SEPA - Report On Biowaste

The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forest Residues in Scotland
Report to SEPA ED 02806 Issue Number 1 Date April 2008
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland
Title Customer Customer reference Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings in Scotland SEPA R60079PUR This report is the Copyright of SEPA and has been prepared by AEA Technology plc under contract to SEPA dated 16 March 2007. The contents of this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of SEPA. AEA Technology plc accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein.
File reference Reference number ED02806
AEA Energy & Environment Glengarnock Technology Centre, Caledonian Road, Lochshore Business Park, Glengarnock, Ayrshire, KA14 3DD. t: 0870 190 6191 f: 0870 190 5151 AEA Energy & Environment is a business name of AEA Technology plc AEA Energy & Environment is certificated to ISO9001 and ISO14001 Authors Name Prab Mistry, Andy Mouat, Kirsty Campbell, Patricia Howes Colin McNaught
Approved by
Name Signature
Date
25 April 2008
AEA Energy & Environment
iii
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
iv
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Executive Summary
The aim of this project was to provide SEPA with an assessment of the energy value within the biowaste and related wastes and residues that arise in Scotland. This included an assessment of the energy content of these waste streams and the useful energy. In this report, this refers to heat and electricity that could be provided by using these waste streams. This study focused on the technical potential for energy recovery, to provide SEPA with an evidence base to support their decisions regarding the treatment options for these types of waste. In particular, SEPA are interested in the energy available from wastes and residues that arise in: Agriculture. 1 Forestry residues . Slaughterhouses. Industrial and Commercial premises. Municipal Collections. Sewage Works.
The assessment methodology and assumptions were discussed in detail with SEPA and with Jacobs, who are undertaking a parallel study to develop a policy framework for the treatment of commercial and industrial wastes. Waste volume figures were collected for each of these sectors within the 11 Waste Strategy Areas (WSAs) across Scotland. These wastes were assessed and divided, according to their suitability, for either anaerobic digestion or thermal treatment. Estimated energy values were then calculated for conversion via these routes. From a total of 13,730,000 tonnes of waste, 9,634,000 tonnes were deemed to be technically suitable to be processed in an anaerobic digestion or thermal treatment plant to obtain energy. Before conversion into useful forms of energy (heat or electricity) the energy content of these biowastes was assessed at 2,233,000 MWh of Biogas from anaerobic digestion and 15,483,000 MWh from thermal treatment. Thus the total energy content of these biowastes is potentially 17,716,900 MWh per year. In comparison, the amount of natural gas used in Scotland is around 85,540,000 MWh 2 pa . From this, the potential for conversion to useful energy (heat or electricity) was calculated, using pro forma conversion efficiencies of 65%, 75% and 90% for heat and 21% and 33% for electricity. The results are shown below : Energy in Waste (MWh) AD TT Total 2,233,000* 15,483,900 17,716,900 Heat (MWh) for each efficiency 65% 1,451,450 10,065,000 11,516,450 75% 1,674,750 11,613,000 13,287,750 90% 2,009,700 13,936,000 15,945,700 Electricity (MWh) for each efficiency 21% 33% 736,800 3,252,000 3,988,800
3
* Heat use within the digester has been deducted
NB these are the total useful outputs if all the energy in the biowastes is converted to heat OR electricity, hence the heat and electricity figures are not additive.
Note: It is recognised that Forestry Residues are not classed as a waste as they do not come under the definition of waste in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). 2 Scottish Energy Study Volume 1 3 Energy data is rounded
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland Energy in Waste (MWh) AD CHP TT CHP Total 2,233,000* 15,483,900 17,716,900 Heat (MWh) for each efficiency 55% 12% 268,000 8,516,100 8,784,100
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1 Electricity (MWh) for each efficiency 33% 10% 736,800 1,548,400 2,285,200
* Heat use within the digester has been deducted
If this energy was used in CHP units, as is the preferred option there is potential for 2,285,200 MWh of electricity and 8,784,100 MWh of heat to be produced. Using the waste volumes per WSA, the total number of small-scale plants required was calculated. These were based on existing small-scale plants in Lerwick (thermal treatment) and Ludlow (anaerobic digestion). Using these case studies, it is estimated that 741 AD and 228 TT plants would be needed, allowing localised energy production and waste treatment. This would provide in the region of 7,200 direct jobs. As well as the benefits of meeting energy needs in a sustainable way,reducing waste volume being landfilled and providing jobs there is the additional benefit of displacing CO2 through the use of biowaste. If Combined Heat and Power (CHP) was the technology of choice there would be the technical potential to offset 3,052,000 tCO2eq through the use of energy from biowaste which is 4 approximately 5.6% of Scotlands total net greenhouse gas emissions . This study has provided an initial assessment of the energy available if all suitable waste streams were to be used for energy production. This is a high level assessment, interpreting exiting data on waste streams and taking a conservative view of the likely available energy content. This study has not assessed the economic potential, i.e. the fraction of the identified energy that could be implemented at rates of return that are attractive to potential investors. This would require additional insight into the composition and location of waste arisings. The report does, however, identify a number of the key barriers. Given the substantial technical potential, even if a modest proportion of this were to be economic, energy from waste has a material contribution to make to Scotlands energy supply.
National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, 2007
vi
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
vii
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Table of contents
1 Introduction
1.1 1.2 Report Structure Project Objective and Limitations
1
2 2
Sector Waste Arisings

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Agricultural Waste Commercial & Industrial Waste Slaughterhouse Waste Forestry Residues Municipal Solid Waste collected by Local Authorities Sewage Sludge
3
3 4 5 5 5 6
Technology Overview
3.1 3.2 Thermal Treatment Biological Process (Anaerobic Digestion)
7
7 9
Methodology
4.1 4.2 4.3 Data Acquisition Technology Summary Modelling
12
12 27 29
Model Results
5.1 5.2 Suitable Energy Routes Model Discussion
33
33 34
Potential Barriers & Opportunities

6.1 6.2 6.3 Financial Infrastructure Policy
42
42 44 46
7 8
Comparison with Energy Crops

7.1 Energy Crops
52
52
Potential Benefits
8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Employment Opportunities Energy Security CO2 Offset Cost Offset
55
55 57 57 58
Summary of Findings
59
Appendices
viii
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1 Appendix 1: Energy from Waste Appendix 2: Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
Appendix 3: Quantity and breakdown of Waste Collected by Each Local Authority Area Appendix 4: Tonnage of Biowastes Available for Processing by Category and Local Authority Area Appendix 5: Bio-waste suitable for use in AD Appendix 6: Bio-waste suitable for use in TT Appendix 7: AD Potential Per Local Authority Area Appendix 8: Thermal Treatment Potential Per Local Authority Area
ix
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Introduction
The recovery of energy from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the subject of a number of studies and is being promoted by guidance from the relevant policy and regulatory bodies across the UK. It has been included in this study in order to establish the total energy potential from this waste stream. The opportunity for energy recovery from the biowaste, forestry residues and other suitable elements of commercial and industrial waste has to date received less attention. In Scotland the tonnage of 5 commercial and industrial waste arisings is at present almost three times the tonnage of MSW . Hence both these streams can be used to provide energy, significant environmental and cost benefits, with the added opportunity to create employment in the plants processing these wastes. AEA Energy & Environment was commissioned by SEPA to undertake a review of the energy potential embedded in biowaste and other suitable arisings in Scotland in six specific sectors: Agricultural waste. Commercial & Industrial waste. Forestry Residues. Slaughterhouse waste. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Sewage Sludge
For each sector, data was obtained on the annual waste tonnages arising and its potential to be utilised for energy production. In order to gain a more accurate view of the potential energy production across Scotland the study utilised regional data to assign biowaste tonnages from each sector to each 6 7 Local Authority (LA) area . Where regional data was not available, national statistics were used to apportion the biowaste across each Local Authority. This study assessed the potential tonnage available and the calorific value for each of the biowastes to calculate the energy content of these biowastes as an energy source (the calorific value is a derived figure that indicates how much useful energy could be available within these biowastes). This is analogous to the energy content of other fuels such as gas or coal, which are then converted to useful forms of energy. An assessment was made as to which of two energy conversion routes would be most appropriate for each waste type. The two energy production routes explored were Thermal Treatment (TT) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD); each conversion route is described in Section 3. The useful energy, as heat or electrical power, that could be created from these biowastes will depend on the plant conversion efficiency, the facility location and the needs of the local community. As these cannot be assessed in any detail, the findings of the study are presented for notional conversion 8 efficiencies. The energy conversion efficiencies modelled are 65%, 75% and 90% , which represent differing energy uses based on theoretical energy generation. The model also calculates the electricity only efficiency of the thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion processes to provide a comparator to Energy from Waste (EfW) electricity export (see Section 5 below), or in circumstances where heat is not required in high enough volumes. The study also considers the efficiency of conversion using CHP.
5 6
Scottish Waste Digest 7, SEPA Derived from baseline data provided by SEPA data team. 7 Derived from the 2004 national statistics: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/2004PDFSectionE 8 Efficiencies modelled are based on SEPA project briefing document to reflect differing potential energy uses.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
1.1
Report Structure
This report is set out in the following sections: Section 2 Sectors. This section sets out the details of the six main sectors that were considered during this study. Section 3 Technologies. This section sets out the main features of the thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion processes. Section 4 Methodology. This section provides a summary of the method used to analyse the data and to assess the useful energy that could be made available from biowastes. Section 5 Model Results. This sets out the results of the modelling in terms of the energy content of the suitable forms of biowaste and the amounts of useful energy (heat or electricity) that could be provided via the anaerobic digestion or thermal treatment routes. Section 6 Potential Barriers and Opportunities. This section presents details of the barriers that may prevent use of biowaste as a source of energy along with details of the policy instruments that will influence the use of biowaste as a source of energy. Section 7 Comparison with Energy Crops. In this section, the report examines the amount of energy available from biowastes with energy crops, assessing the amount of land that would be required. Section 8 Potential Benefits. This section summarises the range of benefits that could be realised if biowaste was to be fully exploited as an energy resource.
1.2
Project Objective and Limitations
1.2.1 Objectives
This main objective of this report is to provide SEPA with an understanding of the energy that could potentially be generated if the biowaste and other suitable arisings not currently utilised within Scotland were to be used to produce energy. The information provided in this report can be used to help SEPA to support policy development for utilising biowaste arisings in Scotland.
1.2.2 Data Limitations

