6166019

Thermal and Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies Worldwide
March 2011
SBI 11200 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
800.706.8242 240.747.3097 www.sbireports.com
This page intentionally left blank
Company Background
SBI Energy (Specialists in Business Information), a division of MarketResearch.com, publishes research reports in the industrial, energy, building/construction, and automotive/transportation markets. SBI Energy also offers a full range of custom research services. To learn more, visit www.sbireports.com.
Why Buy From Us?

In-depth researchexpert analysis. Our reports are written by analysts with years of experience as professionals tracking various industries. This experience and our time-intensive research methodology result in authoritative analysis that aids the decision-making processes of our clients. Our reports continue to provide a broad, top-level overview of a market and offer not only the raw data, but focus on interpretation of that data to make it more relevant and usable by our clients. The right informationat the right time. From identifying the effects of emerging markets across major industries, to covering the trends in niche markets, our reports are timely. Our editorial team tracks the trends that will shape these markets in the coming months, and years. SBI Energy provides the expert analysis our clients have come to rely on to make the right strategic decisions, at the right time. Products you needwith flexibility in pricing and delivery you want. With Buy By The Slice, you save money by purchasing smaller section(s) of a report (when you dont need the entire report) which you can read immediately online. Instant Online Delivery is a unique online delivery method that enables you to purchase, read and use the research you need immediately. Personalized Client Support SBI Energy is unrivaled in the level of client support that we provide to our clients. From assistance in identifying the most relevant research, to post-sale question and answer support, our goal is to develop long-term relationships that meet the ongoing needs of our clients.
About the Author

Robert Eckard has over a decade of energy and environmental sector experience and leads a small industry research and technical consulting company. Robert has provided global, regional, and local market analysis and economic assessments; environmental analysis; and technical water and energy reporting to clients ranging from consulting firms, private companies and government organizations. Mr. Eckard is also pursuing a PhD in water and energy resources at the University of California, Davis.
THERMAL AND DIGESTION WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE
MARCH 2011
Thermal and Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies Worldwide has been prepared by SBI Energy. Our market intelligence reports are specifically designed to aid the actionoriented executive by providing a thorough presentation of essential data and concise analysis.
Vice President of Publishing Publisher Author Research Director Marketing Manager Assistant Editor Publication Date
Copyright 2011 SBI Energy
Don Montuori Shelley Carr Robert Eckard David Sprinkle Jenn Tekin Daniel Granderson March 2011
SB2847741
1-59814-386-7
Table of Contents
Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................. 1

Scope ..........................................................................................................1 Global Waste and Management and Role of Waste to Energy...............1 Figure 1-1: Annual Per Capita Municipal Waste Generated for OECD Countries (Metric Tonnes)....................................................................2 Waste to Energy Feedstocks and Technologies.....................................3 Applications, Benefits, and Drawbacks of Waste to Energy Technologies .........................................................................................5 Waste to Energy Market Valuations .........................................................5 Incineration...............................................................................................6 Figure 1-2: Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)............................................................................................6 Gasification...............................................................................................6 Figure 1-3: Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) .................7 Plasma Gasification..................................................................................8 Figure 1-4: Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) .................8 Pyrolysis ...................................................................................................8 Figure 1-5: Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)............................................................................................9 Anaerobic Digestion ...............................................................................10 Figure 1-6: Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digester Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions).................................................10 Global Waste to Energy Market Summary .............................................11 Figure 1-7: Global Market for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021) ($ Billions) ..........................11 Waste to Energy Product Pricing ...........................................................12 Incineration.............................................................................................12 Figure 1-8: Incinerator Costs (USD) .......................................................13 Gasification.............................................................................................13 Figure 1-9: Gasification Costs (USD) .....................................................14 Plasma Gasification................................................................................14
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table of Contents
Figure 1-10: Plasma Gasifier Costs (USD) ............................................ 15 Pyrolysis ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 1-11: Pyrolysis Costs (USD) ....................................................... 16 Anaerobic Digestion............................................................................... 16 Figure 1-12: Anaerobic Digestion Costs, Animal Wastes/Wastewater (USD) ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 113: Anaerobic Digestion Costs, MSW (USD) .......................... 18 Industry Trends and WtE Financing ...................................................... 18 WtE Facilities Supply Chain ................................................................... 18 Figure 1-14: WtE Technologies, Facility Supply Chain .......................... 19 Figure 115: Municipal Solid Waste Supply Chain ................................ 20 Figure 1-16: Generalized Non-MSW Waste Feedstock Supply Chain ... 21 Waste to Energy Product Promotion..................................................... 21 Job Creation ............................................................................................ 21 Incineration ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 1-17: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) ............................................................................................ 22 Gasification ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 1-18: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) ............................................................................................ 23 Plasma Gasification ............................................................................... 23 Figure 1-19: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .................................................................................... 24 Pyrolysis ................................................................................................ 24 Figure 1-20: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)... 25 Anaerobic Digestion............................................................................... 25 Figure 1-21: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)....................................................................... 26 Waste to Energy End Users ................................................................... 26 Table 1-1: Thermal Technology End Users ........................................... 27 Table 1-2: Anaerobic Digester End Users............................................. 28 Summary.................................................................................................. 28 Figure 1-22: Global Market for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021) ($ Billions)......................... 29
March 2011
SBI Energy
ii
Table of Contents
Chapter 2: Overview of Waste to Energy Technologies ........ 29

Scope ........................................................................................................29 Global Waste and Management ..............................................................29 Figure 2-1: Annual Per Capita Municipal Waste Generated for OECD Countries (Metric Tonnes) ......................................................30 Role of Waste to Energy..........................................................................32 Waste to Energy Feedstocks ..................................................................32 Dairy Waste and Other Animal Husbandry Wastes ................................32 Table 2-1: Waste to Energy Feedstock Categories ................................33 Food Processing Wastes........................................................................33 Greenwaste ............................................................................................34 Hospital Waste/Biohazard ......................................................................34 Industrial Wastes ....................................................................................35 Sanitary Waste .......................................................................................35 Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................35 Waste to Energy Systems .......................................................................36 Table 2-2 Waste to Energy Technologies and Feedstocks ....................36 Table 2-3 Energy Products from Waste to Energy Technologies ...........37 Incineration.............................................................................................37 Figure 2-2: Incinerator Schematic ..........................................................38 Gasification.............................................................................................39 Figure 2-3: Gasification Schematic.........................................................40 Plasma Gasification................................................................................41 Figure 2-4: Plasma Gasification Schematic............................................42 Pyrolysis .................................................................................................43 Figure 2-5: Pyrolysis Example Schematic ..............................................44 Anaerobic Digestion ...............................................................................44 Figure 2-6: Schematic of Digestion of Manure Combined with Greenwaste........................................................................................46 Applications and Benefits of Waste to Energy Technologies..............47 Waste Management: Mass/Volume Reduction and Avoidance of Landfilling ...........................................................................................47 Power Generation...................................................................................47 Methane Production ...............................................................................48 Liquid Fuels Production ..........................................................................48 Heat Production......................................................................................48 Pollutant Emissions Reduction ...............................................................49 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management .............................................49 Destruction of Harmful Microbes and Biological Agents .........................49 Land Area Requirements........................................................................50 Mechanical Biological Treatment............................................................50 Drawbacks of Waste to Energy Technologies.......................................51 Environmental Concerns ........................................................................51
iii
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table of Contents
Potential Competition with Recycling ..................................................... 52 Potential Competition with Composting ................................................. 52 Increased Pollution under Some Systems ............................................. 52 Public Opinion........................................................................................ 53 Cost/Benefit ............................................................................................. 54 Summary.................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 3: Waste to Energy Technologies Market Size and Growth..............................................................................57

Scope ....................................................................................................... 57 Market Assessment Methodology ......................................................... 57 Project-Based Market Evaluations......................................................... 58 Additional Market Valuation Factors ...................................................... 58 Demand for Municipal Waste Stream Management and Waste Reduction .......................................................................................... 59 Figure 3-1: Historic and Projected Annual Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Global and US (Billion Tons per Year) ........................... 61 Reuse, Recycling, Composting, and Waste to Energy .......................... 62 Growth of Biomass, Food Waste, and Animal Husbandry Waste to Energy ............................................................................................... 64 Environmental and Social Concerns of Waste Management ................. 65 Alternative Energy Growth and Demand................................................ 66 Waste to Energy Projects ....................................................................... 67 Table 3-1: Anticipated Global WtE Projects ........................................... 68 Factors Affecting Market Size and Growth ........................................... 71 Feedstock Availability: landfilling reduction targets, waste stream diversion requirements, and other key waste management trends that inform feedstock availability;....................................................... 71 Table 3-2: European Union Mandated Waste Reduction Targets.......... 71 Table 3-3: Great Britain National Waste Reduction Targets .................. 72 Table 3-4: New Zealands Adopted Waste Management Strategy ........ 73 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements, targets, and strategies; ................................................................................... 74 Demand for Alternative and Renewable Energy .................................... 75 Figure 3-2: Global Energy Consumption, Historic (2007) and Projected (Through 2035) (Quadrillion British Thermal Units per Year) ........................................................................................... 77 Figure 3-3: Global Historic Energy Production and Projected Increases in Renewable and Other Power Sources, 1990-2035 (Quadrillion British Thermal Units per Year) ...................................... 78 Costs and WtE Project Economics ........................................................ 78 Public acceptance of WtE ...................................................................... 80 Other Relevant Trends........................................................................... 80
March 2011
SBI Energy
iv
Table of Contents
WtE Technologies Markets .....................................................................81 Global Market for Incineration ................................................................81 Figure 3-4: Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)..........................................................................................85 Table 3-5: Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)..........................................................................................85 Figure 3-5: Regional WtE Markets for Incineration: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) ...........................86 Table 3-6: Incinerator Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) .......................................................................87 Table 3-7: Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Incinerator Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW) ...................................................................................87 Global Market for Gasification ................................................................88 Figure 3-6: Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) ...............91 Table 3-8: Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)..................92 Figure 3-7: Regional WtE Markets for Gasification: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) ...........................93 Table 3-9: Gasification Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) .......................................................................94 Table 3-10: Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Gasifier Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW) ...................................................................................94 Global Market for Plasma Gasification ...................................................95 Figure 3-8: Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) ...............98 Table 3-11: Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)..................99 Figure 3-9: Regional WtE Markets for Plasma Gasification: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions).........100 Table 3-12: Plasma Gasification Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) .....................................................................101 Table 3-13: Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Plasma Gasifier Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)...............................................................101 Global Market for Pyrolysis...................................................................101 Figure 3-10: Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)........................................................................................104
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table of Contents
Table 3-14: Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) ....................................................................................... 105 Figure 3-11: Regional WtE Markets for Pyrolysis: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) ........................ 106 Table 3-15: Pyrolysis Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)..................................................... 107 Table 3-16: Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Pyrolysis Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)................................................................................. 107 Global Market for Anaerobic Digestion ................................................ 108 Figure 3-12: Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digester Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) .............................................. 110 Table 3-17: Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digesters Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions) ....................................................................... 111 Figure 3-13: Regional WtE Markets for Anaerobic Digesters: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions) ........ 112 Table 3-18: Anaerobic Digester Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)..................................................................... 113 Table 3-19: Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Anaerobic Digesters Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW) .............................................................. 113 Summary................................................................................................ 113 Figure 3-14: Global Market for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021) ($ Billions)........................ 114 Figure 3-15: Percentage of Global Market Shares for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021) ..... 115
Chapter 4: Waste to Energy Technologies Market and Product Trends .....................................................................117

Scope ..................................................................................................... 117 WtE Product Pricing.............................................................................. 117 Global Economic Factors Influencing WtE Project Costs..................... 118 Regional and Cost Considerations ...................................................... 119 Figure 4-1: Worker Labor Compensation Rates, 1998-2008 (US$) ..... 122 Technology Specific Costs and Cost Factors ...................................... 123 Incinerators .......................................................................................... 123 Figure 4-2: Incinerator Costs (USD) .................................................... 125 Table 4-1: Incineration Cost Profiles .................................................... 125 Gasification .......................................................................................... 126
March 2011
SBI Energy
vi
Table of Contents
Figure 4-3: Gasification Costs (USD) ...................................................128 Table 4-2: Gasification Cost Profiles ....................................................128 Plasma Gasification..............................................................................128 Figure 4-4: Plasma Gasifier Costs (USD).............................................130 Table 4-3: Plasma Gasification, Typical Cost Profiles ..........................130 Pyrolysis ...............................................................................................130 Figure 4-5: Pyrolysis Costs (USD)........................................................132 Table 4-4: Pyrolysis, Typical Cost Profiles ...........................................132 Anaerobic Digestion/Fermentation/MBT...............................................132 Figure 4-6: United States Anaerobic Digester Facilities: Animal Husbandry Wastes...........................................................................134 Figure 4-7: US On-Farm Anaerobic Digester Costs .............................135 Table 4-5: Anaerobic Digestion, Typical Cost Profiles, Animal Wastes and Wastewater Treatment .................................................136 Figure 4-8: Anaerobic Digestion Costs, Animal Wastes and Wastewater Treatment (USD) ..........................................................136 Table 4-6: Anaerobic Digestion, Typical Cost Profiles, MSW ...............137 Figure 4-9: Anaerobic Digestion Costs, MSW (USD) ...........................137 Industry Trends......................................................................................138 Importance of Feedstock Availability ....................................................138 New Product Developments and Product Trends.................................140 Public Relations, Environmental, and Permitting Concerns..................140 Figure 4-10 Waste Management Hierarchy for WtE Projetcs ...............142 Waste to Energy Ownership .................................................................144 Public Ownership..................................................................................144 Private Ownership ................................................................................144 Project Development and Financing Trends .......................................145 Table 4-7: Common WtE Project Finance Mechanisms .......................145 Venture Capital and Equities ................................................................146 Grant Funding, Government Loans, and Other Government Incentives .........................................................................................147 Public/Government Funding .................................................................148 Project Revenues and Cash on Hand ..................................................149 Private Debt Financing .........................................................................150 Mixed Funding Sources........................................................................152 Summary ................................................................................................153
Chapter 5: Waste to Energy Technologies Supply Chain and Promotion...................................................................... 155

Scope ......................................................................................................155 WtE Facilities Supply Chain..................................................................155 Figure 5-1: WtE Technologies, Facility Supply Chain...........................156
vii
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table of Contents
Waste Feedstock Supply Chains ......................................................... 160 Figure 5-2: Municipal Solid Waste Supply Chain ................................. 161 Figure 5-3: Generalized Non-MSW Waste Feedstock Supply Chain... 162 Waste to Energy Product Promotion................................................... 163 Promotion to the End User................................................................... 163 Promotion to Government and the Public ............................................ 164 Summary................................................................................................ 166
Chapter 6: Waste to Energy Technologies Job Creation Estimates...............................................................................167

Scope ..................................................................................................... 167 Modes of Job Creation.......................................................................... 167 Job Creation Projections and Methods............................................... 168 Incineration .......................................................................................... 168 Figure 6-1: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .......................................................................................... 169 Figure 6-2: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created) ....................................................... 170 Gasification .......................................................................................... 170 Figure 6-3: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .......................................................................................... 171 Figure 6-4: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created) ....................................................... 172 Plasma Gasification ............................................................................. 172 Figure 6-5: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .................................................................................. 173 Figure 6-6: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created) ................................... 173 Pyrolysis .............................................................................................. 174 Figure 6-7: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .................................................................................. 174 Figure 6-8: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created) ................................... 175 Anaerobic Digestion............................................................................. 175
March 2011
SBI Energy
viii
Table of Contents
Figure 6-9: Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created) .....................................................................176 Figure 6-10: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created) ....................................177 Summary ................................................................................................177 Figure 6-11: Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation for all WtE Technologies; 2011 - 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created, Thousands) ................178
Chapter 7: Competitive Profiles.............................................. 179

Scope ......................................................................................................179 Methodology and Selection of Profiles................................................179 Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. ........................................................................180 Overview ..............................................................................................180 Performance.........................................................................................180 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................181 Company News and Developments .....................................................181 The Babcock & Wilcox Company .........................................................182 Overview ..............................................................................................182 Performance.........................................................................................182 Figure 7-1: Babcock and Wilcox Revenues, 2007-2010e.....................183 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................183 Company News and Developments .....................................................183 BlueFire Renewables Inc.......................................................................184 Overview ..............................................................................................184 Performance.........................................................................................184 Figure 7-2: BlueFire Renewables, Inc., Revenues, 2007-2010e ..........185 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................185 Company News and Developments .....................................................185 Covanta Energy Corporation ................................................................186 Overview ..............................................................................................186 Performance.........................................................................................186 Figure 7-3: Covanta Energy Corporation, Revenues, 2006-2010e.......187 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................187 Company News and Developments .....................................................188 Ener-G PLC.............................................................................................189 Overview ..............................................................................................189 Performance.........................................................................................189 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................190 Company News and Developments .....................................................190
ix
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table of Contents
Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH...................................................... 191 Overview.............................................................................................. 191 Performance ........................................................................................ 191 Figure 7-4: Fisia Babcock Environment, GmbH, Revenues, 2006-2010e ..................................................................................... 192 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 192 Company News and Developments..................................................... 192 Florida Syngas LLC............................................................................... 193 Overview.............................................................................................. 193 Performance ........................................................................................ 193 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 193 Company News and Developments..................................................... 194 Frontline BioEnergy, LLC ..................................................................... 195 Overview.............................................................................................. 195 Performance ........................................................................................ 195 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 195 Company News and Developments..................................................... 196 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) ......................................... 197 Overview.............................................................................................. 197 Performance ........................................................................................ 197 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 198 Company News and Developments..................................................... 198 Martin GmbH.......................................................................................... 199 Overview.............................................................................................. 199 Performance ........................................................................................ 199 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 199 Company News and Developments..................................................... 200 Pyrogenesis Canada, Inc...................................................................... 201 Overview.............................................................................................. 201 Performance ........................................................................................ 201 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 201 Company News and Developments..................................................... 202 QinetiQ ................................................................................................... 203 Overview.............................................................................................. 203 Performance ........................................................................................ 203 Figure 7-5: QinetiQ, Revenues, 2006-2010e ....................................... 204 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 204 Company News and Developments..................................................... 204 Siemens AG ........................................................................................... 205 Overview.............................................................................................. 205 Performance ........................................................................................ 205 Figure 7-6: Siemens AG, Revenues, 2007-2010e ............................... 206 Product Portfolio .................................................................................. 206
March 2011
SBI Energy
Table of Contents
Company News and Developments .....................................................206 Takuma Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................207 Overview ..............................................................................................207 Performance.........................................................................................208 Figure 7-7: Takuma Co., Ltd., Revenues, 2006-2010e.........................208 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................208 Company News and Developments .....................................................208 UTS-Residual Processing LLC .............................................................209 Overview ..............................................................................................209 Performance.........................................................................................209 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................209 Company News and Developments .....................................................210 Veolia Environnement S.A. ...................................................................211 Overview ..............................................................................................211 Performance.........................................................................................211 Figure 7-8: Veolia Environnement S.A., Revenues, 2006-2010e .........212 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................212 Company News and Developments .....................................................212 Wheelabrator Technologies Inc............................................................213 Overview ..............................................................................................213 Performance.........................................................................................213 Figure 7-9: Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., Revenues, 2006-2010e ......................................................................................214 Product Portfolio ...................................................................................214 Company News and Developments .....................................................215
Chapter 8: End Users .............................................................. 215

Scope ......................................................................................................215 Waste to Energy End Users: Thermal Technologies ..........................215 Table 8-1: Thermal Technology End Users ..........................................216 Incineration...........................................................................................216 Gasification and Plasma Gasification ...................................................217 Pyrolysis and Depolymerization ...........................................................218 Waste to Energy End Users: Anaerobic Digesters .............................218 Table 8-2: Anaerobic Digester End Users ............................................219 Dairies and Animal Husbandry .............................................................219 Food and Meat Processing Industries ..................................................220 Municipal Greenwaste and Municipal Solid Waste ...............................221 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants ..............................................221 Table 8-3 WWTP Anaerobic Digester Typical Production Rate and Cost Parameters ..............................................................................223 Summary ................................................................................................223
xi
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
Scope
This report provides a review of existing global waste and waste management trends, discusses relevant waste to energy (WtE) feedstocks and technologies, and reviews the benefits and drawbacks of WtE. Valuations of WtE markets, broken down by technology, are provided, along with regional discussions and breakdowns for North America, Europe, and Asia. WtE product pricing is discussed, and typical price points are disclosed, for each of the WtE technologies considered in this report. Financing and industry trends are reviewed, as relevant to market potential, and supply chain characteristics for WtE technologies and feedstocks are evaluated. Waste to energy product promotion is also considered, and the anticipated effects of growth in the WtE industry on job creation is quantified. Relevant companies active in the WtE industry are reviewed. Finally, WtE end users are discussed, as relevant to thermal WtE technologies and anaerobic digestion.
Global Waste and Management and Role of Waste to Energy

The United States alone generates about 250 million tons of MSW per year.1 Of that amount, 83 million tons, or approximately 33% is recycled, and an additional 31 million tons, or 13%, is combusted for mass/volume reduction and energy production. On a global scale, total municipal waste generated is in excess of 2.1 billion tons annually.2 As shown in Figure 1-1, the per capita mass of waste generated on a global scale varies substantially by country. The United States has the fourth highest per capita municipal waste generation rate; municipal waste generated in the United States is equivalent to about 12% of the total annual solid waste generated globally. On a global scale, most waste is landfilled. However, the fraction of total waste that is landfilled varies substantially based on national and regional efforts at waste minimization and reclamation.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf; Accessed on November 22, 2010. 2 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010. OECD Factbook 2010, Economic, Environmental, and Social Statistics. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecdfactbook-2010_factbook-2010-en Accessed on November 23, 2010.
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 1-1 Annual Per Capita Municipal Waste Generated for OECD Countries (Metric Tonnes)
Source: OECD 2010. Note: the green bar represents the average annual per capita waste generated by OECD countries, each of which is represented by a blue bar.
According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), MSW, which is comprised of an array of paper and packaging products, textiles, yard trimmings, food wastes, wood, plastics, rubber, metals, glass, and various other materials, has an average energy content of 11.7 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per ton of MSW. Applying this figure on a global scale, at 2.1 billion tons of waste generated annually (before recycling), this is equivalent to approximately 24.5 quadrillion Btu, which is enough heat energy to generate about 10% of the electricity consumed annually around the globe.3 Waste to energy facilities function as one of several different options for the ultimate disposal or re-use of MSW as well as various other waste streams. In most areas, MSW is handled via a series of diversion, re-use, and disposal activities that may include recycling, landfilling, and composting. Depending on feedstock characteristics and local waste management practices, waste to energy technologies can be managed so as to compete with landfilling, recycling, and/or composting. From an environmental standpoint, waste to energy technologies that are used following the diversion of suitable wastes to recycling are typically the most beneficial. However, from a waste management standpoint, the extent to which
Calculated by SBI Energy. Calculation assumes electricity generation efficiency of 25%, and a global annual electricity consumption rate of 13.9 trillion kWh. This estimate includes energy from waste that is currently landfilled and recycled, but still provides a useful benchmark in terms of the total availability of solid waste, when considered as an energy resource.
March 2011
SBI Energy
Executive Summary
recyclable materials are removed prior to waste to energy conversion depends substantially on local or national waste handling standards, requirements, and common practices.
Waste to Energy Feedstocks and Technologies

There are many feedstocks that can be used for waste to energy production. Feedstocks that can be used for WtE production include MSW, dairy wastes, other animal husbandry wastes, food processing wastes, greenwaste, hospital waste and biohazardous waste, industrial wastes, and sanitary wastewater (sewage). One major/primary characteristic of different waste feedstocks is their water content. Water content can help inform the type of WtE technology that can be used to treat a given waste stream, and may limit the applicability of some WtE technologies to some specific waste streams. For instance, incineration is not generally used to treat liquid wastes, because doing so would require removal of water from the waste stream, which may not be practicable. Five WtE technologies are reviewed within the scope of this document. These are incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. Incineration is the most commonly employed WtE technology, both in the United States and globally. Waste feedstock is mixed thoroughly to maintain a more constant heating value and then loaded into a large hopper, bunker, or other delivery system. Feedstock is then delivered along a conveyor or other mechanism into the furnace, typically onto a graded stoker or other bed for combustion. As the waste is incinerated, released heat travels upward and heats water in a boiler system, which in turn drives a steam cycle and steam turbine. The steam turbine turns a generator, producing electricity that is then exported to the power grid or for other uses. Waste heat may also be used for district heating, to drive industrial processes, or for other cogeneration uses. Gasification, also called thermal gasification, is similar to incineration, and a gasification plant used for energy production from solid waste has several similar components as compared to a solid waste incinerator/power production plant. The primary difference between incineration and gasification is the amount of oxygen that is allowed in the process. In order to efficiently combust their feedstock, incinerators are not oxygen limited air is rapidly pumped into the furnace to support combustion. In contrast, gasification is a more controlled reaction, wherein the amount of oxygen in the gasification chamber is carefully controlled and limited.
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Plasma gasification has been developed extensively in the manufacturing industry, where it has rapidly gained utility and application since the 1980s. Plasma gasification is achieved high current, high voltage electricity which is passed between two electrodes, along with pressurized gas. The gas is rapidly heated to 4,000 to 7,000 degrees centigrade, thereby reaching a plasma state, which also conducts electricity. When municipal waste or other feedstocks are introduced into the plasma stream, they are quickly gasified and syngas, similar to that described for standard gasifiers, is produced. The syngas is then subject to various additional processes and/or cleanup procedures. Pyrolysis processes are used widely in the petroleum and coal industries to generate coke,4 which is subsequently used for steelmaking and various other metal production and industrial processes, and also during petroleum refining for liquid fuels production. Essentially, pyrolysis can be described as a gasification process, except where gasification is performed with low levels of oxygen, pyrolysis is performed in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is also an endothermic process, which means that it requires net heat input to drive the reaction. Pyrolysis reactions generally occur above about 800 degrees F, and, like gasification, result in the production of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and a suite of trace gases, many of which must be scrubbed out or cleaned up prior to the release of waste gas to the atmosphere, in processes similar to those described for previous technologies. Anaerobic digestion, also termed simply digestion, relies on microorganisms to transform wet feedstocks into usable fuels, such as methane gas or biogas. The anaerobic digestion process essentially harnesses bacteriological decay processes that occur naturally, and applies those processes within a controlled environment. Most feedstocks used for digestion are very wet liquid wastes such as sewage are perhaps the most common but other substances can be added too. These include greenwaste, organic fractions from MSW, food processing waste, biomass, and various other feedstocks. Some digesters are also designed to operate with only minimal water content; however, these dry digestion systems still require a substantial level of moisture to be maintained within the system during the digestion process.
Coal coke is derived from the destructive distillation of bituminous coal (heating in the absence of oxygen until volatiles are removed), and is used widely for the smelting of iron ore and other blast furnace type applications.
March 2011
SBI Energy
Executive Summary
Applications, Benefits, and Drawbacks of Waste to Energy Technologies

WtE technologies can provide several benefits to waste management. These include mass/volume reduction in order to avoid landfilling, power generation, methane production, liquid fuels production, heat production, pollutant emissions reduction, greenhouse gas emissions management, destruction of microbial and viral contaminants, minimal land are requirements, and potential for incorporation into MSW recycling and diversion schemes. Drawbacks of WtE technologies include environmental concerns and especially publicly perceptions regarding environmental concerns, potential for competition with recycling, potential for competition with composting, increased pollutant emissions under some WtE systems, and negative public opinion in some regions, for some WtE technologies.
Waste to Energy Market Valuations

The WtE market values and projections generated for this report are based on a combination of historic data, project announcements, and a series of additional market valuation factors. These include: Feedstock availability, as well as landfilling reduction targets, waste stream diversion requirements, recycling trends, and other key waste management trends that inform feedstock availability; Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements, targets, and strategies; Demand for alternative energy; Costs and fees; Public acceptance of WtE; and Other relevant trends such as drivers for dairy and wastewater treatment WtE application. Key historic factors were also identified, which are anticipated to guide present and future trends in the global WtE market. These include demand for municipal waste stream management and waste reduction; implementation of re-use, recycling, and composting; growth in the biomass, foodwaste, and animal husbandry waste sectors; alternative energy growth and demand; and environmental and social concerns regarding waste management. Additional market breakdowns, by region and by country, are included in Chapter 3.
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Incineration Existing and projected global incinerator market trends are shown in Figure 1-2. As shown, during the 2006-2010 period of historic data, the global market for incinerators (including ancillaries) increased from $3.1 billion to $5.1 billion, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.5%. During 2011 through 2021, continued growth in all regional markets, but especially in Asia, is expected to drive global markets from $5.6 billion to $13.8 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 8.6%. The highest annual rates of increase are largely driven by the maturation of regulatory requirements in European markets, where mandated waste reduction targets reach maturation during 2010, 2013, and 2020. A general slowdown in growth is projected following 2020 for this reason. However, continued growth in the North American and Asian markets is expected to continue to drive incinerator markets through the end of these projections.
Figure 1-2 Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.
Gasification Gasification markets during the 2006 through 2010 period included the installation of a single WtE gasification plant in Denmark in 2008. Various maintenance and upkeep requirements for existing WtE gasification plants from the 1980s and 1990s are also indicated for this period, and engineering, permitting, and early equipment orders for the Denmark plant and plant installations expected to commence in 2011 are also indicated for 2010. Market size
March 2011
SBI Energy
Executive Summary
during this period increased from essentially zero to $48 million, including technology installations and ancillaries (Figure 1-3).
Figure 1-3 Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
The 2011 through 2014 gasification market is expected to show moderate volatility during 2011-2013, with a temporary loss in value during 2012, down to $516 million. This situation is due primarily to the timing of announced project cycles, where several project starts are anticipated for 2011 and 2013, and fewer for 2012. In Europe, gasifier installations through 2013 are largely driven by compliance requirements for European Union member countries, which require landfilling reduction or payment of fines. Following 2014, the projected WtE gasification market is expected to stabilize into a more consistent growth pattern, with a growth rates again increasing in support of Europes 2020 waste management deadlines. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to increase from $620 million to $2.3 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 12.8%. From 2011 through 2021, approximately 85-90% of the gasification market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 10-15% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources.
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Plasma Gasification Plasma gasification markets during the 2006 through 2010 period are defined by the successful implementation of a MSW plant in Ottawa, Canada in 2009, as well as engineering, permitting, and early equipment orders in support of anticipated 2011 plasma gasifier installations. Markets during this period shifted from research and development to initial commercial installations. Market size during this period increased from essentially zero to $126 million, including technology installations and ancillaries. Projected markets for plasma gasification are expected to increase rapidly, especially through 2015 as technology suppliers expand into the Asian market. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to show strong growth, increasing from $334 million to $3.5 billion (CAGR of 23.9%). From 2011 through 2021, approximately 8085% of the gasification market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 1520% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources.
Figure 1-4 Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Pyrolysis Figure 1-5 shows the global historic and estimated pyrolysis market for 2006 through 2021. The global pyrolysis market for the 2006 through 2010 period includes new project installations around the globe, notably within Canada, the UK, Eastern Europe, and Canada.
March 2011
SBI Energy
Executive Summary
As shown, the global economic turndown affected continued growth in global pyrolysis projects, resulting in project stalls especially in North American and European markets. As a result, net market contraction is indicated for 2009 and 2010. Overall, global markets during this period lost $40 to $50 million due to the economic turndown, resulting in a CAGR of 4.3%.
Figure 1-5 Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Based on announced projects, near term future markets for WtE pyrolysis are expected to rebound rapidly in 2011, with marked additional growth in 2012 and 2013. Gains across global markets are anticipated, with the highest rates of increase indicated for Asia (India and to a lesser extent, China) and North America. European markets are expected to exceed 2006 levels by 2014. Longer term projections through 2021 indicate continued growth in the global pyrolysis market, with a slight increase in growth rate from 2018 through 2021, as the final phase of European waste management regulations take effect, and additional growth in the global demand for alternative fuels (including waste derived fuels) impacts the global pyrolysis market. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to show strong growth, increasing from $355 million in 2011 to nearly $2.8 billion in 2021 (CAGR of 20.5%). From 2011 through 2021, approximately 45-65% of the gasification
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 35-55% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources, including waste tires, wood wastes, and other biomass wastes. Anaerobic Digestion
Figure 1-6 Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digester Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Figure 1-6 shows the global historic and estimated future anaerobic digester market for 2006 through 2021. The global market for the 2006 through 2010 period includes new project installations globally, with about half of total installations occurring in Asia, most of the remaining installations in Europe, and a handful of additional new installations in North America. Roughly two thirds of the anaerobic digester facilities installed during this time period were meant to treat on-farm wastes and other non-MSW wastes. MSW anaerobic digestion represented a little less than a third of all global WtE projects within the scope of this study. As shown, the global economic turndown had a noticeable effect on global WtE markets, and many large and small projects have been delayed due to lack of sufficient funding. Overall, from 2006 to 2011, the global anaerobic digester market for WtE increased from approximately $1.47 to 1.62 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 3.25%.
March 2011
SBI Energy
10
Executive Summary
During and following the recovery period from the global economic turndown, global anaerobic digester markets are expected to show solid growth, for 2011 through 2021. This trend will be driven by continued growth in all markets, including, notably, proliferation of engineered mid- to large-size anaerobic digesters, which will be installed in China, India, and other developing Asian markets. Overall, the 2011 through 2021 market will increase from $1.62 to $4.74 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 10.3%. Global Waste to Energy Market Summary
Figure 1-7 Global Market for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021) ($ Billions)
Source: Calculated and estimated by SBI Energy
Figure 1-7 shows the total global market values for the five WtE technologies considered in this report. During the 2006 through 2010 historic period, the global WtE market increased from $4.8 to $7.1 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 8.0%. During 2011 through 2021, projected global WtE markets will increase from $8.5 to $27.2 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 11.2%. During the 2006 through 2010 historic period, approximately 95% of the global WtE market was accounted for by only two technologies: incineration and anaerobic digestion. However, pyrolysis, plasma gasification, and gasification are expected to gain relative market share starting in 2011, and together will comprise over 30% of the total WtE market by 2015. By 2021, incineration will still hold the largest global market share for WtE
11
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
technologies, at approximately 51% of total market share, followed by anaerobic digestion including MSW and non-MSW feedstocks at approximately 17% of total market share, and followed in turn by plasma gasification (approximately 13%), pyrolysis (approximately 10%), and gasification (approximately 9%).
Waste to Energy Product Pricing

