 13 25%

100,000 800 889 89 222 22 25%

150,000 775 861 129 215 32 25%

200,000 750 833 167 208 42 25%

250,000 700 778 194 194 48 25%

MRF facility

Table 7-4 MRF Capex

Base case, Scenarios 2a and 3 Scenario 2b

Phase 2 C&I MRF (tonnes/yr)

Phase 3 MSW Dirty MRF (2009)

Waste to C&I MRF (tonnes/yr)

Phase 2 and 3 together

Capital Cost($M) 15 10 17

7.4.3 Operation and maintenance costs

Apart from landfill costs (as mentioned above), operation and maintenance costs have been estimated

per tonne of waste processed, depending on the size of the facility considered (see below Table 7-5

and Table 7-6). As the investments have been considered as investments in separate facilities, unit

costs have been selected to reflect the capacity of that particular facility. It may be that in some cases

(modular plant), further economies of scale should be considered when carrying out the more detailed

assessment.


7 Economic Model

43177679/03/H 113

Unit Opex costs for the MRF facilities are shown in Table 7-7.

Unit costs have been multiplied by the relevant yearly volume of waste to obtain yearly cost estimates.

Table 7-5 Opex Gasification plant

Gasification Cost per tonne of capacity

Plant capacity USD AUD

50,000 120 133

100,000 80 89

150,000 73 81

200,000 65 72

250,000 60 67

Table 7-6 Opex Pyrolysis plant

Pyrolysis Cost per tonne of capacity

Plant capacity USD AUD

50,000 85 94

100,000 70 78

150,000 65 72

200,000 60 67

250,000 55 61

Table 7-7 MRF Opex

Base case, Scenarios 2a and 3 Scenario 2b

Phase 2 C&I MRF (tonnes/yr)

Phase 3 MSW Dirty MRF (2009)

Waste to C&I MRF (tonnes/yr)

Phase 2 and 3 together

Operating Cost ($/tonne) 35 35 35

7.4.4 CO2 emissions

Emissions

CO2-e emissions have been calculated for the Base Case. Each option was based on standard

emissions factors from the various processes (landfill emissions and biosolids incineration in the base

case, gasification or pyrolysis in the various scenarios).

Table 7-8 shows the emission’s factors applied to waste going to landfill. Table 7-9 details how the

biosolid incineration emission factor was calculated. Finally, Table 7-10 shows emission factors for

electricity generated in the TCT scenarios.


7 Economic Model

114 43177679/03/H

Table 7-8 Landfill CO2-e emissions

Emission Factors - Waste to Landfill Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

No Biosolids (tCO2-e per t of waste) 0.323 0.428 0.738

Source: Emission Factors derived from NGA workbook (DCC, 2009) based on composition of waste at

different phases.

Table 7-9 CO2-e emissions from biosolids incineration

Assumption Value Reference

Emission Factor - (kg CO2-e2/GJ) 1.8 Table 1 (NGA 2009)

Energy Content (GJ/t) - Based on calorific value of sludge (approx 6,300kJ/kg) 6.3 Table 1 (NGA 2009)

Total Emissions ( tCO2-e / tonne) 0.011

Table 7-10 CO2-e emissions from Gasification/Pyrolysis

Emissions from Gasification and Pyrolysis Value Reference

Emissions Factor (kg CO2-e2/GJ) 1.8 Table 1 (NGA 2009)

Energy Content (GJ/t) 12.2 Table 1 (NGA 2009)

Total Emissions ( tCO2-e / tonne) 0.022

CO2-e prices

Although currently no price is currently attached to carbon dioxide emissions (expressed as CO2-e),

which remain essentially an externality (in economic terms), the Commonwealth Treasury has

modelled CO2-e prices under various Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) scenarios. These

prices have been used in the model and are shown below; CO2-e prices between these dates have

been linearly extrapolated. Wholesale electricity production prices have been used as the best point of

reference (rather than retail prices). A low estimate scenario where a CPRS fails to be implemented

(and hence CO2-e prices remain at zero for the whole period) has been considered in the sensitivity

analysis.