The evaluation is based on the best available data that could be acquired during the study period. Precise data on the level and composition of waste arisings is not available, as the cost of obtaining measured data would be far in excess of the value of the data collected. Hence this analysis cannot be exhaustive; data gaps have been identified and these require further exploration in order to provide a more accurate picture of energy production potential. Where estimates are provided of the number of different types of schemes that would be required in each Local Authority area, no checks or reviews have been undertaken as to planning requirements or other restrictions.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Sector Waste Arisings
In order to gain an understanding of the biowaste, and other suitable waste wastes available and their potential for use within an energy production process, it is necessary to have a general understanding of what comprises the six sectors and which elements of the waste reviewed are biowaste or are otherwise suitable for energy recovery. The justification for the selection criteria is given in Section 4.
2.1
Agricultural Waste
Agricultural waste comprises wastes that are generated by the farming community and can consist of a biowaste element, hazardous / special waste element and inert waste element. The study has 9 reviewed the following waste types from this source based on available data : Oils. Chemicals. Plastics. Livestock mortalities and animal tissue. Fish waste. Milk waste. Animal healthcare. Metal oil drums. Cooling equipment. Asbestos roofing.
From these waste types only the following five categories have been considered to contain an element of biowaste or are otherwise deemed suitable for energy recovery. This includes materials that will be deemed to be biomass and hence eligible for the benefits and incentives offered to qualifying renewable energy schemes. These waste streams will also include materials that are fossil fuel based and hence suitable for energy recovery, however these will not be eligible for the same incentives. Oils. Plastics. Livestock mortalities and animal tissue. Fish waste. Milk waste.
There will be an element of suitable waste within the excluded categories - for example many of the chemicals may be flammable - however it is difficult to quantify and it was decided that the more readily available wastes would provide the most cost effective energy sources. For these 5 categories the total waste arisings are estimated to be 98,500 tonnes pa.
Derived from data provided by SEPA for Agricultural waste in 2005
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
2.2
Commercial & Industrial Waste
Commercial waste is waste that is generated by premises wholly used for trade or business and Industrial waste is waste that is generated mainly from industrial operations. Every effort has been made to ensure that, for the purposes of this study the following waste types for this sector have been 10 reviewed based on available data : Exploration, mining, quarrying and treatment. Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation. Wood processing & production of panels & furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard. Wastes from leather, fur and textile industries. Petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolitic treatment of coal. Inorganic chemical processes. Organic chemical processes. Manufacture, formulation, supply & use of coatings, adhesives, sealants & inks. Wastes from the photographic industry. Thermal processes. Chemical surface treatment & coating of metals & other materials. Shaping & physical & mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics. Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (non-edible). Organic solvents, refrigerants and propellants. Waste packing; absorbents, cloths, filters & protective clothing. Wastes not otherwise specified in the list. Construction & demolition (inc excavated soil from contaminated sites). Human or animal health care or research. Waste management facilities, off-site water treatment & water consumption & industry. Municipal Waste (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste).
European Waste Catalogue (EWC) Codes are used by SEPA for recording information on the different waste streams. These codes do not necessarily give information that can be bounded within producer sectors. For example, Municipal Waste is included within Commercial and Industrial Waste but does not include Local Authority collections. These are accounted for in section 2.5 below. Every effort has been made to avoid the risk of double counting. From these waste types only the following eight categories have been considered to contain an element of biowaste or are otherwise deemed suitable for energy recovery: Agriculture, Horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation. Wood processing and production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard. Wastes from leather, fur and textile industries. Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (non-edible). Waste packing, absorbents, cloths, filters and protective clothing. Construction and demolition. Waste management facilities, off-site water treatment & water consumption & industry. Municipal Waste (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste).
Similar to Agricultural waste, there will be element from the excluded categories that contain a usable energy. For these 8 categories the total waste arisings are estimated to be 8,961,000 tonnes pa.
10
Derived from data provided by SEPA, Commercial & Industrial Waste Producer Survey, 2004.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
2.3
Slaughterhouse Waste
Slaughterhouse waste is a biodegradable waste arising from animal body parts cut off in the preparation of carcasses for use as food. The study has reviewed the following waste types from this 11 source based on available data : Raw meat waste from slaughtering facilities.
For this category the total waste arisings are estimated to be 178,000 tonnes pa.
2.4
Forestry Residues
Forestry Residues do not fall under the definition of Waste described in the Waste Framework Directive. This allows forestry residues to be classed as clean fuels and are not subject to the Waste Incineration Directive, unless they are co-combusted with wastes. In commercial forestry, residues arise when trees are harvested for stemwood. Poor quality or small diameter stems may be available for wood fuel. The tops and branches (known as brash) are normally cut off the trees and left at the harvesting site. Poor quality stems are also cleared as part of the forestry thinning operations. The study has reviewed the following waste types from this source 12 based on available data : Thinning Biomass: Stemwood 7-14 cm. Stemwood 14-16 cm. Stemwood 16-18 cm. Stemwood 18+ cm. Thinning and Felling Biomass: 13 Poor quality wood. Tips. Branches. Foliage. For these categories the total residue arisings are 904,000 tonnes pa.
2.5
Municipal Solid Waste collected by Local Authorities
MSW is generally defined as household waste and non-household waste with a similar composition 14 that is collected by, or on behalf of, a Local Authority . This waste stream can be broken down into 15 three categories . Recycled Waste. Composted Waste. Remaining Waste.
The recycled elements were excluded from this total as, under the waste hierarchy, there is less impact on the environment to recycle than biologically treat or incinerate. A considerable proportion of MSW is already recycled and this is set to increase with targets for Scotland set at 30% by 2010. The Scottish Government are considering raising this to 70%. Case studies in Sweden and Denmark have shown that areas that employ EfW plants have a higher recycling rate due to the increased level of waste separation required.
11 12
Derived from Slaughterhouse waste tonnages provided by SEPA for 2004 Derived from Woodfuel Resource Dynamically Generated Report, H McKay, 2003 13 Term from Reference 12, refers to poor quality stems, branches and tips. 14 www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/nws/thenetwork/course/part_1.pdf 15 Derived from tables 15 and 16 from SEPAs Waste Digest 7
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The total waste arisings for MSW (excluding recycled element) in Scotland is estimated to be 2,894,387 tonnes pa.
2.6
Sewage Sludge
This is the waste remaining after processing in a sewage treatment plant. This waste can be divided 16 by the disposal methods used after treatment in the plant. Reclamation. Electric Power and Heat Generation. Landfill. Incineration. Composting. Agriculture.
For the purposes of this report only the sludge that is currently landfilled or reclaimed is included. The remaining routes are considered to already be useful. Due to confidentiality between SEPA and Scottish Water, a breakdown by WSA could not be obtained, instead figures are broken down by region as listed below. North East. North West. South East. South West.
That gives the total estimated waste arisings for sewage sludge to be 140,180 tonnes pa (dry weight).
16
Data supplied by SEPA as reported to them by Scottish Water
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Technology Overview
The evaluation looks at two potential routes for energy production as described below. The thermal treatment route includes a number of possible technologies. Thermal Treatment includes low efficiency use such as electricity generation through to high efficiency use such as CHP. The anaerobic digestion route covers both thermophilic and mesophilic processes to yield biogas. There has also been some consideration given to Thermal Hydrolysis Anaerobic Digestion. Examples of existing TT and AD plants are given in Appendices 1 and 2. In concept the main difference between the two routes are the suitability of anaerobic digestion for wet waste material and the intermediate stage of biogas production as part of the anaerobic digestion route - this is shown in figure 3.1 below. Figure 3.1 Thermal Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion Production Routes
Biowaste
Thermal Treatment
Steam or Hot Water
AND Power OR
Biowaste
Anaerobic Digestion
Biogas
Steam or Hot Water
AND Power OR
3.1
Thermal Treatment
Thermal treatment covers several different processes and technologies. The common element is the combustion of the biowaste to produce heat and to reduce the mass and volume of the waste material. The hot combustion gases liberated during combustion are harnessed by being transformed into a more useful form of energy, i.e. heat or electricity. Whether the need is for heat or electrical energy, or a combination of the two, the waste is used as a fuel in a boiler, which can produce either hot water or steam, depending on the downstream requirements. Different waste streams are best dealt with using various types of grates and hearths, each of which has particular merits; typical examples for biowastes are moving grates and fluidised beds. If the output need is for heat, the energy in the biowaste fuel is converted in a boiler to hot water or steam. The hot water or steam can be used in industrial processes, in public and domestic buildings etc. As the heat energy available may be much more than can be used by a single heat consumer, a District Heating solution may be necessary, linking many users of heat to the biowaste plant. The conversion to heat is simple, entails the lowest capital costs and offers high levels of energy efficiency. A modern District Heating scheme can distribute heat with low levels of energy loss, however the installation of the heat pipes is a significant capital expenditure and it is currently very difficult to find a commercial market for the heat.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Alternatively, if the output need is for electricity and/or heat, the biowaste fuel is converted in a boiler to produce high-pressure steam, suitable for use in a steam turbine generator to produce electricity; this is known as the Rankine Cycle and is a well-proven concept. This is the same process found in large coal-fired power stations, although these generally use more advanced derivatives of the Rankine cycle called Re-heat and Re-generation. However the electrical output is lower than from a similar mass of coal on account of the calorific value of the material and the generally smaller scale of the power plant will result in somewhat lower efficiencies. The electricity generated can be used on site or sold to another party via the electricity distribution or transmission networks. The capital cost of electricity generation will be higher than a simple heat conversion scheme, however electricity is significantly more valuable than heat and has a larger commercial market. In addition, for large electricity generation plant there are currently limitations in connecting to the electricity networks as discussed in 6.2 below. The Rankine cycle automatically produces both heat energy and mechanical power from the steam turbine (which is usually coupled to an electrical generator to convert the mechanical energy to electrical). If the operator uses only the mechanical/electrical energy, then the majority of the energy content of the biowaste fuel will itself be wasted to the atmosphere through an air-cooled condenser, or through cooling towers. If, on the other hand, a use can be found for the very large amount of heat energy which is produced in the Rankine Cycle, then the fuel energy input to heat/electrical energy output ratios are very high; this ratio is sometimes expressed as an efficiency. Gasification/pyrolysis is also a potential thermal treatment option. The biowaste fuel is heated in an oxygen-poor atmosphere to produce a gas syngas. The calorific value of the gas produced (Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen), comprises most of the syngas energy content, although it has a significantly lower calorific value compared to natural gas. There are a few examples of Gasifiers in the UK and overseas, most running on wood waste. Some of these applications seem to be working satisfactorily, showing that it could become a viable option in the future, although the worlds two largest plants at Karlsruhe and Frth, in Germany, have both closed because they could not meet their design specifications. The theoretical advantages of gasification are cleaner gas prior to combustion, lower emissions and the possibility of directly running a gas engine or gas turbine, which may offer a higher level of electricity generation efficiency than is achieved using small steam turbines. However, the unsuccessful ARBRE plant at Eggborough in Yorkshire, had it ever operated successfully, would have actually generated less electricity from its extremely expensive combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) than it would have done from a simple and reliable Rankine-cycle steam turbine arrangement. Gasification and pyrolysis are advanced technologies that are at the demonstration stage. Hence the analysis in this study focused on combustion as this is the established thermal treatment option which is most likely to have a wide spread application. If, in future years gasification and pyrolysis become available on a commercial scale, with equivalent reliability, this would offer a potentially higher level of electricity generation from thermal treatment. Thermal treatment is therefore all about harnessing the energy content of the fuel. In order to determine this energy content, the specific calorific values (expressed in GJ/tonnes biowaste fuel) of each type of waste have been collected from various sources (DTI, SEPA and DEFRA and other studies). The suitable types of waste for thermal treatment are those wastes that have a good calorific value and can be readily burned without the need for high temperatures to remove hazardous elements. It should be noted that the type of waste suitable for biological process (i.e. digestion) are often not suitable for thermal treatment and vice versa, with the moisture content being a key factor in determining which process is most suitable. Some wastes are at the borderline between biological and thermal treatment in terms of their suitability. Other wastes are wet enough to be digested but still have a high enough calorific value for thermal treatment. In this study material with moisture content of 90% or more is assumed to be treated using biological process while material with a lower moisture content is assumed to be processed using thermal treatment.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The nature of the data provided meant that it wasnt always clear what the moisture content of the waste/residues were. For those that didnt specify moisture content, it was assumed the figures were for dry tonnages.
3.2
Biological Process (Anaerobic Digestion)
Anaerobic digestion uses microbial organisms in the absence of oxygen to decompose organic matter. As with all biological processes anaerobic digestion is strongly influenced by the temperature at which it is occurs. Two different temperature ranges are commonly used in commercial anaerobic digestion o o plants, thermophilic (50 60 C) and mesophilic (30 - 37 C). The volume of biogas that is produced is only slightly affected by the temperature, however the rate at which the material is processed will be strongly influenced by temperature. In mesophilic plants waste will take longer to process than in thermophilic plants however, mesophilic plants tend to be more tolerant of variations in feedstock than thermophilic processes. The choice between use of mesophilic or thermophilic processes will in practice be decided by the composition of the waste and the economic trade offs between digestion rate, capital cost, plant footprint etc. For this study it is assumed that mesophilic processes are chosen, as this is the most stable process and is likely to be better suited to the wide range of wastes considered in this study. In addition less heat is needed to sustain mesophilic digestion systems, hence more energy is available for other purposes. Legislation also dictates how some wastes can be used. This is the case for livestock mortalities and animal tissue and waste from slaughterhouses. The Animal By-products Regulations only allow traditional anaerobic digestion of waste materials that are from sources that were suitable for human consumption (defined as Category 3). This means that slaughter waste, classed as Category 3, can be used in an anaerobic digestion plant however livestock mortalities and tannery waste cannot. This regulatory issue overrides the fact that these wastes are similar in terms of energy and physical constitution. However there are second generation anaerobic digestion plants that can process all Category 2 and 3 materials and these should be considered wherever possible (see section 3.3). Category 2 waste can be utilised for energy production providing that the requirements of Article 15 of the animal byproducts regulations for processing in an approved biogas or composting plant, are met (see section 3.3 Thermal Hydrolysis Process). It is also likely that the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) will apply to most of the biowaste fuels although many processes will contend that they are utilising clean biomass. These regulatory issues are examined in more detail in Section 6. The biological process by which biogas is produced can be split into three main stages (Hydrolysis, acidognesis, methanogenesis) and can be influenced by several factors impacting on the production rate and the methane content of the biogas. One of these factors is the Total Solid content (TS) of the feedstock and this was the basis for deciding which type of waste would be suitable for anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digesters work best with a mix of wet materials (up to 30-40% of solid content). This means that animal manure, milk waste and sludges from various sources are most suitable for digestion. Through various studies, biogas yield ranges of figures (expressed in m/kg of waste) have been observed and this is what has been used to determine the biogas output from anaerobic digestion. The biogas produced by anaerobic digestion can be used in several different ways: 1. Burnt in a biogas boiler to provide heat. 2. Burnt in a biogas reciprocating engine or biogas turbine to provide electricity. 3. As option 2, but with recovery of heat from the biogas engine or turbine, i.e. operating as CHP. In most AD schemes some of the heat produced from the combustion of biogas is used in the anaerobic digestion process itself. This helps maintain the digestion process, particularly during periods of cooler external temperature. This has been taken into account in the assessment of useful energy available.
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The digestate that remains at the end of the digestion process can be used as fertiliser or compost if spread on land or further thermally treated.
3.2.1 Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP)

Anaerobic digestion offers an opportunity to treat Animal-by Products Regulation (ABPR, 1774/2002/EC) Category 2 waste. However conventional pasteurization systems use 70C for 60 minutes and do not meet the requirements of the ABPR. Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) was developed in Norway in 2005 and is now widely used there. The main difference between this and conventional anaerobic digestion treatment is that organic waste is pre-treated at a minimum of 133C for 20-30 minutes. This meets the requirements of method 1 of the ABPR allowing non-mammalian abattoir waste to be used as well as all Category 2 and 3 wastes. By implementing this system higher volumes of waste can be treated reducing the amount being landfilled. By treating organic waste in this way its more likely that the resultant compost will meet the Digestate Standard currently being piloted (see Section 3.4). Figure 3.2 gives an overview of each classification of animal product and its use in AD. Table 3.2: Animal product classification and their use in AD
Manure Digestive tract content
Cat 2 No required treatment
Digestive Tract Cat 3 - pasteurisation Bones, slaughter by-products Parts of slaughtered animals <12mm, 60mins, 70C Anearobic Digester (according to article 15 of ABPR)
Fallen Animals Screenings and flotation sludge >6mm (except Bovine cat 1)
Cat 2 sterilisation
133C, 3bar, 20mins
Cat 1
SRM, vertebral column and skull, intestines Sterilisation/incineration, not intended for AD Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste in Sweden Ake Norberg (Institute of agricultural and environmental engineering)
10
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
3.2.2 Digestate Standard and Code of Practice

As part of Defras Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Programme (BREW) initiative the Digestate Standard is just entering the pilot phase, however there is potential for it to impact on the use of anaerobic digestion as a sustainable waste treatment route. The purpose of the standard is the creation of a certification system that will ensure the quality of digestate products, which can take the form of Whole Digestate, Separated Liquor or Separated Fibre. These are currently used as compost and fertiliser however there are quality issues surrounding these applications. This will help ensure there is a market for these products making the use of anaerobic digestion more attractive. This standard will place requirements on the quality of feedstocks which will have an impact on the types and quality of wastes that can be digested. This will encourage a more stringent collection policy and systems to ensure high organic recovery rates with minimal contamination; however, there is also the risk that it will limit the wastes that are digested as the operator may see the compost as a product rather than the AD process.
11
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Methodology
There are several factors which have had a bearing on how the evaluation has been undertaken, namely the availability of baseline data, the completeness of this data and suitable benchmarking information. In general there was limited data available for the six sectors reviewed, in particular historic information to predict waste growth and tonnage breakdown by Local Authority region in order to establish the geographical distribution of the biowastes. The geographic distribution was used to estimate the potential number of anaerobic digestion and thermal treatment plants that would be required to treat the biowastes identified. Data was acquired from several sources including SEPA, the Forestry Commission and Scottish Power as well as published literature. Where the data was not sufficiently broken down to allow regional comparisons to be made, national statistics such as number of employees within a region were utilised to apportion the tonnages of industrial and commercial waste. For each of the six biowaste sectors used in this study, the waste arisings were evaluated to determine their suitability for treatment; the wastes were classed as not suitable, suitable for AD or suitable for TT. The energy potential for each of the suitable waste types was then determined and efficiency factors assigned to establish the useful energy output. Benchmarking information was obtained from published information and included data on boiler efficiencies and information on existing and proposed thermal and biological process plants to allow a comparison of tonnage throughput to useful energy output to be made.
4.1
Data Acquisition
4.1.1 Baseline Data

Information on biowaste for this evaluation was obtained from the SEPA data team, SEPAs Waste 17 Digest 7 and the Active Compost report . The information was reviewed to determine its suitability. Where gaps were identified SEPA were contacted for additional information, as well as an internet search being conducted in order to ascertain if additional information was available from other sources.
4.1.2 Data Gaps

Data gaps identified included: Insufficient historical data on most sectors to allow waste growth modelling to be undertaken, for example in the agricultural sector where there has been no historic data collection prior to the past two years. Insufficient breakdown of data to allow an accurate regional assessment to be made. The industrial and commercial section of the Active Compost report had limited data coverage of these sectors, for example this report identifies municipal waste for local authorities but does not consider private companies that produce larger amounts of waste.
17
Szmidt, R.A.K, Weir, G.B (2006) Biowaste Arisings and treatment methodologies in Scotland, Active Compost
12
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
4.1.3 Calorific Values

A range of data sources was used to compile details of the calorific value of the main biowastes. Some sources omitted key types of biowaste, and others differed over the calorific value quoted. This is not surprising given that wastes are not of the same composition from site to site and that measurement is uncommon. The data sources included: The Department of Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) website . 19 Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion report . A related study for SEPA by Jacobs: Development of a policy framework for the tertiary. 20 treatment of commercial and industrial wastes .
18
Table 4.1 shows the data from the BERR energy digest. These illustrate the wide range of calorific values for the different components of the waste streams. In practice the values depend on the precise composition of the waste streams, which will vary from site to site and will also change as business activity changes or production changes. These variations and the cost of measuring the calorific value of waste material mean that precise data is impractical to collect. In this study the net calorific value (Net CV) of the wastes has been used and hence the conversion efficiency used is also on this basis. It should be noted that different studies and sources may use a gross calorific value (Gross CV) basis. Examples include Government energy statistics and natural 21 gas suppliers. Table 4.1 Calorific Values
Typical Calorific Values (2006) GJ per tonne net Renewable sources: Domestic wood Industrial wood Straw Poultry Litter Meat and bone General industrial waste 5.0 10.0 12.8 7.4 15.6 15.2 10.0 11.9 15.0 8.8 18.6 16.0 GJ per tonne gross
To address the uncertainty in calorific values two conventions have been adopted for this study: To use an average calorific value 9.4 GJ per tonne gross on a Net CV basis, typical for municipal solid waste. To attempt a more specific estimate using typical calorific values based on Table 4.1 and the other sources quoted above.
Convention 1
Convention 2
Convention 1 is the main one used to report the results in this study. This convention is also being used by Jacobs in their parallel study on policy options for tertiary waste treatment. Hence the results of this study will be available on a basis that is comparable with the other ongoing studies. The waste streams considered include slaughterhouse and other industrial wastes, these components have significantly higher calorific values than typical MSW. Hence using Conversion 1 provides a conservative assessment of the energy available in these waste streams.
18 19
http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukesa_1-a_3.xls Steffen, R, Szolar, O. and Braun, R (1998) Institute for Agrobiotechnology Tulln, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna 20 JE Jacobs August 2007 21 The Net calorific value takes into account the water vapour created during combustion which removes some of the heat of combustion via the combustion gases. Hence the Net calorific values are lower than the Gross calorific values.
13
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
To illustrate this we have provided some summary results using Convention 2 to demonstrate the degree to which Convention 1 could be conservative in reporting the energy available.
4.1.4 Data Allocation by Waste Strategy Area