Cost for installation of an individual WtE facility is driven by a number of factors that are related to materials and labor costs for installation of the facility. These include costs for: Raw materials such as steel, concrete, and copper wire Fabricated/pre-manufactured products such as electric motors, conveyors, and pipes Engineering/design for the plant and direct WtE process Engineering/design for supporting facilities such as buildings and storage areas Skilled and unskilled labor costs for project construction
Other costs that are incurred during the procurement and construction process may include, depending on the region in which the project is constructed and the level of public interest/scrutiny in the project, environmental consultants, legal advisors, financial advisors, and various project management and other advisory consultants. Project level cost data gathered by SBI Energy indicate the following WtE technology valuations. Incineration Figure 1-8 summarizes incinerator capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the incinerator itself, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW5 and $/ton-year6 capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during SBIs data collection efforts. As shown, the average incinerator cost for announced projects is $8,650/kW or $1,960/Ton-Yr, whereas peak reported costs for incinerators were $13,500/kW or $2,800/Ton-Yr. These figures are higher than the capital costs for the other thermal WtE technologies reviewed in this report. However, high cost does
5 6
Dollars per kilowatt hour. Dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
March 2011
SBI Energy
12
Executive Summary
not necessarily translate directly into reduced competitiveness for incinerator technologies. Profitability for a WtE technology is based on a combination of revenues including power generation and tipping fees. Thus incinerator cost alone does not directly correspond to profitability or viability of a particular proposed project. Ancillary facilities, including pollution control, feedstock handling, building requirements, and other supporting features for incinerators can represent approximately 40% to 70% of total project cost.
Figure 1-8 Incinerator Costs (USD)
Source: SBI Energy. Bars show average costs; error bars show a typical range of total costs (WtE technology plus ancillary equipment) for this technology. $/kW = dollars per kilowatt nameplate capacity; $/Ton-Yr = dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
Gasification Like incinerators, capital costs for gasification technology are less variable than the cost of ancillary facilities. Gasifiers for waste feedstocks have an average capital cost that is slightly lower than incinerators, at $1,650/kW, and ranging from about $1,300-$2,000/kW installed power production capacity, for the stand-alone gasifier technology. As shown, the average gasifier cost for announced projects is $4,979/kW or $399/Ton-Yr, whereas peak reported costs for gasifiers were $8,500/kW or $524/Ton-Yr (Figure 1-9). Note that cost estimate data on a Ton-Yr basis was only available for a limited sample of proposed gasification projects. Based on the characteristics of these two projects, and on the professional opinion of the analyst, these figures appear to understate gasifier costs on a per ton basis. However, more extensive data were not available. Ancillary facility costs can vary widely for gasifiers, and may represent approximately 15 to 75% of total installed cost, based largely on feedstock
13
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
characteristics, design and regional design standards, and availability of supporting infrastructure.
Figure 1-9 Gasification Costs (USD)
Source: SBI Energy. Bars show average costs; error bars show a typical range of total costs (WtE technology plus ancillary equipment) for this technology.
Plasma Gasification Plasma gasifiers for WtE have an average capital cost that is slightly higher than standard gasifiers, at $2,180/kW, with costs for identified projects ranging from about $1,600 to $2,760/kW. Plasma gasifiers indicate greater capital cost variability than incinerators or standard gasifiers, in large part due to their recently emergent status. Over the next decade, plasma gasification capital costs will decrease in variability, as the technology continues to mature. Like other WtE technologies, capital costs for ancillary functions vary more than capital costs for the WtE technology. Figure 1-10 summarizes gasifier capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the plasma gasifier and ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-year capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during SBIs data collection efforts. As shown, the average plasma gasifier cost for announced projects is $7,020/kW or $1,029/Ton-Yr. Ancillary functions range from about 40 to over 70% of total project capital cost. As for other WtE technologies, these capital costs are influenced according to the manufacturers and contractors selected, as well the region in which the plant is installed and other factors discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
March 2011
SBI Energy
14
Executive Summary
Figure 1-10 Plasma Gasifier Costs (USD)
Pyrolysis Average capital cost for pyrolysis technology (without ancillaries) that was recently (within the last two years) constructed or currently proposed is approximately $1,950/kW. The highest identified price for pyrolysis technology is approximately $2,200, with a lowest identified cost of $1,700. This is somewhat more expensive than gasification, but less expensive than incineration or plasma gasification, on a per-kW of power produced basis. Like other WtE technologies, the level of variability included in this cost range is caused by several factors including differences in feedstock characteristics, manufacturer cost and pricing, and regional and temporal market conditions. As noted above, specialized markets and the availability of turnkey solutions can also influence pyrolysis technology costs. Figure 1-11 summarizes pyrolysis capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the pyrolysis technology only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-year capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during data collection. As shown, the average pyrolysis facility cost for announced projects was $5,680/kW or $326/Ton-Yr. Peak reported cost for pyrolysis facilities was $9,150 or $780/Ton-Yr, while minimum reported cost for pyrolysis facilities was $233/Ton-Yr. Like gasifiers, ancillary facility costs can vary widely for pyrolysis facilities, and may represent approximately 15 to 70% of total installed cost.
15
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 1-11 Pyrolysis Costs (USD)
Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion costs differ significantly based on feedstock. Figure 1-12 summarizes capital costs for anaerobic digesters using animal wastes and wastewater as feedstocks. Bars in the figures represent average capital costs for the digester technology only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-yr capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during data collection. As shown, the average anaerobic digester facility cost for announced and recently completed animal waste and wastewater facilities was $4,698/kW or $15.13/Ton-Yr. Note cost per tonyear figures are based on the total weight of feedstock that passes through an anaerobic digester facility. Because these facilities treat aqueous (waterborne) wastes, note that per tonyear costs are much lower than for other technologies. This is an artifact of the very high water content of these feedstocks, where water itself is very heavy and contains no energy production value.
March 2011
SBI Energy
16
Executive Summary
Figure 1-12 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, Animal Wastes/Wastewater (USD)
Figure 1-13 summarizes capital costs for anaerobic digesters using MSW as feedstock. As shown, the average anaerobic digester facility cost for announced and recently completed MSW facilities was $5,788/kW or $657/Ton-Yr. Peak reported costs for announced and recently completed projects was $12,688/kW or $1,310/Ton-Yr, while minimum reported cost for these facilities was $4,634/kW or $330/Ton-Yr. These figures are higher than reported costs for animal waste and wastewater digesters, and are more closely aligned to the costs of thermal technologies. Higher costs for MSW digesters are caused by more stringent design requirements for MSW digesters, which usually require site specific engineering for the digester and its interface with other waste management facilities. Similarly, ancillary costs for MSW digesters are higher than for animal waste and wastewater digesters, and comprise about 25 to 35% of total MSW digester installed cost.
17
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 113 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, MSW (USD)
Industry Trends and WtE Financing

Several important and anticipated industry trends are expected to influence total WtE markets, facility costs, public opinion, proliferation, and continued viability of WtE technologies. These include the ongoing availability of feedstock; new product developments and product trends; trends in public relations, environmental issues, and permitting. The availability of financing also influences WtE markets. A proposed WtE facility may be publicly or privately owned and financed. Potentially available sources of funding that are relevant to WtE projects include venture capital, equities, grant funding, government loans, government incentives, public funding, project revenues, cash in hand, private debt financing (bank or creditor), and mixed source funding.
WtE Facilities Supply Chain

The supply chain for WtE facilities is similar to the supply chains of most other specialized, large scale industrial and energy facilities, and encompasses commodities, fabricators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), specialty equipment manufacturers, engineers, procurement and construction managers, permitting and environmental compliance specialists, and of course, WtE facility end users and plant operators. Figure 1-14 provides a generalized supply chain overview for WtE facility installations.
March 2011
SBI Energy
18
Executive Summary
Figure 1-14 WtE Technologies, Facility Supply Chain
!"#$%&"'( !")*+",#*%$%(")- ."/%&,"#0%(

1!"#$%&'"(#)*'+,-(. !-,(+/&(.&#0&"'+'.#+1'" ",2*,+'"/,-(3
23*&45$)#62!(
1*#+#"(.!%*!(. &#*!"'((#"(.!/!'-/0'(. &#04'5#"(.'+&67
=4$,&"'#>23*&45$)# !")*+",#*%$%(1:#/-'"(.+%":/0'(.
&#*:%(+/#0=!5"#-5(/(=8,(/)/&,+/#0= $/8'(+/#0&#*!#0'0+(.2,(+'1,0$-/08 ),&/-/+/'(.'+&67
8$%5&##&)?")- 2)@&%0)5$)#"'90)#%",#0%(
1>04/"#0*'0+,-?#*!-/,0&'. ;'"*/++/087
28990)#%",#0%(
17,0,8',0$ 9(('*:-';"#<'&+7
:#264$%"#0%(; 2)-<($%(
Source: SBI Energy
While waste feedstocks are not the primary focus of this review, however, waste feedstock supply chains are important facets of all WtE projects. Figure 1-15 provides an overview of the supply chain for MSW. As shown, feedstock is collected from residences and other waste producers, and routed through sorting and materials recovery functions. In nations with recycling requirements, and elsewhere where recycling generates sufficient cash flow, recyclable materials are diverted and sold. Composting is often viewed as a competitor to WtE facilities, and may be employed in lieu of a WtE facility. However, for certain MSW feedstocks, and for very large waste management operations, composting and WtE may work in tandem. Finally, output from the WtE facility will include power or fuel, other commodities such as slag glass and waste heat, landfillable material, and additional recyclable materials (primarily metals).
19
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 115 Municipal Solid Waste Supply Chain
!=:90''$,#&0)
1*%0/&/!,-#" !"/4,+'('&+#" &#--'&+/#0('"4/&'3
90540(#&)?C 90540(##0 !"%B$#
=0%#&)?")-8%$ 8%0,$((&)?
A$,>,'"/'$ !"#$%&"'(#0 !"%B$#
!"#$%&"'( A$,0@$%>")- A$,>,'&)?
2)$%?>;.*$' :#2 .",&'&#> 6#E$% 90550-&#&$(
D")-+&''
Source: SBI Energy
Non-MSW wastes follow a similar feedstock supply/process chain as compared to MSW, although the process here is more generalized, since a variety of wastes may be handled (Figure 1-16). Feedstock collection and transport is highly variable based on the characteristics of the feedstock being collected. However, most feedstock collection and transport schemes rely on a combination of tipping fees and secondary providers to collect feedstock and deliver to the WtE facility. Some WtE systems, especially in the animal waste or food waste industry, will be co-located next to or near to one or more animal husbandry or food processing facilities. Feedstock is then easily transported via pipeline, conveyor, or other short-distance transportation methods. Relying on one or a very small number of nearby suppliers for feedstock typically produces cost savings for the WtE facility. The disadvantage to such systems is that they are entirely dependent on one or a small number of suppliers for feedstock, and an interruption in supply cannot be easily remedied. Feedstock acquisition can be a substantial hurdle for many non-MSW WtE facilities, and presents a major obstacle to the non-MSW market for WtE technologies.
March 2011
SBI Energy
20
Executive Summary
Figure 1-16 Generalized Non-MSW Waste Feedstock Supply Chain
.$$-(#0,B 90''$,#&0)")- F%")(40%#
A$,>,'"/'$ !"#$%&"'(#0 !"%B$#
2)$%?>;.*$' :#2 .",&'&#> =0%#&)?")-8%$ 8%0,$((&)?

@,(2,"",0+'$3
6#E$% 90550-&#&$( D")-+&''
Source: SBI Energy
Waste to Energy Product Promotion

WtE product promotion can be roughly divided into two categories: efforts focused on potential end users, and efforts focused on the government and public at large. End user promotion focuses on maximizing opportunities created along three primary paths: broad scale identification of potential end users, networking, and response to RFPs. On the public and government sides, WtE promotion consists of a combination of lobbying to incentivize WtE technologies and products, demonstration projects, and public relations. Public relations for thermal WtE technologies in particular are an area of concern. Anti-WtE publications and activities by environmental groups appear to be gaining momentum both in the US and the UK. If the WtE industry fails to respond effectively to these concerns, thermal WtE technology markets could be substantially affected.
Job Creation
Forward movement of an industry or industry sector results in the creation of new jobs, as existing human resources reach capacity and new temporary or permanent hires are made. Within the WtE industries considered for this report, the purchase, installation, and operation of new WtE facilities will result in increased demand for fabricators, construction workers, consultants, construction managers, and operation period workers, managers, and administrators. Anticipated job creation for the WtE industry is shown below.
21
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Incineration Anticipated growth in the global incinerator market will result in the addition of approximately 6,500 new temporary construction jobs and 975 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011 (Figure 1-17). These figures are anticipated to increase along with projected increases in the global incinerator market. In 2021, new incinerator projects will result in the creation of approximately 16,200 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,400 new permanent operations period jobs. During the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for incinerators and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 113,000 temporary construction jobs and 16,600 permanent operation jobs.
Figure 1-17 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Gasification Anticipated growth in the global gasification market will result in the addition of approximately 1,600 new temporary construction jobs and 520 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. These figures are anticipated to increase along with projected increases in the global gasification market. In 2021, new gasification projects will result in the creation of approximately 5,800 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,900 new permanent operations period jobs. During the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for WtE gasifiers and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of
March 2011
SBI Energy
22
Executive Summary
approximately 36,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent operation period jobs.
Figure 1-18 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Plasma Gasification Anticipated growth in the global plasma gasification market will result in the addition of approximately 530 new temporary construction jobs and 100 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011 (Figure 1-19). These jobs creation figures are lower than for any of the other technologies, and are due largely to lower market values for plasma gasification in 2011, as compared to the other technologies discussed in this report. However, by 2021, new plasma gasification projects will result in the creation of approximately 5,600 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,100 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. During the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for plasma gasifiers and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 6,700 permanent operation period jobs.
23
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 1-19 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Pyrolysis Anticipated growth in the global pyrolysis market will result in the addition of approximately 1,100 new temporary construction jobs and 200 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. However, by 2021, new pyrolysis projects will result in the creation of approximately 8,500 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,500 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. During the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for pyrolysis plants and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 57,000 temporary construction jobs and 10,000 permanent operation period jobs.
March 2011
SBI Energy
24
Executive Summary
Figure 1-20 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Anaerobic Digestion Anticipated growth in the global anaerobic digestion market will result in the addition of approximately 1,300 new temporary construction jobs and 900 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011.. By 2021, new anaerobic digester projects will result in the creation of approximately 3,900 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,800 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. During the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for anaerobic digester plants and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 27,000 temporary construction jobs and 19,000 permanent operation period jobs.
25
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Figure 1-21 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Waste to Energy End Users

Waste to energy technologies are applicable across several different industries, including the municipal solid waste management industry, the food production industry (i.e. generators of food waste), the wastewater treatment industry, and the dairy/animal husbandry industry, the healthcare industry/hospitals, and various other industries including manufacturing. The point of commonality among these industries is, of course, that they generate or handle substantial amounts of liquid or solid waste, and that that waste can be used as feedstock to a waste to energy facility. The MSW industry handles enormous volumes of trash on an annual basis (at least 2.1 billion tons per year, as discussed in Chapter 2), and there is substantial potential for the generation of new potential waste to energy end users within the industry. Other potential end users of thermal waste to energy technologies commonly include hospitals, materials and product manufacturers, and food and meat processors. Finally, anaerobic digesters are applicable across many different industries, and may be used in support of industries or processes that generate sanitary wastewater, dairy and animal husbandry waste, municipal solid waste, food processing wastes, greenwaste, and various other organic rich wastes.
March 2011
SBI Energy
26
Executive Summary
Thermal WtE technologies include incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and depolymerization. These technologies share applications that are generally similar in nature. As a result, they also serve similar categories of end users, as shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Thermal Technology End Users

End User Category Equipment and Product Manufacturers Food Processing Industry Hazardous Waste Managers Meat Processing Industry Municipal Greenwaste/Woodwaste Collection Services Municipal Solid Waste Handling/Landfilling/Recovery Facilities Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Source: SBI Energy
Common Feedstocks Waste Paint, Unrecyclable Plastics, Wood Waste Liquid and/or Solid Food Wastes Hospital/Biohazard Wastes, Hazardous or Toxic Industrial Wastes Meat Processing Wastes Greenwaste and Other Biomass Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Waste (Sewage)
Applicability High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Low/Rare
Anaerobic digesters have two major advantages in terms of applicability and ease of implementation: (1) they are relatively inexpensive, and (2) they are easily scalable, e.g., they can be implemented as large or small installations depending on the volume of feedstock that is to be treated. As a result, anaerobic digesters can be installed onto relatively small scale operations where the end user may not have access to the same amounts of capital that would be needed for implementation of other waste to energy technologies. They can also be installed in support of mid to large sized operations, typically at a lower cost than thermal waste to energy technologies, and are applicable across an array of waste generators and industries. As a result, the anaerobic digester industry enjoys a wide diversity of end users, for which the technology is readily applicable. Table 1-2 provides a list of the most common potential end users for anaerobic digesters.
27
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Table 1-2 Anaerobic Digester End Users

End User Category Dairy/Animal Husbandry Food Processing Industry Meat Processing Industry Municipal Greenwaste/Woodwaste Collection Services Municipal Solid Waste Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Source: SBI Energy
Common Feedstocks Liquid and/or Solid Excrement and Facility Washdown Liquid and/or Solid Food Wastes Meat Processing Wastes Greenwaste and Other Biomass Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Waste (Sewage)
Applicability High High High Moderate Moderate High
Summary
Globally, about 2.1 billion tons of municipal solid waste is produced every year. Approximately 12% of this mass is generated in the United States. Various waste management strategies are applied to municipal solid waste to protect public health and safety, and to help ensure adequate disposal of wastes. On a global scale, most municipal solid waste is landfilled, but this varies on a country-by-country basis. In addition to landfilling, recycling and WtE facilities including incineration are also common. Reduction in landfill usage is commonly identified as a high priority waste management goal by waste managers, regional, and national governments. Other waste streams, such as wastewater, animal husbandry, and food processing wastes also serve as potential feedstocks to WtE technologies. Figure 1-22 shows the total global market values for the five WtE technologies considered in this report. During the 2006 through 2010 historic period, the global WtE market increased from $4.8 to $7.1 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 8.0%. During 2011 through 2021, projected global WtE markets will increase from $8.5 to $27.2 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 11.2%.
March 2011
SBI Energy
28
Executive Summary
Cost for installation of an individual WtE facility is driven by a number of cost factors including costs of raw materials, costs of fabricated/pre-manufactured products, engineering/design costs for the WtE technology and supporting facilities, and skilled and unskilled labor costs for project construction. Costs for WtE technologies vary based on the WtE technology being considered, the level of emission control and other ancillary facilities required for project completion, and the region in which the technology is installed. Regional costs variation is significant, based primarily on cost regional differentials for labor, raw materials, and fabricated/pre-manufactured products. WtE technology capital costs are generally high, but most well-designed facilities will achieve return on investment in about a decade. The WtE facilities supply chain is characterized by materials manufacturers and fabricators, equipment OEMs, specialty equipment manufacturers, EPC contractors, permitting and environmental contractors, WtE operators, and end users. Feedstock supply chains are also highly relevant to WtE projects, and may involve collection and transport/delivery, sorting and preprocessing, recycling, landfilling, composting, energy/fuel production, and byproduct commodity production.
29
SBI Energy
March 2011
Executive Summary
Job creation within the WtE industry is anticipated as demand for WtE technologies increases, during the coming decade. Specifically, the purchase, installation, and operation of new WtE facilities will result in increased demand for fabricators, construction workers, consultants, construction managers, and operation period workers, managers, and administrators. In total, the WtE market will add nearly 350,000 temporary and permanent jobs from 2011 through 2021. End users are defined as the final purchasers or owner/operators of a waste to energy technology that is, waste to energy operators/managers, but not additional users of the electricity or fuel produced by a waste to energy facility. End users of waste to energy technologies can be roughly separated into those for which thermal waste tpo energy technologies are applicable, and those for which non-thermal technologies (i.e. anaerobic digesters) are applicable. Thermal waste to energy technologies are generally applicable to end users that manage feedstocks with low water content, although plasma gasification and some pyrolysis technologies can be applied to wet feedstocks. Anaerobic digesters are widely applicable to wet organic feedstocks and to those organic feedstocks that can be easily wetted.
March 2011
SBI Energy
30
Overview of Waste to Energy Technologies
Chapter 2
Scope
Waste to energy (WtE) technologies are specialized infrastructures that convert various waste streams, such as municipal solid waste, sewage wastes, greenwaste, and other wastes, into usable energy. Energy may be produced in the form of heat, typically used for process, industrial, or district heating; electricity, commonly used to power on-site operations or sold onto an electricity grid; or fuels, used to supply vehicles, generators, or industrial processes. WtE technologies are applied according to the feedstock type available, and the desired product. The primary technologies that are currently available include incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, depolymerization, and digestion. WtE technologies provide an important alternative to conventional landfilling and recycling waste management activities. For instance, in comparison to traditional management techniques, WtE technologies reduce the volume of trash deposited in landfills, reduce long term methane emissions from landfills, reduce potential for groundwater contamination, and provide alternative sources of energy. On the downside, many WtE technologies have suffered from marginal to negative public perceptions. This is especially the case in the United States, where many potential WtE projects have been impeded due to real or perceived environmental concerns. This chapter reviews these issues, as they relate to existing and foreseeable future WtE markets globally.
Global Waste and Management

The United States alone generates about 250 million tons of municipal solid waste per year.7 Of that amount, 83 million tons, or approximately 33% is recycled, and an additional 31
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf; Accessed on November 22, 2010.
29
SBI Energy
March 2011
million tons, or 13%, is combusted for mass/volume reduction and energy production. On a global scale, total municipal waste generated is in excess of 2.1 billion tons annually.8 As shown in Figure 2-1, the per capita mass of waste generated on a global scale varies substantially by country. The United States has the fourth highest per capita municipal waste generation rate; municipal waste generated in the United States is equivalent to about 12% of the total annual solid waste generated globally.
Figure 2-1 Annual Per Capita Municipal Waste Generated for OECD Countries (Metric Tonnes)
Source: OECD 2010. Note: the green bar represents the average annual per capita waste generated by OECD countries, each of which is represented by a blue bar.
On a global scale, most waste is landfilled. However, the fraction of total waste that is landfilled varies based on national and regional efforts at waste minimization and reclamation. For instance, in Greece, nearly 90% of all municipal waste is landfilled, with a recycling rate of only about 10%. Nearby Austria has one of the highest recycling rates in the world, with about 63% of total waste being recycled, and less than 25% reaching a landfill. In many countries, incineration is commonly used for waste management. Denmark has the highest incineration rate in Europe, and incinerates about 58% of all municipal waste, with only about 8% reaching a landfill.9
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010. OECD Factbook 2010, Economic, Environmental, and Social Statistics. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecdfactbook-2010_factbook-2010-en Accessed on November 23, 2010. 9 BBC News, 2005, and references therein. Recycling Around the World. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4620041.stm Accessed on November 23, 2010.
March 2011
SBI Energy
30
Incentives for minimizing the amount of waste that is landfilled vary from region to region, based on local conditions, the availability of landfill space, and cultural beliefs regarding the final disposition of various waste materials. However, in general, landfills are typically considered to be an unfavorable solution to waste management, because they require large areas of land, are unsightly, result in the emission of greenhouse gases, can cause water and groundwater pollution, smell bad, and have various other environmental impacts. For suitable waste components such as plastics, glass, paper, and metals, recycling provides an environmentally friendly opportunity to re-use a portion of total waste. However, not all materials can be recycled, and other waste management procedures may be preferable under some circumstances. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), municipal solid waste (MSW), which is comprised of an array of paper and packaging products, textiles, yard trimmings, food wastes, wood, plastics, rubber, metals, glass, and various other materials, has an average energy content of 11.7 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per ton of MSW. Applying this figure on a global scale, at 2.1 billion tons of waste generated annually (before recycling), this is equivalent to approximately 24.5 quadrillion Btu, which is enough heat energy to generate about 10% of the electricity consumed annually around the globe.10 Within this framework, WtE technologies meet two important global demands: mass and volume reduction for waste that could otherwise be landfilled, and potential for electricity generation, in order to support global economies. WtE technologies are also applicable to waste streams outside of the municipal solid waste industry. Other industries where WtE technologies are commonly employed include the wastewater treatment industry, animal husbandry operations such as dairies or pig farms, food processing operations, and operations that produce greenwaste, such as municipal greenwaste collection operations. Here, WtE technologies may be applied to liquid or solid waste fractions. For sewage and animal wastes that contain potentially high concentrations of microbial pollutants and pathogens, WtE technologies can also provide pathogen reduction and disinfection. These are important services on a national and global scale, and represent significant benefits provided by WtE technologies, under some applications.
10
Calculated by SBI Energy. Calculation assumes electricity generation efficiency of 25%, and a global annual electricity consumption rate of 13.9 trillion kWh. This estimate includes energy from waste that is currently landfilled and recycled, but still provides a useful benchmark in terms of the total availability of solid waste, when considered as an energy resource.
31
SBI Energy
March 2011
Role of Waste to Energy

WtE facilities function as one of several different options for the ultimate disposal or re-use of various waste streams. In most areas, municipal solid waste is handled via a series of diversion, re-use, and disposal activities that may include recycling, landfilling, and composting. Depending on feedstock characteristics and local waste management practices, WtE technologies can be managed so as to compete with landfilling, recycling, and/or composting. From an environmental standpoint, WtE technologies that are used following the diversion of suitable wastes to recycling are typically the most beneficial. However, from a waste management standpoint, the extent to which recyclable materials are removed prior to WtE conversion depends on local or national waste handling standards, requirements, and common practices.
Waste to Energy Feedstocks

There are many feedstocks that can be used for WtE production. These can be generally differentiated by their water content and hazardous materials content, as shown in Table 2-1. These feedstocks categories are described further in the text below; however, note that these are generalized categories, and there may be some overlap among categories, depending upon how they are defined by various waste managers and municipalities around the world. Dairy Waste and Other Animal Husbandry Wastes Dairy waste is comprised of feces, urine, washdown, and sometimes animal remains associated with dairy operations. Most contemporary dairies use a wet cleaning system, with automated or semi-automated operations that wash down milking, feeding, ruminating, and other areas several times per day. Waste materials are collected into small waste collection channels or pipes, and pumped to a centralized lagoon. The lagoon serves as a storage area for the liquid waste, which is then typically land applied as soil amendment/fertilizer to adjacent agricultural fields, with minimal treatment prior to application.
March 2011
SBI Energy
32
Table 2-1 Waste to Energy Feedstock Categories

Feedstock Dairy/Animal Husbandry Food Processing Wastes Greenwaste Hospital Waste/Biohazard Industrial Wastes Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Waste
Source: SBI Energy
Water Content Moderate to High Moderate to High Moderate Low Variable Low High
Hazardous or Toxic Materials Pathogens Pathogens Low Pathogens, Heavy Metals Heavy metals, Organic Toxins, Pathogens Heavy Metals, Pesticides, Herbicides, Various Other Toxins Pathogens
Dairy waste has high water content (it is typically liquid) and can contain high levels of bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens. It also contains high levels of nutrients, partially digested cellulose and other organic matter, synthetic hormones, and other constituents associated with dairy operation practices. Dairy waste may also contain high levels of salt. Dairy waste has a strong odor, and holding ponds and associated storage facilities often do little to maintain odor control. Other large scale animal husbandry operations, such as pig farms or egg farms, produce wastes that are similar in nature to dairy wastes, and therefore are considered together with dairy wastes within the scope of this report. Food Processing Wastes Food processing wastes can include any variety of wastes generated during the processing of raw fruits, nuts, vegetables, milk, juices, meats, and also during the processing of prepared foods, such as cheese, prepared meals, canning facilities, and other food-related operations. Food processing wastes typically have moderate to high water content, and some food processing wastes are liquids. Food processing wastes generally do not include hazardous chemicals, although high levels of microbial and viral pathogens can occur in some food processing wastes, depending on their content and the manner in which they are handled prior to disposal. Especially for the meat production industry, food processing wastes must be handled carefully in order to prevent the spread of disease. Food processing wastes generally have high nutrient content, and can have high fat and oil content as well.
33
SBI Energy
March 2011
Greenwaste Greenwaste is biomass waste that is typically generated by residences, municipalities, parks, recreation areas, and other landscaped urban and suburban areas. Greenwaste can include lawn clippings, shrub and tree trimmings, weeds, tree leaves, and other plant derived wastes. Greenwaste is sometimes also defined as including waste from commercial food processing plants that produce plant-based foods, such as fruit, vegetable, or grain processing plants. Greenwaste does not typically include agricultural wastes that are generated on the farm, such as rice straw or orchard trimmings, as these sources of biomass are typically handled separately. Greenwaste can be characterized as biodegradable, compostable materials. Greenwaste can have high nitrogen content, and typically has very low hazardous materials content. Greenwaste generally does not contain metals, plastics, waste building materials, or other non-biomass materials. It is typically collected by municipal or private waste collection entities and trucked to centralized processing facilities, which may include WtE technologies, or facilities for composting, mulching, use as soil amendment, or other purposes. Hospital Waste/Biohazard Hospital wastes include various wastes from surgeries and autopsies, tissues, sharps,11 pharmaceuticals, radioactive solids, bed linens, kitchen waste, utensils, and various other items that are commonly disposed of within a hospital setting. Sharps and biohazard materials are typically collected separately from other hospital wastes. Because hospital wastes can contain high levels of pathogens, they are typically incinerated for disposal. In terms of potentially hazardous or polluting substances, hospital wastes commonly contain metals and heavy metals, pathogens and bacteriological agents, medications, and various other contaminants in low concentrations. Management of hospital waste is a problem in many countries, especially developing countries, which may not have sufficient infrastructure to adequately dispose of hospital wastes, without causing air, land, and water pollution.
11
Sharps (medical sharps) include used hypodermic needles, scalpels, surgical instruments, broken glass, and other biologically contaminated medical industry waste.
March 2011
SBI Energy
34
Industrial Wastes Industrial wastes refers to waste produced by industrial activities, such as factories, assembling plants, mines, mills, raw materials producers, refiners, and other industrial functions. Most industrial waste is nonhazardous and nontoxic, and includes scraps of metals, plastic, wood, plant fibers, clothing, ceramics, and various other inert or nonhazardous materials. Industrial wastes can, however, also contain a wide range hazardous and potentially hazardous substances, including hazardous chemicals, toxic residues, slags, chars, acids and bases, organic compounds, and many other chemicals. The specific types of waste that are generated by a given industrial process thereby depend primarily on the type of industrial process in question. Potential hazardous and polluting substances from industrial wastes can include heavy metals, toxic liquids and solids including a wide array of potential air and water quality pollutants, nutrients, radiological wastes, and various other chemicals and compounds. Microbial contamination is not typically encountered in industrial waste streams, although it can occur in some instances, depending upon the industrial process in question. Sanitary Waste Sanitary waste, also termed sanitary wastewater, or simply wastewater, is generated by residences, municipalities, and industrial processes. As relevant to this report, sanitary waste is commonly collected in municipal sewer systems, conveyed to a centralized wastewater treatment plant, and then treated to remove solids, sediments, bacteria, and other wastewater pollutants. Sanitary waste can be thought of as wastewater that needs to be sanitized. It typically contains high levels of bacteria and other microbes, the release of which could facilitate the spread of human diseases. It also contains various chemical water pollutants, including household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, high nutrient levels, sediment/solids, fats and oils, greases, food wastes, salts, and various other constituents. Municipal Solid Waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) is typically comprised of household wastes, commercial wastes, and sometimes nonhazardous industrial wastes. Municipal solid waste is what you see at a landfill it includes recyclable materials such as metals, plastics, and paper; biodegradable wastes such as kitchen waste, food waste, and paper, inert waste such as
35
SBI Energy
March 2011
gravel, dirt, some building materials; other domestic and commercial wastes such as toys and old clothing, and typically small amounts of household hazardous wastes, including paint, aerosols, pesticide and fertilizer containers, chemicals, spent batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, and other materials. Municipal solid waste is highly variable in composition, and may range from primarily paperrelated waste to substantial amounts of metals, inert materials, wood waste, and other household materials. Compositions depend on regional waste handling procedures, including programs for the diversion of municipal waste to recycling and re-use programs. Because municipal solid waste can contain metals and various household hazardous wastes, it is a feedstock that can contain high levels of toxins that, if released into the environment, could result in environmental harm.
Waste to Energy Systems