Table 7-11 CO2-e prices

Carbon prices ($/tCO2-e) 2010 2020 2050

Scenario CPRS 5 20 35 115


Low estimate: no CPRS 0 0 0

Source: Commonwealth Treasury CPRS modelling, 2008

It must be noted that CO2-e prices have been used to value emissions in all scenarios (but is only

material in the Base Case) from 2010, as a proxy representing the benefit to the whole of community

(economic benefit). It is acknowledged that CO2-e costs may not apply from 2010, but at a later stage,

which would have an impact in favour of the Base Case in comparison to the various TCT scenarios.


7 Economic Model

43177679/03/H 115

7.4.5 Sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

As the TCT facility is expected to be an eligible producer of renewable energy (Refer to Section 4.5.6)

under the Renewable Energy Target (up to 2030), a source of revenues for the project would be the

sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). RECs are based on the quantity of electricity produced

from eligible waste (one REC per MWh of electricity). In each scenario, the quantity of eligible

electricity produced has been calculated and considered as attracting RECs sales benefit in the same

year. It has been considered that the percentage of eligible waste content to total waste delivered to

the TCT facility would be very high: 98%. Should this percentage be lower, then it would have an

impact on the number of RECs created and hence on revenues.

Future REC prices are largely uncertain and difficult to predict due to the complex interaction between

renewable energy technology and financing costs, shortfall charge (penalty for those who fail to meet

their obligations), prices of electricity and CO2-e costs. Further research into this issue may be

warranted, but the following possible scenarios have been considered for modelling purposes (see

Table 7-12). In particular, the consistency between these REC price estimates and the CO2-e and

electricity prices (see previous and following paragraphs) would need to be ascertained.

Table 7-12 RECs prices

RECs prices($/MWh) 2010 2020 2030

Rounded down current REC prices (main scenarios) 30 30 30

Scenarios for sensitivity analysis

Decreasing prices, as per :

McLennan Magasanik Associates, January 2009 65 41 18

Low estimate scenario (URS’ own) 25 15 5

7.4.6 Electricity sales prices

One of the benefits of the TCT options will be the significant sales of electricity generated from gas

recovered during the waste treatment process. The wholesale electricity prices are relevant to value

these benefits, as the TCT effectively becomes a participant on the wholesale electricity market.

Should CO2-e emissions costs be internalised, electricity prices would be directly impacted. The

Commonwealth Treasury has also modelled likely wholesale electricity prices (see below), which have

been used to value the electricity produced under the various options. The low price scenario

corresponds to the situation without CPRS (the “reference” scenario in the Treasury modelling).

Table 7-13 Wholesale electricity prices

Wholesale electricity prices($/MWh) 2010 2020 2050



Low price scenario 55 40 45

Source: Commonwealth Treasury CPRS modelling, 2008


7 Economic Model

116 43177679/03/H

7.4.7 Other benefits

Sale of incinerated biosolids as a lime substitute

In the base case, it has been considered that a lime substitute obtained from the incineration of

biosolids would be produced from 2010 onwards (PSD, 2008). The sale of lime substitute has been

estimated at $16.12 per dry tonne of biosolids incinerated (PSD, 2008). This applies to the base case

only and only when biosolids are considered.

Sale of biochar

In Scenario 3, the pyrolysis process would produce biochar of low and high quality, which could be

sold. As the market for biochar is only emerging, there is significant uncertainty around biochar prices,

but according to some sources it could reach as much as $1,000 per tonne, as noted in Section 5.2.2.

Table 7-14 indicates biochar prices that have been used in the economic model. To be conservative,

the low estimates have been used for the key results and the high estimates in the sensitivity analysis.