In order for the data to be utilised on a regional basis the following manipulation was undertaken to determine the regional tonnage allocations. Agriculture Information on agriculture was located in the Annual Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 22 (2006). This provided a breakdown on the total number of agricultural employees in each area and the number of hectares of land used for agriculture (this was further broken down into waste strategy areas). The areas were split into: North East (Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Moray). North West (Shetland & Orkney, Eilean Siar, Highland). South East (Tayside, Fife, Lothian & Borders). South West (Forth Valley, Argyll & Bute, Glasgow & Clyde Valley, Ayrshire & Dumfries & Galloway).
The information gathered was then used to calculate the percentage of employees in each waste strategy area in Scotland. The derived percentages were then used to proportion the waste tonnage per strategy area for each of the chosen wastes. This drew upon mapping presented in the economic report on Scottish Agriculture showing the different farm types, an assumption was made on what types of waste would be found in each authority and this was split accordingly between the authorities: Oils this is assumed to be waste engine oil from machinery and it was assumed that oil waste would be found in all areas. Plastics Argyll & Bute, Ayrshire, Clyde Valley, Dumfries & Galloway, East Central, Fife, Lothians, NE Scotland, Scottish Borders and Tayside. Livestock Mortalities and animal tissue Fife, Highland, Lothian, NE Scotland, Scottish Borders, Tayside. Fish waste Argyll & Bute, Ayrshire, Clyde Valley, Orkney and Shetland.
Figure 4.2 Breakdown of Agricultural Waste by WSA
Agriculture Waste
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Fi G fe Fo la sg rth ow Va & lle C y ly de Va lle y H Lo ig hl th an ia n d & Bo rd er s N o O r th rk ne Ea y st & Sh et la nd Ta ys W id e es te rn Is le s
Waste Strategy Area
Percentage
22
Scottish Executive .2006, Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture
14
Ay rs hi re ,
Ar gy ll & D Bu um te fri es & G ...
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Of the 98,000 tonnes of agricultural waste considered suitable, 76% of this is estimated to arise in three regions - Tayside, North East and Lothian. Commercial and Industrial SEPA provided extensive information on industrial and commercial waste from a waste producer 23 survey of over 12,500 business premises in Scotland by Napier University, Edinburgh . Information from the National Statistics (2004) website on the number of businesses for both industrial and commercial premises was used in order to help breakdown the regional data SEPA had provided in the waste producer survey into separate local authorities. The regions allocated by SEPA were as follows: Argyll & Bute. Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway. Fife. Forth Valley. Glasgow & Clyde Valley. Highland. Lothian & Borders. North East. Orkney & Shetland. Tayside. Western Isles. The percentage allocation of Commercial and Industrial waste utilised in the evaluation for each WSA are shown on Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3 Breakdown of Commercial & Industrial Waste by WSA
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Va lle y Fi fe
24
Commercial and Industrial
Percentage
Va lle y
Ay Ar rs gy hi ll re & ,D Bu um te fri es & G a. ..
H ig hl an d & Bo rd er s N or th O Ea rk ne st y & Sh et la nd
Ta ys id e
la sg ow
Waste Strategy Area
Of the 8,961,000 tonnes of industrial and commercial waste considered suitable, 62% of this is estimated to arise in three regions - Glasgow, Lothian and North East.
Napier University, November 2006. Estimation of Commercial & Industrial Waste Produced in Scotland in 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/16170/2004PDFSectionE - Maufacturing, Hotels and catering and Construction Statistics were used
24
23
Lo th ia n
&
W es te rn
Fo rth
C ly
de
Is le s
15
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland Forestry
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Relevant information on forestry data was found and used for this project from the Forestry Research 25 website . The website had a section called the forest woodfuel forecast where good robust information was available. The data was available for a number of forest districts in Scotland: Dornoch. Inverness. Fort Augustus. Moray. Buchan. Lochaber. Kincardine. Lorne. Tay. West Argyll. Cowal & Trossachs. Scottish Lowlands.
In order to make the information gathered consistent with the regional breakdown for the other three sectors, the forest districts where split into WSA. This process was done by reviewing ordinance survey maps of the distribution of woodland in the country, with assumptions being made on the proportions that should be given to each WSA. The distribution is shown on Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4 Breakdown of Forestry Waste by WSA
25 Percentage 20 15 10 5 0
y le y nd Bu te nd fe rs e ys id Ta W es te rn t Ea s lle Fi Bo rd e la al l .. Va l tla Va ig h Is le . s
Forestry
rth
Ar gy l
ly d
&
&
Fo
or th O rk ne y
fri
&
um
ow
ire ,
Ay rs h
la sg
Waste Strategy Area
All of the 904,000 tonnes of forestry waste was considered suitable, 56% of this is estimated to arise in three regions - Highlands, Ayrshire and North East, with a further 26% in Lothian and Argyll & Bute.
25
Derived from Woodfuel Resource Dynamically Generated Report, H McKay, 2003
16
Lo
th
ia n
es
&
Sh e
l&
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1 Slaughterhouse
SEPA were able to provide information for slaughterhouse waste for 2005. Information on locations of slaughterhouses was located from the Food Standards Agency website, which provided a breakdown on the number of slaughterhouses within each WSA (the information was for 2004 and is the most up 26 to date from this website) . This information was then used in conjunction with the following regional information on tonnages provided by SEPA to allocate Slaughterhouse waste by the following areas: Argyll & Bute. Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway. Fife. Forth Valley. Glasgow & Clyde Valley. Highland. Lothian & Borders. North East. Orkney & Shetland. Tayside. Western Isles.
The distribution of slaughterhouse waste is shown on Figure 4.5 Figure 4.5 Breakdown of Slaughterhouse Waste by WSA
Slaughterhouses 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Ar gy ll & ,D Bu um te fri es & G ... Ay rs hi re Fi fe G Fo la r sg th ow Va & lle C y ly de Va lle y H ig Lo hl th an ia d n & Bo rd er s N or O t h rk Ea ne st y & Sh et la nd Ta ys id W e es te rn Is le s
Percentage
Waste Strategy Area
Of the 178,000 tonnes of slaughterhouse waste considered suitable, 33% of this is estimated to arise in the North East, with a further 38% in Glasgow, Forth Valley and Ayrshire.
26
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/meatplantsprems/meatpremlicence
17
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland MSW
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Information on household waste was obtained from SEPAs Waste Digest 7 having been initially supplied by each Local Authority. The wastes were broken down by Local Authority and were split between Household, Commercial and Industrial Wastes with recycled and composted elements accounted for. It is worth pointing out that the Industrial and Commercial element of this waste are those collected by each Local Authority and are not included under the Commercial and Industrial Section listed above. MSW waste was broken down by the following areas: Argyll & Bute. Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway. Fife. Forth Valley. Glasgow & Clyde Valley. Highland. Lothian & Borders. North East. Orkney & Shetland. Tayside. Western Isles.
Recycling rates were also obtained from the Waste Data Digest and these elements were removed from the total as recycling is the preferred treatment route. Indigestible and un-combustible/inert wastes were also removed from the total leaving only the putrescible or combustible element. Figure 4.6 shows the breakdown and distribution of MSW. Figure 4.6 Breakdown of MSW by WSA
MSW
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Va lle y H ig hl an d gy hi ll re & ,D Bu um te fri es & G a. .. er s fe Va lle y Ea st Sh et la nd id e Ta ys W Bo rd Is le s Fi
Percentage
N or th
Fo rth
Lo th ia n
Ar
la sg ow
Ay rs
Waste Strategy Area
Of the 3,448,413 tonnes of MSW available 2,894,400 tonnes were considered suitable for either AD or TT, 35% of which arising in Glasgow and Clyde Valley.
18
rk ne y
&
es te rn
ly de
&
&
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1 Sewage Sludge
This information was provided by SEPA who, as the regulating authority, Scottish Water report to. Due to confidentiality between these two organisations a breakdown by WSA could not be obtained, instead figures are broken down by region as listed below. North East. North West. South East. South West.
For the purposes of this report only the sludge that is currently landfilled or reclaimed is included. The remaining routes are considered to already be useful. It is considered that the most efficient use of sewage sludge would be to use on site by Scottish Water to meet their heating and electricity needs, with any excess being sold to the grid. This will limit the transport, manpower, treatment and cost required to move the sludge offsite. This is in accordance with the proximity principle as outlined in the National Waste Strategy. Volumes of Sewage Sludge are likely to increase as Scottish Water diversifies the range of waste materials it can manage at sewage treatment sites. Figure 4.6 shows the breakdown and distribution of Sewage Sludge. Figure 4.6 Breakdown of Sewage Sludge by Scottish Water Region
Sewage Sludge
60 50
Percentage
40 30 20 10 0 North East North West South East South West
Scottish Water Region
Of the 140,186 tonnes (dry weight) available 48,500 tonnes pa (dry weight) are currently not being used and are therefore considered suitable.
19
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
4.1.5 Energy Conversion

Information on electricity output from existing thermal treatment plants and fossil fuel boiler efficiencies was obtained in order to establish whether the assumptions made and the results obtained from this evaluation were robust. The fossil fuel boiler efficiency information is obtained from published data and shows the range of efficiencies that can be expected. The CHP data is based on the UK CHP statistics and the Cogeneration Directive. The energy outputs obtained are from existing and proposed thermal treatment plants and are detailed in Appendix 1 and summarised on Figure 4.8. This was purely a form of sense checking and isnt intended to directly compare boilers running on different fuels.
4.1.6 Heat Conversion Efficiency

For all the conversion technologies there will be a range of energy conversion efficiencies. For a particular conversion the efficiency will depend on a range of factors including: The calorific value of the fuel. The design efficiency of the conversion plant. The maintenance of efficient conversion, through maintaining optimal fuel:air ratios, management of blow down losses, effective heat transfer etc. The operational profile, for example boilers running at part load have lower efficiency.
27
The following chart shows the results of a survey of 300 fossil fuel fired steam boilers in industry . This illustrates: An upper limit for efficiency of just over 80%, the practical upper limit of efficiency for steam boilers. Typical efficiency around 75%. A wide range of lower efficiency boilers, down to almost 50%. A range of efficiency that is lower than the quoted boiler efficiency provided by manufacturers for new plant.
Figure 4.8 Results of Boiler Efficiency Survey
Source: Carbon Trust Energy Consumption Guide 067

27
Survey undertaken using a Gross CV basis for fuel. If efficiency were to be quoted on a Net CV basis the figures would be higher e.g. by around 10% for gas fired systems.
20
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
As conversion of biowaste to energy is currently uncommon in the UK, there is no equivalent survey of boilers burning biowastes. If such a survey were to be possible in the future it would be likely to show: A upper limit for efficiency below that found for fossil fuel boilers, due to the lower calorific value of the fuel, the higher excess air needed for combustion of waste material and the higher moisture content. In addition, biowaste boilers will be physically larger than their fossil fuel equivalents, leading to higher radiant heat losses. A lower value for the typical efficiency, for the above reasons. A broader range of efficiency values, as the type and composition of biowaste will vary over time, unlike fossil fuels which must meet defined standards.
The way in which biowaste boilers are used will also have an impact on efficiency levels. Where biowaste is being used as a fuel, the plant has to process the fuel in a certain time irrespective of the level of heat needed by the on or off site heat consumers. The plant is normally designed to run at a high load factor and with the minimum amount of downtime for maintenance. In essence the plant will be capable of provided a near constant level of heat. Heat consumers will seldom have constant, year long requirements for heat. If the heat produced from the boiler does not have a heat consumer, then the excess heat energy may have to be rejected to atmosphere; this will lower the resource efficiency. Generating electricity using an extraction/condensing steam turbine via CHP is one way of addressing this issue. It is worth noting that the reference efficiency values for heat production used in the EU Cogeneration Directive are 80% for Agricultural and Municipal wastes, with 86% used for Wood fuels (Net CV 28 basis) . While these are figures to be used to test the performance of cogeneration systems, rather than specific figures for a particular plant, they provide a useful benchmark. To cope with these uncertainties in boiler efficiency, this review uses a range of heat conversion efficiencies, 65%, 75% and 90%, representing low, medium and high levels of heat conversion. The range of efficiencies was also intended to consider other uncertainties, for example size of scheme.
4.1.7 Electricity Generation Efficiency

Three technologies for electricity generation are considered in this study: Steam Turbine this would be used with thermal treatment plant. A Steam turbine engine uses the thermal energy found in steam (from water boiled as a result of incineration in this case) and converts it into useful mechanical energy. This is then used to drive an electrical generator. Biogas Engine this would be used with the biogas from an anaerobic digestion plant. This runs in the same way as any reciprocating, or internal combustion, engine in that fuel is oxidised then combusted causing an expansion of hot gases which drives pistons, this mechanical movement can be used to drive an electric generator. Biogas Turbine this would be used with the biogas from an anaerobic digestion plant. This works in the same way as a steam turbine except the fuel is burnt and the hot combustion gases drive the turbine.
There are a number of issues with the use of biogas, be it in an engine or turbine: Biogas has a higher hydrogen sulphide content. When combusted, SO2 is released and can combine with water and create sulphuric acid, which is corrosive to engine parts. Higher water content means water condensate is more likely to build up causing corrosion and washing of engine oils resulting in more wear. There tends to be more debris in biofuels which causes wear and corrosion throughout the engine or turbine.
28
Commission Decision of 21 Dec 2006 2007/74/EC
21
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Biogas engines and turbines therefore need to be more resistant to corrosion. This is done in a number of ways: Use of yellow metals such as brass or bronze should be avoided. Lubricant temperatures are often raised to reduce condensate. Base or slightly alkaline lubricants can be used to prevent oils from becoming acidic. Biogas engines operate at higher temperatures to avoid condensation of acids. A coalescing filter can be used to remove water (this will also capture debris). A particle filter is used to remove debris (this reduces the need to replace coalescing filters).
The primary route to generate electricity in a biowaste combustion plant is to raise steam in a steam boiler. This steam is used to drive a steam turbine and hence to generate electricity. In a large coal fired power station this technology can be optimised to provide efficiency levels up to 44% (Net CV 29 basis) . Electricity generation efficiency will be lower in the smaller scale steam turbines that will be used in plants that use biowaste materials as fuel. The Cogeneration Directive reference values for electricity generation efficiency are 33% for wood fuel systems, and 25% for Agricultural and Municipal wastes (Net CV basis). Electricity is used within the electricity generation process and for the mechanical handling equipment in the EfW scheme. Hence a lower level of electricity generation efficiency should be used to account for the on site use. The Jacobs study suggests a figure of 21%, as this is below the range quoted above, so this is a reasonable and conservation assumption. For wet waste material treated in anaerobic digestion, the biogas that is produced can be used to fuel a biogas engine. If the biogas is suitable this offers a higher level of energy efficiency than the thermal treatment/steam turbine route. The composition of the biogas will determine the suitability for use in an engine, with the main concerns being contaminants that will impair the engines operational life. The potential contaminants will depend on the chemical composition of the feedstock for the anaerobic digestion process. The electrical efficiency of biogas engine systems will depend on the design, the size of the engine and the percentage load. Electrical efficiency increases with engine size. Heat can be recovered from the engine flue gas and the engine cooling system. Some of this heat is needed to keep the anaerobic digestion process at optimal temperature for biogas production. This arrangement is often found in sewage gas anaerobic digestion schemes. The amount of heat that is needed by the anaerobic digestion process will depend on a number of factors. For example, mesophilic processes will require less heat than thermophilic processes. There will be seasonal variations, with more heat needed in the winter months. In this study it is assumed 30 that 20% of the energy content of the biogas is used to heat the anaerobic digestion process. As commented elsewhere in this report, the recovery of additional heat will be more practical for smaller schemes that can be located closer to heat consumers. Hence the efficiency of small-scale biogas engines should be the reference point for this study. The Cogeneration Directive does not provide any reference figures for anaerobic digestion and biogas engines as the reference figures are linked to fuel types and not to the type of conversion technology. Manufacturers specifications for biogas engines range from 33% (30 kWe) to 38% (1,000 31 kWe) . The lower figure corresponds with the efficiency data used by Jacobs in their parallel study; hence 33% has been used in this study. The final option is to use a gas turbine with the biogas produced in an anaerobic digestion scheme. Small-scale gas turbines suitable for use with biogas became available from the late 1990s. When compared with a gas engine of the same power output, a gas turbine will always have a lower efficiency. For this reason they are seldom found on sewage gas anaerobic digestion schemes. Thus we have not included use of gas turbine technology in estimating the useful energy output from biowastes.
29 30
See footnote 28 Extracted from Energy Efficiency Best Practice Prgramme Case Study 231 31 Source Ener-g website and converted to Net CV basis
22
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The changes to the Renewables Obligation discussed in Section 6 are likely to increase interest in CHP rather than electricity only schemes.
4.1.8 Combined Heat and Power Efficiency