The following text provides an overview of WtE systems that are currently widespread, or that may proliferate within the next few years. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the WtE technologies that are considered in this report, including the feedstocks with which they are compatible. Table 2-3 provides an overview of the energy products that can be generated by each of the WtE technologies reviewed in this report.
Table 2-2 Waste to Energy Technologies and Feedstocks
Technology Incineration Gasification Plasma Gasification Pyrolysis Typical Feedstocks Municipal Solid Waste, Hospital Waste/Biohazard, Industrial Wastes Municipal Solid Waste, Hospital Waste/Biohazard, Industrial Wastes Municipal Solid Waste, Hospital Waste/Biohazard, Industrial Wastes Municipal Solid Waste, Hospital Waste/Biohazard, Industrial Wastes, Other Solid Wastes Including Tires and Toxic Wastes Liquid Wastes (Sewage, Dairy/Animal Wastes, Food Processing Wastes), Greenwaste, Sorted Municipal Solid Waste (Organic Fraction Only) Feasible but Less Common Feedstocks Greenwaste Greenwaste Greenwaste, Liquid Wastes Greenwaste, Liquid Wastes
Anaerobic Digestion
Other Biomass Wastes
Source: SBI Energy, 2010.
March 2011
SBI Energy
36
Table 2-3 Energy Products from Waste to Energy Technologies

Technology Incineration Gasification Plasma Gasification Pyrolysis Anaerobic Digestion
Source: SBI Energy, 2010.
Typical Products Electricity, Heat Electricity, Heat Electricity, Heat Electricity, Liquid Fuels, Heat Methane, Electricity (from methane combustion)
Incineration Incineration is the most commonly employed WtE technology, both in the United States and globally. Incineration was first used at the municipal scale for waste management in Great Britain around 1875, and over the ensuing 50 years was adopted as a viable and popular waste management strategy. Waste heat from incineration was eventually captured for use in industrial processes starting in the 1950s, and later for power generation. However, the primary impetus behind the installation of waste incinerators was almost always for the management of waste, with energy generated more as a useful side-product or even afterthought. Only in recent decades has power generation driven demand for incinerator installations. The basic design behind an incinerator used for WtE is similar to a plant used to burn other solid fuels, such as coal (Figure 2-2). Waste feedstock is mixed thoroughly to maintain a more constant heating value and then loaded into a large hopper, bunker, or other delivery system. Feedstock is then delivered along a conveyor or other mechanism into the furnace, typically onto a graded stoker or other bed for combustion. As the waste is incinerated, released heat travels upward and heats water in a boiler system, which in turn drives a steam cycle and steam turbine. The steam turbine turns a generator, producing electricity that is then exported to the power grid or for other uses. Waste heat may also be used for district heating, to drive industrial processes, or for other cogeneration uses. One drawback of incinerators is that they can generate high levels of air and waterborne pollutants. A suite of chemicals can be emitted from incinerator flue gas, ranging from highly toxic dioxins, to nitrogen and sulfur compounds, to soot, and hundreds of other compounds. To minimize these emissions, most contemporary incinerators include an extensive pollutant/emissions control system. Typical pollutant/emissions control systems may include large physical filters, or baghouses, to remove soot, wet scrubbers to remove acids and sulfur compounds, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), dioxin destruction, and catalytic converters to reduce NOx. A wastewater treatment plant is also used to reduce waterborne
37
SBI Energy
March 2011
concentrations of acids, sulfur compounds, and various other constituents. Solid waste, known as slag, is removed from the bottom of the furnace, typically into a quench tank. Slag can be combined with fly ash and incorporated into cement or other similar building materials, or simply landfilled if its characteristics are appropriate.
Figure 2-2 Incinerator Schematic
Source: BSU, 2010; http://www.bsu.hr/en/incineration.html.
Incineration is a very efficient and useful tool for reducing mass and volume of solid wastes. A well managed incinerator can reduce incoming MSW mass by 75% (more for greenwaste), and reduce volume by 90% (equivalent or more for greenwaste). Other benefits include its production of useful and saleable byproducts, as noted above, and a reduction in odor-causing constituents, as compared to standard landfill practices, which can produce odor. Drawbacks include residual emission of air and water pollutants, even after treatment, as well as a negative public perception, in particular in the United States and portions of Europe. Also, installation of air and water emissions treatment equipment is typically very costly, and can account for 50% or more of the capital cost for a single facility.
March 2011
SBI Energy
38
Gasification Gasification was first employed during the late 18th century to generate town gas, which was burned to provide heat and sometimes light within municipalities. Some town gas production systems remained in operation into the early 20th century. However, these early systems ran at low temperature, and produced a sticky slag (often historically referred to as coal tar) that was difficult to dispose of and that generated unacceptable levels of pollution at some sites. Some former town gas plant sites still have environmental contamination issues that current property owners must deal with, even at present. Also, municipal waste was not generally used as a feedstock for these early systems town gas was typically produced from coal or biomass feedstocks. Following World War Two, gasification was developed further and applied in areas where natural gas was unavailable and for the production of syngas for fertilizers and other products. Gasification of waste streams has been employed over the last 20-30 years. Gasifiers running on waste feedstocks represent a relatively small fraction of all gasifiers, most of which run on coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, bitumen, and various other petroleum and biomass based feedstocks. Gasification, also called thermal gasification, is similar to incineration, and a gasification plant used for energy production from solid waste has several similar components as compared to a solid waste incinerator/power production plant (Figure 2-3). The primary difference between incineration and gasification is the amount of oxygen that is allowed in the process. In order to efficiently combust their feedstock, incinerators are not oxygen limited air is rapidly pumped into the furnace to support combustion. In contrast, gasification is a more controlled reaction, wherein the amount of oxygen in the gasification chamber is carefully controlled and limited. Because gasification involves only a controlled amount of oxygen, the gasification process does not result in complete combustion. Instead, a portion of the heat contained in the feedstock is released during gasification, and a combustible syngas is produced. The syngas contains primarily hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, and can further produce methane and other product gases and chemicals. Other co-products and wastes include hydrocarbon oils, char, ash, and various air pollutant emissions, which must be cleaned and removed prior to release into the environment. Gasification products can be used to drive turbines to generate electricity, or for a variety of other purposes. Common types of gasifiers include up-draft (counter current fixed bed) gasifiers, down-draft (co-current fixed bed) gasifiers, entrained flow gasifiers, and fluidized bed reactors.
39
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 2-3 Gasification Schematic
Source: State of Texas, 2010 (http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/municipal.php)
While the gasification process is in many ways similar to the incineration process for solid wastes, gasification maintains several environmental advantages over standard incineration. Incineration generates a stream of flue gas that contains high levels of pollutants which are eventually vented to the atmosphere. Gasification, on the other hand, does not result in direct/complete combustion of the incoming feedstock. Instead, the syngas produced during gasification is the gasifiers usable product. Because gasification does not result in complete combustion, it also results in lower levels of pollutants contained in the feedstock, such as heavy metals and ash, being emitted during the energy extraction process. The volume of gas requiring cleanup is also much smaller for a gasifier than for an incinerator. As a result, the waste gas produced by a gasifier requires significantly less effort for cleanup prior to venting, and contains lower pollutant levels than flue gas derived from incinerators. Even though gasification is potentially much cleaner than incineration, one major drawback is its proportionally higher cost. As a result, large scale gasifiers being used for the disposal of waste products are uncommon. Electricity consumption may also be substantial during the gasification and the conversion of syngas to usable products. When used for municipal waste disposal, gasification may not result in a net energy gain, which means that the economics of
March 2011
SBI Energy
40
the process depend perhaps more strongly on the demand for waste removal and management, rather than electricity generation. Like incineration, gasification is highly effective at reducing waste volumes, and can result in approximately 85% to 92% volume reductions as compared to the incoming feedstock. Plasma Gasification Plasma gasification has been developed extensively in the manufacturing industry, where it has rapidly gained utility and application since the 1980s. At that time, plasma gasification technology required significant infrastructure, and was typically used for specialized cutting applications. Over the last 30 years, however, plasma gasification has advanced significantly, and small portable plasma torches are now available that can be used for a variety of cutting and manufacturing purposes. Today, plasma cutting is used widely in the manufacturing industry, in particular for the fabrication of various metal products. In recent years, plasma gasification technologies are increasingly being employed in support of waste management practices, primarily for mass and volume reduction of municipal solid waste. Plasma gasification can also be employed for liquid wastes. Plasma is a form of matter that is comprised of ionized gas at high temperatures, capable of conducting electrical current. Lightning serves as a natural example. Plasma gasification is achieved using electricity (also termed plasma arc gasification) through the use of a plasma torch or arc. Essentially, high current, high voltage electricity is passed between two electrodes, along with pressurized gas. The gas is rapidly heated to 4,000 to 7,000 degrees centigrade, thereby reaching a plasma state, which also conducts electricity. When municipal waste or other feedstocks are introduced into the plasma stream, they are quickly gasified and syngas, similar to that described for standard gasifiers, is produced. The syngas is then subject to various additional processes and/or cleanup procedures, similar to those described for standard gasification, above (see also Figure 2-4). Waste streams from plasma gasification can vary based on feedstock and the specific characteristics of the plasma gasification process in question. However, all plasma arc gasifiers produce waste carbon dioxide and trace gases and ash. Some plasma arc gasifiers may also produce a glassy slag, metals, aggregates, chemical products, and of course fuel gas and/or other products that can be used for electricity generation or other purposes.
41
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 2-4 Plasma Gasification Schematic
Source: Recovered Energy, Inc., 2010 (http://www.recoveredenergy.com/overview.html)
Benefits specific to plasma gasification include reduced air and water pollutant emissions, as compared to incinerators (see previous discussion on standard gasifiers), as well as the coproduction of several usable products. Plasma gasification can be more effective at separating various co-products, as compared to standard gasification, and these products can then be resold as materials for other uses, providing additional sources of revenue to a plasma gasification facility. Plasma gasification is also effective at reducing feedstock mass and volume, in proportions roughly equivalent to those of standard gasifiers. Drawbacks to plasma gasification include relatively high installation cost, and as well as electricity requirements. In plasma gasification, the amount of electricity required to produce the syngas can in some cases exceed the amount of electricity that could feasibly be produced from the syngas stream. Thus, like standard gasification, the economics of plasma gasification are typically driven primarily by demand for waste disposal.
March 2011
SBI Energy
42
Pyrolysis Pyrolysis processes are used widely in the petroleum and coal industries to generate coke,12 which is subsequently used for steelmaking and various other metal production and industrial processes, and also during petroleum refining for liquid fuels production. Pyrolysis also has application in biofuels production, wherein solid biomass feedstocks can be converted into synthetic gaseous and liquid fuels, which can be used for various purposes. The principles behind pyrolysis were first introduced in the late 1950s at Bell Laboratories, in the United States. The first pyrolysis gasification systems were essentially enclosed ovens that used indirect heat to pyrolyze various feedstock materials in a batch-by-batch fashion. These technologies were introduced to the market at a commercial scale in the 1970s. By the 1980s, pyrolysis gasifiers had evolved into continuous feed systems, and were increasingly used for the destruction of hospital wastes and other biowastes. In 1988, Balboa Pacific Corporation patented a continuous feed process could serve as mass and volume reduction for various waste feedstocks, including several types of toxic and nontoxic, solid and liquid waste streams.13 Current developments include pressurized systems, which can help to maintain an oxygen-free environment. Flash pyrolysis, where a feedstock is ground to particles and rapidly pyrolyzed, is also applied in many systems. The pyrolysis process is very similar to standard gasification, and shares many common traits. Essentially, pyrolysis can be described as a gasification process, except where gasification is performed with low levels of oxygen, pyrolysis is performed in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is also an endothermic process, which means that it requires net heat input to drive the reaction. Pyrolysis reactions generally occur above about 800 degrees F, and, like gasification, result in the production of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and a suite of trace gases, many of which must be scrubbed out or cleaned up prior to the release of waste gas to the atmosphere, in processes similar to those described for previous technologies.
12
Coal coke is derived from the destructive distillation of bituminous coal (heating in the absence of oxygen until volatiles are removed), and is used widely for the smelting of iron ore and other blast furnace type applications. 13 http://www.balboa-pacific.com/Papers/HistoryOfPyrolysis.pdf
43
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 2-5 Pyrolysis Example Schematic
Source: Arrow Line, 2010 (http://www.arrowline.cz/en/pyrolyza-popis.html)
Advantages of pyrolysis are similar to those for gasification, including reduced airborne emissions as compared to incineration. However, unlike gasification systems, pyrolysis systems do not result in the production of highly toxic dioxins and other chemicals that result from the combustion of feedstocks in the presence of oxygen. As a result, depending upon feedstock characteristics, pyrolysis systems may require reduced waste gas environmental cleanup and scrubbing processes, as compared to an equivalently sized gasification system. Pyrolysis systems can vary in their setup and operational process. Some pyrolysis systems can result in the generation of waste slags and ashes that require disposal rather than re-use, due to environmental concerns related to potential slag leachate. Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion, also termed simply digestion, relies on microorganisms to transform wet feedstocks into usable fuels, such as methane gas or biogas. The historic roots of digestion
March 2011
SBI Energy
44
can be traced back as early as the ancient Assyrians, nearly 3,000 years ago. During the late 18th century, Count Alessandro Volta identified a direct connection between the decomposition of various amounts of organic material and the production of various amounts of flammable gas. The first digester was built by a leper colony in India in 1859. By 1895, digesters were being used in England to recover biogas from sewage, in order to fuel gas street lights. The first modern-style digester was produced by Cornell University, and was used to treat cow manure at the demonstration scale. Currently, digesters have been employed globally, primarily for the treatment of sanitary sewage and excrement from animals (such as dairy digesters), and concurrent methane generation. The anaerobic digestion process essentially harnesses bacteriological decay processes that occur naturally, and applies those processes within a controlled environment. Most feedstocks used for digestion are very wet liquid wastes such as sewage are perhaps the most common but other substances can be added too. These include greenwaste, organic fractions from municipal solid waste, food processing waste, biomass, and various other feedstocks. Some digesters are also designed to operate with only minimal water content; however, these dry digestion systems still require a substantial level of moisture to be maintained within the system during the digestion process. The key to anaerobic digestion is that it occurs under anoxic conditions without oxygen. Therefore, in a typical anaerobic digester, feedstock is supplied into a large reaction tank or vessel that is sealed to exclude oxygen and air. Inside the digester, a series of acetic acid and methane-forming bacteria partially decompose the feedstock, eventually releasing methane. The process occurs stepwise: macromolecules such as fats, carbohydrates, and proteins are broken down into fatty acids, sugars, and amino acids. These are then converted to acids, alcohols, hydrogen, and ammonia. Acetogenesis then transforms these into more hydrogen and carbon dioxide, which is eventually transformed into methane and carbon dioxide. Most contemporary anaerobic digester systems are continuous processing plants, which rely on a continuous feed of substrate to run an anaerobic digester and produce methane gas. Anaerobic digester systems are relatively simple, and are typically comprised of one or more reaction vessels (large tanks), along with feedstock storage, preparation, and conveyance facilities, as well as waste discharge. Biogas, a combination of 50-75% methane, 25-50% carbon dioxide, up to 10% nitrogen, and trace amounts of other gases, is produced, and can be separated into methane and other constituents, or combusted directly without separation. The schematic shown in Figure 2-6 is an example of a liquid manure digester, where additional greenwaste is added to the process in order to support additional methane
45
SBI Energy
March 2011
generation. As shown, the produced methane is combusted in a combined heat and power (CHP) facility. Anaerobic digestion can also be employed to treat municipal solid waste, typically inside contained reactor systems within a landfill, in order to generate methane gas and provide volume and mass reduction of landfilled material. Waste product composition from digestion can vary based on feedstock inputs. However, typical waste streams include liquid process effluent, which is high in nutrients and can be used as fertilizer for agricultural applications, and a small volume of residual solids, sometimes termed digestate.
Figure 2-6 Schematic of Digestion of Manure Combined with Greenwaste
Source: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2011 (http://www.iowadnr.gov/mapping/maps/digester.html)
Anaerobic digestion has several advantages that make it potentially applicable in a wide array of settings. Anaerobic digester systems are readily scalable, and can range in size from a small facility used to treat animal husbandry wastes, such as dairy wastes, to very large facilities used at large municipal wastewater treatment plants, or large food processing plants, to treat effluent and other wastes. Anaerobic digesters can also provide some degree of benefit in terms of water quality, especially in applications where effluent would otherwise be discharged into the environment with only minimal treatment. In dairy applications, for instance, liquid dairy waste is typically discharged onto nearby agricultural fields for fertilizer. However, high concentrations of organic constituents, and also concerns regarding pathogens, can result. Anaerobic digesters typically operate at temperatures that are high enough to kill most pathogens, and most of the organic fraction of the waste is transformed into methane, thereby reducing water quality degradation.
March 2011
SBI Energy
46
Disadvantages can include the need for wet or moist feedstocks, or the addition of large amounts of water to facilitate digestion in what would otherwise be a dry feedstock. Additionally, depending on the characteristics of the feedstock used for digestion, a digester can also produce pollutant containing effluent. This is more commonly a problem for systems that treat municipal waste or other mixed wastes, wherein the feedstock may contain various heavy metals, organic toxins, and other potential water quality pollutants.
Applications and Benefits of Waste to Energy Technologies

In most cases, a WtE technology will be employed first and foremost as a waste management tool. However, energy or fuels production can also provide incentive for the installation of a WtE technology, as can a technologys application to a handful of other issues. These are as follows: Waste Management: Mass/Volume Reduction and Avoidance of Landfilling Reducing the amount of waste that goes to a landfill or avoiding landfills altogether, is a strong driver for many waste managers, municipalities, and governments. In most areas, landfill capacity is constrained by a number of factors, including land area availability, the ability of proposed new landfills to pass permitting and environmental review without drawing strong opposition and lawsuit from concerned citizens and environmental groups, and cost associated with everyday and long-term management of landfill facilities. It is common for municipalities or even regional and national governments to ratify solid waste master plans and other waste planning documents that identify landfilling reduction as a primary management target. Many have gone as far as developing zero waste strategies, which lay out various multi-faceted approaches to avoid landfilling.14 Power Generation The power generated by WtE technologies can be used to supply the needs of onsite facility operations, and/or sold back onto the power grid for general use. Whether or not enough surplus power is available to sell back onto the grid is largely a function of the type of waste management facility that is served by the WtE technology. For instance, energy from
Examples include the City of Los Angeles, Californias Counting Down to Zero Waste Plan, the City of Austin, Texas Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and Zero Waste Overview, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan: A Pathway to Zero Waste, and many others.
14
47
SBI Energy
March 2011
digesters at wastewater treatment plants is commonly used first and foremost on site to power on site operations, including providing heating during the wastewater treatment process. At a landfill site or waste sorting facility, the amount of power generated by a WtE technology is typically more than is needed for onsite operations, and excess power can be sold back onto the grid. Thus, a WtE technology can provide cost benefit by ameliorating annual electricity costs; in some cases by providing an additional stream of revenue from sold electricity. Methane Production Methane is readily produced from decaying organic matter. Methane production occurs spontaneously within landfills - as organic matter decays in the absence of oxygen, methane is produced. This methane is captured and flared, or can be used to generate electricity. Digestion also produces methane, which can be captured and used as a fuel for industrial processes, heating, or transportation, or simply combusted on site in a reciprocating engine or other power generation facility, with the resulting electricity being used onsite or sold onto the a power grid (see discussion of power generation above). Liquid Fuels Production Liquid fuels production from WtE technologies has developed more slowly than methane and power generation, but has been demonstrated at a number of facilities globally. As shown in Table 2-3, pyrolysis are suited to liquid fuels production, while other WtE technologies are typically not. The types of liquid fuels produced depends on the process employed, but are typically analogous to medium to heavy distillate fuels, such as fuel oil and diesel. Development of additional types of alternative fuels from WtE facilities is an ongoing area of research. Heat Production The amount of heat produced by a WtE technology varies based on technology. However, most WtE applications will produce excess heat, sufficient to drive further waste processing operations, and in some cases sufficient to be employed on site or offsite for other uses. For instance, heat generated by digesters at wastewater treatment facilities is frequently recycled back through the wastewater treatment process to support a more efficient treatment process. Heat produced by incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and depolymerization is often vented to the atmosphere, but can also be captured and used to provide heat for other nearby industrial processes, or for district heating (residential and commercial heating). District
March 2011
SBI Energy
48
heating is employed in some European communities as an efficient means for providing heat to whole neighborhoods and city areas, based on waste heat from a centralized facility. Pollutant Emissions Reduction Decaying waste at landfills produces a suite of environmental pollutants, many of which are hazardous to human health and natural resources. Pollutants of concern can include: 1. Fugitive trash that escapes from the facility; 2. Water quality and groundwater pollutants including increased dissolved solids content, nutrients, heavy metals, bacteriological components, biological oxygen demand, and various organic chemical pollutants and contaminants; and 3. Airborne emissions including methane, carbon dioxide, volatile organic carbons, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercaptans, and foul odors. The implementation of appropriately designed WtE technologies can reduce pollutant emissions, especially emissions of waterborne pollutants (see also the discussion of environmental concerns related to WtE technologies later in this chapter). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management A special case of airborne emissions, greenhouse gases, have won increased global awareness over the last decade. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is emitted in large quantities from the organic fraction of decaying waste. Decay under low oxygen conditions results in the generation of methane, which can escape to the atmosphere and incrementally drive global warming. WtE technologies extract energy from the organic fraction of waste, and use it to produce electricity, liquid fuels, or concentrated streams of methane, which are later combusted during use. Destruction of Harmful Microbes and Biological Agents Many of the waste streams that serve as feedstock for WtE technologies contain high levels of microbial pollutants. These may include bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens that are proliferate in municipal sewage, animal husbandry wastes, food processing wastes, hospital wastes, and some fractions of municipal solid waste. Most WtE applications include or result in the heating of feedstocks to temperatures that destroy or significantly reduce microbial concentrations. Very high temperature technologies, such as incineration, pyrolysis, and
49
SBI Energy
March 2011
gasification technologies will result in the complete destruction of pathogens and other biological agents. Incineration and pyrolysis in particular are useful technologies for the destruction of hospital waste, which can have high content of potentially harmful biological agents and biohazards. Digestion, which is a lower temperature process, can still be run at temperatures that are sufficiently high to reduce most nearly all pathogen load from the incoming feedstock. Land Area Requirements WtE technologies typically have a relatively small physical footprint. A few acres of land area are typically sufficient to house even a large digester, incinerator, gasification, pyrolysis, or depolymerization facility. Installations that include waste handling, sorting, and temporary storage facilities can be somewhat larger, in the low tens of acres. In comparison to most landfills, which can occupy 1,000 acres or more, these areas are minor. Thus, in terms of land use area, and resulting loss of native habitat and other land features, WtE requirements can provide a significant benefit in comparison to conventional landfilling, in support of waste management. Mechanical Biological Treatment Mechanical biological treatment (alternatively, mechanical biological pre-treatment, or biological mechanical treatment) comprises a series of mechanical separation measures and WtE functions that are typically applied at a waste management facility, such as a landfill or a sorting station. Mechanical biological treatment is essentially a series of municipal solid waste sorting processes, both mechanized and human, that separate recyclable and residual elements from those that can be sent to a digester for generation of methane. Mechanical sorting methods typically employed include eddy current separators, trommels, vacuum separators, magnets, shredders, and hand sorting. Following sorting, recyclables are diverted to separate recycling facilities, residual components that cannot be further used are landfilled, and the organic fraction is cycled through a digester or composting system. For systems that use digesters, the methane produced during the digestion process is then typically combusted for electricity production, but can also be sold as an equivalent to compressed natural gas. For systems that use composting operations, these technologies do not generate energy, and therefore are not considered further in this report. One final use of the organic fraction that is employed at some mechanical biological treatment systems is refuse derived fuel. Refuse derived fuel is
March 2011
SBI Energy
50
fuel produced from organic fractions that contain a high heating value, using one of the WtE fuel production technologies described previously in this chapter.
Drawbacks of Waste to Energy Technologies

Along with the many applications of WtE technologies described, WtE technologies also have a number of drawbacks. These range from the generation of air and water quality pollutants of concern, to more general concerns such as potential interference with recycling streams and programs, and the belief that waste reduction strategies should focus on reducing the generation of municipal solid waste, rather than on handling large volumes of waste once they have been generated. Environmental Concerns To someone who is not initially familiar with the industry and public opinion surrounding it, WtE technologies present somewhat of a conundrum in terms of environmental benefits and concerns. On one hand, WtE technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, by consuming the methane-producing organic fraction of municipal solid waste. On the other hand, incineration and some of the other WtE technologies can emit other pollutants of concern. Additionally, many environmental groups believe that instead of managing waste after it has reached the landfill, municipalities and waste managers should concentrate on minimizing the production of consumer waste in the first place. Thus, according to the argument supported by many environmental groups, the more environmentally friendly solution is to reduce packaging, reduce the generation of food waste, maximize recycling efforts, and reduce the amount of municipal solid waste that each person generates, in order to minimize landfilling. Interestingly, much of the distaste for WtE technologies on the part of environmental groups appears to be centered on incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and depolymerization technologies that is, those technologies that require significant heating of feedstock in order to produce electricity or fuel. Digestion, which occurs at near ambient temperatures, is much more widely accepted by most environmental groups as a useful tool for the management of solid waste. However, from an industry standpoint, digestion provides much the same function as do the other WtE technologies, except that it generates methane rather than directly generating electricity or liquid fuels.
51
SBI Energy
March 2011
Potential Competition with Recycling Potential competition with recycling is an issue for WtE technologies that use municipal solid waste as feedstock. Most WtE technologies can utilize as feedstock any fraction of waste that contains intrinsic chemical energy. For municipal solid waste, this means all plastics, paper, biomass, and related products essentially anything that can be combusted. A few decades ago, many European waste managers, and to a lesser extent American waste managers, moved toward the use of incinerators for the handling of solid waste. Many of these systems did not discriminate between waste that was recyclable (plastic bottles, cans, paper, etc), and waste that was not recyclable. As a result, many environmental groups expressed strong concern regarding the loss of recyclable material to incinerators. Nearly all studies completed to date indicate that recycling outweighs WtE technologies in terms of minimizing the lifecycle use of natural resources, minimizing energy use, and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the most effective WtE systems, from an environmental perspective, will maximize the diversion of waste to separate recycling facilities, and only handle those remaining waste fractions that are both unrecyclable and suitable for WtE conversion. Potential Competition with Composting Similar to the discussion provided above for recycling, WtE technologies can also compete with composting as an end use of biomass feedstock. Composting is not a WtE technology the inputs to the composting process can include paper, wood, and greenwaste, but the sole product is compost, not energy. Compost can then be used as a soil amendment, either in support of agriculture or in municipal, residential, or commercial environments. Potential competition with composting occurs when feedstock that is suitable for composting is instead diverted to a WtE facility. Composting is not suitable for all materials that can be handled by a WtE facility for instance, most composting operations do not handle sewage sludge. But competition with composting may remain a formidible issue with various interest groups, including many environmental groups, which may hold that composting is a preferable use of organic waste, as compared to WtE. Increased Pollution under Some Systems Comparing and weighing the cost/benefit of the pollutant loading rates of WtE systems versus landfills can be challenging and complicated. As discussed for the individual descriptions of WtE technologies (previously), some WtE systems can result in the generation
March 2011
SBI Energy
52
of gaseous, liquid, or solid pollutant emissions. These emissions can be deleterious to human health and wildlife, and can potentially result in the degradation of natural resources. However, landfills can also result in the emission of groundwater quality pollutants, as well as various gaseous emissions that can also harm human health and the environment. During the 1970s and 1980s, when incineration was more commonly used as a method of destruction of municipal solid waste, the public at large became aware of a suite of highly toxic compounds that can be emitted by waste incinerators. Dioxins are some of the most toxic human generated compounds, and they are a by-product of the incineration of municipal solid waste. Since that time, incinerators in the industrialized world have undergone significant transformations. Modern incinerators in Europe and the United States rely on an extensive suite of scrubbers, dioxin removal, catalytic processes, soot removal, and other air quality cleaning processes to minimize the release of airborne pollutants. As a result, the residual emissions of incinerators have reduced significantly over the past 30 years. However, some amount of residual compounds is still released, both as airborne pollutants and as leachable materials from slag. These compounds can still affect air quality, water quality, and potentially human health. Gasification and pyrolysis plants generally fare much better in terms of pollutant emissions, as compared to incinerators. By the nature of their processes, pollutants can be more easily destroyed, or are not formed in the first place. Some pyrolysis techniques have been shown to result in very low levels of air quality emissions. However, solid residuals such as slag or ash can also contain pollutants, and some plants have indicated significant pollutant loading potential from these solid waste streams, which must be properly disposed of. Interestingly, much of the bad press associated with incinerators has seeped over onto other WtE technologies. As a result, many environmental groups are leery of pyrolysis plants, perhaps to a greater extent than is warranted when comparing their emissions to typical landfill pollutant emissions. Public Opinion Public opinion regarding WtE technologies is variable based on the feedstock being used, potential actual or perceived pollutant emissions from the WtE process. In general, WtE installations that are used in support of wastewater treatment, dairy waste, or greenwaste processing enjoy mostly positive public opinion. In contrast, many WtE application that use municipal solid waste as a feedstock are looked upon with dissent, at least by environmental groups. Distaste for these facilities appears to have originated with pollution related problems
53
SBI Energy
March 2011
associated with incinerators that became clear in the 1980s, and continued on into the present for any technologies that in some way resemble incinerators. Additional distaste for WtE facilities that use municipal solid waste as feedstock is based in concerns regarding potential competition with recycling and composting, as discussed above. Many groups also posit that waste management should occur upstream by reducing waste generation in the first place, rather than managing waste that has already been generated. These concerns have led some prominent environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, to publish white papers and directives that are meant to counter the development of WtE technologies as municipal solid waste.15
Cost/Benefit
The cost to benefit ratio of WtE facilities depends strongly on the economics of the waste stream that is used as feedstock. Typically (although not in all cases), the primary driver for installation of a WtE system for municipal solid waste is reduction in mass or volume of waste streams diverted to a landfill. Thus, the WtE technology can essentially be thought of as an alternative to a landfill, where both the WtE technology and the landfill have certain costs associated with their upkeep and operation. The energy or fuels generated by the WtE facility provide an additional revenue stream that would not otherwise be available at a landfill. However, in many cases (not all cases), the value of electricity or fuel produced is less than the offset cost of managing waste in a landfill. One of the primary reasons that many (again, not all) WtE installations do not show positive return on investment based solely on generated power or fuels, is that their feedstocks often have value. For instance, a WtE plant that processes waste from a meat rendering facility may have to compete for feedstock (via elevated prices) with the animal feed industry, which commonly uses meat rendering refuse as a part of their product. For a WtE facility that operates on greenwaste, the greenwaste can also have value as mulch or compost, potentially requiring the facility to pay higher feedstock prices and therefore generate lower net returns. Outside of municipal solid waste, cost benefit ratios are more frequently aligned with the benefit derived from the energy generated. For instance, digesters applied at a diary for the
15
For example, see Sierra Club, 2010. Zero Waste, Dont Burn or Bury Garbage, Garbage is Not Renewable Energy. Available at http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/garbage/ Accessed on November 27, 2010.
March 2011
SBI Energy
54
processing of cow manure typically produce a net positive return on investment, based solely on the methane gas or electricity that they generate. Similarly, digesters used in support of wastewater treatment can reduce the overall wastewater treatment plants energy costs, and can in some cases provide additional power for sale onto the grid. These systems also typically produce a net positive return on investment based solely on power generation rates.
Summary
Globally, about 2.1 billion tons of municipal solid waste is produced every year. Approximately 12% of this mass is generated in the United States. Various waste management strategies are applied to municipal solid waste to protect public health and safety, and to help ensure adequate disposal of wastes. On a global scale, most municipal solid waste is landfilled, but this varies on a country-by-country basis. In addition to landfilling, recycling and WtE facilities including incineration are also common. Reduction in landfill usage is commonly identified as a high priority waste management goal by waste managers, regional, and national governments. Other waste streams, such as wastewater, animal husbandry, and food processing wastes also serve as potential feedstocks to WtE technologies. Many waste streams can serve as feedstock to WtE facilities. These include dairy/animal husbandry wastes, food processing wastes, greenwaste, hospital wastes/biohazardous wastes, industrial wastes, municipal solid wastes, and sanitary waste (e.g., sewage). Waste streams can be differentiated according to their water content, with those having high water content typically requiring the use of different WtE technologies, as compared to those waste streams having lower water content. Applicable WtE technologies included in the scope of this report are incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, depolymerization, and digestion. WtE technologies provide many benefits to an array of WtE applications, including mass/volume reduction, avoidance of landfilling, power generation, methane production, liquid fuels production, heat production, pollutant emissions reduction, greenhouse gas emissions management, destruction of microbes and biological agents, and reduced land area requirements, as compared to landfilling. Drawbacks of WtE technologies include environmental pollution concerns, potential competition for feedstock with recycling and composting, potential increases in pollution under some systems, and negative public opinion for some technologies. Cost/benefit ratios for WtE technologies handling municipal solid waste are commonly driven by the economics of waste management more so than the
55
SBI Energy
March 2011
economics of energy production. For other feedstocks, including wastewater and animal wastes, cost/benefit ratios are more commonly driven by revenues generated by the sale of power or fuels generated by the facility.
March 2011
SBI Energy
56
Market Size and Growth
Chapter 3
Waste to Energy Technologies Market Size and Growth
Scope
This chapter provides a discussion of the recent historic market for WtE technologies, for 2006-2010, and the estimated future market for WtE technologies, for 2011 through 2021. To properly assess the market, this chapter introduces the necessary methods for assessing market size and trends, and summarizes the major market factors that are expected to influence the size and growth of the WtE market, through 2021. This chapter concludes with an examination of the future market values and growth trends for major WtE technologies: incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digesters, as well as an overall synopsis of the total WtE market
Market Assessment Methodology