Table 7-14 Biochar prices

Biochar sales prices - $ per t Low High

Low quality 100 200

High quality 300 500

7.4.8 Gate fee

As the initial objective of the BCA was to compare various TCT scenarios to the base case and not to

judge the financial viability of each scenario, no gate fee was included in the analysis.

However, should a commercial operator consider investing and operating such facilities, a gate fee

would apply to any waste accepted by the facility, in order to make it a financially viable proposition.

While the present model was not built with a private operator financial logic in mind, as no amortisation

of, no financing costs or no tax impact has been considered at this stage, it has been considered

valuable to estimate the gate fee which would balance the costs and benefits of the various scenarios.

7.5 Results

Considering that this study only presents a high level preliminary costing of the TCT options, the

results presented below should be considered with caution. In particular, it is important to consider not

only the main results, which only reflect one possible market configuration but the whole range of

possible results, as per the sensitivity analysis.

7.5.1 Main results

The main results presented in Table 7-15 correspond to the following assumptions: CPRS 5 prices for

CO2-e and wholesale electricity and current REC prices (conservative estimates: $30/MWh) all

through the period. Revenues and Costs over 20 years have been discounted, then netted off. All

options have been compared to the Base Case. As an indication only (as this does not correspond to

any financial reality), the net costs have been annualised using the same discount rate as the Net

Present Value calculations. This amount is equivalent to the annual amount that would need to be

paid to finance a debt equivalent to the net cost over 20 years.


7 Economic Model

43177679/03/H 117

It must be noted that the uncertainty around the assumptions made means that results should be seen

as an indicative order of magnitude, not a precise estimates. A difference of several million dollars

between the base case (Scenario 1) and the TCT scenarios can be considered as non-significant.

Hence, in these main results presented below (with biosolids), the Base Case and scenario 2b are

practically on par. Scenario 3 comes slightly behind, with a $22M difference in net present costs

compared to the base case. As noted above, though, staging investments over time in scenario 3

phase 3 would make it a more financially attractive proposition. Without considering biosolids, the

results are significantly less favourable.

Table 7-15 Main results

Assumptions:



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids in $M

Revenues Costs Net costs Comparison to Base Case


Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $133 $484 $351 $68 $33.1

Scenario 2b $131 $415 $284 $1 $26.8

Scenario 3 $201 $507 $305 $22 $28.8

No biosolids in $M

Revenues Costs Net costs Comparison to Base Case


Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $108 $430 $322 $118 $30.4

Scenario 2b $107 $350 $243 $39 $22.9

Scenario 3 $158 $434 $276 $72 $26.0

As a complement to the analysis above, break-even thresholds for gate fees to be applied to the

waste accepted by the TCT facility have been calculated. The gate fee has been assumed to be

constant over the life of the facility (in real dollar terms) and represent the amount that would have to

be charged per tonne of waste to make the costs and revenues of the considered options break-even

(notwithstanding any comparison with the Base Case). The results of this analysis for the main results

presented above are shown in Table 7-16, and are all in the $100 to $200 per tonne range.

Table 7-16 Break-even gate fees

With biosolids Revenues Costs Net costs Break-even gate fee

$M $/tonne

Scenario 2a $484 $484 $0 $168

Scenario 2b $415 $415 $0 $138

Scenario 3 $507 $507 $0 $146

No biosolids Revenues Costs Net costs Break-even gate fee

$M $/tonne

Scenario 2a $430 $430 $0 $204

Scenario 2b $350 $350 $0 $150

Scenario 3 $434 $434 $0 $174


7 Economic Model

118 43177679/03/H

7.5.2 Sensitivity analysis results

The sensitivity analysis has been carried out by varying one parameter at a time and observing how

the results change in different circumstances (in particular different market conditions). In particular,

the following parameters have been tested:

• Discount rate: 4%,7%, 10%;

• Electricity prices and Carbon prices (correlated): CPRS 5, CPRS 15, no CPRS;

• REC prices: current prices, Dept of Climate Change modelling (McLennan Magasanik Associates;,

2009, consistent with CPRS 5), low estimates (URS estimated); and

• Landfill costs: $50/tonne, $100/tonne.