In a CHP system electricity is generated and some of the heat released during the process is recovered and used to heat industrial processes, buildings or homes. Because of this, the overall energy efficiency will always be higher than for an electricity only generation plant of the same scale. The actual level of efficiency will depend on the ability of the scheme to recover as much heat as possible and to sell this to heat consumers. Industrial CHP schemes are designed to match the size of the scheme to the level and pattern of heat demands within the industrial processes that they serve. As a result they can achieve high levels of energy recovery and hence energy efficiency. This is reflected in the data for average efficiency of 32 CHP schemes in the UK in 2006 which was 72.7% (Net CV basis) . The UK statistics report performance for other CHP schemes, which includes schemes in the agriculture, community heating, leisure, landfill and incineration sectors. This category will include schemes that are similar to the EfW schemes considered in this study. The overall efficiency for the other category of CHP schemes is 33 52% (Gross CV basis) . In general any electricity generation scheme that recovers some heat can claim to be CHP. There are examples of schemes where the heat recovered is a very small percentage of the fuel input such schemes do not provide a significant degree of energy efficiency or environmental benefit. The development of revenue and capital support schemes for CHP led to the requirement to distinguish those CHP schemes that do provide significant energy and environmental benefits from 34 those that do not. The first such scheme was the UK CHP Quality Assurance programme (CHPQA) . More recently the Cogeneration Directive has put in place EU wide rules and definitions. The Cogeneration Directive provides a number of different approaches to assessing the performance of CHP schemes. These are complex, so the UK is adopting an approach to change the definitions used by the CHPQA programme so that UK operators and developers of CHP schemes do not need to refer directly to the Directive, but can continue with the reporting mechanisms used under the CHPQA programme. The changes to the CHPQA will ensure that passing the CHPQA tests will match the requirements of Article 12 (2) of the Cogeneration Directive. In summary these are: For schemes over 25 MWe the overall efficiency is over 70% (Net CV basis). For schemes between 1 MWe and 25 MWe the Primary Energy Savings (PES) compared to efficiency reference values must be greater than or equal to 10%. For schemes below 1 MWe the Primary Energy Savings (PES) compared to efficiency reference values must be greater than or equal to 0%.
From Figure 4.9, an electricity output of 25 MWe would correspond to a waste processing capacity of around 300,000 tonnes pa. The heat available from a scheme of this size would be many times higher than the heat loads that are likely to be in the vicinity of the plant. Hence smaller plants will be inherently better suited to operation as CHP schemes. Thus in the following sections of this report smaller scale schemes are considered as the exemplars.
32 33
Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2007 Quotes Gross CV effiicency of 67.7% and that Net CV basis will be 5 points higher. Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2007 Analysis of Table 6.8 data is not available on a Net CV basis. 34 See www.chpqa.com
23
35
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The proposal for the revised Waste Framework Directive included in Annex II a definition for recovery operations for MSW schemes of 65% (Net CV basis) for schemes permitted after 31 December 2008. However, the choice of this figure is not justified within the relevant text. To be consistent with the Jacobs report we have used a figure for CHP efficiency of 65%. This is less than the Cogeneration Directive target figure of 70% for larger schemes, which is in line with the assumption that smaller schemes are the likely route to develop CHP. When considering CHP systems there is an additional aspect that needs to be considered for the thermal treatment route. This route will employ a steam turbine to generate electricity, via a gearbox and electrical generator. To maximise electricity generation the steam will be condensed at the exit from the steam turbine. The condensed heat will be at too low a temperature and pressure to supply to other consumers. Hence a different form of steam turbine is needed for CHP applications. This extracts some of the steam before it has passed through all stages of the turbine, providing steam that can be used to provide heat to other consumers. By extracting steam the electricity output of the turbine is slightly reduced. Typically, for every five units of heat exacted the electricity output will be 36 reduced by 1 unit . Thus to achieve 65% total efficiency the electrical efficiency of the thermal treatment/steam turbine CHP system would be 10% with heat efficiency of 55%.
35 36
COM (2005) 677 Final This ratio is described in the CHPQA documentation as the Z ratio, this is influenced by the steam pressures used, a figure of 5:1 is typical for a CHP system extracting steam for use in District Heating, see www.chpqa.com for more details.
24
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
4.1.9 Energy Output

The following figure shows a range of net electricity output in MW (electricity generated less use on the conversion processes) that have been achieved from different EfW plants. It should be noted that some of the data points are for plants which are not as yet in operation and also for plants which co fire waste / gas and oil. However the information provides a rough guide to the expected electricity export that could be obtained from thermal treatment. Figure 4.9 UK Examples of Thermal Treatment - Tonnage vs. Net Electricity Output
80 70 MW Electricity 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Tonnage 400,000 500,000 600,000
The four schemes that lie out with the trend line, in order of increasing tonnage, are: Slough Heat and Power, which has an annual tonnage throughput of 110 ktonnes of RDF, electricity generation of 45 MWe is quoted in the literature. However this is a complex scheme with several elements such as a gas turbine on the same site. Some of these can use fossil fuel. The overall scheme sells heat to clients on the nearby trading estate. Eastcroft in Nottingham, which has an annual tonnage throughput of 150 ktonnes. This is a CHP scheme with outputs of 19 MWe (electricity) and 2 MWth (thermal). Riverside in Belvedere. This facility is consented for an annual throughput of 585 ktonnes and electricity output of 70 MWe (electricity). This facility is expected to take mixed waste, mainly MSW. Edmonton, which has an annual tonnage throughput of 600 ktonnes, 32 MWe (electricity). This is an old plant commissioned in the 1970s for thermal treatment of MSW.
These examples demonstrate the diverse nature of thermal treatment of waste with the more modern plants providing greater return per tonne of waste than their older counterparts. However in parts of Europe where EfW is a more mature technology far greater efficiencies have been achieved. Figure 4.10 below shows the efficiencies that have been be achieved in EfW plants. The main contributing factor here being the use of heat.
25
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland Figure 4.10 Energy recovery per tonne of waste across Europe
37
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
As can be seen, Denmark and Sweden lead the way in terms of High Efficiency EfW plants, achieving approximately three times the energy output of UK plants (~2.4MWh of energy versus the UKs ~0.7MWh). Implementation of the latest technologies may demand a premium in terms of capital cost on a site-bysite basis, however the increased efficiencies will mean more waste can be treated by fewer plants, meaning the total capital cost may well be reduced.
37 Source: Extracted from a SEPA presentation titled Energy from Waste- When Energy Efficiency matters (by Paul R James Ramboll) Information originally sourced from ISWA Energy from Waste. State-of-the-Art Report. Statistics 5th Edition August 2006. ISWA Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste
26
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
4.2
Technology Summary
The efficiency data from the previous section is shown in the following simple Sankey diagrams. For a notional input of 100 units of energy each diagram shows the energy flows in each process, with the useful energy outputs (heat and/or electricity) and the energy losses. In each case the width of the coloured lines representing energy flows are scaled to the amount of energy. Figure 4.11 Sankey Thermal Treatment with 75% Efficient Boiler
Losses Waste
100 25
Boiler
75
Heat
While the 75% efficient case is shown, the model and study results include data for 90%, 75% and 60% boiler efficiency. Figure 4.12 Sankey Thermal Treatment with 21% Efficient Electricity Generator
Losses Waste
100 79 21
Electricity
Gen
Figure 4.13 Sankey Thermal Treatment with 65% Efficient CHP
Losses Waste
100 35 10
CHP
55
Electricity Heat
As described above recovery of heat reduces the electrical efficiency compared to level shown in figure 4.8.
27
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Figure 4.14 Sankey Anaerobic Digestion with 75% Efficient Boiler
Losses Biogas AD
100 25
Heat
75 55
Boiler
Heat
20
As described in Section 4.2.2, around 20% of the energy content of the biogas is needed to heat the digestion process. In this case this leaves 55% of the energy available as heat. While the 75% efficient case is shown, the model and study results include data for 90%, 75% and 60% boiler efficiency. The energy available as heat will be 70%, 55% and 40% respectively.
Figure 4.15 Sankey Anaerobic Digestion with 33% Efficient Electricity Generator
Losses Biogas AD
100 47
Gen
20
33
Electricity
As with the figure 4.11, it is assumed that 20% of the heat is used in the AD process, with the remainder rejected to atmosphere.
Figure 4.16 Sankey Anaerobic Digestion with 65% Efficient CHP
Biogas AD
100
35
CHP
33 32 12
Electricity Heat
20
As can be seen this example is very similar to the electricity only case on Figure 4.11, with only 12% of the energy available as useful heat. In real schemes the amount of heat available will depend on the performance of the CHP unit and the amount of heat needed by the digester. While these figures will vary, the amount of heat available will remain a small proportion of the energy content of the biogas.
28
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
In practical terms the level of heat will often be too low to recover and likely to be too low to consider installing a District Heating scheme. The most common anaerobic digestion application at present is for treatment of sewage sludge. In some of these sites a small amount of heat is used for space heating and hot water in the site buildings. This practice is consistent with examples from this sector.
4.3
Modelling
The model used in this study has been designed to take the biowaste tonnages for each WSA and to calculate the potential energy yield that could be expected if the biowaste could be collected for use. In order to make this as accurate as possible an extensive range of data on waste arisings has been gathered, checked and presented for each Local Authority and waste stream grouped in four principal categories: Agriculture, Commercial and Industrial, Forestry and Slaughterhouse, the base line tonnages used are presented in Appendix 3.
4.3.1 Waste Suitable for Energy Use

Based on AEAs expertise, various waste streams such as chemicals, asbestos roofing, animal health care etc. have been taken out of the analysis, as they are deemed not suitable for energy purposes. This is either because these are hazardous wastes and therefore subject to special treatment or they simply cannot be digested nor combusted, at least not in an efficient, productive or economically viable way. Waste arisings from agriculture and forestry in the Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation waste stream under the Industrial and Commercial waste category are similar to those from the Agricultural sector and the Forestry sector. The difference lies in the businesses involved. It means that, although they produce the same types of waste, the businesses in the Commercial and Industrial sector are not the same as those in the Agricultural sector and from a logistics standpoint they each have distinct waste streams. The following is a list of the wastes that are considered suitable for energy recovery, listed by sector. A detailed breakdown of all the waste streams considered is presented in Appendix 4 with those suitable for energy recovery detailed in Appendix 5. Agriculture: Oils.* Plastics.* Livestock mortalities and animal tissue. Fish waste. Milk waste.
Commercial and Industrial: Agriculture, Horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation. Wood processing and production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard. Wastes from leather, fur and textile industries. Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (non-edible). Waste packing, absorbents, cloths, filters and protective clothing.** Construction and demolition. *** Municipal wastes (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste).
29
The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forestry Residues in Scotland Forestry, waste derived from the cultivation of: Stemwood 7-14 cm Stemwood 14-16 cm Stemwood 16-18 cm Stemwood 18+ cm Poor Quality Wood Tips Branches Foliage
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Slaughterhouse: MSW Putrescible or combustible waste not already being recycled. Raw meat waste from slaughtering facilities.
Sewage Sludge The element that is currently being landfilled or reclaimed.
* Plastics and oil wastes are not bio-wastes as such but as oil derived products they have a non-negligible calorific value and can theoretically be considered for thermal treatment. There are other economic and environmental issues about plastics that may lead to the conclusion that plastics and oil wastes are simply better for recycling. These issues will be discussed at a later stage. ** Waste packaging is partly made up of wood and plastics. It is assumed that each material made up 15% of the total category. *** Only the wood and plastics elements from construction and demolition waste are considered.
It should be noted that with the information currently available, only the above categories have a potential to recover energy. More detailed information on the waste composition could mean that a certain amount of waste previously discarded could potentially become re-classed as an energy resource. For example some types of waste arising from Wastes not otherwise specified in the list or organic chemical processes might turn out to be suitable for energy production. These two categories represent a fair portion of the total waste and therefore if only a fraction of it is deemed suitable it could still make a difference in the final energy figure. However at present it is considered too speculative to determine any figure for the integration of unknown waste in the model. Figure 4.17 below shows the waste category breakdown for each of the five sectors (excluding Sewage Sludge).
30
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Figure 4.17 Total Waste Arisings by WSA
Total Waste per WSA*

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Va lle y Ar hi re gy ,D ll & um Bu fri te es & G al lo w ay H ig hl an d er s fe Va lle y Ea st Sh et la nd Fi Bo rd N or th
MSW Slaughterhouses Forestry C&I Agriculture
Percentage of total
id e Ta ys W
Fo rth
Lo th ia n
la sg ow
Ay rs
Waste Strategy Area
* Not including Sewage Sludge A number of features are quickly apparent from this: The importance of Agricultural wastes in the North East Tayside & Lothians. The importance of Slaughterhouse waste in the North East and to a lesser extent Glasgow, Ayrshire, Forth Valley and Tayside. The significant Commercial and Industrial waste in Glasgow and to a lesser extent the Lothians and the North East. The significant amounts of MSW in Glasgow. The very low level of arisings in Orkney & Shetland and the Western Isles.
4.3.2 Practical Issues

The practical issues associated with recovery of heat are particularly important. The relevant issues include: The market value of heat is lower than the value of electricity. This is most simply illustrated by considering the typical tariff for a medium scale industrial user. Electricity prices from 38 supplier will be around 6.8 p/kWh, while gas will be around 2.19 p/kWh . Taking gas boiler efficiency of 75% this means a value for heat of 3.13 p/kWh including the Climate Change 39 Levy (VAT not included). In the long term the value of heat is likely to rise as availability of gas decreases and choices need to be made about whether to use it for heating or electrical generation. The market is likely to drive up the heat value as demand increases. Heat demands vary. Energy from waste plants are normally designed to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. However most heat loads are seasonal (peak use in December and January) and last for part of the day (to suit working hours or mornings plus evenings for homes). Hence the best heat customers are industrial process sites, operating three shifts, seven days a week. There only a few large sites in Scotland that have this type of heat demand, the number of suitable sites is falling as process industry declines in Scotland. Furthermore this type of industrial site may already have potential sources of waste heat from the on site processes which may be a preferred source of low temperature heat. Heat
38 39
Quarterly Energy Prices, June 2007, DTI
The Levy rates are at present:0.154 p/kWh for gas, coal and coke, 0.441 p/kWh for electricity and 0.0985 p/kWh for LPG These rates are expected to rise in line with inflation. Source HMRC CCL web pages.
rk ne y
&
es te rn
ly de
&
&
Is le s
31
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
storage systems offer a solution to this problem and they would be worth considering. They use a variety of materials, from water to pebbles, to store heat until it is needed. However these systems should only be considered where the heat cannot be directly used as they offer a relatively short term solution. The cost of transporting heat. District Heating is found throughout Europe and is often associated with EfW. In the UK there are relatively few District Heating schemes. Only one scheme in Scotland (Lerwick) has a large number of heat customers. Building a new District Heating scheme is capital intensive, due to the cost of the pipes and the trenching required. In broad terms the costs is 1 million per mile of trench. This places restrictions on the distance that heat can be piped to consumers, or requires a high level of heat sales to provide sufficient income to justify the capital costs.
To illustrate the impact of these practical issues with heat recovery it is worth considering one successful form of energy from biowaste. In 2006 there were 106 anaerobic digestion schemes on UK sewage treatment works registered under the Renewables Obligation, with a total generating capacity of 73 MW. Almost all of these schemes are CHP, with heat used to maintain the temperature in the digestion tank. This heat load is present year round and at all times of the day - so it is in step with the availability of heat from the CHP. The CHP will produce more heat than is required by the digestion tank. In many cases this heat will be rejected to the atmosphere via heat dump radiators. This is done because the heat is collected from the jacket of the CHP engine, if this is not cooled the engine will overheat and cut out. The option of heat recovery for this additional heat is generally not implemented as the value is low, there are limited opportunities to use this on site (occasionally there are some works offices) and the cost of sale to other customers is too high as they will seldom be in close proximity to the water treatment works.
32
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Model Results
In the previous section we set out the data on biowastes, by type and by Local Authority. When combined with the calorific values of these wastes, this provides an assessment of the raw energy content of the biowastes available. However, as useful energy is in the form of heat or electricity, this section considers the different conversion options to recover useful energy from the raw energy available in the biowaste resources identified in Section 4. In some cases a significant portion of the energy recovered is used within the conversion plant. The most important example of this is the use of some of the heat recovered from anaerobic digestion to maintain the temperature in the digestion process.
5.1
Suitable Energy Routes
One of the main objectives of this evaluation was to compare the suitability of the biowaste with regard to the conversion routes of thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion as described in Section 1. As described previously, anaerobic digestion is more suitable for wet waste (high moisture content or low solid content) and combustion for drier wastes. The higher the moisture content the more efficient the process. Ideally a wet digestion process should contain 90% moisture meaning some wastes may 40 need to be supplemented with water. In the absence of further information it was assumed the weights were for dry tonnage. In general the above criteria is relevant to all wastes considered for treatment. However, the Commercial and Industrial waste categories needed more detailed consideration. This is because they each comprise a wide range of wastes that can either be digested, combusted, or both. For some, like inert wastes, there is no alternative but to dispose of them to landfill. In order to overcome these uncertainties a set of assumptions have been applied to the quantity of waste in each stream that could potentially be used. In Construction and Demolition wastes, only wood and plastic materials are considered for energy purposes and this represents only 0.75% of those wastes. Municipal Waste was broken down based on SEPAs Waste Date Digest 7 information. This meant 45.5% of waste was deemed suitable for Thermal Treatment and 26% for anaerobic digestion. For Waste Packaging and Absorbants 15% was assumed to be wood, based on the DTIs (now known as BERR) waste statistics and another 15% was attributed to account for paper, card, plastics and textiles. In absence of more information it has been assumed that 70% and 80% of each category could be used for anaerobic digestion and thermal treatment respectively. This principle has also been applied to the other categories (Agriculture, Forestry and Slaughterhouses) as explained below. Municipal Waste Collected by Local Authorities presented a similar problem. The Waste Data Digest 7 gave a breakdown of urban wastes and details of recycling rates per Local Authority. The recycled volumes for each Local Authority were subtracted from the total. The remaining waste was then split into three categories: Suitable for Anaerobic Digestion (26%). Suitable for Combustion (45.5%). Inert.
40
www.waste.nl/page/248
33
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
5.2
Model Discussion
5.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion

The waste categories pre-selected as suitable for anaerobic digestion are: Fish waste. Milk Waste. Slaughterhouse waste (raw meat waste from slaughtering facilities). Municipal (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste)*.
*This is a description from the European Waste Catalogue. In reality household waste is not included in this stream.
The quantities of biowaste per WSA have been aggregated for each of these waste streams to reflect the situation at national level. A number of findings and assumptions have been used to gain a set of figures for biogas yield and corresponding potential energy output. These assumptions and findings are summarised below: The yield for biogas production from AD is assumed to be 125 m per tonne of waste 41 material. This is the average value for the feedstock on an as received basis . 42 The biogas is assumed to be 60% methane with most of the remaining 40% being CO2, the main GHG associated with Climate Change.
3
As shown in Table 5.1a, total waste (in tonnes) is multiplied by biogas yield, which gives a volume of 3 biogas (in m ). This is converted into the energy content of the biogas in MWh. In practice there will be variations in biogas yield which will depend on the feedstock mix, the retention time and other factors that have to be evaluated for each proposed scheme, based on the specific details of the waste streams being digested. In the absence of specific data on the wastes to be digested the assumptions regarding biogas yield are necessarily broad based.
Table 5.1a AD Potential Energy Yield Convention 1

AD Potential Energy Yield Total Solids (t)** Fish Milk Waste facilities Municipal etc. Slaughterhouses MSW S Sludge Totals 6,700 2,700 1,339,000 1,425,000 178,000 753,000 48,000 3,752,400 m biogas 837,500 337,500 167,375,000 178,125,000 22,250,000 94,125,000 6,000,000 469,050,000
3
60% Methane 3 (m ) 502,500 202,500 100,425,000 106,875,000 13,350,000 56,475,000 3,600,000 281,430,000
Megawatthour minus 20% for heating (MWh) 5,000 2,000 995,900 1,059,800 132,400 560,000 2,790,800
digester* 4,000 1,600 796,700 847,800 105,900 448,000 28,600 35,700

2,232,640
*This is the biogas less 20%, which is typically used within the process for heating the digester ** Only 26% of the total municipal waste was deemed to be suitable for AD treatment. This included the putrescible/organic element. Conversion from tonnes to MWh: Total Solids are multiplied by 125 m3/t to give m3 of biogas. Biogas figure is multiplied by 60% to give the methane content. This is then multiplied by 35.7 MJ/ m3 to give a value in MJ and then multiplied by 0.000278 to convert to MWh.
41 42
IWM, 1998, Anaerobic Digerion Working Group for the Insiture of Waste Management A mid range figure from: http://www.kolumbus.fi/suomen.biokaasukeskus/en/enperus.html
34
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
3
Convention 1 uses a biogas yield of 125 m /t in order to keep this report consistent with the parallel 41 3 study being conducted by Jacobs . However a figure of 250 m /t is considered an average yield for anaerobic digestion. For this reason a second convention has been modelled, the results are shown in Table 5.1b, below.
Table 5.1b AD Potential Energy Yield Convention 2

AD Potential Energy Yield Total Solids (t) Fish Milk Waste facilities Municipal etc. Slaughterhouses MSW S Sludge Totals 6,700 2,700 1,339,000 1,425,000 178,000 753,000 48,000 3,752,400 m3 biogas 1,675,000 675,000 334,750,000 356,250,000 44,500,000 188,250,000 12,000,000 938,100,000 60% Methane (m3) 1,005,000 405,000 200,850,000 213,750,000 26,700,000 112,950,000 7,200,000 562,860,000 Megawatthour minus 20% for heating (MWh)
digester 8,000 10,000 3,200 4,000 1,991,800 1,593,400 2,119,700 1,695,800 211,800 264,800 896,100 1,120,100 57,100 71,400
5,581,800 4,465,440
The less conservative Convention 2 gives, an energy yield approximately 100% greater than convention 1. For the purposes of this report all calculations are based on the results of the more conservative Convention 1.
5.2.2 Thermal Treatment

The waste categories retained as suitable for thermal treatment are as follows: Livestock mortalities and animal tissue*. Forestry residues. Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food processing (elements not already used in anaerobic digestion). Wood processing and production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard. Waste from leather, fur and textile industries. Waste packaging (Wood and Plastic elements). Construction and demolition. Municipal waste not used in anaerobic digestion (commercial, industrial and institutional waste). MSW not used in anaerobic digestion.
* Livestock mortalities and animal tissue are likely to contain Category 1 material and would therefore fall under the Animal byproducts regulations and therefore cannot be digested unless the digester uses Thermal Hydrolysis as a pre-treatment (see section 3.3). It can however be thermally treated.
35
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The following Table (5.2) shows the energy available from thermal treatment using Convention 1 for the calorific value of the material. Again the quantities of waste from each WSA have been aggregated. Table 5.2 Thermal Treatment Energy Yield Convention 1
TT Potential Energy Yield Total Solids MJ/kg (net) Megajoules (MJ) Oils Plastics Livestock mortalities and animal tissue Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation Wood processing & production of panels & furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard Wastes from leather, fur and textile industries Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (non-edible) Waste packing; absorbants, cloths, filters & protective clothing Construction & demolition (inc excavated soil from contaminated sites) Municipal wastes (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste) Forestry residues MSW Totals 8,621 20,731 59,839 9.4 9.4 9.4 81,038,500 194,874,900 562,485,700 Megawatthour (MWh) 22,500 54,100 156,200
530,553
9.4
4,987,197,500
1,385,000
244,352 153,149 3,151
9.4 9.4 9.4
2,296,910,300 1,439,602,800 29,622,000
638,000 399,900 8,200
145,392
9.4
1,366,684,400
379,600
10,296
9.4
96,778,700
26,900
2,494,201 903,907 1,316,946 5,891,139
9.4 9.4 9.4 N/A
23,445,488,400 8,496,726,100 12,379,293,200 55,376,702,500
6,513,000 2,360,000 3,439,000 15,382,400
Assumptions and findings from various sources have enabled a decision on the percentage of each waste streams that can be practically used, to be made. It has been assumed, if not otherwise stated, that 80% of the total waste could be thermally treated. For Convention 2 (Table 5.3) the calorific values (Net CV basis) have been gathered from several sources (DTI, Defra and SEPA).
36
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Table 5.3 Thermal Treatment Energy Yield Convention 2

TT Potential Energy Yield Total Solids MJ/kg (net) Megajoules (MJ) Oils Plastics Livestock mortalities and animal tissue Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting, fishing and food preparation Wood processing & production of panels & furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard Wastes from leather, fur and textile industries Oil wastes and wastes of liquid fuels (non-edible) Waste packing; absorbants, cloths, filters & protective clothing Construction & demolition (inc excavated soil from contaminated sites) Municipal wastes (household, and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste) Forestry Residues MSW Totals 8,600 20,700 59,800 43.6 32.9 15.6 374,960,000 681,030,000 932,880,000 Megawatthour (MWh) 104,200 189,200 259,100
530,600
5.0
2,653,000,000
737,000
244,400 153,100 3,200
19.6 15.6 40.9
4,790,240,000 2,388,360,000 130,880,000
1,330,600 663,400 36,400
145,400
25.0
3,635,000,000
1,009,700
10,300
20.5
211,150,000
58,700
2,494,000 903,900 1,316,946 4,574,000
13.0 10.0 13.0 N/A
32,422,000,000 9,039,000,000 17,120,298,000 57,258,500,000
9,006,000 2,511,000 4,756,000 20,661,300
This less conservative estimate is 34% higher than the estimate using Convention 1. For the purposes of this report all calculations are based on the results of Convention1.
37
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
5.2.3 Potential Energy Yield

Taking into account the 20% deduction in exportable energy from an anaerobic digestion plant, due to internal reuse of heat, there would still be some 2,232,640 MWh of energy produced in Scotland if this energy source could be fully utilised. For thermal treatment this value is 15,382,400 MWh of energy available for use from waste. This gives a total energy potential from waste of 17,615,000 MWh/year. The potential energy yield for each waste area is given in Appendix 7 and Appendix 8. This section puts the assessment of energy content of biowastes into the context of energy in Scotland. The assessment above is the energy content of biowastes, rather than the useful energy content as heat or electricity. Hence in this section the energy comparison is with the two main fossil fuels used in Scotland that also have the potential to be converted to heat or electricity, i.e. gas and coal.
Table 5.4 Fuel Use in Scotland

Biowaste MWh (TT and AD)
43
Gas Use MWh (Electricity & Heat) 85,540,000
Coal Use MWh (Electricity & Heat) 44,110,000
17,615,000
5.2.4 Heat and Electricity Production

Efficiencies of 65%, 75% and 90% have been applied to give a range of figures when generating heat from the energy potential of the provided waste. Although the 90% value is considered to be on the high side it may align more closely to future efficiencies than current ones where the 75% is a more representative number. The potential energy yield based on these three efficiencies per Waste Management Area is shown on Tables 5.6a and b for anerobic digestion and table 5.6c for thermal transfer. The heat efficiency is the efficiency of the boiler - 20% of the energy input is assumed to be used to heat the digester, hence the heat available is less than the efficiency value would suggest.
Table 5.6a Heat Only and Power Only Available via AD (excluding Sewage Sludge) Efficiency
Anaerobic Digestion
Argyle and Bute Ayrshire, Dumfires and Galloway Fife Forth Valley Glasgow and Clyde Valley Highlands Lothian and Borders North East Orkney and Shetland Tayside Western Isles Totals
Potential MWh 65%

55,400 224,500 129,400 121,600 651,500 120,300 365,900 319,300 31,900 166,100 17,900 2,204,000 36,000 145,900 84,100 79,000 423,500 78,200 237,800 207,500 20,700 108,000 11,600 1,432,300
Heat Only 75%

41,600 168,400 97,100 91,200 488,600 90,200 274,400 239,500 23,900 124,600 13,400 1,653,000
Power Only 90%

49,900 202,100 116,500 109,400 586,400 108,300 329,300 287,400 28,700 149,500 16,100 1,984,000
33%
18,300 74,100 42,700 40,100 215,000 39,700 120,700 105,400 10,500 54,800 5,900 727,200
43
Fossil Fule Data from the Scottish Energy Study Volume 1 Energy in Scotland, Supply and Demand
38
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Table 5.6b Heat Only and Power Only Available via AD (Sewage Sludge)
65% 75% 90% NE 9,053 5,900 6,800 8,100 NW 1,187 800 900 1,100 SE 10,618 6,900 8,000 9,600 SW 7,975 5,200 6,000 7,200 Total 28,833* 18,800 21,700 26,000 * This number is additive with the total potential MWh in table 5.6a above Table 5.6c Heat Only and Power Only Available via TT Efficiency
Anaerobic Digestion (sewage sludge)
Potential MWh
Heat Only
Power only 33% 2988 392 3504 2632 9,515
Thermal Treatment
Potential MWh 65%
Heat Only 75%

412,800 1,247,300 696,900 608,900 3,242,300 854,600 2,002,000 1,478,000 92,300 919,100 59,700
Power Only 90%

495,400 1,497,000 836,300 730,600 3,891,000 1,025,500 2,402,000 1,773,000 110,800 1,102,900 71,600 13,936,000
21%
115,600 349,200 195,100 170,500 907,800 239,300 560,500 413,700 25,900 257,300 16,700 3,252,000
550,400 1,663,000 929,200 811,800 4,323,000 1,139,400 2,669,000 1,970,000 123,100 1,225,400 79,600
357,800 1,081,000 604,000 527,700 2,810,000 740,600 1,735,000 1,281,000 80,000 796,500 51,700
15,483,900 10,065,000 11,613,000
It is important to note that these are the total useful outputs if all the energy present in these biowastes if converted to heat OR electricity, hence the heat and electricity figures are not additive.
39
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The following three Tables (5.7a, 5.7b and 5.7c) show the useful energy outputs for CHP. The 12% heat efficiency figure allows for the heat used in the anaerobic digestion process.
Table 5.7a CHP and AD (excluding Sewage Sludge)
Anaerobic Digestion CHP

Electrical efficiency Potential MWh 33%
Heat efficiency 12%
55,400 224,500 129,400 121,600 651,500 120,300 365,900 319,300 31,900 166,100 17,900 2,204,000
146,300 74,100 42,700 40,100 215,000 39,700 120,700 105,400 10,500 54,800 5,900 727,300
53,200 26,900 15,500 14,600 78,200 14,400 43,900 38,300 3,800 19,900 2,100 264,500
Table 5.7 b AD (Sewage Sludge)
Anaerobic Digestion CHP (sewage sludge)

NE NW SE SW Total
Potential MWh
Electrical efficiency 33%
Heat efficiency 12%
9,053 1,187 10,618 7,975 28,833
3,000 400 3,500 2,600 9,500
1,100 100 1,300 1,000 3,500
Table 5.7c CHP and Thermal Treatment Electrical efficiency Heat efficiency
TT CHP
Potential MWh 10
550,400 1,663,000 929,200 811,800 4,323,000 1,139,400 2,669,000 1,970,000 123,100 1,225,400 79,600 15,483,900 55,000 166,300 92,900 81,200 432,300 113,900 266,900 197,000 12,300 122,500 8,000 1,548,400
55
302,700 914,700 511,100 446,500 2,377,700 626,700 1,468,000 1,083,500 67,700 674,000 43,800 8,516,100
40
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Table 5.8 Summary of Useful Energy Available Anaerobic Digestion 1,674,750 OR Power Only
736,800 3,252,000
Heat Only (75%)
Thermal Treatment 11,613,000
Total 13,287,750
3,988,800
OR CHP Power CHP Heat