The global market for WtE technologies is composed of a myriad of individual WtE technology installations that are scattered across regional markets. These projects require the production and assembly of components for the various WtE technologies considered in this report. Major equipment varies by technology (as discussed in Chapter 2), but may include reaction chambers, feed systems, steam turbines, generators, ash or slag handling systems, emissions control facilities, heat exchangers, gas turbines, storage areas, pumps, pipelines, and various balance of plant structures. Recent demand for WtE technologies and their construction was assessed through a comprehensive review of available historic WtE technology installation and project data, across key global regions. Current and future market data, including regional market projections, were projected through careful evaluation of announced and anticipated WtE projects; anticipated WtE demand schedules based on regional and national investment trends; WtE and waste management industry trends including regional and national support for WtE and landfilling reduction, recycling, and composting; the availability of near and longer-term funding; trends in renewable and alternative energy demand and production; regional variability in public support (or distaste) for WtE; and technology viability. An 11-year projection period was selected (2011-2021)
57
SBI Energy
March 2011
Market and Product Trends
rather than a 10 year period, in order to show anticipated market values one year beyond a handful of European waste management planning timeframes, which extend to 2020. The following text provides additional detail regarding the market assessment methods employed in support of this report, and major relevant trends that have resulted in the reemergence of WtE technology markets over the last decade. Example project profiles are also included, for each WtE technology, in order to underscore the most common types of projects that are currently being proposed around the world. Project-Based Market Evaluations The market assessment and future annual volumes for WtE technologies are based in part on a thorough evaluation of announced WtE projects. In support of this report, project data were collected from project announcements and contracted supply announcements available through industry press releases. These data were supplemented with project information received from key industry specialists and insiders involved in project development and commissioning. New WtE projects are continually being announced, at recent rates of ten or more major projects per month, depending on the technology in question. Most WtE projects are expected to take 1 to 5 years to complete, from initial conception through to project startup, and most projects are announced publicly sometime during their early to mid-planning stages. Therefore, project and contract announcement data provide very reliable sources of information regarding recent past and present WtE markets, but less accurate estimates of mid to long term future trends. Project and contract announcements are also useful in evaluating near term future WtE markets Historic project announcements were also supplemented with and cross-checked against installed capacity reports and other available data regarding existing installations. Additional Market Valuation Factors The analysis presented in this chapter also relies on several other influential market factors, beyond simple project announcements, in order to predict mid and long term market sizes, through 2021. Key influencing factors include:
March 2011
SBI Energy
58
Feedstock availability, as well as landfilling reduction targets, waste stream diversion requirements, recycling trends, and other key waste management trends that inform feedstock availability;

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements, targets, and strategies; Demand for alternative energy; Costs and fees; Public acceptance of WtE; and Other relevant trends such as drivers for dairy and wastewater treatment WtE application.
These factors are discussed in detail below. The following discussion provides an overview of the key historic influencing factors that have led to the development of a global market for WtE technologies, including current and ongoing waste management and WtE trends that are relevant to WtE market proliferation. Demand for Municipal Waste Stream Management and Waste Reduction Humans have been generating waste since pre-history. As human populations increased, waste management became more critical in order to prevent disease, especially in large European cities, where trash and other refuse was commonly left in the street to decay. However, the industrial revolution sparked an increase in population densities and a proliferation of relatively inexpensive goods, which together translated into increased trash generation. Great Britain was one of the first nations to enact waste management requirements in support of disease reduction strategies and general sanitation, in the 1840s and 1850s.16 Although trash had been burned in open pits for millennia, by the 1880s, the first waste incinerators had been installed in Great Britain and the United States.17,18 Waste incinerators provided several benefits over open-pit burning, including more efficient and
16 17
Great Britains Public Health Act 1848 initiated the process of waste regulation. Herbert, Lewis. 2007. Centenary History of Waste and Waste managers in London and South East England. Chartered Institution of Waste Management. 18 Hickmann, H. Lanier Jr. 2003. American Alchemy: the History of Solid waste Management in the United States. Forester Press.
59
SBI Energy
March 2011
often mechanized waste handling systems, greater control and containment of the combustion process, increased safety, and with proper management, reduced air pollution. By 1914, there were about 300 incinerators in the US that were used for the combustion of municipal waste. However, only a decade later, landfills began to gain popularity. In the US, low-lying swamplands and wetlands were often filled over with municipal trash. Following World War II, landfills were cheaper to operate than incinerators, and began to gain greater acceptance and more widespread implementation globally. Although individuals, families, and businesses had practiced recycling for centuries on a person-by-person basis, by the 1950s and 1960s, recycling became codified into various waste management laws, and the US and other governments initiated recycled materials buyback schemes. Additionally, environmental laws including restrictions on air pollution and trash management forced an end to open burn sites. During the 1970s and early 1980s, incinerators experienced resurgence in application globally, however, their application was soon to be curtailed, especially in the US, where rising concerns over emissions caused strong public concern. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this document, public favor shifted back towards landfilling combined with expanded recycling as the waste management options of choice for many regions including the US. Today, waste management remains a key municipal function in industrialized countries. In emerging markets such as China, waste management practices are still being institutionalized, and governments are rapidly codifying waste management strategies. Chinas existing waste management infrastructure includes landfilling of over 95% of total municipal waste. As recently as 1995, less than 50% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in China annually was formally managed in an approved landfill or via other disposal measures.19 However, Chinas recent and ongoing waste management planning actions are multi-faceted, relying on continued landfill use, but also rapid expansion of the use of incinerators. Other WtE technologies are also being implemented, as well as materials recovery/recycling stations in order to meet projected waste management demands. As shown in Figure 3-1, annual MSW generation is projected to increase steadily through 2030. The rate of MSW production in China is estimated to have surpassed that of the US
Robinson, A., Sewell, G., Wu, S., Damodaran, N., Kalas-Adams, N. 2002. Landfill Data from China: Information Needs for Methane Recovery.
19
March 2011
SBI Energy
60
around 2010, and is expected to continue to grow rapidly over the coming decades. Projected MSW generation rates were not available for the US. However, based on available trends and regulatory information, MSW generation in the US is anticipated to grow more slowly than China or current global estimates, with most realistic estimates ranging around a couple percent increase year over year. Not shown (due to scale) are the effects of the global economic turndown, which has slightly reduced MSW generation globally during 2009 and 2010. Regardless of the turndown, MSW generation rates are anticipated to continue climbing through the foreseeable future. These increasing rates are anticipated to drive ongoing, near-term through long-term investment in the WtE technologies discussed in this report.
Figure 3-1 Historic and Projected Annual Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Global and US (Billion Tons per Year)
Source: Global MSW data: Adapted from OECD, 2010 based on historic data through 2007 and projections through 21 22 2030; US MSW data: USEPA, 2011 ; China MSW data and projections: World Bank, 2005 and Robinson et al., 23 2002.
20
OECD 2010. OECD Factbook 2010. May 25, 2010. Available at USEPA 2010. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009-fs.pdf Accessed on January 27, 2011. 22 World Bank 2005. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. May, 2005. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPURBDEV/Resources/China-WasteManagement1.pdf Accessed on January 27, 2011. 23 Robinson, A., Sewell, G., Wu, S., Damodaran, N., Kalas-Adams, N. 2002. Landfill Data from China: Information Needs for Methane Recovery.
21
20
61
SBI Energy
March 2011
Reuse, Recycling, Composting, and Waste to Energy Waste management today can be reasonably described as a jostling for position among a few key municipal waste management strategies: landfilling, reuse, recycling/composting, mass burn/incineration without energy recovery, and WtE. Mass burn is still employed in some developing nations, but even there the practice is being phased out in many regions due to concerns regarding health, safety, and climate change. Environmentally minded waste managers and members of the public at large often argue that reuse and consumer based waste reduction are or should be the primary waste reduction strategies considered by often considered as the primary goals of waste management. Reuse and waste reduction have been successfully implemented at some industrial facilities and other specific/discrete locations. Influencing consumers to increase reuse and support consumer waste reduction has proved to be much more challenging. Nonetheless, some very progressive communities are attempting to increase reuse within their communities. For example, Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area, California has, initiated a hazardous waste reuse program, encouraging residents to give away what would be hazardous wastes, rather than disposing of them. The County has purchased a large, portable walk-in storage unit that they leave open to the public on weekends. The unit is stocked with unwanted herbicides, fertilizers, paint, and other materials that would be considered hazardous waste, and residents are free to take as much as they want.24 Santa Clara Countys approach is, however, very uncommon. Most regions or local governments do not support public reuse programs, and instead many items that could be reused instead become landfilled. To the extent that future reuse programs can increase public awareness and actually increase waste reuse, some fraction of the total feedstock that would otherwise be available to WtE will be diverted from waste streams. However, this fraction is likely to represent a small portion of total available waste streams in developed nations. Based on a review of current and anticipated government requirements and incentives related to reuse, it is unlikely that reuse programs and incentives will expand significantly in the coming decade.
24
For more information, refer to: http://www.sccvote.org/portal/site/deh/agencyarticle?path=%2Fv7%2FEnvironmental%20Health%2C %20Department%20of%20%28DEP%29%2FHazardous%20Materials%20Compliance%20Division% 2FHousehold%20Hazardous%20Waste%20Home&contentId=a746bb3166b34010VgnVCMP2200049 dc4a92____
March 2011
SBI Energy
62
Less desirable than reuse and waste reduction, recycling has found a major role in the waste management strategies of most developed and developing nations. The success of recycling is largely based on economic factors: with the help of government run programs, subsidies, and/or other incentives in support of recycling, the economics of recycling are in most cases favorable for household plastics and cans such as drink containers, and electronic waste. Recycling of metals, paper/office waste, and some plastics is economically viable even without government or industry incentives. Especially in developing nations, recycling is used as a means for earning a living. For instance, in China and India, massive ad-hoc recycling programs consist of people who carefully search through MSW for recoverable fractions, collect them, and sell them to local recyclers. In developed nations, government run or private sector recycling programs are more formalized, with drop centers and specialty pick-up services that may serve offices, commercial centers, and regional residential areas. The benefits of recycling are multi-faceted, and include reduced use of raw materials, reduced landfilling, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced air emissions, and reduced demand for raw materials extraction/recovery and processing. In terms of WtE feedstocks, recycling of plastics, newspaper, office paper, cardboard, and similar materials results in a leaner feedstock delivered to a WtE facility. This situation is positive from an environmental perspective. However, for WtE facilities treating MSW, high recycling rates can translate into reduced profitability, especially for costly thermal WtE technologies. One interesting trend is that where extensive MSW recycling and recovery facilities are employed, anaerobic digesters, rather than the more expensive thermal WtE technologies, are more commonly employed for the treatment of organic waste components. MSW streams in developing nations where ad-hoc recycling programs occur are typically very low in recoverable materials. These waste streams have characteristically low energy content.25 Special systems engineering for thermal WtE technologies may need to be employed in order to avoid the need for cofiring with coal, natural gas, or other conventional fuels. Generally speaking, recycling does reduce feedstock availability for WtE technologies. As recycling gains increased traction globally, WtE plant design and economics could be affected. However, based on market projections for developing nations with low energy content MSW, technological changes, cofiring, and carefully considered financing structures will offset potential reductions in MSW energy content due to recycling.
25
Tian, W., Wei, X., Wu, D., Li, J., and Sheng, H. Analysis of ingredient and heating value of municipal solid waste. Journal of Environmental Science (China). 2001. 13(1):87-91.
63
SBI Energy
March 2011
Composting is increasingly being employed in the US and Europe to manage greenwaste, yard wastes, and other biomass-based wastes. Composting is generally viewed as having a slightly higher environmental benefit than WtE, and composting consumes high energy content biomass. However, its applicability is limited in current waste management structures. Composting requires pure, uncontaminated organic waste, free of plastics, metals, or other residuals. Most municipal scale recycling efforts therefore do not use MSW as a feedstock source for composting, due to highly intensive sorting efforts that would be required to separate out suitable composting feedstocks. Composting is much more commonly applied to non-MSW waste streams, and therefore does not typically compete directly with WtE facilities that process MSW. A handful of local scale composting efforts focus on diverting food waste from MSW at restaurants and households.26 Such programs will likely become more common in the next 10-20 years. However, within the 10-year timeframe of this report, household and municipal MSW composting programs are not expected to noticeably alter MSW characteristics, such that WtE installations would be affected. Growth of Biomass, Food Waste, and Animal Husbandry Waste to Energy The use of biomass for energy enjoys a long history biomass has been used as a fuel for heating and cooking since prehistoric times. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, early gasifiers in the 1800s generated town gas or other forms of biomass based gas that served municipal use. More recently, following the energy crisis of the 1970s, California, Oregon, and a handful of other US states implemented large scale biomass power production programs, including installation of at least 20 biomass power production facilities. During the mid to late 1990s, Europe began investing in biomass to energy facilities, and as of the mid to late 2000s, the US is following suit. Biomass wastes that are currently under consideration and increasing use for WtE feedstocks include agricultural wastes, greenwaste, yard waste, and food waste. Food waste and municipal greenwaste provide convenient entry points for WtE technologies into local markets: large amounts of feedstock is available at a centralized location. Expansion of WtE facilities into these areas is beginning to occur now. However, that
26
As an example, the City of Berkeley, California (USA) requests that consumers save compostable food scraps separately and then either compost them in their own back yards, or include with other recyclables for municipal processing. For more information refer to: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=5606#FOOD_SCRAPS.
March 2011
SBI Energy
64
expansion has been tempered by competition with composting (for greenwaste), and competition with other competing uses (for food waste), such as fodder for animal feeds. Over the past three decades, regulatory awareness of dairy wastes and their effects on water quality and greenhouse gas emissions have become increasingly widespread. Especially as urban areas encroach nearer to large scale dairies, the public at large has gained an increasing awareness of dairy odors and dairy waste issues. Dairy waste is a critical concern, because liquid and solid wastes are generally minimally treated, and as measured by waterborne pollutant loading, a dairy of 5,000 cows is approximately equivalent to a municipality of 70,000 people.27 Especially in Europe and increasingly in the US and Canada, these trends have driven action on the part of lawmakers and bureaucrats to provide renewed support for dairy WtE facilities, which can help to reduce odors, methane emissions, and water quality emissions from existing dairies. Similar concerns and WtE support have arisen for other animal husbandry operations, such as hog farming. As a result, proactive countries such as Germany have installed hundreds of anaerobic digesters onto dairy farms, in order to control wastes and generate electricity. In the US, dairy farms and other animal husbandry operations are coming under increased pressure to minimize wastes, and new incentives for implementing anaerobic digestion are being proposed and implemented.28 Environmental and Social Concerns of Waste Management As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this report, WtE technologies can result in perceived or actual increases of air quality emissions, including toxic air emissions. Depending upon the level of regulatory scrutiny and emission control systems employed at a specific WtE installation, these emissions can be of sufficient concentration to result in public health concerns. More commonly, especially in developed nations where air quality emissions are stringently controlled, there is widespread debate as to the contaminant levels contained in air emissions from incinerators and other technologies. It is not uncommon, even in the US and European countries where environmental regulations are stringent, for
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2007. DEC Reports: Progress since Marks Dairy Spill. August 9, 2007. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/36942.html Accessed on January 29, 2011. 28 For example, refer to http://www.erosioncontrol.com/the-latest/california-dairy-digester.aspx, which provides a brief overview of a programmatic environmental review that was recently completed in support of widespread implementation of anaerobic digesters at dairy facilities across California, USA.
27
65
SBI Energy
March 2011
members of the public to argue fervently against WtE implementation based on perceived increases in emissions that the public expects to occur. Opposition based on air quality concerns represents perhaps first and foremost a lack of trust in project developers by the public at large, but also an entrenched sentiment of discontent with incinerators and other thermal WtE technologies. Anti-WtE sentiments for thermal technologies are based on a combination of historic concerns regarding air quality emissions from incinerators in the US and Europe, combined with renewed public interest in curtailing the implementation of thermal WtE technologies in some regions. They are a major potential concern in the developed world, where local interest groups are showing increasing interest in stopping thermal WtE projects. At least two major thermal WtE projects in Great Britain have been delayed due to rising public interest. However, the WtE industry has begun implement more cautious management of public expectations, along with an increased effort to publicize the relatively very low emissions levels of current WtE facilities. As long as the WtE industry can continue to carefully manage their PR, these measures, combined with various political and legal actions, are expected to enable continued growth of WtE in developed nations, through the timeframe of this report. Alternative Energy Growth and Demand Strong contemporary interest in alternative energy dates from the 1970s, when oil embargoes created an energy crisis across the US and Europe. Calls for alternative energy sources quickly ramped up across the US and Europe, and new alternative energy power sources, including biomass and limited WtE applications, were implemented in the Western world. Demand for alternative energy slackened in the 1980s and early 1990s, as global oil prices remained low. However, piqued by increasing concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change, many European countries again began showing strong support for renewable energy sources. By the early 2000s, most of Europe had implemented strong greenhouse gas reduction requirements and incentives, including cap and trade schemes renewable energy incentives, grants, and other support for the growth of renewable energy production. Progress on alternative energy in North America has lagged by about a decade. Driven by a combination of global market factors and anticipated but unrealized regulatory requirements for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, many project developers in the US and Canada have jumped aboard the green energy bandwagon. Growth has been rapid thousands of megawatts of renewable power have been installed in the US in the last year alone.
March 2011
SBI Energy
66
In global markets, including Asia and Europe, current and proposed alternative energy installations are helping to drive economic recovery, following the recent global economic downturn. Alternative energy projects are capitalizing on government incentives and/or direct injection of government or grant funds for specific alternative energy projects. As a result, alternative energy production from renewable energy sources is increasing quickly around the globe. In the vast majority of countries and local regions, WtE is considered to be a renewable alternative energy. WtE technologies thereby qualify for associated benefits such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and also help to enable utilities and other energy sector middlemen to meet increasingly stringent requirements for the delivery of renewable energy to consumers/end users. In this manner, the present day WtE market derives significant and ongoing benefit from greenhouse gas reduction/management strategies and requirements, which are increasingly being implemented and enforced around the globe.
Waste to Energy Projects

At its current stage, the WtE industry is pursuing an array of commercial scale installation projects, located primarily in North America, Europe, and Asia. Only a very minor/negligible level of project level interest was indicated outside of these three global regions.29 SBI Energy conducted a comprehensive review of current and recent historic project and facility contracting agreement announcements relevant to the North American, European, and Asian WtE markets. Major centers for sub-regional growth include the United Kingdom, the United States, and China. Canada, India, and various European Union member states are also investing substantially in new WtE technologies. The following table provides an overview of select individual projects that were identified by SBI Energy as being highly probable for near term implementation (2011-2014). This list provides a subset of the total global projects identified by SBI Energy, and is restricted to those very likely projects that have entered engineering and design phases and/or environmental permitting. These projects have not yet reached completion, and have not yet begun processing waste or generating energy. Within China, the United States, and a handful
29
One potential MSW pyrolysis project was identified in Brazil, and one large MSW incineration facility in the United Arab Emirates. Additional anaerobic digester facilities have been identified globally, but market values for other regions are small in comparison to North America, Europe, and Asia.
67
SBI Energy
March 2011
of European nations, additional reasonably foreseeable projects have been announced in aggregate, and are not shown on the table below.
Table 3-1 Anticipated Global WtE Projects
Country Project Name Technology Feedstock
!"#"$" !"#"$" !"#"$" !"#"$" !"#"$"
!C-#" !C-#" !C-#" J-#3"#$ ,#$-" ,#$-" ,#$-" ,#$-" ,+*3"#$ ,+*3"#$ 2"P-4."#
2C-3-EE-#*4 2'3"#$ QM QM QM QM QM
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
,#&-#*+".'+ 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 27+'374-4
/01 /01 /01 /01 1''$=*4-$("34
,#&-#*+".'+ 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 27+'374-4 9"4-:-&".-'# 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 KL@ KL@ ,#&-#*+".'+ 27+'374-4 KL@
/01 /01 =*:-#*+71"4.* /01 /01 /01 /01 /01 /01 <"4.*E3"4.-& @61"4.*
,#&-#*+".'+ 9"4-:-&".-'# "#"*+'A-&$-6*4.*+ "#"*+'A-&$-6*4.*+ "#"*+'A-&$-6*4.*+ @#"*+'A-&$-6*4.*+T /RG @(.'&3")*T@>'+ '.C*+1.5
/01 /01 J''$1"4.* :''$"#$ 6+**#<"4.* J''$1"4.*NA**+ <"4.*O /01 /01
QM QM
:(*34+*&7&3*$:(*3$ 9"4-:-&".-'#
=*&7&3*$'-34?/01 /01
March 2011
SBI Energy
68
Country
Project Name
Technology
Feedstock
QM QM
QM QM QM QM QM QM QM QM QM
QM QM QM QM QM QM QM QM QM
QM QM QP+"-#*
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
,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+
/01 /01
,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+
/01 /01 /01 /01 /01 /01 /01 1''$1"4.* /01
,#&-#*+".'+ 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 KL@ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+
/01 /01TC"W"+$'(4 <"4.*4 /-S*$ <"4.*LA-'8"44 1''$1"4.* /01 /01 /01 /01 /01
,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ @#"*+'A-&>-6*4.-'#
/01 /01 !'<8"#(+* /01?7"+$<"4.*? <''$<"4.*? )*6*.".-)*<"4.*
Q0@
:*+8*#.".-'#
Q0@ Q0@ Q0@
9"4-:-&".-'# 9"4-:-&".-'# 9"4-:-&".-'#
/01 /01?<''$<"4.*? &'#4.+(&.-'#$*A+-4 /01
69
SBI Energy
March 2011
Country
Project Name
Technology
Feedstock
Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@
@..3*A'+'!3*"# 5#*+672+'F*&. 2'E*>'(63"41.5 :"&-3-.7 >*3."@33*#.'<# !'3'+"$'0E+-#64 ,#&-#*+".'+ ;384.*"$!'(#.7 ,#&-#*+".'+ K'+.C*"4./"+73"#$ 1"4.*>-4E'4"3 @(.C'+-.7 2C'*#-S9+**#<"4.* /"+-'#!-.7 9"4-:-&".-'# @+3-#6.'# 9"4-:-&".-'# 2+'F*&.@E'33' !37$*?;B 0'(.C!C"+3*4.'#? ;B K-3*4?;B ;#*-$"0*)*# 9*#*+".-'# 53PC"+.!'(#.7 1*3$!'(#.7!;@> :"&-3-.7 %-*.#"8=-&*1"4.* .'5#*+67 @4-"#2"&-:-& >*)*3'E8*#.!'+E
9"4-:-&".-'# ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+
/01 /01 /10T0*<"6* 43($6* /01 /01
Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ Q0@ %-*.#"8 %-*.#"8?!C-#"
Source: SBI Energy.
,#&-#*+".'+ ,#&-#*+".'+ 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 23"48"9"4-:-&".-'# 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 27+'374-4 @#"*+'A-&>-6*4.-'# 9"4-:-&".-'# 9"4-:-&".-'#
/01 9+**#<"4.*T R-':(*3 /01 /01 /01 /01 :''$<"4.*TZ $"-+-*4 /01 /01 /01 !'<8"#(+*? :''$<"4.* =-&*1"4.* /01
Most of the projects shown above are anticipated to use MSW as their primary feedstock. This finding largely reflects market conditions for the MSW and food waste to energy industries. Anticipated anaerobic digester facilities, in particular those applied at wastewater treatment plants and animal husbandry facilities, are often unannounced along typical industry information sources. Baseline installation information for these facilities was gathered from communications with industry insiders and government officials, historic data on anaerobic digester information, as well as documentation of small scale power plants from national and regional governments, and academic and government estimates of anaerobic
March 2011
SBI Energy
70
digester implementation at dairies, hog farms, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and other facilities where anaerobic digestion has been applied to treat waste. Note that collection of landfill gas and its combustion and use for the generation of electricity was not considered within this report.
Factors Affecting Market Size and Growth

In addition to the individual and aggregate projects that are discussed and identified in the previous subsection, market sizes and growth rates are indicated and affected by an array of other variables. The following discussion provides an overview of the most important factors that affect WtE market size. These are the primary factors that were considered when generating market projections for each of the WtE technologies considered in this report. Relevant market factors are analyzed later in this report and treated in greater detail as they are relevant to the market assessments for individual WtE technologies. Feedstock Availability: landfilling reduction targets, waste stream diversion requirements, and other key waste management trends that inform feedstock availability; Critically important to European WtE markets, landfill reduction targets seek to reduce the volume or mass of MSW that is disposed of in landfills over time. Landfill reduction targets typically specify a mid-to long-term landfill reduction goal, and then set intermediary, often annualized goals, for reducing the landfilling of waste. Landfilling reduction targets can be achieved through the employment of WtE facilities, and/or increased recycling, increased composting, support of reuse programs, and implementation of other programs and incentives that reduce the proportion of waste material that would otherwise end up in a landfill.
Table 3-2 European Union Mandated Waste Reduction Targets
Year 2010 2013 2020
Source: EWC, 2011.
30
Waste Reduction Target 75% of 1995 Level 50% of 1995 Level 35% of 1995 Level
30
EWC Waste and Recycling Solutions. 2011. The Problem with Landfill Now the Government Outlines New Targets. Available at: http://www.ewc.eu.com/in-depth.html Accessed on January 30, 2011. Refer also to European Commission, Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and the
71
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table 3-3 Great Britain National Waste Reduction Targets