Some of the price assumptions have been combined: REC prices and electricity and carbon prices

have been varied together.

The full results are disclosed in Appendix B. 14 cases have been considered. Table 7-17 presents an

overview of the range of results for each scenario. This shows that the results are very sensitive to the

assumptions made and market conditions encountered. It also shows that every scenario, under the

right circumstances may be equal to the Base Case or much more favourable. A negative figure

corresponds to a favourable scenario compared to the Base Case.

Table 7-17 Sensitivity analysis results


With biosolids ($M) MIN MAX MIN MAX

Scenario 2a -$57 $164


Scenario 3 -$138 $116



No biosolids ($M)

Scenario 2a $4 $206


Scenario 3 -$74 $157



The most favourable configuration (for all scenarios) corresponds to high carbon, electricity and REC

prices (McLennan Magasanik prices have not been tested with this combination of other prices but

would only enhance the results) and a low discount rate.

The least favourable configuration (for all scenarios) corresponds to low carbon, electricity and REC

prices and high discount rates (10% discount rate not tested with this combination, but would enhance

the results).

Biochar prices have also been tested and the results show that scenario 3 is very sensitive to these

prices: assuming “high estimates” biochar prices (as per Table 7-14) makes scenario 3 more

favourable than the Base Case by $40M (everything else equal to the main results assumptions).

7.6 Conclusion

When considering the whole range of possible results as presented in the sensitivity analysis, it

appears that some of them present a significant advantage compared to the Base Case.


7 Economic Model

43177679/03/H 119

Market conditions, and possible prices or carbon, electricity and REC have a very significant influence

on the viability of the proposed project. Biochar prices have a significant impact on scenario 3.

It is recommended to look more closely into these key parameters, in particular the robustness of the

biochar market. The affordability of the break-even gate fee would also need to be assessed.

Based on the CBA undertaken, it is recommended to proceed to the next stage of the project and

carry out a more detailed and precise feasibility analysis including information obtained from potential

vendors through an Expression of Interest process.


43177679/03/H 121

8

8 References

Alternative Resources Inc (2008), Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Conversion Technologies

prepared for City and County of Santa Barbara, California, USA.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006), ABS 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 1996 to

2006, Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009), ABS 1308.8 – In ACT – Statistical Information on the ACT and

Region, Aug 2009, Australia.

Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (2005), Waste to Energy: A guide for local

authorities, Melbourne, Australia.

Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (2003), Guide for the Connection of Embedded

Generation in the National Electricity Market, Melbourne, Australia.

ACT Territory and Municipal Services (2006), Environmental Authorisation: Stericorp Limited,

Canberra, Australia.

ACT Planning and Land Authority (2008), Evaluation of Preliminary Assessment: Canberra

Technology City Natural Gas Power Station and Computer Data Centres, Canberra, Australia.

Downie, A. (2007), BEST Pyrolysis for Renewable Energy and Agrichar, Somersby, Australia.

Department of Climate Change (2009), National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors, Australian

Government, Canberra.

Environment ACT (1999), Air – Environment Protection Policy. Canberra, Australia.

European Commission (2002), Waste Management in Island Communities: Strategy to Integrate

Waste to Energy Policies, 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission, DG-TREN.

Greece.

European Parliament (2000), Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and Council on the

incineration of waste, Official Journal of the European Communities.

Giroudiére, F and Marty, E (2003), Waste to Power and Energy by the EDDITh Thermolysis Process,

Recent Industrial Developments, IT3'03 Conference, Orlando, Florida, 2003.

Heermann, C., F.J. Schwager, et al. (2001), Pyrolysis & Gasification of Waste: A Worldwide

Technology and Business Review, Juniper Consultancy Services LTD., England, UK.