736,800 268,000 1,548,400 8,516,100
2,285,200 8,784,100
In terms of electricity context, the potential to generate 736,800 MWh from anaerobic digestion plus 3,252,000 MWh from thermal transfer i.e. 3,988,800MWh is 10.1% of total the electricity generation in 44 Scotland in 2005 of 39,398,000 MWh (excluding exports). By using CHP instead of power only schemes the total energy recovered (heat and power) would increase to 11,069,300.
44
BERR Energy Trends 2007
41
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Potential Barriers & Opportunities
To exploit biowaste as an energy source will require investment in the infrastructure and plant to collect and convert the waste and to sell the useful energy to customers. To develop a project will require a range of parties to be involved, including: The industrial and commercial site operators whose activities produce the waste, who may avoid the costs of waste disposal and who are also the most likely customers for heat produced by the plant. Project developers who will develop the plants, organise the finance and undertake ongoing operation of the facilities. Local Authorities who will have a strategic interest in the waste and environmental issues and who also have a planning role. SEPA, who will have a regulatory role. The electricity industry. The supply business may be the customer for the electricity generated, and the distribution business may have the plant connected to their networks. Other stakeholders such as the public who have fundamental concerns about waste to energy and its local impacts.
There are several potential barriers that may detract from Scotlands ability to develop an energy from biowaste market. Three potential barriers are discussed below; these are not intended to be an exhaustive list and have not been selected as the most important barriers. They do however highlight three important obstacles that will required to be overcome. The financial barriers will need to be addressed with regard to providing the incentive to develop renewable schemes and the support infrastructure will need to be put in place. This may require changes in policy to be brought in which encourage the market as well as help the market become established.
6.1
Financial
Financial issues are key to the successful exploitation of biowaste as an energy resource. The financial benefits to the main parties will be the driver for collaboration and investment without this there is unlikely to be significant development of plants. The fact that there are few example plants in the UK could indicate that to date the financial attractiveness of biowaste to energy schemes have been insufficient to bring forward significant investment. However over recent years a number of incentives have been put in place that will improve the financial position for these investments. These include: Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (Scotland) (LAS). Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Climate Change Levy (CCL). Enhanced Capital Allowance (ECA) for Good Quality CHP (GQ CHP). Landfill Tax. EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
ROCs provides additional revenue for electricity generation from qualifying renewable energy sources and technologies, i.e. where the biomass fraction is considered to be a renewable source of energy and the technology is deemed to need the financial incentive. As the value of the ROC is typically twice the wholesale price of the electricity, this is a potentially significant incentive. Hence this additional revenue is a key factor in the financial viability of the biowaste plant.
42
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
As with any fiscal incentive, the detailed rules regarding eligibility can change when Government undertakes a review of policy. The recent Energy White Paper included proposals for banding the 45 Renewables Obligation; a consultation on these changes was issued in May 2007 . The Government response (January 2008) increased the four bands to five bands. This reflects a reassessment of the costs of co-firing of regular biomass and sewage gas, which will now be awarded 0.5 ROCs per kWh and fall into a new Established 1&2 band. See table 6.1 below for all eligible technologies and their bandings.
46
Table 6.1 ROC Eligibility

Banding Technology Level of support (ROCs/kWh) 0.25 0.5 1.0 1.5
Established 1 Established 2 Reference Post-Demonstration
Emerging
Landfill Gas Sewage gas, co-firing on non-energy crops (regular) biomass Onshore wind, hydro-electric, co-firing of energy crops, EfW with CHP, geopressure Offshore wind, dedicated regular biomas Wave, tidal stream, fuels created using advanced conversion technologies (anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis), dedicated biomass burning energy crops (with or without CHP), dedicated regular biomass with CHP, solar voltaic, geothermal, tidal impoundment (e.g. tidal lagoons and barrages (<1GW)), microgeneration
2.0
As EfW schemes without CHP are not eligible for ROCs, this provides an incentive for heat recovery and use of heat on site or sale via District Heating. As commented earlier on in the report, small-scale schemes are more likely to find clients for a high proportion of the heat they produce. Electricity generation from some of the wastes considered will not qualify for ROCs. This should be considered when developing facilities, as this will make acceptance of certain wastes, like oils and plastics, less desirable. The capital costs of anaerobic digestion, gasification and pyrolysis are higher than for traditional thermal treatment (for example Incineration). Hence these proposals would reward the additional investment through doubling the potential income from ROCs. There will also be financial gains through the reduction of the volumes of waste going to landfill. Currently, for active wastes, the charge is 32 per tonne, as of 1 April 2008; this will reach 48/t in 47 2010/11 . Local Authorities face fines of up to 150 per tonne if they exceed their landfill allowances, which are decreasing. Investment in energy from waste plants will help mitigate the chances of this happening especially as historical waste growth is between 3 and 5% annually. This may act as a driver for Local Authorities to participate in, or facilitate the development of, District Heating schemes see Section 6.2.2.
45 46
Reform of the Renewables Obligation, DTI, May 2007 http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43545.pdf 47 Budget 2007
43
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
6.2
Infrastructure
This section considers the barriers and opportunities regarding the infrastructure that may be required to transport electricity or heat to consumers.
6.2.1 Grid Capacity in Scotland

It is estimated that up to 5,537,115 MWh/year could be generated as electricity from biowastes, with a 48 capacity of around 692 MWe . The exact size and electricity output of these projects will depend on local factors such as the geographic distribution and size of the sites where the biowaste material is available. There are a number of ways to gain income from electricity generation. The main options include: Displacement of on site electricity needs with the electricity generation from the biowaste plant. This is the simplest option as no other third party is involved. In addition the value of the electricity is the price that would have been charged by an electricity supplier, i.e. the retail price for the size of demand. In practice on site generation will not operate all of the time furthermore, the on site demand and on site generation will not always match. Hence the biowaste generator is normally operated in parallel with a grid connection so that back up and top up electricity supplies are available. Because the electricity is used on site this option does not allow the operator to gain income from ROCs as these have to be sold to a licensed electricity supplier. As this is a major financial restriction, this simple option may only be suitable for small scale schemes or schemes on sites with high on-site electricity use particularly if the fuel used is not eligible for ROCs and/or if there is no heat recovery, i.e. the scheme is not operating in CHP mode. Sale to an electricity supplier. This is also a simple option, however the supplier will offer a wholesale market price that will be significantly lower than the retail price paid for on site demand. Against this is the fact that to realise the value of ROCs the electricity must be sold to an electricity supplier as suppliers have a target to achieve under the Obligation. This has led to an arrangement known as sale and buy back where the operator of the biowaste sells the electricity and the ROCs to an electricity supplier and buys back some of the electricity. This option is routinely used for small on site renewable energy projects. Sale to a third party consumer. If electricity generation is in excess of on site demands the excess can be sold to other electricity consumers. Like the first option this can realise retail price levels for the electricity sold. The sale can be made across the existing electricity network, however the network operator will levy a small charge for each unit of electricity sold across its network. This route is less commonly used than the other two options.
As a result all biowaste schemes that generate electricity will require connection to the electricity network. This is a requirement to: Provide back up and top up electricity supplies. To provide a route to sell to electricity suppliers or third parties.
A number of technical requirements need to be complied with to ensure the safe operation of the biowaste electricity generation scheme in parallel with the network. Thus all generators wishing to connect to the electricity network will need a connection agreement and to pay any capital or operating costs associated with the connection. These charges will be site specific and will depend on: The capacity of the existing electricity network in the area to accommodate the power flows. The existing generation in the area.
48
Assuming 8,000 hours a year of non CHP plant operation
44
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The costs of connection local to the generation project will be borne by the developer of the biowaste project. These costs will include: Works on the site of the generation (e.g. new transformers, switchgear etc). Any new or upgraded cable (over or underground) from the biowaste site to the nearest suitable connection point on the network. Additional or upgraded transformers and switchgear at the connection point.
The size of the generator, the distance to the connection point and the voltage level at which the connection for connection will determine the scale of costs for the local connection. The costs of additional or upgraded transformers and switchgear at the connection point will depend on the level (if any) of unused capacity on the existing grid equipment. Small generation projects will be connected to the lower voltage distribution network (below 132 kV), whereas larger projects will be connected to the transmission network (132 kV and 275 kV). There are differences between connection processes for the transmission network and the lower voltage distribution system. The size of the generator and the proximity of the generator to the existing network will determine the connection voltage for the generator. Broadly speaking, in the Scottish Power area schemes above 30 MW will connect to the transmission network, while in the Scottish & Southern area schemes above 10 MW will require a transmission connection. For transmission connected schemes there are significant delays in the availability of transmission capacity. Hence this may act as a material influence on the size of central waste treatment schemes.
6.2.2
Heat Infrastructure
Unlike the electricity network there is not a national network of heat pipes that can be used to transfer heat from a biowaste plant to heat consumers. The amount of heat that could be generated will not be an exact match to the needs of the site where the biowaste is processed. Thus a biowaste to energy project will have several options: To restrict the amount of waste processed, and thus the amount of heat generated, to the needs of the on site processes. To reject to atmosphere the heat that is in excess of on site requirements. To invest in a District Heating network to transport the excess heat to other heat consumers.
While the first two options are straightforward, they are sub-optimal in terms of energy efficiency. In the case of central processing plants the amount of heat available may be significantly in excess of on site heat demands, hence the loss of energy may be a significant issue. The alternative is to invest in District Heating. This is the solution adopted by the Lerwick scheme, which provides heat to businesses, to public sector buildings and to homes. This solution is often found in European countries but is less common in the UK. District Heating is costly to install, particularly in built up areas. To keep the pipe lengths and resulting capital costs to a minimum, the biowaste plant should be as close as is practically possible to the heat consumers. This may prove difficult in terms of land availability and from the perception of the public. The high capital costs and the community nature of District Heating often involves Local Authority involvement in the development and operation of the project. For example, the Lerwick scheme was set up with funding from the Shetland Islands Council Charitable Trust along with EU and HIE funding. District Heating will be a challenging option for most biowaste projects to develop. For District Heating to be viable some form of additional financial incentive is likely to be needed. The Defra funded Community Energy Programme offered development and capital grants for District Heating. This successfully brought forward a number of District Heating schemes, including a number that used waste as an energy input, such as landfill gas and waste heat from industry.
45
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
6.3
Policy
In addition to the financial issues, a number of policy issues will have an influence over the practical and economic exploitation of the energy within biowaste. This section identifies the key policy measures and provides an overview of their impact on the different waste streams. The key policies relevant to biowastes either encourage the generation of energy from biomass (including biomass from waste) or regulate its combustion in order to minimise its environmental impact, using Best Available Techniques (BAT). The latter are part of the group of regulations that must be complied with under Integrated Pollution, Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulations, in order for an activity to be licensed on a site. The details of which specific regulations and policies apply to which biowaste stream depends on the definition of that biowaste as a waste or a biomass within the relevant legislation.
6.3.1 Is the Biowaste a Waste or a Biomass?

This study covers a wide range of biowaste material, not all of which can be classed as biomass for the purposes of some legislation; and some of which is classed as waste for the purposes of regulations relating to environmental emissions. Consequently it is important to understand the definitions used to determine if a material is deemed to be a waste and the definitions used to determine if a material is deemed to be biomass. As will be discussed later in this section, different regulations define these terms in different ways. This issue is important because the definition of biomass or waste is crucial to the application of various regulations and legislation and has implications for the cost of developing a plant. These definitions are confusing for developers of biomass plants. For example, many fail to understand that a material that is a biomass as defined within the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) can also be a waste for the purposes of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). This is even more confusing because a material classified as a biomass for the purposes of WID is exempt from WID. The confusion is thus understandable a biomass within ROS is not necessarily a biomass within the WID and thus may not be exempt from the emissions limits within WID. To the developers it appears that the regulations reward the generation of power from a material on the one hand, but on the other hand penalise it for being a waste, adding cost to the development. The following example illustrates these differences in definition in the Renewables Obligation and the Waste Incineration Directive. The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) states that a material is only eligible to be classed as biomass if it can show that its calorific value is derived from greater than 90% of biomass material. This definition does not consider the source of the material or whether or not it is a waste; the material may be a residue from a sawmill or any other industrial process. However the same material may be deemed to be a waste for the purposes of combustion under the WID. This is important, as there may be considerable cost implications in achieving the emissions limits set out within the WID. The term waste is determined by the definition within the Waste Framework Directive and relates to whether or not a material can be deemed to have been discarded. What is more, once a material is defined as a waste it remains so until the point of combustion, so the plant must meet WID emissions limits. This definition has been tested in European Case Law and is quite complex. Challenges to the classification of particular materials as wastes have included materials as diverse as tallow and recovered fuel oil. This confusion and lack of clarity creates uncertainty for prospective developers and creates financial and investment barriers that can be difficult to overcome. As a result both the Environment Agency and SEPA have drawn up a list of materials that may be difficult to classify, with an indication on whether or not they are classified as a biomass or a waste for the purposes of the 49 WID.
49 Further details referenced in EA Biomass Guidance Notes. The SEPA notes are in their guidance leaflet Is it a waste? available on the web site: www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/waste/is_it_waste_v2.pdf
46
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
The term biowaste is not defined within this legislation and its use therefore adds to this confusion. The issue of definition of wastes and biomass is covered in detail in report for the Environment 50 Agency . For the purposes of this report biowaste is the generic term used for the waste streams identified as being useful for energy recovery. Public perception will influence the ease with which energy from biowaste facilities are introduced. The word waste automatically raises concerns from those who dont fully understand what is meant. Biowaste is just a form of Biomass so could be classified in this way to avoid confusion.
6.3.2 Regulations that apply to Biowaste

The following regulations may apply to thermal conversion of the materials indicated within this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The Landfill Directive. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC and the WID). The Landfill Tax Regulations. The Waste Minimisation Act. The Animal By-products Order and Regulations.
Each of the above regulations will represent either a barrier to, or driver for, to the development of biowaste projects. The following is a brief outline of each of the characteristics of the different 50 regulations. They are examined briefly below and are covered in detail in a separate AEA report .
Waste Framework Directive
51
This provides a framework for waste policy, and is intended to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The Directive puts forward heat recovery initiatives in preference to landfilling.
The Landfill Directive
52
This is designed primarily to minimise the environmental and health impacts of landfill. One of the requirements of the Directive is the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill and targets have been set for the UK, including Scotland. The regulation to achieve these targets is the Landfill 53 Allowance Scheme (Scotland) . These regulations will encourage the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill and indirectly act as a driver for alternative options such as recycling and recovery, including the treatment of biowastes with energy recovery. The implementation of the Landfill Directive in the UK has resulted in increasing landfill charges (through the Landfill tax on biodegradable waste). As a result alternative treatment options are becoming increasingly economic, incentivising waste producers to examine how best to divert their waste from landfill. Using thermal treatment or anaerobic digestion with energy recovery gives biowaste producers an option to displace their existing fossil fuel use and reduce their energy costs or to develop income from sales of energy.
Regulation of Energy from Solid Biomass Plants report produced for the Environment Agency by AEA (2006). Available from: www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BEC_RESOURCES/PUBLICATIONS/REGULATION%20OF%20ENER GY%20DEFRA.PDF 51 Waste Framework Directive, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15th July 1975 52 Landfill Directive. Guidance on landfill directive is available from both SEPA and the Environment Agency on their web sites. 53 See Landfill allowance scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005: SEPA Guidance on Operational Procedures available: www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/waste/LAS_guidance.pdf
50
47
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Waste Incineration Directive
54
This is the main legislation that regulates the thermal conversion of waste streams under Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC see below). The WID regulations are designed to provide conditions that must be met in waste combustion plant, including its emissions and disposal of ash from the plant. WID requires the monitoring of emissions (on a continuous or periodic basis, depending on the parameter in question), with annual reporting. The design of plants must take the emissions limits and monitoring requirements into account. Abatement equipment is not only costly it is an integral part of the combustion plant design and takes up considerable space (it can represent at least half of the size of a large municipal energy from waste plant). It is considerably more difficult and more costly to retrofit emissions abatement and so the requirements of WID are an important consideration in the design of a plant.
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control This is a regulatory system that controls all environmental impacts of certain listed industrial activities. The process is essentially a licensing system, which all relevant activities must comply with in order to obtain a licence to build and operate the plant. To comply with IPPC the operator must demonstrate that the design of the plant uses the Best Available Techniques (BAT) and takes account of other local or unique process factors that may be imposed upon them. The interpretation of what is meant by BAT can be difficult for designers to assess, thus to ensure compliance there can be a risk that the plant is over designed for the purpose that it is intended. Guidance on BAT is available through BREF 55 notes, published by the European Commission .
IPPC has three main sections: Part A (1) Part A (2) and Part B. Each of the sections define the types of installation that would apply and the regulating authority (in Scotland this is SEPA). Since we are primarily concerned with thermal conversion technologies using biowaste then it is likely that Part A (1) 56 or Part (B) will apply and this gives a range of thermal capacity between 0.4MW - 50 MW heat input .
The Animal By Products Order and Regulation 57 The Animal By-products Regulations apply controls on the use, treatment, handing and disposal of animal by-products and enforce the Animal By-products Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. They aim to control the risks, including disease, to both animals and the public. Under the Animal By-products Regulations, animal by-products are divided into three categories: Category 1 very high risk material, including the carcasses of animals suspected or confirmed of being infected with Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE, the family of diseases which BSE belongs to); specified risk material (SRM, i.e. the riskiest parts of an animals body); all animal material collected from premises/processing plants treating category 1 material; catering waste from international transport; and mixtures of category 1 material with category 2 and 3 material. Category 2 High risk material which includes animals that die on a farm; animal by-products that are not contaminated; manure; the digestive tract content; and mixtures of category 2 and 3 material.
Equivalent in Scotland Waste Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (WIR) (Scottish Statutory Instrument 2003/170) These are Best available techniques reference documents and are available through the European IPPC Bureau at http://eippcb.jrc.es 56 Schedule 1 of the Regulations defines activities that fall under Part A(1), A(2) and B: A1 processes: A combustion process would be Part A(1) if it is a combustion activity with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or more. However, it would also be an A(1) combustion activity if burning a waste and has thermal input of 3 MW or more. A2 processes. These are regulated under the local Authority IPPC scheme. Part B processes: combustion plant with a thermal input of 20 MW or more but less than 50 MW; or burning waste with a thermal input of greater than 0.4 MW but less than 3 MW. Further information is available from SEPA in: PPC regulations: A practical guide (Part A Activities). 57 Animal By-products Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/2347)
55
54
48
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Category 3 Animal by-products that have previously been fit for human consumption, including catering waste, raw meat and fish.
Category 3 materials are the only materials directly suitable for AD plants. Some types of Category 2 58 waste can be used in AD, provided that they undergo pre-treatment. A guidance note from SEPA states that:
With the exception of manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum, Category 2 animal by-products may only be composted or transformed in a biogas plant after pre treatment. Manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum may be composted or processed as a raw material in a biogas plant without being pretreated first.
Permitted disposal routes (See figure 3.2) Category 3: Incineration in an approved plant. Rendering and permanent marking, followed by use in feeding stuffs or fertiliser (subject to the ban on feeding catering waste to livestock and the restriction on the use of processed animal protein in feeding stuffs). Use in pet food. In a technical plant. Treatment in an anaerobic digester or composting plant. For feeding fish, ensiling or composting. Use in an oleochemical plant to produce tallow derivatives. Disposal of former foodstuffs of animal origin in accordance with the Commissions new regulation on the former foodstuffs.
Category 2: Incineration. Rendering. Treatment in an Anaerobic Digester provided the waste is pre-treated in accordance with article 15 of the Animal By-Products Regulations.
Category 1: Sterilisation. Incineration.
Renewable Electricity Targets The renewable energy resource in Scotland is the best in Europe and amongst the best in the world. The resource, the potential economic benefits and the energy policy drivers led the Scottish Government to set two aspirational targets for renewable electricity generation in Scotland:

At least 31% of demand by 2011, and At least 50% of demand by 2020.
This is defined as 50% of the demand for Scottish electricity generation, minus any exports, to be supplied from renewable sources by 2020, with an interim milestone of 31% by 2011.
58
http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/waste/interp_guidance_animal_waste.pdf
49
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
European Renewable Energy Targets 59 The Renewable Energy Road map was published in January 2008 and proposed a legally binding target of 20% of energy from renewable sources in the EU by 2020. European leaders at the summit in Germany endorsed this target on March 9th 2007. The UK Government are currently considering what the UK target should be and how this target will be met. The target will be embedded in a new Renewable Energy Directive.
The proposed target includes energy used for heating and transport as well as electricity production. Compared to the renewable electricity targets, this broader 20% target will require a greater degree of change in the sources of energy used in the future.
Renewable Heat Targets for Scotland 60 With 80% of domestic energy use being heat related the Scottish Government aim to produce a Renewable Heat Strategy, encompassing bioenergy and other technologies, in 2008. This will include targets for the production of renewable heat up to 2020. In the Scottish Biomass Action Plan, other policies for biomass heat are detailed. These include regulation and planning guidance and public procurement initiatives. Some of these initiatives may be relevant to the use of biowastes to generate 61 heat and to heat and power plants . Incentives for CHP Good quality CHP can claim important revenue and capital benefits:
CCL exemption on fuel input and power output. ROCs for the Biomass equivalent. Qualify for Enhanced Capital Allowances. Exemption from Business Ratings on CHP Plant & Machinery.
In order to claim these benefits each CHP scheme requires a certificate from the CHPQA. In addition, a Secretary Of State (CHP) Exemption and Energy Efficiency-CHP Certificates are also required if wishing to claim the 'revenue' and 'capital' benefits respectively. Under the CHPQA programme, schemes are given an overall efficiency score called the Quality Index (QI) depending on how efficient they are overall (electrically and thermally). This score will affect how much of the power generated is deemed Good Quality CHP. If the QI falls below a threshold of 100, only a proportion of the power generated qualifies for LECs and ROCs. This is called Qualifying Power Output (QPO). For further information, see CHPQA Guidance Note 41 downloadable from www.chpqa.com. Good Quality CHP may also be eligible to claim a capital benefit in the form of an Enhanced Capital Allowance (ECA) on qualifying capital expenditure if the main intended business of the scheme is to provide heat and electricity for clearly identified users on site or to known third parties. Standard Capital Allowances allow the costs of capital assets to be written off against a business's taxable profits and take the place of depreciation charged in the commercial accounts. ECAs give corporate relief for the full cost of qualifying expenditure incurred in the accounting period up front, therefore reducing the effective capital cost, reducing payback period and saving money on corporation tax on a discounted life cost basis. The Threshold Criteria for ECA eligibility are based on the CHPQA Threshold Criteria for Good Quality CHP for Proposed New Power Generation Capacity as set out in the CHPQA standard, Issue 2, November 2007. However, the Threshold Power Efficiency Criterion is relaxed for Schemes that burn a proportion of biomass or solid or liquid waste fuels. For further information, see CHPQA Guidance Note 42 downloadable from www.chpqa.com.
The road map is available on: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0848en01.doc "Renewable Energy Road Map: renewable energies in the 21st century:building a more sustainable future" SEC(2007)12 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM(2006)848 final
60
59
61
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/schri/community/view.cfm?articleid=444&archive=1
See: the Biomass Action Plan for Scotland (2007), available: www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/publications/2007/03/12095912/0
50
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
In addition, a CHPQA Certificate can be used to obtain exemption from Business Rating of CHP Plant and Machinery. This rating exemption applies to specified plant and machinery contained within a CHP Scheme, which qualifies for, and is in possession of, either a full or partial SOS (CHP) exemption Certificate. The exemption extends to accessories associated to the power generating plant and machinery (these items may be rateable in their own right elsewhere in the P & M Schedule) but not to heat recovery plant and machinery. For further information, see CHPQA Guidance Note 43 downloadable from www.chpqa.com.
6.3.3 Summary
As can be seen from the information above, some of the regulations encourage energy recovery from waste through Government support and targets, and others provide barriers, such as increased cost for emissions control. This can cause confusion to developers and investors and even threaten the development of the projects. It is advised that developers seek advice from the appropriate regulatory body (such as SEPA for IPPC and WID and Ofgems Scottish Office for the ROS) in the early stage of the plant design.
51
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Comparison with Energy Crops
This section of the report provides a comparison of the energy available from biowastes with one alternative source crops grown to provide energy. To illustrate this comparison, this part of the report examines the level of energy crops that would be required to match the energy that could be provided by use of biowastes, the amount of land required is examined as is the loss of income from existing crops. It is important to note that these comparisons are for illustration purposes only the level of energy crops shown in this section is not an outcome that is expected to occur.
7.1
Energy Crops
Energy crops are grown specifically to produce energy. The energy crop of preference for Northern European conditions is coppiced willow (salix spp.) commonly referred to as Short Rotation Coppice (SRC). This is a woody perennial crop harvested on a rotation basis of between two to four years depending on the particular growing conditions. SRC is planted in the spring from root stock provided by specialist growers and when established can reach heights of 4 meters in the first year. In the first winter period the plants are cut back to encourage a multiple growth of stems from the base which give rise to a larger crop. Once established SRC offers a life cycle of crops for circa. 30 years and can grow to a height of 7-8 meters. Harvesting occurs after the cut back and in the third winter by specialist harvesting equipment although for smaller operations general farm machinery will be adequate. To ensure the maximum yield from the plant requires water availability, weed control, light and temperature. With the correct balance of these, it is possible to achieve a yield averaging 8 to 10 oven dry tonnes/annum (ODT/annum). Once the crop has been harvested it then has to be stored and dried; how this is achieved is generally dependant on the scale of operation. The grower may choose to dry by sticks in the field and loosely packed chip piles, or if very dry materials are required then techniques similar to grain drying can be adopted. Alternative to this is a contract with a fuel supply company who will pay the grower an indexlinked price, and they, not the grower incur all harvesting, drying and removal costs. Alternatives to SRC have been considered; in particular perennial grasses such as the perennial woody C4 grass Miscanthus. C4 plants have a more efficient photosynthesis mechanism than C3 plants which are more common in the UK. Reed Canary grass, a native species, is also showing some promise in recent trials but is still some way from commercial deployment. Therefore SRC is considered to currently be the most attractive energy crop to be considered for Scotland. As previously detailed the following Table 7.1 shows the inherent energy content of the various waste streams identified within the report.
Table 7.1 Energy Content of Biowastes
EFW energy content Thermal conversion energy potential AD energy potential Total
* 20% for digester has been subtracted
Megawatthour (MWh) 15,382,400 2,233,000* 17,615,400
52
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
In Table 7.2 below these results are compared to the amount of SRC that would have to be grown to achieve a similar energy content.
Table 7.2 SRC Equivalent
Equivalent SRC required

Calorific value of SRC GJ/tonne (nett) kWh/tonne MWh/tonne Dry tonnes 9 2,502 2.502 7,263,469
Weight of SRC equivalent to waste heat potential
Scotland offers good climatic conditions for the production of SRC, and yields of 8 to 10 ODT per hectare can be expected. Based on this data it is possible to calculate the land requirement to produce the tonnage that is equivalent to the waste energy content. Table 7.3 details the land area required based on the expected yield.
Table 7.3 Land Area Required
Land area available and percentage use for SRC Commercial yields for SRC ODT/ha/annum 8 Land area needed hectares 907,934 Available arable land hectares 858,000 Land currently planted with edible crops hectares 438,140 Percentage of land use required % 106%* Percentage of current arable land used for crops % 207%* *This is the percentage of the currently available land that would be required in order to give the same energy output as
biowaste. For example just over double the amount, or 207% of, the current arable land would be required.
It can be seen from the above data that insufficient arable land is available to grow all the SRC that would be required to match the energy available within the current waste materials considered within this report.
Comparisons between SRC and Food Crops

The land that could be used to grow SRC will normally be used to produce an existing crop. Hence growing SRC will displace the income from these existing crop types. Table 7.4 overleaf shows the revenue comparison between tradition crops and SRC .
62
62
Evidence from the NFU to a Westminster Inquiry, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvfru/965/6030106.htm
53
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Table 7.4 Gross Margin for Different Crops
Wheat Oilseed rape (OSR) Miscanthus Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Set-aside
Estimated yield (t/ha) 9 3.25 13 10
Estimated price (/t) 70 150 45 45
Estimated gross income (/ha/year) 630 487 585 450
Estimated variable costs (/ha/year) 240 220 234 230 30
Estimated gross margin (/ha) 390 267.5 351 220
Evaluation of the income from crops depends on the market price for the crop and the costs of production. Recent prices for wheat have reached much higher prices, up to 170/tonne. Hence in current conditions SRC would be even less favourable than the table above suggests. The introduction of the grant schemes has allowed growers to move to SRC without the need for significant capital investment, as this has been one of the main barriers. The planting of SRC is eligible for a 1,000 per hectare grant from the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme. This grant scheme closed in December 2006 but applications can still be made, as monies were ring fenced until announcements of the new grant scheme are made available. Traditional barriers still exist for the farmer who may be more comfortable with existing planting and harvesting methods, rather than diversify into growing a woody perennial crop. Limitations for the planting of willow SRC can be summarised as follows: Current high arable crop prices make SRC financially unattractive. Bare land rental prices make SRC financially unviable. The long-term commitment by the farmer of 16 years is very restrictive. Price flexibility if farmer is tied in with a fuel supply company. Limited markets, due to transport costs to end-user. Land reinstatement costs after 16 years.
There are two new Biodiesel processing plants in Scotland (Grangemouth and Rosyth) with three biomass power stations currently under development in Lockerbie (44MWe), Invergordon (8MWe) and Irvine (25MWe). These, along with a number of other drivers promoting biomass, could see an increased interest in biomass crops. Some examples of initiatives that have supported biomass include: Scottish Biomass Action Plan. Highlands and Islands Woodfuel Development Programme. Carbon Trusts Biomass Heat Acceleration. Project Renewables Fuel Poverty Pilot. Scottish Biomass Support Scheme.
54
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Potential Benefits
There are several potential benefits to developing an energy from biowaste market. These range from displacement of fossil fuel derived energy through to the creation of direct and indirect employment opportunities in supporting a biowaste market. Potential benefits include: Reduction of waste to landfill, which allows limited landfill space to be used for wastes where there is no alternative. Reduction of methane released to atmosphere (methane is one of the basket of 6 gases listed by the Kyoto Protocol as being destructive to the ozone layer, it has a greenhouse potential 20 times that of CO2). The value of the heat and electricity provided from biowaste. The use of digestate as a soil improver will reduce the amount of artificial fertilisers used Reduction of CO2 emissions as energy from biomass will displace energy from non-renewable sources. Improved sustainability through better waste management. Creating an incentive for people to separate their waste as there is a tangible outcome.
8.1
Employment Opportunities
In order to utilise biowaste as a resource there will be a need to develop new waste management infrastructure. This may range from (2,000t/y) on farm anaerobic digestion plants to large (100,000t/y) thermal treatment facilities in towns. Table 7.1 provides an idea of the size and staffing levels that may be required based on existing anaerobic digestion and thermal treatment plants and their staffing levels. Another important element of context is the number of plants that would be required and the potential employment opportunities. To establish this would require detailed data on the geographical distribution of waste that is not available. To provide an indication of the scale of plants required, two example small-scale plants have been used to provide an indicative answer to this question. Other employment opportunities would be created in the transport and waste collection sector. The following boxes provide summary details of an anaerobic digestion scheme and a thermal treatment scheme.
Greenfinch Anaerobic Digestion Plant, Ludlow, Shropshire Plant Scale: 5,000 tonnes per annum Waste input: Source-separated household kitchen waste along with some garden waste (can accept paper and card) Staff employed: 4 Scale: Suitable for a small town or village (around 1,200 households) Capital Cost: 1,200,000 with a predicted depreciation of 15 years 2 2 Land Uptake: 1,500m (Necessary), 2,500m (Actual) http://agendas.luton.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=9942 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wtd/679004/?lang=_e Relevance to biowastes in Scotland: this case study uses similar technology to farm scale anaerobic digestion schemes that this company installed in Scotland. This example is representative of small scale anaerobic digestion schemes.
55
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Shetland Island Councils Energy Recovery Plant, Lerwick, Shetland Plant Scale: 26,000 Tonnes per annum Waste input: MSW (domestic and commercial waste) Energy output: 7MW as hot water for district heating to over 800 customers including a Hospital and Leisure Centre. Due to the high demand a heat storage tank was installed in 2006 to capture heat generated off peak, for use in peak times. Staff Employed: 19 (Direct jobs associated with the EfW, three shift operation) Scale: Large village or town Capital Cost: 10,000,000 (in 1997) with a predicted depreciation of 20 years Charges: 2.6p per kWh with a 400 connection fee. Future developments: Considering using waste oil as a fuel source Additional Benefits: 700,000/year worth of civil engineering works with an additional 300,000 worth of plumbing works. http://www.sheap-ltd.co.uk http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wtd/679004/?lang=_e Relevance to biowastes in Scotland: This is a small scale thermal treatment plant, with heat recovery. It is therefore a good example of a local treatment plant that will mainly accept local waste. By considering smaller scale schemes the sale of heat becomes a more practical option, as it may be possible to build the plant close to sufficient numbers of heat consumers to use a significant proportion of the heat available.
Using the capacity of these example plants in Ludlow and Lerwick and the numbers of employees, Table 8.1 below indicates the potential number of facilities required on a regional basis. These figures are based on existing facilities in Ludlow and Lerwick and are meant to be very localised plants. Larger, more centralised facilities would reduce these estimates, but would entail transport of wastes over greater distances and larger plants are less likely to be located close to suitable heat loads.
Table 8.1
Facilities Required per WMA based on Waste Tonnage