Year Waste Reduction Target
Recycling and Composting of Household Waste 2010 2015 2020 Recovery of Municipal Waste 2010 2015 2020
Source: EWC, 2011.
At Least 40% of Total MSW At Least 45% of Total MSW At Least 50% of Total MSW
53% of Total MSW 67% of Total MSW 75% of Total MSW
As shown in Table 3-2Table 3-, the EU has enacted stringent landfilling reduction requirements for its member countries. EU members must meet these targets on the indicated schedule, or face up to millions of dollars in fines. For instance, in Great Britain, a total of about 20-30 new waste management facilities, including WtE plants, would be needed by 2013 in order to avoid the fines. Fines would be paid by taxpayers and could be substantial up to about $3.2 million per community/region.31 countries as a whole face strict regulatory requirements regarding reduction of the amount of waste that finds its way into landfills. Incentives for implementing WtE and other waste management practices are particularly strong in Great Britain. As shown in Table 3-3, the country has applied additional regulations to itself, above and beyond the EU targets indicated above. These additional targets impose still further fines in the event that proposed recycling and composting targets are not met for household waste, or if the indicated MSW recovery targets are not met. These increasingly stringent targets do not explicitly require the implementation of WtE technologies the EU targets for instance simply require a reduction in the amount of material that is landfilled. As discussed elsewhere in this report, diversion of waste from landfills can be achieved via implementation of additional reuse, recycling, composting, or WtE programs. Additional recycling programs are expected to be widely implemented. However, these landfill waste reduction targets will also strongly support new WtE projects
Council of 8 May 2003on the promotion and use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Official Journal of the European Union L 123 (2003): 42-46. 31 BBC. 2008. Council Warning on waste Targets. September 25, 2008. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7634488.stm Accessed on January 30, 2011.
March 2011
SBI Energy
72
for two primary reasons: (1) some recyclable/compostable MSW fractions are difficult to separate. For instance, separation of waste food from household rubbish can require implementation of labor-intensive sorting programs at MSW management facilities, and/or the implementation of separate food waste collection systems. Both of these solutions require costly operation period labor and/or equipment fees in addition to other required waste management facilities/operations, and contribute only partially to total required landfilling reduction targets. Installation of WtE technologies can in some cases be less expensive than implementing stringent diversion and sorting programs. Second (2), in most EU countries, the selection of which landfill reduction solution should be applied locally is up to local governments. Here, communities and local waste managers select the landfilling reduction strategies that are most amenable to their local or regional circumstances. Thus, some communities choose a single thermal WtE facility to support landfill reduction, while others choose to implement MBT (see Chapter 2) or other multifaceted recycling/reuse/energy production schemes that support increased recycling and reuse, as well as energy production and reduced landfilling. Only a few countries outside of Europe have considered implementing new landfilling reduction requirements. New Zealand had previously considered implementing stringent numeric targets, similar to those discussed for the EU and Great Britain. However, the numeric targets were later set aside and replaced by two high-level strategies that are meant to support more environmentally sound waste management. These are shown in the following table.
Table 3-4 New Zealands Adopted Waste Management Strategy
Goal Goal 1: Reducing the Harmful Effects of Waste Goal 2: Improving the Efficiency of Resource Use Description When planning waste management and minimization activities, local government, businesses and communities should assess the risk of harm to the environment and human health from waste to identify and take action on those wastes of greatest concern. When planning waste management and minimization activities, local government, businesses and communities should improve the efficiency of resource use to reduce the impact on the environment and human health and capitalize on potential economic benefits.
32
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2011.
32
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. 2011. New Zealands Goals for Managing and Minimising Waste. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-strategy/page2.html Accessed on January 30, 2011.
73
SBI Energy
March 2011
New Zealands implemented strategies will likely support increases in recycling, composting, and possibly reuse. These goals could also help to support the implementation of new WtE facilities within the country. However, the goals contain no mandate or regulated reduction strategy, and in general provide only minimal support for landfilling reduction and implementation of WtE technologies. In the US, California, New York, and other environmentally progressive states have implemented high level waste management planning goals and requirements. These typically specify increased recycling rates, but do not carry the same level of penalty or fine as compared to Europe and Great Britain, and also do not carry the same support for explicit landfilling reduction and implementation of WtE programs. As a result, landfilling reduction programs outside of Europe are expected to contribute only minimally to WtE markets through the next decade. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements, targets, and strategies; Since the early 1990s, concerns regarding GHG emissions have been gaining traction around the globe, and governments have begun initiating various programs targeted at reducing global GHG emissions, in order to prevent anticipated/perceived environmental damage that is expected to result from continued climate change. Major recent progress on climate change and greenhouse gas reduction strategies include, among many other efforts, the Bali Roadmap33 and the Copenhagen Accord. The latter was reached at the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference, and provides for explicit pledges of national GHG emissions reduction targets. As a region, Europe has implemented the most stringent globally significant carbon emission reduction schemes to date. These vary by country, but also include more generalized directives on climate action from the European Commission. Major facets implemented across the EU or in specific countries include the European Union Emissions Trading System, development and demonstration of low carbon technologies, phased GHG emissions reduction requirements, feed-in tariffs, tax incentives, renewable energy directives, and grants programs. In the US, climate related regulation is piecemeal, but becoming increasingly stringent. The court case Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court
33
The Bali Roadmap was adopted in 2007 to launch negotiations toward a new global climate agreement, to follow on after expiration of commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
March 2011
SBI Energy
74
finding that GHGs are air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, and that the USEPA must consider GHG emissions as to the extent that they contribute to air pollution that may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Additional US Presidential requirements such as Executive Order 13514 expand energy reduction and environmental performance requirements for Federal agencies, and support GHG emissions reduction by federal agencies. The Obama administration has also passed a series of Secretarial Orders and other internal directives that require additional consideration of climate change and support for implementation of additional mitigation in specific federal departments. Some US states have also passed significant climate related legislation. California, for instance, is in the process of implementing strict emissions reduction programs that reduce industry and consumer GHG emissions from petroleum fuel combustion. California has also passed a renewable energy portfolio standard and a renewable fuels standard, which require incorporation of increasing levels of renewable energy into current energy mixes. Emissions restrictions for GHGs in Asia are generally much less stringent than those of the US and Europe. Exceptions include Japan and Singapore, which are both actively involved in global efforts to counter climate change and reduce GHG emissions. With perceived reluctantly, China is also beginning to show initial signs of increased climate related regulation, through a widespread support for the installation of new renewable energy capacity combined with early pollution reduction programs. In the vast majority of localities, energy generated by WtE technologies is considered renewable, and can be in carbon offset trading or to fulfill minimum renewable energy requirements for regulated utilities and other energy suppliers. On global and local scales, climate emissions reduction requirements are expected to become increasingly stringent over the next decade and beyond. This trend is expected to provide further support to WtE installations by helping WtE operators to secure power purchase contracts with local utilities, and by providing additional revenue streams, such as for the sale of carbon credits, where applicable. Demand for Alternative and Renewable Energy Concerns regarding the environmental implications of climate change, the widespread implementation of GHG emissions reduction targets and requirements as specified above, and projected increases in global energy demand will drive strong increases in the level of demand for alternative/renewable energy through the timeframe of this report and beyond.
75
SBI Energy
March 2011
The US Energy Information Administration, which typically provides very conservative projections in regards to the proliferation of renewable energy, is projecting substantial increases in renewable energy generation through 2020 and beyond (Figure 3-3), driven by a combination of regulatory support for renewable energy, combined with a general increase in energy demand (Figure 3-2). As shown in Figure 3-2, anticipated demand increases are projected to occur largely in non-OECD countries primarily developing nations through 2035. Herein, the energy consumption rates of non-OECD countries is expected to jump by 84% through 2035, while energy demand in OECD countries is expected to increase more slowly, by 14% through 2035. EIAs projections regarding increases in global renewable energy demand have been corroborated by a wide array of governments, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, and industry groups. Renewable energy industry groups in particular have published data and projections that indicate very strong growth in the renewable sector for at least the ensuing 20 years. Such estimates are frequently prone to over-speculation. However, notably, a recent study by oil giant BP strongly corroborates EIAs findings regarding renewable energy, finding that energy use will grow by 40% over the next 20 years, with over 90% of that growth occurring in Non-OECD countries, and that growth in renewables will outpace growth in oil production.34
BP, 2011. Energy Outlook 2030. Available at: http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9035979&contentId=7066648 Accessed on January 30, 2011.
34
March 2011
SBI Energy
76
Figure 3-2 Global Energy Consumption, Historic (2007) and Projected (Through 2035) (Quadrillion British Thermal Units per Year)
Source: EIA 2010.
35
The projected increases in renewable energy production will be fulfilled by a combination of many different renewable energy technologies, ranging from biomass to wind, solar, and geothermal. Energy production from WtE is considered, in nearly all areas, to be consistent with renewable energy production, and where applicable, energy from WtE can be incorporated into renewable energy portfolios and standards, carbon trading schemes, and overall mandated renewable energy implementation targets. Thus, ongoing demand and support for renewable energy is expected to further support demand for WtE technologies globally, during and beyond the timeframe considered in this report.
35
US Energy Information Administration, 2010. International Energy Outlook 2010 Highlights. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html Accessed on January 30, 2011.
77
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 3-3 Global Historic Energy Production and Projected Increases in Renewable and Other Power Sources, 1990-2035 (Quadrillion British Thermal Units per Year)
Source: EIA 2010.
36
Costs and WtE Project Economics The capital costs for WtE facilities can be considerable. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this report, the capital costs for a complete WtE technology installation, including the WtE plus required ancillary equipment, ranges from a low end value of $1,500/kw of power generation capacity, or less than $100 per ton of annual waste handling capacity, to a high end value of approximately $13,500/kW of power generation capacity, or $4,200 per ton of annual waste handling capacity (refer to Chapter 4 for additional information). These capital costs are high in comparison to most other power production technologies. For instance, installed costs for natural gas fired generation typically range from $700-$1,200 per kW, while installed costs for utility scale solar thermal power range from about $2,300/kW to about $3,200/kW of installed capacity. One of the reasons that WtE technologies are expensive on a per kW basis is that they provide more than one function WtE facilities generate energy, but they also handle and dispose of municipal or other wastes. Therefore, profitability for a WtE facility depends on
36
Ibid.
March 2011
SBI Energy
78
revenues generated from the sale of electricity, but also, and often more importantly, it depends on revenue generated from tipping fees or contracted reimbursement schedules for disposing of waste. In most cases, revenues generated from the sale of energy amount to only a portion typically less than 30% - of total WtE project revenues. As a result, the viability of a particular existing or proposed WtE installation strongly depends on its availability to secure feedstock with sufficient tipping fees to cover costs. MSW feedstocks have become prolific in the WtE market for this reason they come with large tipping fees, and municipalities and other MSW managers are used to paying large sums of money for landfilling, recycling, and other waste management operations. Outside of the MSW industry, feedstock related cost factors are much more variable, and depend strongly on whether or not potential feedstocks could be put to alternative use, at a lower cost to the feedstock provider, as compared to WtE. For instance, food or meat processing wastes are commonly used as animal feed, and are bought and sold in a manner similar to a low-cost, regionalized commodity. Immediately following the mad cow disease scare during the 1990s and early 2000s, several WtE proposals sprang up, speculating that new regulations would limit the use of meat processing wastes that enter into animal feed, providing a glut of meat processing waste that would come with new tipping fees. At least one demonstration project was built based on this speculation.37 As time passed, concern regarding mad cow disease was allayed by updating animal husbandry and meat processing procedures. Tipping fees were never initiated, and meat processing wastes continued to be sold in regional commodity-type markets. As a result, many proposed plants died on paper, and were never constructed. Similar trends can be found in the wood waste industry, where sawdust, wood chips, and tree trimmings can be used to generate electricity, but can also be incorporated into pellet fuel, fiberboard, mulch, and an array of other saleable products. Thus in order to be viable, WtE facilities outside of the MSW industry may in some cases have to outpace some unexpected competitors: dog and cat food makers, landscape mulch producers, and chipboard/fiberboard makers, to name a few. Finally, because most WtE plants are expensive, most WtE installations require financing through debt financing, venture capital, private capital, or a host of other funding options. Unless cash on hand is used to finance the facility (this is extremely rare) or grants are available for partial funding (grants typically cover at most up to around 10% of total
37
Changing World Technologies constructed a WtE plant in Carthage, Missouri, in order to treat turkey offal. However, high feedstock costs eventually led to the plants shutdown and bankruptcy for the facility.
79
SBI Energy
March 2011
required funding for major WtE facilities), all other financing schemes require some form of repayment either debt servicing and repayment on a municipal bond or other loan, or profit taking and/or partial to full ownership by investors or corporations. Thus the availability of a project sponsor to acquire project finance on favorable terms is critical to implementation of WtE facilities. The recent global economic turndown has significantly reduced the availability of debt financing, and has also generally reduced corporate/private investment in many global regions. While the most intense of reductions in funding availability appear to have passed, the anticipated slow global economic recovery is expected to translate in greater difficulty in obtaining project funding, as compared to the years prior to the turndown. For additional discussion of funding sources, mechanisms, and trends for WtE project finance, refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Public acceptance of WtE In the developed world, public acceptance of WtE is becoming increasingly critical in order to enable continued project development and implementation. Drawing from strong public dissent regarding pollutant emissions from incinerators in the 1980s, many local interest groups concerned with public health and the environment have taken to sharply criticizing proposals for new thermal WtE facilities. In the US and the UK, strong public criticism has led to the removal of approximately 4 thermal WtE projects from consideration in the last two years. Resistance has been especially strong in the UK, where legislation is driving the rapid installation of new WtE facilities in order to meet landfilling reduction targets. Due in large part to the intensity of proposed WtE development, many UK public interest groups have taken strong anti-WtE stances, and have caused significant delays in at least two WtE installations. Public acceptance of WtE, or lack thereof, has the potential to strongly inform future markets for thermal WtE technologies. Fortunately, industry is responding to PR issues with increasing intensity, especially in Great Britain. However, the level of WtE provider public interface in the US appears to be progressing much more slowly, and will need to be stepped up quickly in the event that public dissent begins to cross the Atlantic. For additional discussion of public concerns regarding WtE, please refer to Chapter 4. Other Relevant Trends There are a suite of other technology specific and region specific trends that strongly inform certain sub-regional WtE markets. Examples include additional national and local
March 2011
SBI Energy
80
government incentives for waste reduction and landfill reduction; regional strategies for pollution control planning in support of dairy and wastewater treatment plant digesters; regional or national government grant and project sponsorship programs; national and regional trends in disposal costs and tipping fees; programs, incentives, and guidelines to increase the use of biomass and biomass wastes for the production of energy; and other national level political and social support for waste minimization and WtE technologies. Where applicable, these trends were considered in the evaluation of WtE market sizes.
WtE Technologies Markets