Hyder Consulting (2006), Waste and Recycling in Australia, Prepared for Department of Environment,

Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia.

Lundie,S. and Peters, M.G. (2005), Life cycle assessment of food waste management options, Journal

of Cleaner Production Vol 13 275–286.

Marty, E. (2002): Case study: Production of Fuels from Waste & Biomass by the EDDITh Thermolysis

Process. Recent Industrial Developments", Presentation held at the Pyrolysis and Gasification of

Biomass and Waste Expert Meeting in Strasbourg, October 2002.

McLennan Magasanik Associates (2009), Benefits and costs of the Expanded Renewable Energy

Target.

Pollution Solutions and Design Pty Ltd (2008), Biosolids Options Review: Lower Molonglo Water

Quality Control Centre, Canberra, ACT.


8 References

122 43177679/03/H

Richardson, I. (2004), High Temperature Plasma Gasification and In-Tunnel Composting – Notes of

presentation to States of Jersey Shadow Scrutiny Panel, Verno Ltd, USA.

Selinger, A., Steiner, C. (2004), Waste Gasification in Practice: TwinRec Fluidized Bed Gasification

and Ash Melting – Review of Four Years of Commercial Plan Operation, Conference Paper at IT3’04

Conference, May 10-14, 2004, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

Senate Economics Legislative Committee (2009), Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill

2009 and a related bill [Provisions], August 2009

Stein, W. and Tobaisen, L (2004), Review Of Small Scale Waste To Energy Conversion Systems, IEA

Bioenergy Agreement - Task 36 Work Topic 4.

Sydney Water (2009), Annual Rpoert 2009, Sydney Australia.

Taylor, J. and Warnken, M. (November 2008) Market Acess and Development (Project Number:

PNA017-0708), Wood recovery and recycling: A source book for Australia, Prepared for Forest and

Wood Products Australia.

University of California (2004), Evaluation of Conversion Technologies Processes and Products (Draft

Final Report). Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board, California, USA.

URS Corporation (2005), Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies, Prepared for

City of Los Angeles, California, USA.

US EPA (2000), New Source Performance Standards for New Small Municipal Waste Combustion

Units, Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 235). USA.

US EPA (2006), Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for

Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors, Final Rule, Federal Register: May 10, 2006

(Vol. 71, No. 90). USA.

Connet, E. & P. (1995), Final Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste

Incinerators, A publication of Work On Waste USA, Inc. Available at

http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/wastenot/wn352.htm, last accessed 26/10/2009.

Wright Corporate Strategy (2008), ACT No Waste Strategy and Targets – Review and Assessment of

Options (Revised Final Report), Prepared for ACT No Waste, Canberra, Australia.

Wright Corporate Strategy (2008), Alternative Waste Technologies – An Update Report, Prepared for

ACT No Waste, Canberra, Australia.

Wright, T. (2000), Report of the Alternative Waste Technologies and Practices Inquiry, Prepared for

NSW State Government, Sydney, Australia.

Zero Waste SA (2006), Alternative Waste Technologies – Position Paper, Adelaide, Australia.


43177679/03/H

A

Appendix A Data Collection Methodology


Appendix A

43177679/03/H

Data for this project has been obtained by reviewing and analysing existing reports and audios

provided by DECCEW as well as from direct consultation. Data sources and references used in this

project are (listed alphabetically).

Waste Data

• ACT Landfill Audits. Prepared by GHD for ACT NOWaste, May 2009.

o Raw Data: Final Data Mugga Lane Transfer Station. Prepared by GHD for ACT NOWaste,

August 2009

o Raw Data: Final Data Mitchell Transfer Station. Prepared by GHD for ACT NOWaste, August

2009

o Raw Data: Final Data Mugga Lane Landfill. Prepared by GHD for ACT NOWaste, August

2009

o Raw Data: Final Complied Data All Sites. Prepared by GHD for ACT NOWaste, August 2009

• Audit of Hume MRF Residual. Prepared by APRINCE Consulting Pty Ltd prepared for Thiess

Services and ACT NOWaste, November 2007.