Argyle and Bute Ayrshire, Dumfires and Galloway Fife Forth Valley Glasgow and Clyde Valley Highlands Lothian and Borders North East Orkney and Shetland Tayside Western Isles Anaerobic Digestion Volume (t) Plants Employees 93,200 19 75 377,300 75 302 217,600 44 174 204,300 41 163 1,094,900 219 876 202,300 40 162 615,000 123 492 536,700 107 429 53,600 11 43 279,100 56 223 30,100 6 24 Thermal Treatment Volume (t) Plants Employees 210,800 8 154 636,800 24 465 355,800 14 260 310,900 12 227 1,655,600 64 1,210 436,400 17 319 1,022,300 39 747 754,400 29 551 47,200 2 34 469,300 18 343 30,500 1 22 4,333
Totals 3,704,000 741 2,963 5,930,000 228 Anaerobic digestion based on a throughput of 5,000 t/year (based on Greenfinch, Ludlow)
Thermal transfer based on throughput of 26,000t/year (Based on Shetland MSW to energy plant in Lerwick)
63
The capital cost for the 26,000t/year plant in Lerwick was 10 million in 1997 while the capital cost of 64 the Greenfinch biogas plant in Ludlow was 1.2 million in 2004. Based on these examples that gives a total capital cost of 5.9 billion for the total required sites based on the above waste throughputs.
63 64
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wtd/679004/679026/679085/804231/?lang=_e&lang=_e http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/wtd/679004/679021/679059/1799743/1799917/?version=1&lang=_e
56
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
8.2
Energy Security
In Scotland, North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 and is expected to decline at a rate of 7% a year. The rate of decline for natural gas is in the region of 2% annually. The use of renewable energy sources like biomass (biowaste) could form part of a diverse renewable portfolio making Scotland more adaptable to changes and helps reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, increasing fuel security.
8.3
CO2 Offset
To assess the CO2 that could be offset by the use of biowaste two assumptions are made: 1. Any energy that is used from a biowaste source replaces the equivalent amount of electricity (from fossil-fuel sources) or gas. 2. This energy is carbon neutral by virtue of the fact that CO2 and methane wouldve been emitted in their degradation; the fossil fuel associated emissions are mitigated. Table 8.2 below gives the amount of CO2 that would be used had the equivalent amount of electricity or gas been used instead of the various anaerobic digestion or thermal transfer treated biowastes. Values are also given based on the three notional heat efficiencies (65, 75 and 90%), power only efficiency and CHP efficiencies.
Table 8.2 CO2 Offset of the various treatment options
CO2 Offset (tCO2)

Efficiencies (%) Thermal Heat Heat Heat Power CHP (elec) CHP (heat) AD Heat Heat Heat Power CHP (elec) CHP (heat) 65 75 90 21 10 55 65 75 90 33 33 12 Agriculture 35,939 41,468 49,761 21,022 10,010 30,410 865 998 1,197 795 795 160 Forestry Slaughter 364,325 420,375 504,450 213,108 101,480 308,275 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16,348 18,863 22,636 15,027 15,027 3,018 Ind. & Com. 1,443,499 1,665,576 1,998,691 844,359 402,076 1,221,422 253,870 292,927 351,512 233,355 233,355 106,070 MSW 530,896 612,572 735,086 310,542 147,877 449,219 69,160 79,800 95,760 63,571 63,571 12,768 Sludge Totals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,415 5,094 6,113 5,073 5,073 815
2,374,658 2,739,990 3,287,988 1,389,031 661,443 2,009,326 344,658 397,682 477,218 317,821 317,821 63,629
Assume all heat comes from Gas at present Conversion Factors 0.43tCO2/MWh electricity 0.19tCO2/MWh gas
It is important to note that these comparisons are for illustration purposes only. These estimates do not include the transport and storage issues associated with using biowaste as an energy source, nor do they consider the methane emissions from waste degradation. If CHP was considered to be the preferred generation route for both anaerobic digestion and combustion there is potential to offset 3,052,000 tonnes of CO2 which is around 5.6% of the 2005 65 national total . Depending on which fossil fuel is replaced there is potential to reduce both NOx and SOx emissions for example displacing high sulphur coal or oil will significantly reduce SOx emissions.
65
National Air Emissions Inventory 2007 54,984,000 tonnes CO2
57
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
8.4
Cost Offset
Table 8.3 gives a representation of the value of the energy used if the source had been natural gas or electricity. Figures of 33.00/MWh and 68/MWh were used for heat and electricity respectively, as per section 4.3.2 of this report. These figures exclude VAT.
Table 8.3 k Offset of the various treatment options
Cost Offset (k)

Efficiencies (%) Thermal Heat Heat Heat Power CHP (elec) CHP (heat) AD Heat Heat Heat Power CHP (elec) CHP (heat) 65 75 90 21 10 55 65 75 90 33 33 12 Agriculture 6,242 7,202 8,643 3,324 1,583 5,282 150 173 208 126 126 28 Forestry 63,278 73,013 87,615 33,701 16,048 53,543 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Slaughter N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,839 3,276 3,932 2,376 2,376 524 Ind. & Com. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44,093 50,877 61,052 36,903 36,903 8,140 MSW 92,208 106,394 127,673 49,109 23,385 78,022 12,012 13,860 16,632 10,053 10,053 2,218 Sludge N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 767 885 1,062 642 642 142
Totals 412,441 475,893 571,072 219,661 104,600 348,988 59,862 69,071 82,885 50,100
50,100 11,051
This doesnt consider the cost savings of diverting waste from landfill or the costs associated with treating waste to extract energy. If CHP was considered to be the preferred generation route for both anaerobic digestion and thermal transfer there is potential to offset 360,039,000 worth of Gas (heat) and 154,700,000 worth of electricity, a total of 514,739,000. An analysis of energy prices between 2004 and 2008 has seen a 34% rise in gas prices and an 18% rise in electricity prices. This trend is likely to continue, increasing the value of costs offset through the use of these treatment options.
58
AEA/ED02806/Issue 1
Summary of Findings
This study has attempted to quantify the potential energy there may be available in the biowaste and forestry residues arising in Scotland. In doing so it considered a number of waste streams, determined the element of that waste that could be used to generate energy and assessed the potential and available energy for each waste stream. This report also looked at some of the barriers and opportunities to using biomass for energy. The use of biomass as a renewable energy source represents an opportunity to generate approximately 11,069,000 MWh of energy (assuming the use of CHP), as well as diverting up to 9,634,000 tonnes of waste from landfill, creating in the region of 7,200 jobs and reducing CO2 emissions by an estimated 3,052,000 tonnes helping Scotland and the UK to meet ever more stringent Greenhouse Gas reduction targets. In order for energy crops to meet the energy potential from biowastes just over double the amount, or 207% of, the current arable land would be required. The use of anaerobic digestion methods offer an opportunity to meet the Animal By-Products Regulations whilst generating electricity and creating a safe and effective fertiliser and compost. Anaerobic digestion is proving more economically attractive as double ROCs are proposed for advanced conversion technologies. Combustion-based EfW methods can be used to extract energy from solid wastes, further reducing waste volumes while supplying heat and electricity. Each plant should be designed on the basis of the most efficient use of the resources available locally whilst best meeting demand in the local area, however for best use of available energy, CHP is the preferred energy generation option. Smaller scale plants would be better suited to make best use of the available heat. There is a greater risk that larger plants will produce heat in excess of what is required locally. Reduction and efficiency strategies should still be promoted. As per the National Waste Strategy, neither anaerobic digestion or thermal treatment should be used ahead of Prevention, Reuse or Recycling, with thermal treatment only being used after these options have been considered. Although recycling consumes energy it is considerably less than if virgin materials are used. There are also other considerations like availability of raw materials; for example, plastic is petroleum based which is becoming less available and more costly. It makes sense to reuse the plastic we have rather than burn it for energy and continue to consume raw materials. In accordance with the Proximity Principle, waste treatment near to, or on the same site as, waste production or collection sites would increase efficiency of the entire process and encourage more appropriate separation of wastes. Energy from biowaste, forestry residues and other suitable elements of Commercial and Industrial waste will allow many of the targets set out in the National Waste Plan to be met and should be seriously considered if Scotland is to become a nation of zero waste whilst leading the way in reducing emissions and becoming a sustainable nation. The added benefit of increased energy security should also be considered.
59
Appendices
Appendix 1: Energy from Waste Appendix 2: Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Appendix 3: Quantity and breakdown of Waste Collected by Each Waste Management Area Appendix 4: Tonnage of Biowastes Available for Processing by Category and Local Authority Area Appendix 5: Bio-waste suitable for use in AD Appendix 6: Bio-waste suitable for use in TT Appendix 7: AD Potential per Local Authority Area Appendix 8: Thermal Treatment Potential per Local Authority Area
Appendix 1 Energy from Waste: Combustion Technologies

Current installed technology at UK plant is mostly of the moving grate type, with a few fluidised bed combustors and just one oscillating kiln. Plant capacities range between 26 thousand tonnes (kt) and 600kt (3MWe to 70MWe). Further information on the operation of incineration plants is available in the recent BREF document (8.1) and the CIWM Good Practice Guide (8.3). These are both comprehensive and should be referred to for detail.
Conventional MSW EfW in the UK Plant Annual Tonnage input 500,000 120,000 130,000 90,000 250,000 90,000 150,000 100,000 600,000 60,000 136,000 400,000 26,000 165,000 135,000 RDF 56,000 165,000 585,000 420,000 225,000 110,000 RDF MW export or actual generation (if available) 40MWe 8MWe 10MWe 8MWe 17.7MWe/9MWth 6MWe 19MWe/2MWth 8MWe 32MWe 6MWe 11MWe 32MWe 7MWth 14MWe 8MWe 3MWe/3MWth 14MWe 70MWe 30MWe 17MWe/39MWth 45MWe/?MWth Status (operating, commissioning or planning) Under commissioning Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Planning Operating Operating Operating Under construction Operating Operating Operating?? Operating Operating Consented Operating Operating Operating Comments, Approx costs Technology 150m FBC 35m FBC MG MG CHP, MG MG CHP, MG MG MG MG 31m, MG 180m Heat only, MG MG 30m CHP Oscillating Kiln MG MG ~80m CHP, MG Wood waste, biomass & fibre fuel FBC/Vibrating grate MG MG MG 95m, MG MG
Allington Quarry, Maidstone Baldovie, Dundee Bolton Chineham, Basingstoke Coventry Dudley Eastcroft, Nottingham 3rd line Edmonton Isle of Man Kirklees, Huddersfield Lakeside, Colnbrook Lerwick Marchwood Crymlyn Burrows, Neath Newlincs, Grimsby Portsmouth Riverside, Belvedere SELCHP Sheffield Slough H&P
Stoke on Trent Teeside 3rd line Tyseley Wolverhampton
200,000 250,000 125,000 350,000 110,000
13MWe 20MWe 10MWe 25MWe 8MWe
Operating Operating Consented Operating Operating
Note: there are a number of additional boiler plant co fired with refuse derived fuel or other waste derived fuels.
Appendix 2 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

The impact that different systems can have on biogas production and as a result electricity production is shown in below. This table shows a number of different anaerobic digestion plants and the quantity of electricity provided for a given tonnage of biowaste.
Types of Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Europe Amount of waste Plant Location Feedstock accepted (tonnes/year) Mons Plant Municipal solid waste 58,700 (Belguim) and biowaste Amiens Plant 85,000 Municipal Solid Waste (France) Municipal Solid Waste Barcelona Plant (Spain) 230,000 and Biowaste Bassano Plant Municipal Solid Waste 52,400 (Italy) and Biowaste Abattoir waste, industrial food waste Holsworthy Plant (UK) 200,000 and cattle, pig and poultry manure Lchow, 160,000 Not known Albersdorf 80,000 Not known Grlsdorf 65,800 Not known Finsterwalde 50,000 Not known Claunitz 76,000 Not known Emek Hefer, Israel 146,000 Not known Neubokow 80,000 Not known Alteno 86,000 Not known Karstdt 80,000 Not known Amman, Jordan 60,000 Not known
Volume of Digesters 2 x 3,800 m3 3 x 2,400 m3 + 1 x 3,500 m3 3 x 4,500 m3 3 x 2,400 m

3
Energy Output 1 605 kW Electricity and Heat 5,500 kW of high pressure steam for industrial use 4 MW of Electricity 1,320 kW Electricity 2.1 MW electricity and heat 3.5 MW electricity 836 kW electricity 836 kW electricity 684 kW electricity 626 kW electricity 1,200 kW electricity 1,020 kW electricity 1,250 kW electricity 1,200 kW electricity 1,048 kW electricity
2 x 4,000 m3 Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known Not known
Note: Although the Holsworthy plant was built with CHP capability, the local community has never taken up this option.
Sources: Farmatic, Valorga International,
There is growing interest in AD due to rising disposal costs, hygiene considerations and energy costs. This will influence the uptake of AD of industrial effluents, farm AD and the AD of the organic fraction of MSW. Table 1.2 provides figures on estimates of farm digestion in the UK. Results from a previous DEFRA study (11.3) suggested that on-farm units have a poor efficiency when compared with theoretical methane yields. At one site the operating temperature was often far below the ideal. Fugitive emissions were measured to be between 3 and 8 % of the biogas yield and depended on the proportion of gas being produced that could be used immediately, indicating methane leakage from storage. In addition, there were methane emissions from the uncovered digestate store.
Estimated number of AD plant in UK Review Estimate of Units in UK Estimate of Energy Production
Baldwin (1993) (11.2) AD-NETT, (2000)66 Restats review (www.restats.org.uk)67,
40 (on farm) 31 15 (including 1 CAD) 31, 600 MWh (mostly heat) Total capacity <2 MW
European review (Kottner, 2005) Recent discussions with industry
< 20 40 of which 20 operational
66 67
AD-NETT was a European network that undertook a survey of AD plants around Europe Restats is the DTIs renewable energy statistics database.
Appendix 3
Quantity and breakdown of Waste by Waste Strategy Area
Appendix 4:
Tonnage of Biowastes Available for Processing by Category and Local Authority Area. This is the total waste deamed to be suitable for either Anaerobic Digestion or Thermal Treatment.
Appendix 5
Bio-waste suitable for use in AD
Appendix 6
Bio-waste suitable for use in TT
Appendix 7
AD Potential per Waste Strategy Area
Appendix 8
Thermal Treatment Potential per Waste Strategy Area
Glengarnock Technology Centre Caledonian Road, Lochshore Business Park, Glengarnock, Ayrshire, KA14 3DD. Tel: 0845 345 3302 Fax: 0870 190 6318 E-mail: info@aeat.co,uk
www.aea-energy-and-environment.co.uk

SEPA - Report On Biowaste

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SEPA - Report On Biowaste

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forest Residues in Scotland

Report to SEPA ED 02806 Issue Number 1 Date April 2008

Title Customer Customer reference Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction

File reference Reference number ED02806

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA Energy & Environment

* Heat use within the digester has been deducted

AEA Energy & Environment

* Heat use within the digester has been deducted

National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, 2007

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA Energy & Environment

Sector Waste Arisings

Potential Barriers & Opportunities

Comparison with Energy Crops

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA/ED02806/Issue 1 Appendix 1: Energy from Waste Appendix 2: Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA Energy & Environment

Project Objective and Limitations

1.2.2 Data Limitations

AEA Energy & Environment

Sector Waste Arisings

Derived from data provided by SEPA for Agricultural waste in 2005

AEA Energy & Environment

Commercial & Industrial Waste

AEA Energy & Environment

Municipal Solid Waste collected by Local Authorities

AEA Energy & Environment

Data supplied by SEPA as reported to them by Scottish Water

AEA Energy & Environment

Steam or Hot Water

Steam or Hot Water

AEA Energy & Environment

AEA Energy & Environment

Biological Process (Anaerobic Digestion)

AEA Energy & Environment

3.2.1 Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP)

Manure Digestive tract content

Cat 2 No required treatment

133C, 3bar, 20mins

AEA Energy & Environment

3.2.2 Digestate Standard and Code of Practice

AEA Energy & Environment

4.1.1 Baseline Data

4.1.2 Data Gaps

AEA Energy & Environment

4.1.3 Calorific Values

AEA Energy & Environment

4.1.4 Data Allocation by Waste Strategy Area

Figure 4.2 Breakdown of Agricultural Waste by WSA

Scottish Executive .2006, Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture

Ar gy ll & D Bu um te fri es & G ...

AEA Energy & Environment

Commercial and Industrial

Ay Ar rs gy hi ll re & ,D Bu um te fri es & G a. ..

Waste Strategy Area

AEA Energy & Environment

Waste Strategy Area

Derived from Woodfuel Resource Dynamically Generated Report, H McKay, 2003

AEA Energy & Environment

Waste Strategy Area

AEA Energy & Environment