The markets for WtE technologies are reviewed below under the categories of incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. Markets are reviewed by global region, with additional discussion of market factors relevant to specific countries and/or sub-regional areas. Data shown include historic market sizes from 2006 through 2010, plus a decade of anticipated/projected market data from 2011 through 2021. Markets are evaluated based on the methodology outlined in the previous section of this chapter. Global Market for Incineration The market for WtE incineration is the most extensive of the WtE technology markets covered in this report. The market valuations shown below include breakdowns for the incinerator technology itself, plus the balance of plant and other ancillaries, including emissions control systems, storage areas, buildings, feed/waste handling systems, power conveyance where applicable, and other ancillary systems and features. For additional discussion regarding cost breakdowns for incinerators and other WtE technologies, please refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Also shown are historic and projected regional market shares for North America, Europe, and Asia, and well as historic and incremental annual increases in global waste incineration capacity and power generation from waste incineration. Market sizes and valuations were evaluated based on the methods described previously in this chapter. Regional drivers specific to incinerators are similar to those relevant to the other thermal WtE technologies considered in this report. In North America, new installations are scheduled or projected primarily in specific sub-regional markets, especially in large population centers. In typical target markets, high volumes of waste are generated on a daily basis, and landfill disposal is becoming increasingly costly or difficult to permit, often due to capacity limits on nearby municipal landfills, and long required transport distances to larger, regional facilities.
81
SBI Energy
March 2011
State or local waste management regulations may also support thermal WtE technologies, including incinerators. Also, because incinerators require significant capital investment and steady waste feeds, larger municipalities or consortia of cooperating smaller municipalities, are the most common incinerator project proponents. Environmental regulations in the US and Canada are generally stringent, and incinerators in these markets are typified by extensive emissions control components, in order to minimize emissions of dioxins and other toxic or hazardous compounds. Public perception of incinerators varies across both the US and Canada, with generally more favorable attitudes in Canada. In many portions of the US market, a strong, or at least vocal, environmental movement has taken a sturdy stance against incineration and other thermal WtE technologies. However, levels of anti-incinerator environmental activism vary considerably among communities, and some projects may be expected to move forward without challenge, while others may face ongoing opposition and even court challenge. Similar to the North American, the European market is also driven by an increasing demand for viable methods of waste management. However, unlike the North American market, the European markets current and projected continued growth is largely driven by waste management regulations imposed under the European Union. These center on landfilling reduction requirements, and current regulations are in force through 2020, where a waste reduction target equivalent to 35% of 1995 levels by 2020 will be imposed (see also Table 33). Failure to meet these standards would result in the imposition of substantial fines and fees. Many individual European countries have also imposed their own requirements for landfilling reduction and/or increases in MSW recovery, including the UK, Germany, Denmark, France, and Austria. Additionally, tax and municipal funding structures in many European countries are more easily amenable to public finance schemes as compared to the US, where tax assessments and community bond funding may be difficult or impossible to implement successfully. With over 450 existing incinerators across Europe, repowering and upgrading of existing facilities also comprises a significant percent of the total market share from around 3% to about 18%, depending upon the country in question, and the level of projected incinerator development in that country. Countries with a large number of existing incinerator installations namely France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Sweden (together, approximately 70% of all existing European incinerators are located in these countries), will drive the majority of the repowering and upgrading market segment. Countries where new incinerators are being installed now represent future potential repowering and upgrading
March 2011
SBI Energy
82
markets, but primarily beyond the timeframe considered in this report. Similar to the North American market, European environmental emissions requirements are stringent, and many recent and anticipated repowering/upgrading projects in the European market include upgrades to emissions control systems. Incinerators across most of mainland Europe enjoy generally favorable public opinion. For instance, in Denmark and Germany, two countries with high rates of incinerator implementation, local municipalities and residents commonly support incinerators as a waste management practice, and enjoy benefits including power generation and in many cases cheap district heating supplies for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. However, in some portions of Europe, anti-WtE, and especially anti-incinerator, sentiments are surfacing. Driven by fears regarding dioxins and other air pollutants, many proposed incineration projects in the UK have met with strong public opposition, in some cases resulting in proposed incineration projects being removed from consideration. Still, while some projects are encountering interference from environmental and community groups, most currently proposed WtE/incineration projects are still anticipated to move forward. While public opposition in Great Britain will likely stop a very small number of projects, more typical effects will be longer project lead times and permitting and approval delays. For additional discussion of the anti-WtE movement in Great Britain, please refer to Chapter 4. Across most of the Asian market, installations of new incinerators are driven primarily by the need for additional waste treatment/waste handling capacity. However, unlike the North American and European markets, some Asian countries, such as India and especially China, are undergoing rapid urbanization and industrialization. In China in particular, MSW generation rates are increasing by 8% to 10% annually, and new waste management solutions are needed, especially in larger population centers.38 As a result, the Chinese government is actively supporting incinerator and other WtE projects in these areas, and is anticipated to continue doing so through the coming decade, as the country continues its modernization process. In India, projected incinerator installations are supported by needs for better waste management and sanitation facilities in order to prevent pollution and disease, and also by growing municipal waste generation and demand for reliable sources of electricity.
38
Cheng, H., Zhang, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q. 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Fueled Power Generation in China: A Case Study of Waste-to-Energy in Changchun City. Environmental Science and Technology 41(21): 7509-7515.
83
SBI Energy
March 2011
Unlike the North American and European markets, with the exception of Japan, and Singapore, most Asian countries have lax air pollution control laws. China and India in particular, which are noted for their potential for WtE development over the coming decade, have minimal air quality emissions requirements. As a result, incineration projects are typically much less expensive to build in these and other countries with lax environmental laws, because incinerator emissions control systems are very expensive they can be well above the cost of the incinerator itself. Environmental awareness and activism are much less prominent in developing Asia, as compared to North America and Europe. This translates into incinerator projects being approved quickly (sometimes irrespective of the consent of local communities) and installed quickly following approval. Existing and projected global incinerator market trends are shown in Figure 3-4 and Table 35. As shown, during the 2006-2010 period of historic data, the global market for incinerators (including ancillaries) increased from $3.1 billion to $5.1 billion, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.5%. During 2011 through 2021, continued growth in all regional markets, but especially in Asia, is expected to drive global markets from $5.6 billion to $13.8 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 8.6%. The highest annual rates of increase are largely driven by the maturation of regulatory requirements in European markets where, as shown in Table 3-2, mandated waste reduction targets reach maturation during 2010, 2013, and 2020. A general slowdown in growth is projected following 2020 for this reason. However, continued growth in the North American and Asian markets is expected to continue to drive incinerator markets through the end of these projections.
March 2011
SBI Energy
84
Figure 3-4 Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Table 3-5 Global Market for Incinerators and Incinerator Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Incinerator $913 $1,073 $1,273 $1,448 $1,502 $1,629 $1,716 $1,880 Ancillaries $2,203 $2,588 $3,073 $3,494 $3,623 $3,931 $4,140 $4,536 Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Incinerator $2,012 $2,193 $2,368 $2,558 $2,839 $3,378 $3,784 $4,049 Ancillaries $4,854 $5,291 $5,714 $6,171 $6,850 $8,152 $9,130 $9,769
Figure 3-5 illustrates regional market breakdowns for historic 2006 incinerator markets, as well as projected 2011 and 2021 markets. During 2006, nearly 75% of the total global market for incinerators was accounted for by the European market. During the same time period, the North American market consisted almost entirely of upgrading and repowering projects,
85
SBI Energy
March 2011
primarily to upgrade emissions control systems at existing plants. By the end of 2011, the Asian market will have nearly tripled, while the North American Market will have increased by about fivefold. By 2021, the Asian market will comprise about 46% of the total global incineration market. Continued growth will occur in the European and North American markets, however, both will be outpaced by the Asian market. Specifically, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the European incinerator market (including ancillaries) will grow from $2.8 to $5.1 billion (CAGR of 5.4%), the North American market will grow from $0.96 to $2.3 billion (CAGR of 8.2%), and the Asian market will grow from $1.7 to $6.4 billion (CAGR of 12.6%).
Figure 3-5 Regional WtE Markets for Incineration: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Table 3-6 provides additional market breakdowns, by country, for major markets within the North American, European, and Asian regions. As shown, in 2006, worldwide incinerator markets were led by France, Italy, China, and Germany. By 2011, the United Kingdoms incinerator market will move to the global forefront, driven by national and European regulations requiring significant landfilling reductions in that country. Meanwhile, continued incinerator development in China will be the primary driver for the Asian market, while several new incinerator projects will enter into development in the United States, for the first time in about two decades. By 2021, the global market will be led by continuing development in China and greater WtE utilization in the US. Indias WtE market will also reach elevated levels of development, with a maturation rate slower than that for China, but sufficient for a significant expansion in incinerator installations.
March 2011
SBI Energy
86
Table 3-6 Incinerator Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Country Canada United States France Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom China India Japan South Korea 2006 $148 $39 $518 $278 $332 $144 $139 $331 $12 $99 $42 2011 $227 $730 $399 $257 $262 $86 $1,312 $1,189 $140 $245 $70 2021 $815 $1,467 $409 $716 $281 $102 $920 $2,955 $1,413 $771 $578
Table 3-7 shows the 2006 through 2021 historic and projected increases in global waste capacity (daily tons) treated via incineration, as well as projected annual increases in global power generation capacity from incinerators. As shown, incremental additional waste treatment capacity is projected to continue increasing through 2021, with the total mass of waste treated by new incinerators in 2021 surpassing 72,000 tons/day. This represents a 2.5 fold increase from 2011 to 2021. Annual incremental additions in power capacity are anticipated to surpass 1,600 MW by 2021, also a 2.5-fold increase.
Table 3-7 Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Incinerator Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)
Category Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) Power Generation Capacity (MW) 2006 16,327 380 2011 29,130 677 2021 72,400 1,683
87
SBI Energy
March 2011
Global Market for Gasification Globally, as of 2010, there were approximately 145 commercial scale gasifiers in operation. However, only 9 of those gasifiers serve the WtE market.39 The vast majority of installed gasifiers generate power or fuels from non-waste products, including coal, petroleum coke, petroleum refining residues, and natural gas. Thus the market for WtE gasification is a subset of the larger overall gasification technology market. The WtE gasification market identified by SBI Energy includes MSW feedstocks, as well as biomass waste and wood waste to energy. Only the portion of the global gasification market that is applicable to WtE is considered in this report. The market valuations for gasification shown below include breakdowns for the gasification technology itself, plus the balance of plant and other ancillaries, including emissions control systems, storage areas, buildings, feed/waste handling systems, power conveyance where applicable, and other ancillary systems and features. Gasifiers require significantly reduced emissions control systems in comparison to incinerators, and therefore a higher fraction of total gasifier cost is tied up in the gasification technology, as compared to incinerators, where emission control systems are frequently more costly than the incinerator itself. For additional discussion regarding cost breakdowns for gasifiers and other WtE technologies, please refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Also shown are historic and projected regional market shares for North America, Europe, and Asia, and well as historic and incremental annual increases in global waste gasification capacity and power generation from waste gasification. Market sizes and valuations were evaluated based on the methods described previously in this chapter. Gasifiers serve the same potential MSW market as incinerators, and can be considered a competing technology with incinerators and other thermal WtE installations. Therefore, regional drivers specific to gasifiers are very similar to those relevant to incineration, as discussed in the previous subsection. Therefore, the following text briefly reviews the trends discussed for incinerators, with additional discussion of differentiators that are specific to gasification. Perhaps the most considerable difference between gasification and incineration markets is that the former is used to produce energy from waste biomass, wood waste, and potentially other organic waste streams, as well as MSW. In contrast, the existing incinerators
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2010. 2010 Worldwide Gasification Database. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/worlddatabase/GasificationDB2010.xlsx Accessed on January 10, 2011.
39
March 2011
SBI Energy
88
and proposed incinerator projects identified for this report were limited to systems serving MSW and hospital waste sectors. Similar to incinerators, gasifier markets for facilities that treat MSW are projected primarily near large population centers where sufficient MSW feedstock and capital are available to support the installation of a gasification facility. While several coal and petroleum coke gasifiers are in operation or under planning/construction in North America, there are currently no commercial scale WtE gasifiers located in North America. Those gasifiers proposed for the North American market would overwhelmingly rely on MSW as feedstock, and are anticipated to serve larger population centers located in Illinois, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and New York, as well as other urban population centers. Through 2013, a single plant has been proposed in the North American market, which would utilize woodwaste as well as MSW as primary feedstock. Additional plants utilizing non-MSW feedstocks are anticipated in the North American market during 2014 and beyond, but most gasifiers are expected to utilize MSW. Criticism from environmental groups opposed to WtE gasifiers has been similar to that encountered for incinerators in the North American market. Termed by activists as incinerators in disguise, gasifiers have received considerable negative press in some areas of the US. However, levels of environmental activism vary considerably among communities, and some projects may be expected to move forward without challenge, while others may face ongoing opposition and even court challenge. As discussed previously for incinerators, the European gasification market is also driven by an increasing demand for viable methods of waste management, alongside strong landfilling reduction requirements imposed under the European Union. Several individual European countries have also imposed their own requirements for landfilling reduction and/or increases in MSW recovery. European nations have also given strong regulatory support to energy production from waste biomass (non-MSW), as well as other waste streams, via carbon emissions targets, cap and trade systems, grant funding, and tax incentives, which are relevant to the European WtE gasification market. Tax and municipal funding structures in many European countries are more easily amenable to public finance schemes as compared to the US, where tax assessments and community bond funding may be difficult or impossible to implement successfully. Public opinion regarding gasifiers is positive across much of mainland Europe, similar to trends discussed for incinerators. Similarly, anti-incinerator sentiments in Great Britain also apply to gasifiers. Across most of the Asian market, installations of new gasifiers are driven primarily by the need for additional waste treatment/waste handling capacity. However, Asian countries that
89
SBI Energy
March 2011
are undergoing rapid urbanization and industrialization are driving rapid increases in the regional gasification market. In China in particular, commitments totaling over $2.75 billion have been made for the installation of MSW and waste tire gasification plants for the 20112016 period. Additional gasifier installation is expected in India, Japan, and South Korea within the timeframe considered in this report. As discussed previously, with a few exceptions, most Asian countries have lax air pollution control laws. However, gasification is an intrinsically cleaner process than incineration, and as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, even in the highly regulated European market, gasification requires only a fraction of the emission control facilities needed for incinerators. As a result, the price differential between gasifiers installed in Asia and the rest of the world is less pronounced than for incinerators. Finally, as with incinerator projects, environmental awareness and activism are much less prominent in developing Asia, as compared to North America and Europe, and most projects are approved and installed quickly, without many of the extended permitting procedures required in North America and Europe. Due largely to a recent and perceived future global upswing in demand for WtE technologies, many companies that have prior experience in the gasification industry are beginning to enter re-enter the WtE gasification market (Foster Wheeler, GTI, Carbona, etc.). At the same time, newer startups, such as Ze-Gen, and waste managers, such as Sita, are also rapidly entering into the WtE gasification market. Thus, gasification is a unique WtE market, in that many companies with suitable technology, or technology that is easily amenable to waste feedstocks, have entered the market very rapidly, alongside a handful of startups and entrepreneurial firms. As a result, an extremely sharp increase in market size is indicated for 2010-2011. As shown in Figure 3-6 and Table 3-8, based on project announcements and installations that are currently in process, the global gasification market is expected to leap from less than $50 million, to approximately $620 million in a single year (CAGR of 1,190% over one year). Gasification markets during the 2006 through 2010 period included the installation of a single WtE gasification plant in Denmark in 2008. Various maintenance and upkeep requirements for existing WtE gasification plants from the 1980s and 1990s are also indicated for this period, and engineering, permitting, and early equipment orders for the Denmark plant and plant installations expected to commence in 2011 are also indicated for 2010. Market size during this period increased from essentially zero to $48 million, including technology installations and ancillaries.
March 2011
SBI Energy
90
Figure 3-6 Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
The 2011 through 2014 gasification market is expected to show moderate volatility during 2011-2013, with a temporary loss in value during 2012, down to $516 million. This situation is due primarily to the timing of announced project cycles, where several project starts are anticipated for 2011 and 2013, and fewer for 2012. In Europe, gasifier installations through 2013 are largely driven by compliance requirements for European Union member countries, which require landfilling reduction or payment of fines. Following 2014, the projected WtE gasification market is expected to stabilize into a more consistent growth pattern, with a growth rates again increasing in support of Europes 2020 waste management deadlines. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to increase from $620 million to $2.3 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 12.8%. From 2011 through 2021, approximately 85-90% of the gasification market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 10-15% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources.
91
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table 3-8 Global Market for Gasifiers and Gasifier Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 20112021 Projected ($ Millions)
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Gasifier $0 $1 $13 $3 $16 $206 $171 $253 Ancillaries $1 $3 $26 $7 $32 $415 $345 $511 Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Gasifier $321 $378 $408 $447 $502 $599 $696 $770 Ancillaries $647 $763 $824 $903 $1,014 $1,208 $1,405 $1,553
Figure 3-7 illustrates regional market breakdowns for historic 2006 gasifier markets, as well as projected 2011 and 2021 markets. During 2006, essentially all of the global market for gasifiers was accounted for by the European market; however, total market sizes were very small, representing primarily maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities. No Asian WtE gasification market was identified during this period. By the end of 2011, the Asian market will reach $533 million, driven primarily by rapid development in China. European and North American markets together will account for about one eighth of the total global gasification market. Europes market share is expected to increase to at least 25% of the total global market during 2012-2013, and the European market will grow at a faster rate than the Asian or North American markets during that time period. However, by 2021, Asia will still carry enough inertia to account for approximately 2/3 of the global gasification market. More specifically, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the North American WtE gasification market will (including ancillaries) will grow from $50 to $269 million (CAGR of 16.5%), the European market will grow from $37 to $491 million (CAGR of 26.5%), and the Asian market will grow from $533 million to $1.56 billion (CAGR of 10.2%).
March 2011
SBI Energy
92
Figure 3-7 Regional WtE Markets for Gasification: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Table 3-10 provides additional market breakdowns, by country, for major gasification markets within the North American, European, and Asian regions. As shown, in 2006, worldwide WtE gasification markets were essentially nil, with a small amount of activity in Germany and France. During 2011, new installations in the US market will drive new activity in North America, while the Chinese market will surpass the US market by nearly 10-fold. Gasification is also expected to emerge in India and Japan, with additional activity in the UK. Competing incineration technologies are well entrenched in mainland Europe, and gasification is expected to be less competitive therein. By 2021, China will continue to lead the global WtE gasification market, followed by India. Japan and the US are expected to carry roughly equivalent market shares, while most of the WtE market in mainland Europe will continue to be dominated by other technologies.
93
SBI Energy
March 2011
Table 3-9 Gasification Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Country Canada United States France Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom China India Japan South Korea 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2011 $17 $33 $5 $3 $1 $2 $13 $362 $43 $21 $0 2021 $92 $178 $59 $39 $34 $20 $98 $766 $281 $172 $62
Table 3-10 shows the 2006 through 2021 historic and projected increases in global waste capacity (daily tons) treated via gasification, as well as projected annual increases in global power generation capacity from gasifiers. As shown, incremental additional waste treatment capacity is projected to continue increasing through 2021, with the total mass of waste treated by new gasifiers in 2021 reaching 18,500 tons/day (note that this is equivalent to approximately 25% of the total projected global incinerator waste handling capacity added in 2021). This represents close to a 4- fold increase from 2011 to 2021. Annual incremental additions in power capacity are anticipated to reach 1,579 MW by 2021, up from 422 MW in 2011.
Table 3-10 Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Gasifier Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)
Category Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) Power Generation Capacity (MW) 2006 8 1 2011 4,951 422 2021 18,541 1,579
March 2011
SBI Energy
94
Global Market for Plasma Gasification As discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4, plasma gasification emerged only recently as a viable WtE technology. Plasma torches have been developing rapidly on a commercial scale since the 1980s. However, the use of plasma for the incineration of wastes is a relatively new application. Therefore, with only one commercial scale project installed during 2001-2010, there is essentially no historic commercial market for plasma gasification. Activity in the plasma gasification market over the last decade has instead centered on research and development activities by corporate and public interests, combined with limited commercial investment in initial planning and permitting for anticipated future plants. The market valuations for plasma gasification shown below include breakdowns for the plasma gasification technology itself, plus the balance of plant and other ancillaries, including emissions control systems, storage areas, buildings, feed/waste handling systems, power conveyance where applicable, and other ancillary systems and features. Plasma gasifiers require significantly reduced emissions control systems in comparison to incinerators, and therefore a reduced fraction of total plasma gasifier cost is tied up in the gasification technology, as compared to incinerators, where emission control systems are frequently more costly than the incinerator itself. For additional discussion regarding cost breakdowns for gasifiers and other WtE technologies, please refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Also shown are historic and projected regional market shares for North America, Europe, and Asia, and well as incremental annual increases in global plasma gasification capacity and power generation from waste gasification. Market sizes and valuations were evaluated based on the methods described previously in this chapter. Plasma gasifiers serve the same potential MSW market as incinerators, and can be considered a competing technology with incinerators and other thermal WtE installations. Therefore, regional drivers specific to plasma gasifiers are very similar to those discussed for incineration. The following text briefly reviews WtE trends as discussed for incinerators, with additional discussion of differentiators that are specific to plasma gasification. Like conventional gasification, but unlike incineration, plasma gasification can be used to produce energy from waste biomass, wood waste, and potentially other organic waste streams, as well as MSW. However, as discussed below, the anticipated market for plasma gasifiers will be primarily for treating MSW. Plasma gasifier markets for facilities that treat MSW are anticipated near large population centers, where sufficient capital and MSW feedstock are available to support the installation
95
SBI Energy
March 2011
of a major WtE facility. There is currently one commercial scale WtE gasifier located in North America. The facility, completed in 2009 by Plasco in Ottowa, Canada, treats approximately 75 tons per day of MSW, and cost an estimated $25 million to install. Current global proposals for plasma gasifiers focus strongly on MSW feedstocks, with at least two additional proposed facilities that would handle a combination of MSW and biomass or hazardous wastes. Both of these plants are slated for the United Kingdom, near Cambridge and Peterborough. Additional plants utilizing non-MSW feedstocks are anticipated in the North American market during 2014 and beyond, but most projected plasma gasifiers will utilize MSW as feedstock. Criticism from environmental groups opposed to plasma gasifiers in the North American market has been limited, due largely to the recent emergence of this technology. However, as more plasma gasifiers are proposed and move towards approval in the US, interest group opposition to plasma gasifiers is anticipated to be similar to that for other WtE technologies in the North American market. Similar to conventional gasifiers, many activists are already classifying plasma gasifiers as incinerators in disguise. However, levels of environmental activism vary considerably among communities, and some projects may be expected to move forward without challenge, while others may face ongoing opposition and even court challenge. Similar to markets for other WtE technologies, the European market for plasma gasification market is driven by an increasing demand for viable methods of waste management, alongside strong landfilling reduction requirements imposed under the European Union. Several individual European countries have also imposed their own requirements for landfilling reduction and/or increases in MSW recovery. European nations have also given strong regulatory support to energy production from waste biomass (non-MSW), as well as other waste streams, via carbon emissions targets, cap and trade systems, grant funding, and tax incentives, which are relevant to the small fraction of the European WtE plasma gasification market that caters to non-MSW feedstocks. Tax and municipal funding structures in many European countries are more easily amenable to public finance schemes as compared to the US, where tax assessments and community bond funding for large infrastructure can be difficult to implement successfully. Public opinion regarding plasma gasifiers is expected to mirror that for conventional gasifiers, with positive opinions across much of mainland Europe. Similarly, anti-gasifier sentiments in Great Britain also apply to plasma gasifiers. In the Asian market, installations of new WtE technologies are driven primarily by the need for additional waste treatment/waste handling capacity, but also by demand for reliable
March 2011
SBI Energy
96
electricity. Demand for plasma gasification is presently focused outside of the Asian market, with most projects anticipated in Europe and North America. However, this trend appears to more closely reflect a lack of marketing to the Asian market, rather than an actual lack of market demand companies involved in plasma gasification are primarily situated outside of the Asian market, and recent industry focus has been on North American and European markets. Over the next decade, plasma gasification technology suppliers will begin to seriously invest marketing effort in Asia.40 Asian countries that are undergoing rapid urbanization and industrialization, including India and especially China, are expected to drive rapid increases in the regional plasma gasification market. Additional plasma gasifier installation is anticipated in India, Japan, and possibly South Korea and Vietnam within the timeframe considered in this report. With a few exceptions, most Asian countries have lax air pollution control laws. However, plasma gasification is an intrinsically cleaner process than incineration. Even in the highly regulated European market, plasma gasification requires only a fraction of the emission control facilities needed for incinerators. As a result, the price differential between plasma gasifiers installed in Asia and the rest of the world is less pronounced than for incinerators, and is more closely aligned with conventional gasifiers. Finally, as for other thermal WtE projects, environmental awareness and activism are much less prominent in developing Asia, as compared to North America and Europe, and most projects are approved and installed quickly and without extended permitting requirements.
40
Plasco has already begun moving into the Asian market. In June 2010, the company established a joint venture with the China Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Group, in order to support production and installation of MSW plasma gasification in the Chinese market.
97
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 3-8 Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Plascos successful deployment of the plasma gasification technology in Ottawa is supporting significant near term demand for plasma gasifiers in the North American and European markets. Plascos facility, which is privately owned and operated, charges the same per-ton tipping fee as the citys landfill. This funding situation is viewed as very positive by many municipalities considering WtE during the current economic recovery period, most municipalities are wary to issue bonds or tax increases that would be needed to support a costly WtE facility. Due in part, at least initially, to Plascos demonstrated success with the Ottawa plant, 2011-2021 markets for plasma gasification are expected to rise rapidly (Figure 3-8, Table 3-11). Plasma gasification markets during the 2006 through 2010 period are defined by Plascos Ottawa facility in 2009, as well as engineering, permitting, and early equipment orders in support of anticipated 2011 plasma gasifier installations. Markets during this period shifted from research and development to initial commercial installations. Market size during this period increased from essentially zero to $126 million, including technology installations and ancillaries.
March 2011
SBI Energy
98
Projected markets for plasma gasification are expected to increase rapidly, especially through 2015 as technology suppliers expand into the Asian market. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to show strong growth, increasing from $334 million to $3.5 billion (CAGR of 23.9%). From 2011 through 2021, approximately 8085% of the gasification market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 1520% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources.
Table 3-11 Global Market for Plasma Gasifiers and Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 20112021 Projected ($ Millions)
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Plasma Gasifier $0.1 $0.3 $2 $9 $39 $104 $178 $279 Ancillaries $0.1 $0.7 $5 $21 $87 $230 $394 $620 Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Plasma Gasifier $462 $571 $663 $716 $795 $930 $1,027 $1,099 Ancillaries $1,024 $1,268 $1,472 $1,590 $1,765 $2,065 $2,280 $2,440
Figure 3-9 illustrates regional market breakdowns for historic 2006 plasma gasification markets, as well as projected 2011 and 2021 markets. During 2006, the plasma gasification market was characterized by research and development and associated activities. As a result, market sizes are characteristically small, and limited to North America and Europe. No activity in the Asian market for plasma gasification was identified during this period. By the end of 2011, the North American market will reach $180 million and the European market $125 million, driven by ongoing demand for WtE technologies combined with somewhat lower stigma surrounding a plasma gasification (a new and proven technology) as compared to incineration (commonly perceived in the US and United Kingdom as dirty polluters and health hazards). Significant entry into the Asian market will occur following 2011, and by 2021, Asia will account for approximately 42% of the global plasma gasification market. Significant continued growth for the European and North American markets are also indicated through 2021. More specifically, the North American plasma gasification market will (including
99
SBI Energy
March 2011
ancillaries) will grow from $180 to $924 million (CAGR of 16.0%), the European market will grow from $125 million to $1.1 billion (CAGR of 22.3%), and the Asian market will grow from $29 million to $1.5 billion (CAGR of 42.9%).
Figure 3-9 Regional WtE Markets for Plasma Gasification: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Table 3-12 provides additional market breakdowns, by country, for major plasma gasification markets within the North American, European, and Asian regions. As shown, in 2006, worldwide WtE plasma gasification markets were essentially zero, with a small amount of research activity in Canada and Europe. During 2011, several new installations in the US market will drive new activity in North America, while the UK and Chinese markets will emerge as regional leaders. By 2021, plasma gasification will have more significantly spread into Asia, with China as the leading global market, at over $800 million. The US market is projected to remain strong through 2021, at nearly $750 million. The UK is still projected to lead Europe in plasma gasification market volume through 2021.
March 2011
SBI Energy
100
Table 3-12 Plasma Gasification Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Country Canada United States France Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom China India Japan South Korea 2006 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2011 $29 $152 $10 $8 $4 $9 $66 $26 $1 $0 $0 2021 $176 $748 $91 $160 $80 $80 $205 $811 $251 $89 $30
Table 3-13 shows the 2006 through 2021 historic and projected increases in global waste capacity (daily tons) treated via plasma gasification, as well as projected annual increases in global power generation capacity from plasma gasifiers. As shown, incremental additional waste treatment capacity is projected to continue increasing through 2021, with the total mass of waste treated by new plasma gasifiers in 2021 reaching almost 10,000 tons/day. This represents an almost 9-fold increase from 2011 to 2021. Annual incremental additions in power capacity are anticipated to reach 534 MW by 2021, up from 41 MW in 2011.
Table 3-13 Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Plasma Gasifier Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)
Category Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) Power Generation Capacity (MW)
2006 1 -
2011 1,120 41
2021 9,752 534
Global Market for Pyrolysis The market valuations for pyrolysis shown below include breakdowns for the pyrolysis technology itself, plus the balance of plant and other ancillaries, including emissions control
101
SBI Energy
March 2011
systems, storage areas, buildings, feed/waste handling systems, power conveyance where applicable, and other ancillary systems and features. Like gasification and plasma gasification, pyrolysis requires significantly reduced emissions control systems in comparison to incinerators, and therefore a reduced fraction of total pyrolysis facility cost is tied up in the pyrolysis technology, as compared to incinerators. For additional discussion regarding cost breakdowns for pyrolysis and other WtE technologies, please refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Also shown are historic and projected regional market shares for North America, Europe, and Asia, and well as incremental annual increases in global waste treatment capacity and energy production from pyrolysis. Market sizes and valuations were evaluated based on the methods described previously in this chapter. In comparison to other thermal WtE technologies, pyrolysis serves the same potential MSW market, and can be considered a competing technology. However, pyrolysis is also applicable to other feedstocks, including refinery waste, waste plastic, wood waste, and various other waste streams. Gasification and plasma gasification can also be employed with these additional feedstocks. However, incineration is typically limited to the MSW and hospital waste industries. Regional drivers specific to pyrolysis are similar to those discussed for the other thermal WtE technologies considered in this report. Local pyrolysis markets for facilities that treat MSW are anticipated near large population centers, where sufficient capital and MSW feedstock are available to support the installation of a major thermal WtE facility. For feedstocks other than MSW, announced projects and anticipated future potential projects are expected to be located in areas where sufficient feedstock is available, for instance in regional waste handling or disposal facilities, or in close proximity to waste generators. In general, the most successful project starts will be in locations where multiple potential sources of feedstock are located in close proximity to the proposed plant. Criticism from environmental groups opposed to incinerators in the North American market has leaked over onto pyrolysis projects, and some anti-incinerator groups have grouped pyrolysis plants, along with other thermal WtE facilities, into the category of incinerators in disguise. However, levels of environmental activism vary considerably among communities, and some projects may be expected to move forward without challenge, while others may face ongoing opposition and even court challenge. The European market for pyrolysis of MSW is driven by an increasing demand for viable methods of waste management, alongside strong landfilling reduction requirements imposed
March 2011
SBI Energy
102
under the European Union and at the national or sub-national level. European nations have also given strong regulatory support to energy production from waste biomass (non-MSW), as well as other waste streams, via carbon emissions targets, cap and trade systems, grant funding, and tax incentives, which are relevant to pyrolysis projects that utilize non-MSW feedstocks. Tax and municipal funding structures in many European countries are more easily amenable to public finance schemes as compared to the US, where tax assessments and community bond funding for large infrastructure can be difficult to implement successfully, especially in a down or recovering economy. Public opinion regarding pyrolysis is expected to mirror that for other thermal WtE technologies, with positive opinions across much of mainland Europe. Similarly, anti-incinerator/gasifier sentiments in Great Britain also apply to pyrolysis plants. Pyrolysis is just beginning to enter the Asian market, and is expected to do so in greater force following 2011, and especially by 2014. Here, installations of new WtE technologies are driven by the need for additional waste treatment/waste handling capacity and by demand for reliable electricity. Demand for pyrolysis in particular is expected to rise rapidly, as primarily western pyrolysis technology suppliers partner and otherwise enter into China and other developing Asian markets. Asian countries that are undergoing rapid urbanization and industrialization, including India and especially China, are expected to drive increases in the pyrolysis gasification market. Additional plasma gasifier installation is anticipated in India, and possibly also Japan, Vietnam, and Singapore within the timeframe considered in this report. With a few exceptions, most Asian countries have lax air pollution control laws. However, pyrolysis is an intrinsically cleaner process than incineration, and requires significantly reduced emission control systems, as compared to incineration. Some pyrolysis industry representatives claim that pyrolysis produces lower airborne emissions than gasification and plasma gasification, however, quality data to substantiate this claim were not identified by the analyst for this report. Regardless, pyrolysis requires only a fraction of the emission control facilities needed for incinerators, and the price differential between pyrolysis plants installed in Asia and the rest of the world is likely to be similar to that for gasifiers and plasma gasifiers. Finally, as for other thermal WtE projects, environmental awareness and activism are much less prominent in developing Asia, as compared to North America and Europe, and most projects are approved and installed quickly and without extended permitting requirements.
103
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 3-10 Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Figure 3-10, Table 3-14 show the global historic and estimated pyrolysis market for 2006 through 2021. The global pyrolysis market for the 2006 through 2010 period includes new project installations around the globe, notably within Canada, the UK, Eastern Europe, and Canada. Feedstocks include MSW and non-MSW wastes, including waste tires. Several additional plants utilizing pyrolysis technology for the generation of biofuels from dedicated biomass crops were installed globally during this period. However, the present analysis focuses only on pyrolysis plants installed explicitly within the WtE sector. As shown, the global economic turndown substantially affected continued growth in global pyrolysis projects, resulting in project stalls especially in North American and European markets. As a result, net market contraction is indicated for 2009 and 2010. Overall, global markets during this period lost $40 to $50 million due to the economic turndown, resulting in a CAGR of 4.3%. Based on announced projects, near term future markets for WtE pyrolysis are expected to rebound rapidly in 2011, with marked additional growth in 2012 and 2013. Gains across global markets are anticipated, with the highest rates of increase indicated for Asia (India and to a lesser extent, China) and North America. European markets are expected to exceed 2006 levels by 2014. Longer term projections through 2021 indicate continued growth in the global
March 2011
SBI Energy
104
pyrolysis market, with a slight increase in growth rate from 2018 through 2021, as the final phase of European waste management regulations take effect, and additional growth in the global demand for alternative fuels (including waste derived fuels) impacts the global pyrolysis market. Overall, during the 2011 through 2021 period, the WtE gasification market is expected to show strong growth, increasing from $355 million in 2011 to nearly $2.8 billion in 2021 (CAGR of 20.5%). From 2011 through 2021, approximately 45-65% of the gasification market is expected to be in the MSW sector, while the remaining 35-55% of projected gasification installations will rely on other waste biomass sources, including waste tires, wood wastes, and other biomass wastes.
Table 3-14 Global Market for Pyrolysis and Pyrolysis Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Pyrolysis Train $83 $97 $102 $69 $67 $122 $272 $447 Ancillaries $159 $185 $196 $132 $129 $233 $521 $855 Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Pyrolysis Train $487 $542 $588 $635 $705 $790 $872 $946 Ancillaries $932 $1,037 $1,125 $1,215 $1,349 $1,511 $1,667 $1,809
Figure 3-11 illustrates regional market breakdowns for historic 2006 pyrolysis markets, as well as projected 2011 and 2021 markets. During 2006, Europe led the pyrolysis market, with additional installations, including demonstrations, in Canada and Asia. By 2011, pyrolysis markets will have expanded into the MSW industry, driving strong growth in the US market, while additional pyrolysis capacity for the treatment of MSW, refinery wastes, and waste plastics is anticipated in Asia. All regional markets will show growth through 2021. However, growth in mainland Europe is in support of MSW treatment is expected to favor incineration and gasification/plasma gasification over pyrolysis, based on strong competition indicated for those markets. Market saturation is not expected to meaningfully influence the North American or Asian markets through the end of the timeframe considered in this report.
105
SBI Energy
March 2011
Overall, during 2011 through 2021, the North American pyrolysis market (including ancillaries) will grow from $175 million to $1.0 billion (CAGR of 17.7%), the European market will grow from $58 million to $353 million (CAGR of 17.8%), and the Asian market will grow from $121 million to $1.4 billion (CAGR of 24.6%).
Figure 3-11 Regional WtE Markets for Pyrolysis: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Table 3-19 provides additional market breakdowns, by country, for major pyrolysis markets within the North American, European, and Asian regions. As shown, in 2006, worldwide WtE pyrolysis markets were led by Canada, Italy, and China. During 2011, new installations in the US market will drive new activity in North America with the US as the global market leader for pyrolysis. The UK and Chinese markets will emerge as regional leaders. By 2021, the US will remain the global leader in the pyrolysis market, at $670 million. By that time, pyrolysis will have more significantly spread into Asia, with India as the leading global market, at nearly $600 million.
March 2011
SBI Energy
106
Table 3-15 Pyrolysis Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Country Canada United States France Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom China India Japan South Korea 2006 $36 $18 $18 $16 $23 $10 $10 $24 $7 $6 $0 2011 $53 $122 $5 $4 $2 $4 $31 $24 $64 $5 $2 2021 $377 $670 $42 $35 $32 $35 $63 $271 $597 $81 $68
Table 3-16 shows the 2006 through 2021 historic and projected increases in global waste capacity (daily tons) treated via pyrolysis, as well as projected annual increases in global power generation capacity from pyrolysis. As shown, incremental additional waste treatment capacity is projected to continue increasing through 2021, with the total mass of waste treated by new pyrolysis plants in 2021 surpassing 6,000 tons/day by 2021. Annual incremental additions in power capacity are anticipated to reach 86 MW by 2021, up from 15 MW in 2011. Pyrolysis fuels production is expected to increase approximately 10-fold over this same period.
Table 3-16 Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Pyrolysis Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)
Category Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) Power Generation Capacity (MW)
2006 353 4.5
2011 709 15
2021 6,034 86
107
SBI Energy
March 2011
Global Market for Anaerobic Digestion Two classes of anaerobic digesters were considered in the market valuations that follow: anaerobic digesters utilizing MSW as feedstock, and those utilizing other wastes including animal husbandry wastes (primarily dairy and swine) and food/food processing wastes. Anaerobic digestion facilities installed to treat municipal wastewater are not considered within the scope of this market analysis. The market valuations for anaerobic digestion shown below include breakdowns for the anaerobic digester technology itself, plus the balance of plant and other ancillaries, including feedstock handling systems, storage areas, buildings, waste handling systems, power conveyance where applicable, and other ancillary systems and features. Market sizes and valuations were evaluated based on the methods described previously in this chapter. Emission control systems for anaerobic digestion are incorporated into plant design, including prevention of methane/biogas leaks, and emission controls for the methane combustion system. Thus, additional emission control systems are not generally required, and ancillary cost requirements are consequently lower for anaerobic digestion than for all other WtE technologies considered in this report. For additional discussion regarding cost breakdowns for anaerobic digestion and other WtE technologies, please refer to Chapter 4 of this report. Anaerobic digestion competes, in part, with thermal WtE technologies, especially where it is applied to MSW feedstocks. When applied at MSW facilities, an anaerobic digester is usually employed along with other materials recovery facilities (MBT, described in Chapter 2, is a good example), in order to remove wastes that are not compatible with the digester. Remaining organic waste suitable for digestion is then passed along to the anaerobic digester for biogas and typically power generation. Like pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion is also commonly applied to an array of non-MSW waste feedstocks, and a significant market for anaerobic digestion is available outside of the MSW industry. The total global market for biomass facilities is difficult to measure. Especially in developing nations, biogas is generated down to the household level from animal and human wastes, with the resulting fuel used to supply stoves, lights, and other household functions. Most of these digesters have highly simplified construction they are cement or brick structures that are crafted without extensive engineering design or reliance on purchased products. In China alone, there are estimated to be over 5 million such digesters, and the government is planning
March 2011
SBI Energy
108
to implement another 80 million household digesters by 2020.41 Similarly, there are approximately 4.2 million household digesters in India, with an estimated potential of at least 8 million additional household digesters.42 However, gas from these digesters is not typically used to generate electricity, and they are constructed without purchase of anaerobic digestion facilities, as defined in this report. Therefore, existing installations and anticipated growth in the household digester market is not considered in this study. Regional drivers for anaerobic digestion of MSW include those discussed previously for thermal WtE technologies that utilize MSW feedstock. However, anaerobic digester market volumes also depend on trends in waste management for animal husbandry operations. For example, in all three of the regional markets considered in this report, the release of animal wastes into surface water generates environmentally damaging increases in nutrient and pathogen levels, leading to elevated levels of downstream water pollution and nitrification. Many governments, including national and regional governments, strongly support the use of anaerobic digestion for the treatment of animal wastes, in order to reduce water quality pollution. For example, the Chinese government plans to install 10,000 regional anaerobic digester facilities by 2020, in order to reduce water pollution emissions and provide additional sources of renewable power and methane gas.43 Similarly, Californias State Water Resources Control Board recently passed a programmatic environmental impact report for dairy digesters, in order to support their more widespread implementation in that state. CalRecycle, another California state agency, is also moving forward with a similar effort but for anaerobic digestion facilities in general, in order to streamline permitting efforts for such facilities across the state. In Europe, nearly 5,000 digesters are currently operating. The vast majority of these are onfarm digesters serving dairy and swine operations. Germany leads Europe in terms of the number of installed digesters, with approximately 4,000 on-farm digesters as of 2010. Unlike household digesters that are implemented widely throughout Asia, on-farm digesters in Europe and North America include purchased and/or engineered facilities designed to maximize biomass production and minimize waste emissions.
41
China Daily, 2010. Animal Waste a Threat to Clean Water Supply. Available at: http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2010-07/15/content_20500522.htm Accessed on February 7, 2011. 42 Kishore and Pant, 2009. Anaerobic Digesters in India. Available at: http://www.globalmethane.org/expo/docs/postexpo/ag_kishore.pdf Accessed on February 7, 2011. 43 China Daily, 2010.
109
SBI Energy
March 2011
Because anaerobic digesters do not result in the combustion or thermal breakdown of feedstock (as do thermal WtE technologies), anaerobic digesters also do not result in the generation of dioxins and other toxic combustion by-products, which are produced by incinerators and other thermal WtE technologies. Interestingly, this property drives support for anaerobic digesters across most environmental interest groups (including the same groups that often fight thermal WtE installations). This trend is applicable in Europe and North America.
Figure 3-12 Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digester Ancillaries: 2006 2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Figure 3-12 and Table 3-17 show the global historic and estimated future anaerobic digester market for 2006 through 2021. The global market for the 2006 through 2010 period includes new project installations globally, with about half of total installations occurring in Asia, most of the remaining installations in Europe, and a handful of additional new installations in North America. Roughly two thirds of the anaerobic digester facilities installed during this time period were meant to treat on-farm wastes and other non-MSW wastes. MSW anaerobic digestion represented a little less than a third of all global WtE projects within the scope of this study. As shown, the global economic turndown had a noticeable effect on global WtE markets, and many large and small projects have been delayed due to lack of sufficient
March 2011
SBI Energy
110
funding. Overall, from 2006 to 2011, the global anaerobic digester market for WtE increased from approximately $1.47 to 1.62 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 3.25%. During and following the recovery period from the global economic turndown, global anaerobic digester markets are expected to show solid growth, for 2011 through 2021. This trend will be driven by continued growth in all markets, including, notably, proliferation of engineered mid- to large-size anaerobic digesters, which will be installed in China, India, and other developing Asian markets. Overall, the 2011 through 2021 market will increase from $1.62 to $4.74 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 10.3%.
Table 3-17 Global Market for Anaerobic Digesters and Anaerobic Digesters Plant Ancillaries: 2006-2010 Historic and 2011-2021 Projected ($ Millions)
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Anaerobic Digester $1,176 $1,298 $1,380 $1,334 $1,268 $1,293 $1,415 $1,570 Ancillaries $297 $328 $349 $337 $320 $327 $357 $396 Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Anaerobic Digester $1,784 $2,031 $2,283 $2,522 $2,808 $3,159 $3,506 $3,786 Ancillaries $451 $513 $577 $637 $709 $798 $885 $956
Figure 3-13 illustrates regional market breakdowns for historic 2006 anaerobic digester markets, as well as projected 2011 and 2021 markets. During 2006, Asia led the anaerobic digestion market, with moderate to large scale new installations led by China and India, with additional installations occurring in other Asian countries. By 2011, North American anaerobic digester markets will have expanded, including new projects within the MSW industry. By 2021, rapid development in China, and continued development in India and other developing Asian nations will drive a slight expansion in the portion of the total world market that is located in Asia. Overall, during 2011 through 2021, the North American anaerobic digestion market (including ancillaries) will grow from $195 to $845 million (CAGR of 14.3%), the European market will grow from $683 million to $1.4 billion (CAGR of 7.1%), and the Asian market will grow from $741 million to $2.4 billion (CAGR of 11.5%). Table 3-19 shows the 2006 through 2021 historic and projected increases in global
111
SBI Energy
March 2011
waste capacity (daily tons) treated via anaerobic digestion, as well as projected annual increases in global power generation capacity from anaerobic digestion. As shown, incremental additional waste treatment capacity is projected to continue increasing through 2021, with the total mass of MSW treated by new anaerobic digester surpassing 5,500 tons during that year. Animal waste and other wet feedstocks are expected to reach annual increases in installed capacity of over 600,000 tone per year by 2021 (note that these feedstocks have high water content, and therefore very low heating values on a per ton basis). Finally, power generation capacity is expected to reach 914 MW by 2021, up from 312 MW in 2011.
Figure 3-13 Regional WtE Markets for Anaerobic Digesters: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Table 3-18 provides additional market breakdowns, by country, for major anaerobic digester markets within the North American, European, and Asian regions. As shown, in 2006, worldwide WtE pyrolysis markets were led by Germany, China, and India. During 2011, China is projected to be the global leader in new anaerobic digestion installations, followed by India, Germany, and the US. In 2021, India will greatly surpass China in terms of market volume for anaerobic digesters, reaching $1 billion per year. The German market will show signs of saturation, while other European countries will step in in greater force, including the UK and Italy.
March 2011
SBI Energy
112
Table 3-18 Anaerobic Digester Market Data and Projections, Major Countries: 2006 (Historic), 2011 (Projected), and 2021 (Projected) ($ Millions)
Country Canada United States France Germany Italy Switzerland United Kingdom China India Japan South Korea 2006 $10 $44 $88 $128 $27 $61 $95 $179 $134 $30 $67 2011 $53 $142 $75 $143 $27 $68 $109 $208 $191 $15 $52 2021 $256 $598 $116 $101 $188 $116 $246 $562 $1001 $147 $122
Table 3-19 Annual Historic and Projected Global Increases in Anaerobic Digesters Waste Capacity (Daily Tons) and Power Generation Capacity (MW)
Category MSW Capacity (Daily Tons) Animal and Other Waste Feedstocks Power Generation Capacity (MW) 2006 1,730 191,662 284 2011 1,901 210,674 312 2021 5,567 616,866 914
Summary
This chapter evaluates global WtE markets for incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. Market sizes are assessed based on identified projects and several key additional market valuation factors. These include feedstock availability and trends, GHG emissions reduction targets and strategies, demand for alternative energy, costs and fees for WtE facilities, public acceptance of WtE, and other technology and regionspecific drivers. Seemingly diverse factors have contributed to historic and contemporary WtE market intertia, including generally increasing demand for MSW management and
113
SBI Energy
March 2011
reduction, growth in non-landfilling waste management schemes, growth in biomass availability especially from animal husbandry and food wastes, environmental and social concerns surrounding waste management, and global demand for alternative energy.
Figure 3-14 shows the total global market values for the five WtE technologies considered in this report. During the 2006 through 2010 historic period, the global WtE market increased from $4.8 to $7.1 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 8.0%. During 2011 through 2021, projected global WtE markets will increase from $8.5 to $27.2 billion, equivalent to a CAGR of 11.2%. Figure 3-15 compares annual historic and projected market values for the five WtE technologies on a percentage basis, in comparison to the total global WtE market. As shown, during the 2006 through 2010 historic period, approximately 95% of the global WtE market was accounted for by only two technologies: incineration and anaerobic digestion. However, pyrolysis, plasma gasification, and gasification are expected to gain relative market share starting in 2011, and together will comprise over 30% of the total WtE market by 2015. By 2021, incineration will still hold the largest global market share for WtE technologies, at approximately 51% of total market share, followed by anaerobic digestion including MSW
March 2011
SBI Energy
114
and non-MSW feedstocks at approximately 17% of total market share, and followed in turn by plasma gasification (approximately 13%), pyrolysis (approximately 10%), and gasification (approximately 9%).
Figure 3-15 Percentage of Global Market Shares for WtE Technologies; Historic (2006-2010) and Projected (2011-2021)
115
SBI Energy
March 2011
Chapter 4
Waste to Energy Technologies Market and Product Trends
Scope
This chapter provides overviews of product trends and pricing for WtE installations, including incinerators, gasifiers, plasma gasifiers, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion. Cost trends for each of these technologies are considered. Next, key industry issues and trends are reviewed, including the importance of feedstock sourcing, supply, and availability; new product developments including refinement of existing technologies and scaling modifications to existing WtE technologies; and public relations, environmental, and permitting concerns. Finally, the chapter examines the process towards WtE facility ownership, including public and private ownership models, along with project development and financing tools. Development and financing tools that are usually relevant to WtE installations include venture capital, equities, grant funding, government loans, government incentives, public funding, project based revenues, cash on hand, private debt (bank or creditor) financing. Commonly, a single WtE installation project is funded via mixed funding sources, which may comprise several development and financing tools, in order to meet the total needed levels of investment for a given project.
WtE Product Pricing