• Construction and Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2000-2005, Sydney Metropolitan Area.

Prepared by Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, August 2007

• Disposal Based Audits of the C&I and C&D Waste Streams. Prepared by Golder

Associates/Waste Audit and Consultancy Services (Aust) Pty Ltd for Department of Environment

and Conservation WA, March 2007.

• Domestic Waste Audit. Prepared by APRINCE Consulting Pty Ltd prepared for Thiess Services

and ACT NOWaste, November 2007.

• Domestic Kerbside Waste Stream Audit for Groundswell. Prepared by EC Sustainable

Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd for Queanbeyan City Council, November 2008.

• Kerbside Domestic Waste and Recycling Audit. Prepared by APRINCE Consulting Pty Ltd for

ACT NOWaste, July 2009.

• Waste and Recycling in Australia. Prepared by Hyder Consulting for the Department of

Environment and Heritage (now Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts),

February 2006.

• Waste to Landfill Data (2008/2009). Informal Spreadsheet prepared by Department of Territory

and Municipal Services (TAMS), July 2009.

• Urban Forest Wood Information. Email from Michael Brice, Urban Tree, Conservation and Lands,

ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, August 2009.

• Yearly Landfill & Recycling Stats 07-08. Informal document prepared by Department of Territory

and Municipal Services (TAMS), August 2009.

General Information

• ACT No Waste Strategy & Targets. Review & Assessment of Options. Prepared by Wright

Corporate Strategy Pty Ltd for ACT NOWaste, July 2008.


Appendix A

43177679/03/H

o Raw Data: Full Data Summary. Prepared by Wright Corporate Strategy Pty Ltd for ACT

NOWaste, July 2008.

o Raw Data: Population & GDP. Prepared by Wright Corporate Strategy Pty Ltd for ACT

NOWaste, July 2008.

o Raw Data: DECCEW Commercial-Municipal Data Split (2008). Prepared by Wright Corporate

Strategy Pty Ltd for ACT NOWaste, July 2008.

• Alternative Waste Technologies, An Update Report. Prepared by Wright Corporate Strategy Pty

Ltd for ACT NOWaste, April 2008.

• Canberra at the 2006 Census: Population and housing. ACTPLA, December 2007.

• Investing in Canberra – Australia’s Capital: Doing Business and Living in Canberra ’08-’09. ACT

Business and Industry Development, ACT Chief Minister’s Department.

• Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre BioSolids Options Review Paper. Prepared by

Pollution Solutions & Designs, September 2008.

• NOWaste by 2010, Turning Waste into Resources Action Plan 2004-2007. ACT Urban Services.

Population Data

• ABS Population Projections Australia 1999 to 2101 (August 2000) Section 4.8.

• ABS 1307.8 - Australian Capital Territory in Focus. Reports for 1998; 2001; 2003; & 2007.

• ABS 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 1996 to 2006.

• ABS 1308.8 – In fACT – Statistical Information on the ACT and Region, Aug 2009.

Consultation

Direct and phone consultation held with:

• Construction & Demolition (C&D) Waste operators:

o Peter Paulos and Manuel Samarkos, ACT Recycling (Samarkos Earthmoving Pty Ltd);

o Paul Humphries, Building Waste Recyclers Pty Ltd, Parkwood Road, Belconnen; and

o Tony Buchanan, Canberra Concrete Recyclers Pty Ltd, Pialligo Avenue, Pialligo.

• Composters:

o Phil Corkhill, Corkhill Bros, Darling St, Mitchell;

o Wayne Gregory, Canberra Sand & Gravel, Parkwood Road, Belconnen; and

o David Wallace, NoWaste WoodBusters, Parkwood Road, Belconnen.

• Urban Trees:

o Michael Brice and Fleur Flannery, Urban Tree, Conservation and Lands, ACT Department of

Territory and Municipal Services (phone consultation only).

• Biosolids:

o Paul Darvodelsky, Pollution Solutions & Designs Pty Ltd, Pymble NSW.


43177679/03/H

B

Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis


Appendix B

43177679/03/H

Table B-1 Main results

Assumptions:



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids

in $M Revenues Costs

Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $133 $484 $351 $68 $33.1

Scenario 2b $131 $415 $284 $1 $26.8

Scenario 3 $201 $507 $305 $22 $28.8

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $108 $430 $322 $118 $30.4

Scenario 2b $107 $350 $243 $39 $22.9

Scenario 3 $158 $434 $276 $72 $26.0

Table B-2 Sensitivity testing of various assumptions - 1

The bold characters in the assumptions signal what has changed compared to the main results’

assumptions.

Assumptions:



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $304 $300 - $28.3

Scenario 2a $134 $484 $350 $50 $33.0

Scenario 2b $133 $416 $283 -$17 $26.7

Scenario 3 $203 $507 $304 $4 $28.7

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $221 $221 - $20.8

Scenario 2a $109 $431 $321 $101 $30.3

Scenario 2b $108 $350 $243 $22 $22.9

Scenario 3 $159 $434 $275 $54 $25.9


43177679/03/H


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 4%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $6 $379 $372 - $27.4

Scenario 2a $181 $609 $428 $56 $31.5

Scenario 2b $179 $518 $338 -$34 $24.9

Scenario 3 $273 $627 $354 -$19 $26.0

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $276 $276 - $20.3

Scenario 2a $148 $545 $397 $121 $29.2

Scenario 2b $147 $437 $290 $14 $21.4

Scenario 3 $216 $541 $325 $49 $23.9


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 10%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $3 $224 $221 - $26.0

Scenario 2a $100 $396 $295 $74 $34.7

Scenario 2b $98 $342 $244 $23 $28.6

Scenario 3 $153 $421 $268 $47 $31.5

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $155 $155 - $18.2

Scenario 2a $81 $349 $268 $113 $31.5

Scenario 2b $80 $288 $208 $52 $24.4

Scenario 3 $119 $358 $239 $84 $28.0


Appendix B

43177679/03/H


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $366 $362 - $34.2

Scenario 2a $133 $499 $367 $5 $34.6

Scenario 2b $131 $434 $303 -$59 $28.6

Scenario 3 $201 $517 $316 -$46 $29.8

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $283 $283 - $26.7

Scenario 2a $108 $442 $334 $51 $31.5

Scenario 2b $107 $366 $259 -$24 $24.4

Scenario 3 $158 $442 $284 $1 $26.8


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 4%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $6 $486 $480 - $35.3

Scenario 2a $181 $630 $449 -$30 $33.1

Scenario 2b $179 $543 $363 -$117 $26.7

Scenario 3 $273 $641 $368 -$112 $27.1

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $383 $383 - $28.2

Scenario 2a $148 $561 $413 $30 $30.4

Scenario 2b $147 $458 $311 -$73 $22.9

Scenario 3 $216 $552 $335 -$48 $24.7


43177679/03/H


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 10%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $3 $284 $281 - $33.0

Scenario 2a $100 $408 $307 $26 $36.1

Scenario 2b $98 $358 $259 -$22 $30.4

Scenario 3 $153 $429 $276 -$5 $32.4

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $215 $215 - $25.3

Scenario 2a $81 $358 $277 $62 $32.6

Scenario 2b $80 $301 $220 $5 $25.9

Scenario 3 $119 $364 $245 $30 $28.7


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $383 $379 - $35.8

Scenario 2a $134 $500 $366 -$13 $34.5

Scenario 2b $133 $435 $302 -$76 $28.5

Scenario 3 $203 $518 $315 -$64 $29.7

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $300 $300 - $28.3

Scenario 2a $109 $442 $333 $33 $31.4

Scenario 2b $108 $366 $259 -$41 $24.4

Scenario 3 $159 $442 $283 -$17 $26.7


Appendix B

43177679/03/H


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 4%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $6 $510 $504 - $37.1