Cost for installation of an individual WtE facility is driven by a number of factors that are related to materials and labor costs for installation of the facility. These include costs for: Raw materials such as steel, concrete, and copper wire Fabricated/pre-manufactured products such as electric motors, conveyors, and pipes Engineering/design for the plant and direct WtE process Engineering/design for supporting facilities such as buildings and storage areas Skilled and unskilled labor costs for project construction
117
SBI Energy
March 2011
Other costs that are incurred during the procurement and construction process may include, depending on the region in which the project is constructed and the level of public interest/scrutiny in the project, environmental consultants, legal advisors, financial advisors, and various project management and other advisory consultants. The purpose of this subsection is to provide a review and comparison of costs and cost trends, as relevant in particular to the bulleted items above. Other cost items, such consulting and legal teams, typically incur only a few percent of total cost for a given project, and therefore will not be considered in terms of project expenses. Public, environmental, and permitting concerns can, however, significantly slow or even halt implementation of a WtE project, and these issues are discussed under the Industry Trends subsection, below. Global Economic Factors Influencing WtE Project Costs Over the last five years, macroeconomic trends including the recent global economic turndown have influenced total procurement and installation costs for WtE projects. Global economic growth in 2004-2007 led to increased worldwide demand for raw materials and basic equipment, such as metals, electric motors and pumps, piping, steam turbines, and other basic materials and components needed for the construction of a WtE facility. Increasing global oil demand through 2008 also raised demand for the expansion of oil refining capacities, which heightened demand for turbomachinery and emissions control equipment integral to WtE systems.44 The comprehensive rise in global energy demand through both fossil fuels and electrical power was estimated in 2008 to have raised the cost of energy production and petrochemical facility projects by 30-50%.45 As illustrated repeatedly by the competitive profiles provided for manufacturers in Chapter 6 of this report, the global economic turndown has destabilized power and waste management profitability. Sharp declines in available credit, both private and municipal, combined with reductions in equity and venture capital, drove down new WtE orders as early as 2008.46 By 2009, once order backlog had been expended, profit margins for WtE companies across the
Study of Equipment Prices in the Power Sector, Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), 2008, www.esmap.org 45 Power Plants, Materials Prices Rise Due to Elevated Energy Demand (Press Release), Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), July 16, 2008, www.esmap.org 46 IHS CERA: Power Plant Construction Costs Continue to Fall, but Decline is Limited (Press Release), Information Handling Services (IHS), December 19, 2009, www.ihs.com
44
March 2011
SBI Energy
118
board declined sharply. Combined with cost reductions in basic and manufactured goods over the same period, these trends led to a limited destabilization of WtE project pricing. Decline in the prices for power sector equipment has been tempered through many manufacturers substantial order backlogs and the initial signs of market recovery in late 2010 and into 2011. Available indices showed an overall decline of only 2-5% among power sector manufacturer prices through 2009.47 WtE projects that are nearing the installation phase are currently in a position to benefit by securing lower order prices in the near term, while global materials and equipment prices remain depressed. However, as global markets for fuels, energy, raw materials, manufactured goods, and labor continue to rebound through 2011 and into 2012, WtE project prices are also expected to rebound. WtE project sponsors able to break ground in the next one to two years will see cost reductions of up to about 15% as compared to 2006-2007. However, in the absence of longer term fixed cost supply contracts, SBI Energy estimates that WtE facility prices will rebound fully in the coming two to three years. Regional and Cost Considerations A single WtE facility combines many types of materials into a single installation. These include raw and fabricated materials such as cement, steel, rebar, building materials, asphalt, and wiring, which are needed for site specific construction requirements. WtE facility construction also requires various pre-manufactured components such as electric motors, pumps, fuel/chemical storage tanks, and conveyor belts. Finally, at the heart of a WtE facility is specialized and technology-specific equipment, such as gasifiers, combustion/reaction chambers, plasma torches, digesters, emission control systems, and turbomachinery. Costs for each of these three categories (basic materials, manufactured components, and specialty equipment) of WtE components are driven by different global market factors. Basic materials needed for a WtE plant include commodities and commodity-like substances. Basic materials that are openly traded on commodity markets, such as copper, steel, and oil/asphalt, are closely tied to global commodity markets. These materials are subject to variability, but that variability is essentially consistent across all WtE global markets. However, basic building materials that are exclusively or primarily locally sourced, such as cement, rock aggregate, and wood, maintain regional variability in cost. For example, during August of 2009, regional cement prices inside of China ranged from $38.88 (258 CNY)/ton
47
Ibid.
119
SBI Energy
March 2011
in Guangdong, to $128.08 (850 CNY)/ton in Tibet.48 Meanwhile the Engineering NewsRecord (ENR) published price for cement in the US was $88.76/ton, during the same period.49 Such variability is common in regionally sourced materials, which may or may not follow global commodity-type trading rates. Of course, the regional variability in cost of such materials can greatly impact WtE project cost. Most typically (not always), such goods are less expensive in developing nations, which helps to drive down project costs in regions such as Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. Non-specialty pre-manufactured equipment, such as motors, conveyors, pumps, and the like, is more easily transported over long distances, in comparison to bulk building materials. A single manufacturer may maintain global distribution, and it is not uncommon for a WtE facility to source such equipment from distant global suppliers. Product quality is of concern, and procurement officers or contractors often carefully select such equipment, using suppliers that meet specific quality standards. Existing relationships are also important in selecting premanufactured equipment. For instance, a company that runs procurement for several WtE plants will often establish ongoing business with a handful of trusted providers, and then tends to rely on those same providers for future projects. Regional cost variation does occur for pre-manufactured equipment, because raw materials costs and labor costs are often region-dependent. However, because products from most major manufacturers are widely available in most regions, many manufacturers compete globally, and regional cost variability is often less extreme for pre-manufactured goods than it is for near-sourced basic building materials. Thus, purchase location for pre-manufactured equipment does affect regional costs for a WtE installation, but the effect is often less pronounced than regional differences in basic, near-sourced materials. Specialty equipment required for WtE installations, as an incinerator combustion chamber, pyrolyzer, cooling system, plasma torches, steam turbine, and emission controls systems, must be ordered from specialty suppliers. Most specialty equipment requires significant investment in research and development, and most specialty system designs are patented or otherwise protected under intellectual property agreements. Protected designs are manufactured by a limited number of companies, many of which have a global distribution.
CementChina.net, 2009. China Cement Price Weekly Report (Aug. 24-28). Available at: http://www.cementchina.net/news/shownews.asp?id=6080 Accessed January 10, 2010. 49 Engineering News-Record, 2010. Cement Cost Adjustment Datasheet, 2009 Monthly Cement Index. Available at: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dconstruction/cement_hist.pdf Accessed on January 10, 2010.
48
March 2011
SBI Energy
120
Thus it would be reasonably common for a project sponsor located in Southeast Asia to purchase an incinerator from Takuma Co (see Chapter 6 for a profile). It would also be reasonable for a US, Canadian, or European incinerator project sponsor to also purchase equipment from Takuma Co, and at a similar price. Thus, specialized WtE equipment, which is typically of limited supply from specialized manufacturers, maintains more consistent regional pricing, as compared to non-specialty manufactured goods and basic materials. Labor rates for construction, manufacturing, skilled engineering, and other required functions also vary among regional markets. For instance, as shown in Figure 4-1, hourly industrial worker compensation rates in East Asia (except Japan) were less than half of US compensation rates from 1998 through 2008. These differences translate into cheaper installation costs for projects in East Asia and other developing areas (Central America, South America, Africa), due to lower construction, installation, consultation, and physical labor costs in developing regions. Although not shown on Figure 4-1, the cost of labor receded in most markets through 20092010, and are just beginning to show hints of limited rebound, in some markets. However, due to continued development in Southeast Asia, the labor cost disparity between developed nations and China in particular is closing.50 As a result, characteristically lower WtE costs in the large Chinese market are expected to rise as China develops its infrastructure over the next decade. Cost parity with other developed nations is improbable by 2020; however, the cost gap between WtE facilities installed in China and developed countries is expected to close rather than widen or stabilize. Waste energy content may also vary regionally within a single feedstock type. MSW provides a classic example. MSW generated in many Chinese cities is characteristic of many developing nations, with a food waste content of around 50%, combined with smaller amounts of paper and other recyclable materials (due in large part to informal recycling/picking done prior to trash collection). Contents of paper and metals are very low due to high recycling rates.51 For comparison, wood and yard trimmings constitute the largest
For example, refer to The Economist, 2010. The end of cheap Chinese labour? July 18th, 2010. Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/china Accessed on January 10, 2010. 51 Cheng, H., Zhang, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q., 2007. Municipal Solid waste Fueled Power Generation in China: A Case Study of Waste-to-Energy in Changchun City. Environmental Science and Technology 41(21):7509-7515. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es071416g Accessed on January 10, 2011.
50
121
SBI Energy
March 2011
component of MSW in the US (47%), followed by paper (34%). Chinese MSW also has a high moisture content, around 50%, compared to US and European moisture rates, that range from about 20-30%.52
Figure 4-1 Worker Labor Compensation Rates, 1998-2008 (US$)
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010. International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 1996-2008. Available at http://www.bls.gov/fls/#compensation Accessed on January 10, 2010.
Therefore, with low heating values of around 3,000-6,700 kJ/kg, the extractable heat for energy production is more limited in developing nations such as China.53 This situation produces various design challenges that must be overcome, and can impede power production values for a given waste stream. It also affects technology costs, when those costs are reported in terms of per kW capacity, and the type of WtE technology that can be used for waste to energy conversion, or at very least the amount of energy required for conversion. For example, a feedstock with 50% water content could be treated in an incinerator, but at lower efficiency, because water would need to be removed or burned off in the incinerator to enable complete combustion. Lower efficiency facilities result in reduced power production per ton of waste treated. As an apparent means of compensating for low heating values, several of the proposed Chinese incinerators are expected to cofire coal as a supplemental fuel, in order to provide additional heat to fuel waste combustion and electricity generation. As an alternative
52 53
Ibid. Ibid.
March 2011
SBI Energy
122
to cofiring, WtE technologies that are amenable to high water content feedstocks (such as digestion and some plasma gasifiers) may be more applicable in such developing regions. Together, variability in materials/equipment, labor costs, and feedstock characteristics culminate in regional cost differences for all of the WtE technologies considered in this report. For instance, most proposed WtE installations in Southeast Asia over the next three years will incur total project costs that are at least 20% less than similar projects located in Europe or North America.54 Technology Specific Costs and Cost Factors The following text reviews costs for specific WtE technologies considered in this report, including WtE technology costs, as well as the costs of required ancillaries, including balance of plant, land costs, transmission facilities, and other required facilities. The following text differentiates costs for specific WtE technologies such as gasification or incineration, from costs for the balance of the plant (including as relevant emission controls, air separation units, cooling systems, etc.), transmission lines, feedstock handling facilities, and other required systems. For the purposes of this analysis, these latter systems are grouped together as ancillary facilities, as distinct from the base WtE technology, which is the primary subject of this report. Incinerators With thousands of incinerators installed globally, and hundreds of energy producing incinerators (e.g., incinerators that can be considered WtE technologies, as compared to incinerators that do not produce any electric power), incinerators are considered mature WtE technologies. As a result, capital costs for the basic incinerator technology that is, the incinerator itself are relatively predictable, at around $1,500-2,200/kW installed capacity (Figure 4-2). The level of variability included in this cost range is due largely to differences in feedstock characteristics, which have variable energy contents, and some of which can require additional equipment in order to handle adequately. Price variability is also a function of the selected technology manufacturer, where prices may vary regionally or temporally based on market conditions.
54
This conclusion is based on aggregated project cost data collected by SBI Energy in support of the analysis contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.
123
SBI Energy
March 2011
As discussed in Chapter 2, incinerators combust incoming feedstock in the presence of oxygen, generating high levels of dioxins and other potential air quality pollutants. These pollutants must then be scrubbed out using an array of costly air quality emissions control equipment, the procurement of which can run from about 25%-50% of the total incinerator cost.55 Therefore, the balance of plant cost of an incinerator can vary significantly, based on the level of emission controls that are included in the design of the plant. Typically, emission control requirements at a project site are driven by government regulation. Incinerators proposed for the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, or other countries with strict air emissions regulations require more emission control equipment than developing nations, and those nations with more lax environmental requirements. Emission control requirements alone can amount to a 20% or greater cost differential between similar incinerators proposed, for instance, in Europe versus China/Southeast Asia. Incinerator cost expressed per kW or per ton of waste handled can also be reduced via economies of scale. Larger capacity incinerators usually have lower per kW and per ton of waste costs than smaller capacity incinerators, where the latter almost always trend towards the upward end of the incinerator price range. Incinerator costs also vary based on regional and temporal differences in materials costs, labor, and feedstock characteristics, as discussed for the previous subsection, Regional and Cost Considerations. Incinerators are mature technologies that have been widely implemented. Also, incinerator cost has already been recently depressed as a result of the global economic turndown. Therefore, incinerator cost is not expected to recede further as the technology progresses, within the 10-year timeframe considered in this document. To the contrary, air emissions regulations are expected to become increasingly stringent over the next decade, and emission control features of incinerators will become increasingly complex and costly. Therefore, when considering incinerator technology and balance of plant costs, a slow but general increase in total incinerator capital costs is expected over the next decade. Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 summarize incinerator capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the incinerator itself, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW56 and
55
Based on a review of project data collected by SBI Energy in support of this report. See also: Alternative Energy, 2008. Negative Impacts of Incineration-Based Waste to Energy Technology. September 8, 2008. Available at http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-toenergy/ Accessed on January 9, 2011. 56 Dollars per kilowatt hour.
March 2011
SBI Energy
124
$/ton-year57 capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during SBIs data collection efforts. As shown, the average incinerator cost for announced projects is $8,650/kW or $1,960/Ton-Yr, whereas peak reported costs for incinerators were $13,500/kW or $2,800/Ton-Yr. These figures are higher than the capital costs for the other thermal WtE technologies reviewed in this report. However, high cost does not necessarily translate directly into reduced competitiveness for incinerator technologies. Profitability for a WtE technology is based on a combination of revenues including power generation and tipping fees. Thus incinerator cost alone does not directly correspond to profitability or viability of a particular proposed project. As shown, ancillary facilities for incinerators can represent approximately 40% to 70% of total project cost.
Figure 4-2 Incinerator Costs (USD)
Source: SBI Energy. Bars show average costs; error bars show a typical range of total costs (WtE technology plus ancillary equipment) for this technology. $/kW = dollars per kilowatt nameplate capacity; $/Ton-Yr = dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
Table 4-1 Incineration Cost Profiles

Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Cost (US Dollars) $3,850-$13,500 $1,800-$2,800 $750-$4,190 $350-$1,960 Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
Source: SBI Energy. $/kW = dollars per kilowatt nameplate capacity; $/Ton-Yr = dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
57
Dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
125
SBI Energy
March 2011
Gasification Gasification is primarily used within the chemicals production industry. A gasification project database compiled by the National Energy Technology Laboratory in 200758 indicates that at that time, there were 167 commercial scale active or planned gasifiers. Of these, 112 produce chemicals, 35 produce solely power, and the remaining produce gaseous or liquid fuels. Only six gasification facilities are shown that process waste, with four of those producing power and two producing gaseous fuels.59 Gasifiers that are currently operational were built as early as early as the 1950s, and the oldest commercial gasifier with a waste based feedstock was commissioned in 1964.60 Therefore, while gasification historically boasts only a handful of installations in the WtE sector, the basic gasification technology is well-established and is considered mature. Like incinerators, capital costs for gasification technology are less variable than the cost of ancillary facilities. Gasifiers for waste feedstocks have an average capital cost that is slightly lower than incinerators, at $1,650/kW, and ranging from about $1,300-$2,000/kW installed power production capacity (Figure 4-3). The level of variability included in this cost range is caused by several factors including differences in feedstock characteristics, which have variable energy contents and may require additional equipment for handling and gasification. Price variability is also a function of the technology manufacturer selected, and prices may vary regionally or temporally based on market conditions. Unlike incinerators, gasifiers produce syngas with only limited presence of oxygen. As a result, the product gas produced by the gasifier contains reduced pollutant loads as compared to untreated incinerator exhaust. Product gas is also of a smaller volume, and can therefore be more efficiently treated, as compared to incinerator gases. Therefore, emissions control systems for gasifiers are typically less extensive, and less expensive, than incinerator emissions control systems. Emission control is still an important cost factor, and the degree of emission control required is based on regional and local air quality emissions requirements and regulations.
National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Gasification: Reference Shelf: Worldwide Gasification Database. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database.html Accessed on January 4, 2010. 59 Ibid. 60 The Schwarze Pumpe Power/Methanol Plant is located in Spremberg, Germany, where it produces a combination of electricity and methanol from municipal waste.
58
March 2011
SBI Energy
126
Similar to incinerators, larger capacity gasifiers usually have lower per kW and per ton of feedstock costs than smaller capacity gasifiers. Driven by economies of scale, larger gasifiers are usually also less expensive to operate than similar system designs that handle similar feedstocks. Unlike incinerators, gasifiers are not commonly used to treat hospital wastes or other hazardous wastes under current market trends; very small scale facilities were not considered in this analysis. Gasifier costs also vary based on regional and temporal differences in materials costs, labor, and feedstock characteristics, as discussed for the previous subsection, Regional and Cost Considerations. The global economic turndown has also affected gasifier costs. Data surveys conducted in support of this report indicate that projected gasifier installed costs (including ancillary facilities) for 2010-2013 have receded by 10 to 15% since 2005-2007. Gasifiers have been minimally implemented within the WtE industry. However, current data indicate increasing demand for WtE gasifiers (refer to Chapter 3). Total per kW installed costs for WtE gasifiers are expected to remain approximately level as the global economy continues to stabilize over the ensuing 2-3 years. As global economic growth resumes, and demand for WtE gasifiers continues to increase, gasifier cost is expected to advance at a slow to slow-moderate pace through the remaining timeframe of considered in this report. Figure 4-3 and Table 4-2 summarize gasifier capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the gasifier only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/tonyear capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during SBIs data collection efforts. As shown, the average gasifier cost for announced projects is $4,979/kW or $399/Ton-Yr, whereas peak reported costs for gasifiers were $8,500/kW or $524/Ton-Yr. Note that cost estimate data on a Ton-Yr basis was only available for a limited sample of proposed gasification projects. Based on the characteristics of these two projects, and on the professional opinion of the analyst, these figures appear to understate gasifier costs on a per ton basis. However, more extensive data were not available. Similar to incinerators, cost on a per kW or per Ton-Yr basis may not explicitly reflect project viability. Project viability is much more closely tied to return on investment. Ancillary facility costs can vary widely for gasifiers, and may represent approximately 15 to 75% of total installed cost, based largely on feedstock characteristics, design and regional design standards, and availability of supporting infrastructure.
127
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 4-3 Gasification Costs (USD)
Table 4-2 Gasification Cost Profiles

Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Cost (US Dollars) $1,500-$8,500 $1,300-$2,000 $98-$524 $85-$130 Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
Plasma Gasification Plasma gasification technologies share many of the same characteristics of standard gasification technologies namely, both generate syngas under low-oxygen conditions. The basic technology behind plasma gasification been around since the 1950s, however, only over the last decade has plasma gasification been developed commercially for WtE facilities. Project reviews completed for this report indicated that there are approximately 5 functioning plasma gasification facilities located worldwide, located primarily in Japan, Taiwan, and Canada, with at least two additional plants in Germany and Australia, that have been recently mothballed. All identified facilities were constructed between 2002 and 2011. Because there are currently relatively few installed plasma gasifiers globally, and because plasma gasification has only come into commercial scale use in the last decade, plasma gasification is considered a recently emergent technology. Plasma gasification is still
March 2011
SBI Energy
128
expanding into its potential market, and installations of the technology are expected to expand over the coming decade (see Chapter 3 for additional discussion). As currently proposed installations reach commissioning, companies invested in plasma gasification will gain beneficial experience regarding plant design and engineering. Direct project experience will transfer into improved design. When combined with increasing competition among gasifier producers, the cost of plasma gasification is expected to show slight increase in the near term as the global economy continues to recover. Within the 4-10 year timeframe, as new plasma gasification projects are installed and come online, inflation-normalized costs are expected to stabilize and possibly soften slightly, as efficiencies in engineering design and competition influence project cost. As shown in Figure 4-4, plasma gasifiers for WtE have an average capital cost that is slightly higher than standard gasifiers, at $2,180/kW, with costs for identified projects ranging from about $1,600 to $2,760/kW. Plasma gasifiers indicate greater capital cost variability than incinerators or standard gasifiers, in large part due to their recently emergent status. Over the next decade, plasma gasification capital costs will decrease in variability, as the technology continues to mature. Like other WtE technologies, capital costs for ancillary functions vary more than capital costs for the WtE technology. Figure 4-4 and Table 4-3 summarize gasifier capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the plasma gasifier and ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-year capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during SBIs data collection efforts. As shown, the average plasma gasifier cost for announced projects is $7,020/kW or $1,029/Ton-Yr. Ancillary functions range from about 40 to over 70% of total project capital cost. As for other WtE technologies, these capital costs are influenced according to the manufacturers and contractors selected, as well the region in which the plant is installed and other factors discussed under the Regional and Cost Considerations subsection of this chapter.
129
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 4-4 Plasma Gasifier Costs (USD)
Table 4-3 Plasma Gasification, Typical Cost Profiles

Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Cost (US Dollars) $2,530-$10,100 $1,600-$2,760 $478-$1,700 $302-$720 Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
Pyrolysis Of the WtE technologies considered in this report, pyrolysis is perhaps the most easily applied system for generating liquid fuels from solid feedstocks, as well as pyrolyzed solid fuels and electrical energy. A handful of demonstration scale pyrolysis plants have been employed using MSW as a feedstock. However, existing commercial scale pyrolysis plants overwhelmingly use pre-sorted wastes as feedstock.61 Additionally, at least eight separate pyrolysis projects are currently proposed globally, which would utilize MSW as a primary feedstock.
61
The only existing MSW (i.e., mixed waste) pyrolysis plant identified by SBI Energy is the Hamm, Germany MSW pyrolysis plant. The facility produces about 15 MW of power capacity, handles about 300 tons of MSW per day, began operation in 2001, and cost approximately $75 million (2001 dollars). For additional detail, please refer to: http://expertpc.org/gasifier/idea2.pdf
March 2011
SBI Energy
130
Pyrolysis is also showing utility and expansion in the waste tire management industry. Here, use of pyrolysis for the production of fuels or electricity from tires is becoming increasingly common, and a handful of companies are beginning to market turnkey solutions for pyrolysis based tire processing. Here, niche market producers for turn-key pyrolysis plants are able to benefit from economies of scale, which in general drives down costs for such plants. Because pyrolysis minimizes emissions, can handle a wide array of feedstocks, and can produce liquid fuels, solid fuels, gaseous fuels, or electricity, it is considered strongly amenable to niche WtE markets like waste tires. Expansion within niche markets generally drives prices down over the mid-term, as more companies jump into the niche market over time with streamlined and turnkey solutions. Average capital cost for pyrolysis technology (without ancillaries) that was recently (within the last two years) constructed or currently proposed is approximately $1,950/kW. The highest identified price for pyrolysis technology is approximately $2,200, with a lowest identified cost of $1,700. This is somewhat more expensive than gasification, but less expensive than incineration or plasma gasification, on a per-kW of power produced basis. Like other WtE technologies, the level of variability included in this cost range is caused by several factors including differences in feedstock characteristics, manufacturer cost and pricing, and regional and temporal market conditions. As noted above, specialized markets and the availability of turnkey solutions can also influence pyrolysis technology costs. Concerning ancillary facilities, pyrolysis technology is similar to gasification, in that pollutant streams are minimized by the absence of gaseous oxygen during the reaction/transformation of MSW in the pyrolyzer. Thus, like gasification, pyrolysis requires substantially reduced emissions control systems, as compared to incineration. This is one of the primary reasons that pyrolysis installed costs are generally lower than incinerator installed costs pyrolysis plants can usually be permitted with only a fraction of the air quality control equipment that is needed for an incineration facility. Similar to the other technologies reviewed in this report, larger capacity pyrolysis facilities often have lower per kW and per ton of feedstock costs than smaller capacity facilities. However, this is not always the case, especially when smaller scale turnkey facilities have been developed for a specific feedstock, such as waste tires. Pyrolysis plant costs. Feedstock characteristics are more variable for pyrolysis than for gasification, plasma gasification, and anaerobic digestion, and these characteristics for any given plant also serve to inform total capital costs. Other important cost factors are discussed generally under the Regional and Cost Considerations subsection.
131
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 4-5 and Table 4-4 summarize pyrolysis capital costs. Bars in the figure represent average capital costs for the pyrolysis technology only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-year capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during data collection. As shown, the average pyrolysis facility cost for announced projects was $5,680/kW or $326/Ton-Yr. Peak reported cost for pyrolysis facilities was $9,150 or $780/Ton-Yr, while minimum reported cost for pyrolysis facilities was $233/Ton-Yr. Like gasifiers, ancillary facility costs can vary widely for pyrolysis facilities, and may represent approximately 15 to 70% of total installed cost.
Figure 4-5 Pyrolysis Costs (USD)
Table 4-4 Pyrolysis, Typical Cost Profiles

Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only Cost (US Dollars) $2,130-$9,154 $1,700-$2,200 $233-$780 $194-$250 Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
Anaerobic Digestion/Fermentation/MBT Anaerobic digestion and fermentation are applicable only to sorted waste streams, where metals, plastics, and biologically inert materials are removed prior to WtE production. As
March 2011
SBI Energy
132
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, anaerobic digestion or fermentation applied to MSW typically requires MBT (wherein digestion-suitable feedstocks are separated), unless the MSW has otherwise been pre-sorted to remove inert materials. MBT also removes recyclables and inert waste to be landfilled, and digestible material comprises only a fraction of the total waste handled. Thus, MBT primarily supports recycling and waste overall management, where digestion/fermentation is one of many processes included in MBT. Therefore, consistent with the analysis presented in Chapter 3, costs of the entire MBT facility are not considered here, but only the costs of digestion and fermentation, as relevant. Other feedstocks suitable for anaerobic digestion and fermentation such as animal husbandry waste, municipal wastewater, food wastes, greenwaste, and other suitable wastes do not require sorting, or only require minimal sorting. Many digestion and fermentation feedstocks, such as food waste, wastewater, and animal wastes, require only minimal processing before energy conversion can occur. For these installations, capital costs for ancillary facilities are limited. Other digestion and fermentation feedstocks, such as agricultural wastes or wood wastes, may require grinders and other ancillary facilities for feedstock preparation, which drives up total project cost. However, anaerobic digestion is less commonly applied to hard agricultural wastes and wood wastes, and much more commonly applied to those systems that treat liquid wastes or wastes that do not require grinding. Anaerobic digestion is the most widely scalable WtE technology considered in this report. Very small facilities producing less than 100 kW of electricity are often employed in on-farm treatment sites. Much larger regional facilities may provide electricity on the order of several megawatts of capacity. Figure 4-6 provides an example of the number of digesters installed for various capacities, as relevant to the US market. As shown, over half of all on-farm animal waste digesters installed in the US are sized at 0.2 MW (200 kW) capacity or less. European data show similar trends, especially for on-farm installations. Based on a review of proposed anaerobic digester projects conducted for this study, most MSW waste to energy facilities larger than their on-farm counterparts, having capacities that are at least 0.5 MW (500 kW), with most facilities being over 2 MW of capacity. For wastewater treatment, most digester facilities range from 0.25 MW (250 kW) to 2 MW capacity.
133
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 4-6 United States Anaerobic Digester Facilities: Animal Husbandry Wastes
Source: Adapted from USEPA 2010a
62
Facility sizes are important because larger facilities benefit from economies of scale for both construction and operational phases. For example, building on the example for US anaerobic digesters with animal waste feedstock, Figure 4-7 shows the range of installation costs on a per kW installed capacity basis. These figures were calculated based on digester data available from the USEPA,63,64 assuming an electricity production rate of 0.219 kW per cow. As shown, costs decrease significantly as capacity increases, with 0.1 MW (100 kW) systems requiring about twice the capital investment of 0.8 MW (800 kW) systems. Anaerobic digestion facilities used for wastewater treatment systems show similar trends on a per kW basis. However, available data indicate that cost per kW for MSW is more variable, and depends more closely on plant-specific design parameters and feedstock characteristics, as compared to dairy wastes and wastewater treatment. One advantage of anaerobic digestion is that it is relatively easy to incorporate codigestion into an existing or proposed facility. Codigestion is the addition of a supplementary feedstock to the digester, in order to support additional gas generation. For example, the addition of
62
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Anaerobic Digester Database. Updated November, 2010. Available at http://epa.gov/agstar/projects/index.html#ca Accessed on January 16, 2010. 63 Ibid. 64 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Anaerobic Digestion Capital Costs for Dairy Farms. Available at http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/digester_cost_fs.pdf Accessed on January 17, 2011.
March 2011
SBI Energy
134
greenwaste or food waste to a dairy cow digester can increase gas production significantly, from around 0.2 kW per cow, up to 0.3 or even 0.4 kW per cow.65 Here, codigestion can significantly reduce capital costs in comparison to generation capacity, and in most cases, only minor upgrades to digester facilities are required. The primary drawback to codigestion is increased operational cost and effort, where the digester operator may need source codigestion feedstock through contract or other legal/operational mechanism.
Figure 4-7 US On-Farm Anaerobic Digester Costs
Source: Adapted from USEPA 2010b; separate colored lines show three common types of anaerobic digester.
66
Figure 4-8 and Table 4-5 summarize capital costs for anaerobic digesters using animal wastes and wastewater as feedstocks. Bars in the figures represent average capital costs for the digester technology only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-yr capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during data collection. As shown, the average anaerobic digester facility cost for announced and recently completed animal waste and wastewater facilities was $4,698/kW or $15.13/Ton-Yr. Note cost per ton-year figures are based on the total weight of feedstock that passes through an anaerobic digester facility. Because these facilities treat aqueous (waterborne) wastes, note that per ton-year costs are much lower than for other technologies. This is an artifact of the very high water content of these feedstocks, where water itself is very heavy and contains no energy production value.
65 66
Based on project-specific data contained in USEPA 2010a. USEPA 2010b.
135
SBI Energy
March 2011
Peak reported costs for announced and recently completed projects was $9,855/kW or $32/Ton-Yr, while minimum reported cost for these facilities was $1,550/kW or $5.0/Ton-Yr. These figures are lower than reported costs for anaerobic digesters that treat MSW, largely due to differences in digester design. On-farm digester facilities are often composed of simple (yet large) plastic containers or even lined in-ground pools, where digestion occurs. These components are inexpensive in comparison to the engineered facilities that typify MSW treatment systems. Also, ancillary facilities represent a comparatively small proportion of animal waste and wastewater treatment digester facilities, on the order of about 3% to 25% of total installed cost.
Table 4-5 Anaerobic Digestion, Typical Cost Profiles, Animal Wastes and Wastewater Treatment
Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only1 Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only1
1
Cost (US Dollars) $1,550-$9,855 $1,500-$7,500 $5.0-$32 $4.8-$24
Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
For comparability with other technologies, capital costs for digesters includes the digestion train as well as associated pipelines and a reciprocating engine for power generation. Source: SBI Energy. $/kW = dollars per kilowatt nameplate capacity; $/Ton-Yr = dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
Figure 4-8 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, Animal Wastes and Wastewater Treatment (USD)
Figure 4-9 and Table 4-6 summarize capital costs for anaerobic digesters using MSW as feedstock. Bars in the figures represent average capital costs for the digester technology only, as well as ancillaries, shown in $/kW and $/ton-yr capacity. Error bars represent the minimum and maximum total (i.e., technology plus ancillary costs) values obtained during
March 2011
SBI Energy
136
data collection. As shown, the average anaerobic digester facility cost for announced and recently completed MSW facilities was $5,788/kW or $657/Ton-Yr. Peak reported costs for announced and recently completed projects was $12,688/kW or $1,310/Ton-Yr, while minimum reported cost for these facilities was $4,634/kW or $330/Ton-Yr. These figures are higher than reported costs for animal waste and wastewater digesters, and are more closely aligned to the costs of thermal technologies. Higher costs for MSW digesters are caused by more stringent design requirements for MSW digesters, which usually require site specific engineering for the digester and its interface with other waste management facilities. Similarly, ancillary costs for MSW digesters are higher than for animal waste and wastewater digesters, and comprise about 25 to 35% of total MSW digester installed cost.
Table 4-6 Anaerobic Digestion, Typical Cost Profiles, MSW
Item Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only1 Capital Cost, Total Capital Cost, Technology Only1
1
Cost (US Dollars) $4,630-$12,690 $2,990-$9,760 $331-$1,310 $213-$1,008
Units $/kW $/kW $/Ton-yr $/Ton-yr
For comparability with other technologies, capital costs for digesters includes the digestion train as well as associated pipelines and a reciprocating engine for power generation. Source: SBI Energy. $/kW = dollars per kilowatt nameplate capacity; $/Ton-Yr = dollars per ton of annual waste handling capacity.
Figure 4-9 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, MSW (USD)
137
SBI Energy
March 2011
Industry Trends
Several important and anticipated industry trends are expected to influence total WtE markets, facility costs, public opinion, proliferation, and continued viability of WtE technologies. These are discussed in the following text. Importance of Feedstock Availability Continued and assured feedstock availability is critically important to the success of WtE facilities. Without sufficient feedstock, a plant will not be able to run at capacity, or will only run during intermittent periods. This leads to reduced production and power generation efficiency. Also, unless a facility is grant funded or paid for with cash in hand (both of these are rare circumstances), most other modes of financing (see below) will require consistent and ongoing revenue generation from the facility, to pay off creditors or other debt, to pay off municipal debt, or to support vested business interests. Therefore, failure to secure optimal feedstock supplies can quickly translate into a myriad of finance-related issues, including possible failure or closure of the facility. For WtE facilities that treat MSW, feedstock supply is not typically a major issue of concern. Most WtE facilities that treat MSW are located at a landfill or MSW sorting facility, or centrally located between several such facilities. MSW is generated in relatively predictable quantities over the long term. MSW generation rates can be affected by economic recession and expansion cycles. For instance, during the recent global economic turndown, Californias per capita MSW disposal rate dropped from 5.1 pounds/resident/day in 2008 to 4.5 pounds/resident/day in 2009 a reduction of about 12%.67 Considering the severity of recession during this period, such a reduction is relatively stable in comparison to other affected markets. But even so, general economic trends, as well as local residential and commercial growth, can influence MSW feedstock availability. Feedstock availability for other WtE facilities can be much more complex. For example, Changing World Technologies, a WtE startup firm, opened a demonstration plant in Carthage, Missouri. The plant processed waste from an adjacent poultry processing plant, in order to create renewable fuels. The plant was commissioned in 2005, when it ran just over its break-even point for about a year. However, the plants main feedstock, turkey offal,
CalRecycle, 2010. Californias 2009 Per Capita Disposal Rate. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/2009/default.htm Accessed on January 18, 2011.
67
March 2011
SBI Energy
138
ended up increasing in value in comparison to what the company had originally projected. After purchasing feedstock for a short period of time, the plant was eventually mothballed when feedstock availability did not improve, and other suitable feedstock sources were not identified. Similar situations for wood and paper pulping WtE facilities have also occurred, where a WtE plant was constructed to serve a specific wood or paper processing plant. Changes in the market for wood waste, such as increases in demand for pellet stove fuel, chip board, and other fabricated wood based building materials, combined with reduced logging in some regions, has led to sharp increases in feedstock costs and/or reduced feedstock availability. When a WtE is dependent on a single source for feedstock, such as a food or wood processing plant, if the plant ceases production or identifies more profitable endpoints for its waste streams, a WtE facility may be left to scramble for available feedstock. Many WtE facilities have moved beyond reliance on a single feedstock supplier. This is especially common for WtE facilities that rely on agricultural waste as feedstock. Here, crop waste is generated only during specific time periods, usually coinciding with harvest schedules. Thus, an agricultural WtE facility may have plenty of available feedstock in the autumn and winter, but may run short in the spring and early summer. Many such facilities have taken to sourcing additional feedstock from other local or regional sources, including municipal wood wastes, land clearings, and other wood wastes, sometimes paying to ship suitable feedstocks up to hundreds of miles, in order to maintain system capacity. One obvious downside to sourcing feedstocks from far-away sources is increased costs, which can substantially cut into bottom lines, unless electricity rates are highly favorable. Thus, feedstock availability is a key consideration for the potential expansion of WtE into new markets, and for the further expansion of WtE in existing markets. MSW waste streams are relatively predictable, and relatively stable during high and low economic periods. However, other sources of feedstock are subject to much greater variability in supply, due to a combination of alternative markets for waste products, and to foreseeable and unforeseeable interruptions in feedstock supply. Because feedstock transport costs cut into profit margins, cautious siting of proposed facilities is critical. The most resilient and predictably profitable WtE markets and projects will be those where long term feedstock supply contracts are available. In the absence of long term supply contracts, WtE developers would do well to target local markets where several usable feedstock sources are available, in order to ensure long term operational viability and profitability of their WtE projects.
139
SBI Energy
March 2011
New Product Developments and Product Trends Plasma gasifiers, discussed throughout this report, are the most recent major breakthrough in the WtE products that have begun to attain market traction. However, many corporate and public research teams are continuing to make new developments in WtE. Specific developments include the incorporation of advanced fuels production processes, such as Fischer-Tropsch and thermochemical refining, into WtE gasification or pyrolysis technologies; various pre-treatment and waste sorting technologies, especially for MSW, which further reduce the proportion of recyclables and/or constituents that cause pollution in WtE feedstock; and modular or small scale incinerators, pyrolyzers, gasifiers, and other scaled down WtE facilities, which can conceivably be employed in a turnkey manner for very small scale waste feedstocks, to provide WtE functions. Additional emission control product developments are also ongoing, especially for incinerators and other thermal WtE facilities. These are being developed in compliance with or in anticipation of more stringent air emissions regulations, especially in Europe and North America. However, many emissions control processes that are new to the WtE industry are actually re-applications of existing emissions control technologies, that are currently used in the power generation, fuels refining industries, smelting, or raw materials production industries. A review of available literature, including WtE research efforts by national laboratories, universities, and other research institutions has indicated various projects aimed at improving feedstock suitability, efficiency, emission control, and various other parameters for the WtE technologies considered in this report. However, new/novel processes and approaches to WtE conversion were not identified, with the exception of thermal depolymerization, which has been discussed previously in this report. Therefore, it is considered highly unlikely that a new, potentially competitive WtE technology will emerge within the next 5 years. Instead, technology developments will continue to be incremental in nature, focusing primarily on scaling and design modifications to existing technologies. Public Relations, Environmental, and Permitting Concerns The application of WtE technologies can result in a handful of environmental impacts. The most contentious issues for thermal WtE technologies (incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis) are airborne emissions and for some installations, odors and concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions. MSW based WtE facilities in particular have come under heavy scrutiny.
March 2011
SBI Energy
140
In Great Britain, where recent regulatory changes now strongly promote the use of WtE technologies for municipal waste management, many MSW facilities have been strongly opposed by the public. Primary concerns have centered on the emission of dioxins and other toxic air emissions. Even when air quality emissions are projected to be very low and in line with applicable regulatory standards, some vocal interest groups or members of the public have come forward and spoken strongly regarding their mistrust of thermal WtE technologies, comparing them to dirty incinerators of the past, and talking up potential or perceived health and air quality threats. Where such activists manage to appeal to community leaders, the outcome can be strong dissent and in some cases, local WtE project approval. Environmental concerns for MSW WtE facilities also extend to dialogue regarding which waste management strategies are the most environmentally benign. Many environmental groups, including the Sierra Club,68 the Wilderness Committee,69 the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives,70 and many others support significant increases in recycling and composting, combined with minimizing municipal sources of trash (waste reduction), and take a strong stance against incinerators and other thermal waste to energy facilities. Their argument includes the following facets: (1) MSW should not be considered a renewable resource, because doing so will not support reduction of waste at the source, and may in extreme cases lead to increases in municipal waste production by consumers, or reductions in recycling rates; (2) MSW should not be considered a renewable resource, because a significant portion of MSW is composed of plastics and other petroleum-derived materials; (3) Air quality emissions from incinerators and other thermal WtE technologies are strongly unhealthful, have significant deleterious effects on community health, and are unacceptable. Proponents of thermal WtE technologies have in some cases attempted to address some of the concerns forwarded by anti-incinerator/anti-WtE groups, such as by releasing data showing anticipated air quality emissions rates, agreeing to separate out all recyclable materials prior to WtE conversion, extol the benefits of WtE facilities in terms of minimizing impact on landfills and generating jobs, and various other techniques. Industry groups such as the Waste
68 69
See: http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/garbage/ See: http://wildernesscommittee.org/waste 70 See http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?id=387
141
SBI Energy
March 2011
to Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) have worked with governments to establish hierarchies, incentives, and related actions and marketing materials in support of WTE facilities. One widely adapted concept is the waste management hierarchy, wherein waste to energy is considered as one of several waste management strategies that could be selected, in order to handle local wastes (Figure 4-10). Here, waste reduction is shown as the peak of the pyramid the preferred and first order line of defense for tackling MSW. This is followed by re-use, recycling, and composting, before WtE technologies are considered. The idea is that a WtE project would be used, not necessarily as a last resort, but as a tool in the waste managers toolkit, for dealing with MSW.
Figure 4-10 Waste Management Hierarchy for WtE Projetcs
Source: Modified from WTERT, 2010.
71
In some areas such strategies have been successful in at least keeping contentious WtE projects out of court and off of the chopping block. But in other cases, WtE developers have resorted to more extreme measures. For instance, in the UK, Sita has offered residents of some municipalities reduced or subsidized energy bills, community/shared ownership of a
Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT). 2010. Expanded Hierarchy of Waste Management. Available at: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/waste_pyramid_color.png Accessed on December 20, 2010.
71
March 2011
SBI Energy
142
WtE facility, cost sharing, district heating supplied to residences and commercial entities, and even jobs to residents.72 These and similar programs have been somewhat successful in keeping local councils from blocking WtE project implementation, however, others have been blocked at the local level in spite of such efforts. Interestingly, most groups interested in blocking thermal WtE facilities for the conversion of MSW have ignored or spoken up in support of anaerobic digesters for MSW handling. Digesters do not cause toxic air emissions. However, they can still be used on recyclable materials such as paper, and at least in theory should result in a similar degree of potential slackening of waste management practices such as waste minimization. These facets are almost ubiquitously overlooked for anaerobic digesters, even though they are used as key arguments against thermal WtE technologies.73 Thus in localities where installation of a thermal WtE facility would be highly contentious, an anaerobic digester that handles essentially the same MSW fraction to generate electricity may fly under the radar of antiincinerator interest groups, or possibly even garner their support. Other tried strategies for overcoming or avoiding public opposition have included attempting to pass a project through permitting very quickly before anti-WtE groups have a chance to mobilize (this is very difficult in global regions where the permitting and approval process can take many months or even years). A more commonly successful approach in regions with long permitting lag times has been to initiate public outreach early on in the planning stages, and the attempt to give anti-WtE groups a chance to voice concerns in public forums and other public style input meetings, where project sponsors attempt to respond to and consider public concerns. Nonetheless, anti-WtE sentiments are a growing issue in the MSW and increasingly, other WtE sectors, and are expected to continue to hold up isolated projects in European and North American markets.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/12/sita-offers-community-benefits-hostincinerators 73 As an example, refer to http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?id=387, which is a strongly anti-thermal WTE article by an anti-WTE group. Near the middle of the piece, the author takes pause from discussing the negatives of thermal WTE technologies, passively or positively mentions biological systems (that is, anaerobic digesters), and then moves back to discussing negative aspects of thermal WTE technologies.
72
143
SBI Energy
March 2011
Waste to Energy Ownership