Scenario 2a $184 $631 $447 -$57 $32.9

Scenario 2b $182 $544 $361 -$142 $26.6

Scenario 3 $276 $642 $366 -$138 $26.9

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $408 $408 - $30.0

Scenario 2a $150 $562 $411 $4 $30.3

Scenario 2b $148 $459 $310 -$97 $22.8

Scenario 3 $219 $552 $334 -$74 $24.6


Assumptions:



Discount rate: 10%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $3 $297 $293 - $34.4

Scenario 2a $101 $408 $307 $13 $36.0

Scenario 2b $100 $358 $259 -$35 $30.4

Scenario 3 $154 $429 $276 -$18 $32.4

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $227 $227 - $26.7

Scenario 2a $82 $359 $277 $50 $32.5

Scenario 2b $81 $301 $221 -$7 $25.9

Scenario 3 $120 $364 $244 $17 $28.7


43177679/03/H

Table B-11 Sensitivity testing of various assumptions – 10

Assumptions:

Scenario CPRS 5, “Senate inquiry” price estimates for REC


Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $149 $484 $335 $52 $31.6

Scenario 2b $146 $415 $269 -$14 $25.4

Scenario 3 $217 $507 $289 $6 $27.3

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $120 $430 $310 $106 $29.2

Scenario 2b $120 $350 $230 $26 $21.7

Scenario 3 $170 $434 $264 $60 $24.9


Assumptions:

Scenario CPRS 5, low estimates price estimates for REC


Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $115 $484 $368 $85 $34.8

Scenario 2b $114 $415 $301 $18 $28.4

Scenario 3 $184 $507 $322 $39 $30.4

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $93 $430 $337 $133 $31.8

Scenario 2b $92 $350 $257 $53 $24.3

Scenario 3 $144 $434 $289 $86 $27.3


Appendix B

43177679/03/H


Assumptions:

No CPRS, low price estimates for RECs


Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $246 $243 $0 $22.9

Scenario 2a $75 $482 $407 $164 $38.4

Scenario 2b $73 $413 $340 $97 $32.1

Scenario 3 $146 $505 $359 $116 $33.9

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $163 $163 $0 $15.4

Scenario 2a $60 $429 $369 $206 $34.8

Scenario 2b $64 $348 $284 $121 $26.8

Scenario 3 $113 $433 $320 $157 $30.2


Assumptions:

No CPRS, low price estimates for RECs


Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $325 $322 $0 $30.4

Scenario 2a $75 $498 $422 $101 $39.9

Scenario 2b $73 $432 $359 $37 $33.9

Scenario 3 $146 $515 $369 $48 $34.9

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $242 $242 $0 $22.9

Scenario 2a $60 $441 $380 $138 $35.9

Scenario 2b $64 $364 $300 $58 $28.3

Scenario 3 $113 $440 $328 $86 $30.9


43177679/03/H


Assumptions:

Biochar prices $200 (low quality) and $500 (high quality)



Discount rate: 7%

With biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $4 $287 $283 $0 $26.7

Scenario 2a $133 $484 $351 $68 $33.1

Scenario 2b $131 $415 $284 $1 $26.8

Scenario 3 $264 $507 $243 -$40 $22.9

No biosolids


Net

costs

Comparison to

Base Case

Annualised net

costs over 20 years

Base case $0 $204 $204 $0 $19.2

Scenario 2a $108 $430 $322 $118 $30.4

Scenario 2b $107 $350 $243 $39 $22.9

Scenario 3 $205 $434 $228 $25 $21.6

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Level 4, 407 Pacific Highway

Artarmon NSW 2064

Australia

T: 61 2 8925 5500

F: 61 2 8925 5555

www.ap.urscorp.com