There are two primary ownership models that are common in the WtE industry. These are public and private ownership. Choice of public or private ownership varies based on the type of WtE facility being installed, waste characteristics and sourcing, and the type of project sponsor that is involved in the project. Public Ownership Public ownership occurs when a municipality or a group of municipalities raise the capital requirements needed to procure a WtE facility. Public ownership is most common in the MSW industry. Public ownership is often chosen in instances where a city, county, or group of cities/counties are directly involved in MSW or wastewater management, and decide to build a WtE facility. Public ownership is most commonly accomplished through public and government based funding sources, such as levied taxes or bonds (see subsequent subsection on Public/Government Funding). In addition to owning the waste to energy facility, a public project sponsor will also be responsible for managing day to day operations at the WtE facility, once it is complete. Some project sponsors that have access to sufficient staffing resources, will choose to take on operations management responsibilities themselves. Thus the project sponsor also operates the facility once it is complete. An alternate model involves the use of a second entity that operates the facility. This second entity is most often a contracted company or organization, which may specialize in the operation of a specific type of waste to energy facility. This consultant/client type relationship is typically paid for by the project sponsor. Public ownership of a new WtE facility is only applicable to those facilities where the project sponsor is a public entity, such as a city, county, waste management bureau, or other local or regional government entity. Public ownership is of course not available to private companies that may be involved in a proposed waste to energy project. Private Ownership Private ownership of a new WtE facility may take one of two forms. For waste streams such as MSW that are often managed by municipalities, the municipality in question may work with a corporation in order to scope, design, and procure a new WtE facility. Here, the facility is owned, maintained, and operated by the corporation. The municipality provides a steady and reliable stream of waste, along with a tipping fee, while the corporation operates
March 2011
SBI Energy
144
and maintains the WtE facility for the disposal of solid waste. Put or pay contracts involve communities supplying waste or paying a penalty for the life of the WtE facility. The second form of private ownership is essentially similar, except that no municipality or other public entity is involved. This type of private ownership is common for dairies, food waste processing plants, lumber waste processers and other private sector waste management operators. Here, a corporate project sponsor relies on some combination of tipping fees, electricity/fuels sales, coproduct sales, and other income streams to generate sufficient funds to cover operation and debt servicing costs, as relevant.
Project Development and Financing Trends

Waste to energy projects are highly capital intensive, and most require some form of financing. Project development and financing trends vary considerably based on the type of facility being installed, the region where the proposed facility is installed, and also the suite of potential financing options that may be available to a project developer. The following discussion reviews financing options and trends available in support of project development, based on the sourcing of funds from private capital, government/public incentives and grants, projected revenues, debt financing, and other funding sources. Commonly two or more sources of funding included in this list will be used in tandem, in order to get a waste to energy project through to completion. Table 4-7 provides a summary of the different types of capital that are available to potential project sponsors, in support of new WtE projects.
Table 4-7 Common WtE Project Finance Mechanisms
Finance Mechanism Venture Capital Equities Grant Funding Government Loans Government Incentives Public Funding Project Revenues Cash in Hand Private Debt (Bank or Creditor) Financing Mixed Funding Sources
Source: SBI Energy.
Project Sponsor Type Corporate Corporate Corporate or Public Corporate or Public Corporate or Public Public Corporate or Public Corporate or Public Corporate or Public Corporate or Public
Mechanism Primary Characteristics Highest Risk Financing High Risk Financing; Relatively Easy to Obtain Difficult to Obtain, Highly Coveted: Free Money that Does Not Require Repayment Loans Sponsored or Backed by Government, Often with Reduced Interest Rates Tax Incentives, Regulatory Incentives, Feed-In Tarrif Monies, etc. Public Bond Funding, Including Municipal Bonds Revenues from the WtE Project Cash Available to Project Sponsor for WtE Financing Loans from Banks and Other Creditors Combination of the Above Funding Mechanisms for a Single WtE Project
145
SBI Energy
March 2011
Venture Capital and Equities Venture capital and equity capital funding sources are available to companies that invest in waste to energy facilities. This may occur in close coordination with a municipality or other public sector sponsor, such as for a WtE project that handles MSW feedstock. Alternatively, venture capital and equities may be used in support of solely private ventures, such as installation of WtE facilities to handle food processing wastes from a specific facility, dairy wastes, forestry wastes, or various other waste streams that are handled by the private sector. Benefits of venture capital and equities include that, given a solid and tested business model, they are relatively easy to obtain. Venture capital and equity financers will more readily take on a higher level of risk than most debt-based financers, such as banks and other creditors. The flip side is that private investors and funds typically expect a relatively higher rate of return on their investment, sometimes as high as 25%.74 Additionally, equity investors typically acquire a share in the company/facility in which they are investing, meaning that the project sponsor must relinquish a portion of its vested interest and control. While these conditions may be unpalatable to some potential project sponsors, there is a substantial amount of capital available through these sources. For instance, global venture capital and equity financing in 2009 reached a year-long total of $6.6 billion. This rate was significantly down from a peak of $11.8 billion during 2008, prior to the effects of the global financial crisis.75 However, SBIs review of preliminary data available for 2010 indicate that venture capital and equity financing for renewable energy, including waste to energy projects, is again climbing, and will surpass 2009 data by at least 10%. Venture capital and equity financing can be used directly in support of a specific project; venture capital in particular may be used to aid in completion of a pre-commercial or initial commercial scale plant, which helps to move the company forward and begin generating revenues. Equity financing may be applied by a company across one or more potential projects, depending on the structure of the equity. Because equity investors expect relatively higher risk, equity financing is often used in the initial high risk stages of a waste to energy project, such as before ground is broken on a potential project, and equity or venture capital funding may be critical during these periods. Equity financing may also be used during
74 75
http://mayflower-partners.com/docs/waste_to_energy_final_report.pdf World Economic Forum, 2010. Green Investing 2010: Policy Mechanisms to Bridge the Financing Gap. January, 2010.
March 2011
SBI Energy
146
subsequent project phases, however, more financing options are commonly available during such phases. Grant Funding, Government Loans, and Other Government Incentives Grant based funding, tax incentives, loans from government agencies, and other government based funding sources represent important and commonly used sources of capital in support of WtE project development. These sources of funding have been utilized especially in North America and Europe, where government programs that support renewable and alternative energy sources are widespread. Increasingly, such programs are also beginning to enjoy more widespread utilization in the developing world. However, government based incentives for WtE projects in Asia, Africa, and South America are in most cases smaller in scale than European counterparts. Exceptions include Japan, Singapore, China, Australia, and Brazil. Government incentives can take a wide array of different forms, and include both direct and indirect funding sources. For instance, many US states have enacted renewables portfolio standards (RPSs), wherein a certain portion of total power generated in that state is required to be from renewable sources. RPSs do not provide funding for the initiation of new WtE projects. Instead, they require utilities to procure power from renewable sources. In states with a strong RPS, utilities have significantly increased incentive to enter into long term power supply contracts with renewable power generators, including WtE projects. This in turn supports more viable WtE and other renewable energy projects by providing assured revenue during operation. Power purchase agreements can also be key to securing additional outside funding, from venture capital, private equity, and public or private debt funding. Renewable fuels standards (RFSs) are similar to RPSs, but are applicable to specific renewable fuels, rather than renewable power. Feed in tariffs support payment of a higher premium for power generated from renewable sources, typically including WtE, as compared to conventional power sources. Feed in tariffs also commonly include requirements that electric power utilities or other suppliers purchase renewable power at an increased rate and cost. Feed in tariffs have been widely discussed in the US, but to date no national level feed in tariff has been established. Some states, such as California, have moved forward and approved feed in tariffs within their boundaries. However, the extent of these is typically more limited than would be expected at the national level. In Europe, feed in tariffs have been widely implemented, and have been used to support wind, solar, and other renewable power developments.
147
SBI Energy
March 2011
Tax incentives and direct investment through grants and low interest government loans can also be used to provide capital for WtE projects. In the US, federal and state level tax incentives such as the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) offer a tax credit per kWh of power that is generated by a renewable energy facility, including waste to energy. The US Department of Energy sponsors an array of low interest loans and loan guarantees in support of renewable energy production, while massive public works programs such as the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 have provided government grants to install new renewable power capacity. Similar and in some cases more extensive tax incentives and government grant programs have been implemented outside of the US, including in Canada, across much of Europe, Japan, China, and Brazil. Rarely, government grants or loans, combined with other government incentives, may cover the entire cost of the installation of a WtE facility. Much more commonly, these funding and revenue sources are used as part of a capital portfolio, that may include additional funding from local public mechanisms, venture capital, private equity, bank loans, or other funding sources. Public/Government Funding Many local and regional government entities are increasingly moving away from full public ownership of waste management facilities, including landfills and waste to energy facilities. However, similar to financing for schools, water and wastewater plants, and administration facilities, public monies still represent one of the more commonly utilized funding sources for waste to energy projects. One common reason for project sponsors to consider public funding is that the institutional mechanisms for such funding is typically already in place. Staff from local or regional governments are usually well versed and familiar with this type of funding, and may consider it as a default option, even if it is not the funding mechanism that is eventually chosen. One of the major advantages of public funding is that, following repayment of bonds or other debts, the project sponsor retains the facility as an asset, which it can continue to utilize, or dispose of such as via sale to a separate government or private entity. Another potentially major advantage of public/government funding is that public entities generally do not need to maintain the same profit margins as private businesses. Therefore, public funding, especially when combined with public ownership, can be managed such that waste disposal is provided at a lowest possible total cost to ratepayers. Drawbacks to public funding include that the local or regional government entity that owns (and often operates) the facility bears most to all of the financial risk associated with the
March 2011
SBI Energy
148
project. Thus, in the case of an unanticipated event perhaps a major unforeseeable change in local policies, such as a political decision to move decisively away from waste to energy production and towards composting the government entity would be stuck with a costly piece of infrastructure that may have reduced use. While this type of event is unlikely, it is not unheard of for waste to energy or other municipal projects to become mothballed, at least temporarily, as a result of political, social, environmental, or cost-related concerns. Another potential drawback of public/government based funding is based on typical tax structures. In the US, for instance, local governments do not pay federal taxes. Therefore, a local government would not typically be able to incorporate depreciation or other typical business tax deductions into its financial structure. Public and government funding is most typically available for municipal solid waste and wastewater treatment, since these wastes are commonly managed by local or regional governments. Waste to energy feedstocks that are managed by private industry, such as lumber or wood waste facilities, food processing facilities, and dairies, would not typically be eligible for funding via public bonds and other institutional financing measures. Grants and loan programs administered by national or regional governments can, however, provide substantial benefit to private project sponsors. These are reviewed in the following subsection. Project Revenues and Cash on Hand Project revenues typically represent a single and important component in the overall financing package for a WtE facility. Most WtEs, with the exception of some small scale anaerobic digester facilities, are very expensive and require too much up front capital to be paid for using other revenue streams. Once a project is up and running, revenues that are directly generated by WtE operations become an important component for repaying debt or supporting profitability of a WtE facility. Project revenues for WtE projects may be generated from disposal fees, electricity sales, offset electricity costs, emissions credits, byproduct or coproduct sales, and government-based incentives as available. Less commonly, some smaller WtE installations, such as the installation of an anaerobic digester onto a wastewater treatment plant or dairy, will require an amount of capital that the project sponsor is able to pay all or a significant portion of out of pocket. These situations can essentially be categorized as an up front investment made by the project sponsor, against anticipated future revenues. Return on investment period for such projects is typically much shorter than MSW WtE facilities on the order of many months to a few years. Thus, these
149
SBI Energy
March 2011
smaller facilities are more easily financed using available funding combined with project revenues. Such financing schemes provide significant benefit to the project sponsor, in that the project remains under the sole ownership of the project sponsor, and repayment of interest or other debt servicing fees is not required. Private Debt Financing Private debt financing includes loans from non-public institutions, such as banks and other creditors, including standard and syndicated loans. Private debt financing is attractive because, like public debt-based funding, the project sponsor can retain full ownership of the WtE facility, including retaining the deed in full upon completion of debt repayment. Private debt may also be attractive because many WtE projects have a return on investment time that is relatively long up to 10 years or more. As a result, it can be difficult to retrieve an investment on a WtE project quickly. Banks and other private institutions involved in debt financing commonly handle loans with long payback times, and in some cases may be a more readily available funding source, as compared to other private equities. In order to obtain a loan from a bank or other creditor, a WtE project sponsor will need to meet an extensive set of criteria in regards to credit worthiness, and meet certain basic elements regarding WtE project development. Typically a bank will evaluate the project sponsors repayment capability based on several factors. These may include (1) Pricing Mechanisms for Tipping Fees, the Sale of Electricity/Fuels, Emissions Credits, and Other Costs and Revenues: The value of the electricity or fuels produced by a WtE plant may fluctuate based on market conditions, demand for a particular fuel type, proximity of end users (more important for fuels than electricity), and government incentives or valuation schemes. For localities where tipping fees are incurred, these may also be subject to regulation, market fluctuation, and other factors. Pricing mechanisms in the US and other capitalist markets are determined largely on the open market, and as such are subject to potentially large variations. In China, where markets are more strongly regulated, electricity sale price is usually determined based on the price of electricity from desulfurized coal, combined with an additional government subsidy. In countries with strong anti-climate change policies, pricing mechanisms are dictated by a combination of the open market, combined with various regulations and/or incentives that are applied at the national or local level.
March 2011
SBI Energy
150
(2) Power/Fuels Purchase Agreements, Energy Service Agreements, and Access Agreements: These are agreements between the project sponsor or operator and a local utility or other power purchaser. The power purchaser often agrees to purchase electricity at a cost that is at or below current market prices, and that increases more slowly than inflation over the purchase period. Access agreements are required in some countries, prior to the dispatch of generated electricity onto a power grid, and may be made between the project sponsor and a grid systems operator or utility. Fuels purchase agreements are less common, but when available provide additional assurance to a potential lender. (3) Long term power or fuels purchase agreements are considered ideal to lenders, since such agreements represent long term revenue guarantees for the project sponsor. Creditors will typically perform extensive reviews of power purchase agreements, including renewal provisions, and agreement periods of at least 15 to 30 years are usually given strong preference. Unfortunately, in many regions, long term power purchase agreements are difficult to obtain for a WtE facility. This is a substantial issue in the Chinese market, where a WtE project sponsor may be able to secure a 1year contract and renew that contract each year, in order for the utility to maintain more bargaining power in Chinas quickly changing markets and infrastructure. Understandably, banks are more reluctant to loan under such terms. (4) Feedstock Supply Agreements: Analogous to a materials supply agreement under non-WtE project structures, feedstock supply agreements, or waste supply agreements, may be enacted between a project sponsor and a nearby landfill or other waste manager. Typically such an agreement will establish when and in what quantity and quality a waste manager will supply the WtE facility with waste/feedstock. The agreement also stipulates the waste disposal fees that the landfill or other waste manager will provide to the project sponsor. (5) Waste Disposal: In countries with strong environmental regulations, disposal of waste products, such as ash or slag, is potentially a major concern. Depending upon feedstock characteristics, these materials may contain high levels of harmful or potentially harmful chemicals and metals. Increasingly, lenders to projects in the US and Europe are reviewing proposed waste disposal practices, in order to ensure that waste streams and coproducts are disposed of or sold in a manner that is consistent with environmental requirements, such that the project proponent is not unnecessarily exposed to fines or litigation.
151
SBI Energy
March 2011
Acquisition of WtE project approvals also lends strong support to creditor funding sources. Project approvals vary among countries, and sometimes among regions or municipalities within a single country. Generally speaking, project approvals include explicit approval of a WtE project by a government entity with approval authority (usually a city or other local government); completion of environmental protection documentation and filing requirements; approval of a land resource authority or agency to construct the project at the given location; written approval to access a power grid as warranted; utility service agreements such as water supply agreements; project engineering and design approvals; and licenses or certifications to generate or produce power, to the extent required by national or regional governments. Mixed Funding Sources The use of mixed funding sources to support implementation of a waste to energy project is very common, especially for private sector businesses that are working to install a major facility. Use of mixed funding sources is somewhat less common for municipalities and other local or regional governments, since they have ready access to public funding mechanisms. Especially in the MSW WtE technologies market, mixed funding sources are becoming more commonplace, even for public sector project sponsors. For instance, a municipal WtE project sponsor may wish to spread potential risk burdens across several financing options, so as to reduce the amount of public funds used for political or budgetary reasons. Another common reason for combining financing models is that many larger proposed WtE facilities incur higher up front risks during the initial project scoping and planning phase. Therefore, venture capital, equity, or government grant funding may be required to get a project off of the ground, especially when the project sponsor does not have a wellestablished track record for the implementation of WtE facilities. For instance, a bank will rarely lend to a project sponsor during its initial startup phase for a given project. However, once the project has broken ground, additional financing sources are more commonly available. For instance, the same bank that would not provide debt financing during the initial startup phase would be much more likely to contribute debt financing following initiation of construction. Note that high up front risks of WtE projects influence when a particular financing structure is viable, such structure are commonly worked out prior to groundbreaking for an individual project. Take, for instance, the previous example of a bank that would only lend following facility groundbreaking. During the initial startup phase, the bank would lend no money. But during the startup phase the bank might be willing to enter into an agreement for future
March 2011
SBI Energy
152
financing, under contingency that the project must break ground before any funds are released. Overall, equity/debt financing combinations are probably the most common, with typical ratios around 75% debt/25% equity. Here, debt is more commonly used for procurement and construction, and equity capital is used for other requirements such as project startup and initial scoping.
Summary
Cost for installation of an individual WtE facility is driven by a number of cost factors including costs of raw materials, costs of fabricated/pre-manufactured products, engineering/design costs for the WtE technology and supporting facilities, and skilled and unskilled labor costs for project construction. Costs for WtE technologies vary based on the WtE technology being considered, the level of emission control and other ancillary facilities required for project completion, and the region in which the technology is installed. Regional costs variation is significant, based primarily on cost regional differentials for labor, raw materials, and fabricated/pre-manufactured products. WtE technology capital costs are generally high, but most well-designed facilities will achieve return on investment in about a decade. In terms of industry trends, ongoing feedstock availability is a key component for any WtE plant. Well sourced feedstock will help to ensure economic viability for a project. Reliance on a single producer for feedstock can minimize costs in the near term, but it may also expose a WtE project to high risk in the event that feedstock availability unexpectedly reduces or disappears altogether. New WtE products focus on downscaling existing technologies to modular or portable sizes, as well as improvements to emissions, efficiency, and other developments for existing technologies. New breakthrough technologies are not anticipated within the a 5-year timeframe. Finally, public relations are a major concern for proposed WtE installations in developed nations. Interest groups have in some instances strongly opposed new WtE facilities, in some cases to the point of halting development of a proposed new facility. Therefore, public relations must be carefully managed for WtE facilities.WtE projects may be financed by a variety of mechanisms. These include venture capital, equities, grant funding, government loans, government incentives, public funding, project revenues, cash on hand, and bank/creditor debt financing. Most WtE projects are costly. Therefore,
153
SBI Energy
March 2011
most WtE projects will involve funding from some combination of these potential funding sources, in order to meet total funding requirements for a given WtE project.
March 2011
SBI Energy
154
Supply Chain and Promotion
Chapter 5
Waste to Energy Technologies Supply Chain and Promotion
Scope
This chapter reviews supply chains and product promotion for WtE technologies. Included is a discussion and overview of the supply chain for WtE facility installations. WtE feedstocks comprise an important part of any WtE project. WtE feedstock supply chains are therefore considered, including their dispatch through WtE facilities. Product promotion for WtE technologies is also reviewed. Promotion activities focus primarily on end users via the project development and implementation process. However, gaining large scale public and governmental support for WtE technologies is also critical to their implementation, since many countries require project permitting and approval processes that involve members of the government and/or elected public/government officials.
WtE Facilities Supply Chain

The supply chain for WtE facilities is similar to the supply chains of most other specialized, large scale industrial and energy facilities, and encompasses commodities, fabricators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), specialty equipment manufacturers, engineers, procurement and construction managers, permitting and environmental compliance specialists, and of course, WtE facility end users and plant operators. Figure 5- 5-1 provides a generalized supply chain overview for WtE facility installations. Materials manufacturers and fabricators are commonly non-specialized providers of raw materials and basic components such as steel plate, copper wire, fasteners, magnets, coatings and paints, plastics, concrete, pipes, and various other materials. Materials manufacturers are located globally, with most basic materials such as sheet steel and copper, plastics, and various others being widely available from an array of suppliers. Larger OEMs and some specialty equipment manufacturers may deal over and over with the same manufacturers and fabricators, especially where long term relationships have developed. However, the materials provided at this supply chain level can be readily sourced via the open market, where cost drives the procurement choices of manufacturers. Materials sourcing based on price is most common where adequate minimum quality product standards are widely implemented and
155
SBI Energy
March 2011
adhered to. Materials manufacturers and fabricators involved in the WtE facility supply chain can be expected to also serve a wide array of other clients and industries.
Figure 5-1 WtE Technologies, Facility Supply Chain
!"#$%&"'( !")*+",#*%$%(")- ."/%&,"#0%(

1!"#$%&'"(#)*'+,-(. !-,(+/&(.&#0&"'+'.#+1'" ",2*,+'"/,-(3
23*&45$)#62!(
1*#+#"(.!%*!(. &#*!"'((#"(.!/!'-/0'(. &#04'5#"(.'+&67
=4$,&"'#>23*&45$)# !")*+",#*%$%(1:#/-'"(.+%":/0'(.
&#*:%(+/#0=!5"#-5(/(=8,(/)/&,+/#0= $/8'(+/#0&#*!#0'0+(.2,(+'1,0$-/08 ),&/-/+/'(.'+&67
8$%5&##&)?")- 2)@&%0)5$)#"'90)#%",#0%(
1>04/"#0*'0+,-?#*!-/,0&'. ;'"*/++/087
28990)#%",#0%(
17,0,8',0$ 9(('*:-';"#<'&+7
:#264$%"#0%(; 2)-<($%(
Source: SBI Energy
Equipment OEMs take basic materials available from materials manufacturers and fabricators, and assemble these materials into components that are used by specialty equipment manufacturers, or that are directly incorporated into WtE facility design. For instance, OEMs produce motors or their components, pipe, compressors, tubing, and various other components that are widely available. Equipment produced by an OEM is also commonly rebranded by a second entity prior to purchase by specialty equipment manufacturers or engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors (this step is not shown in Figure 5-1). Regardless of whether or not intermediary rebranding occurs, a single OEM in the WtE facility supply chain serves a necessary but substitutable role in
March 2011
SBI Energy
156
constructing the basic working parts that are used in WtE installations. Similar to materials manufacturers and fabricators, OEM choice depends considerably on price, especially where minimum/adequate manufacturing standards are met by a variety of potential suppliers. Specialty equipment manufacturers are those manufacturers that produce specialized components that are specific to WtE installations, or to the energy or waste handling industries. Specialty equipment manufacturers maintain patents in their area of expertise. Some of the largest specialty equipment manufacturers, such as Siemens or Honeywell, produce a wide array of products that are applicable to many industries. These specialty manufacturers may also be involved in engineering and design of the final WtE facility thus their role can overlap or even take the place of EPC contractors (discussed below). Smaller specialty equipment manufacturers commonly specialize in a specific product line, relying on OEMs or other specialty equipment manufacturers to supply non-specialized components, such as electric motors. Specialty equipment manufacturers are responsible for producing the main working components of a WtE facility. Therefore, the eventual quality and dependability of the WtE facility depends significantly on the quality of products produced by involved specialty equipment manufacturers. In situations where a separate engineering procurement contractor (EPC) is involved in the procurement of a WtE facility, a traditional supply chain model includes the specialty equipment manufacturer working exclusively under the EPC contractor. Here, the EPC contractor works with the specialty equipment manufacturer to determine facility sizing, placement, and other engineering requirements. Alternatively, in circumstances where the end user wishes to be more closely involved in a WtE project, specialty equipment manufacturers may be explicitly selected by the end user. Some end users also prefer a hands-on approach, where specialty equipment manufacturers to interface directly with the end user, in order to evaluate baseline project needs and requirements. EPC contractors, along with end users, are the primary drivers of most WtE projects. For most WtE installations, managing the day to day engineering, design, procurement, and construction processes, as well as interfacing with specialty equipment manufacturers and OEMs, would place too great a strain on end users, in terms of staffing and relevant experience of available staff. Therefore, most (but not all) end users will hire an EPC contractor to manage these facets, as well as complete or sub out engineering and construction functions. End users that choose not to hire an EPC contractor are typically larger institutions that maintain sufficiently experienced staff to fill the EPC function inhouse. Alternatively, as mentioned previously, some large specialty equipment manufacturers
157
SBI Energy
March 2011
also maintain large engineering and procurement staff, and can fulfill at least the engineering and procurement functions that would otherwise be met by an EPC contractor. In developing nations where construction and environmental regulations/requirements are less stringent, or for small or environmentally benign projects, permitting and environmental compliance functions may be completed by a combination of the EPC contractor and the end user. For projects located in areas with strict environmental and permitting requirements, and for projects that may cause potentially significant harm to the environment, separate permitting and environmental compliance contractors may be brought in. In areas with stringent regulations, permitting and environmental compliance functions can be critical to achieve project completion on schedule. A well-positioned permitting and environmental contractor maintains contacts at relevant approving and permitting agencies, is well versed in environmental compliance and permitting requirements, and helps the end user to identify strategies to reduce potential environmental impacts. Permitting and environmental contractors often work under the direction of the EPC contractor. However, some end users prefer to hire on permitting and environmental contractors directly. This strategy may be employed by end users with larger staff resources, such as those wherein at least a portion of the engineering design and procurement are completed by the end user. Alternatively, some very well staffed end users or EPC contractors may maintain internal environmental departments. Here, the environmental compliance function is fulfilled internally or by the EPC contractor. Often, it is the end user that assumes operation of a new WtE plant. However, this is not always the case, and an end user may instead choose to hire a separate operations firm to manage day-to-day operations of the plant. Commonly, plant operations may be handled by a business division, affiliate, or other business that is closely associated with the EPC contractor or specialty equipment manufacturer that was involved in project installation. A contracted operator may handle specific or specialty functions at the plant, with day to day managerial or administrative functions being performed by the end user, or the contracted operator may handle the entire operations function of the plant, ranging from management and maintenance to environmental compliance and administration. Typical WtE facility supply chains do not include wholesalers or finished product distributors. Product promotion and project identification are perhaps the closest analogues to distribution functions. Specialty equipment manufacturers and EPC contractors typically fill promotion and project identification roles. Genesis of a new project may be based on a
March 2011
SBI Energy
158
cost/benefit or other analysis prepared by an EPC or specialty equipment manufacturer, or by interest from the would-be end users internal team of technical or trusted legal advisors. Opportunities for supply chain optimization beyond standard optimization schemes center on the relationships between the end user, EPC contractors, specialty equipment manufacturers, and to a lesser extent OEMs and permitting/environmental contractors. Careful management of engineered equipment during construction can reduce project costs and minimize lead time and delays associated with project installation and the manufacture of engineered components. For most installations, the end user is the ultimate source of project funding, and is commonly under time constraints. Thus, the end user has strong incentive to work closely with suppliers and EPC contractors to minimize lifecycle costs along the supply chain, and also minimize manufacturing lead times and delays. Thus, close collaboration between the end user, manufacturers, and the EPC contractor can aid in supply chain optimization and provide a higher quality facility at equal or reduced cost, with fewer delays. This is in contrast to a more standardized supply chain, wherein the end user works directly with the EPC contractor only, and many facets of the project can become constrained by the EPC contractors resources, experience, scope of knowledge, and abilities.76 Alternatively, some algae cultivation facilities currently in development have opted to produce non-intensive biofuels onsite that do not require refineries for hydrotreating or gasification (i.e. biodiesel, ethanol, biomethane). Biofuels such as hydrogen, ethanol, and special algal oils (e.g. botryococcenes) can be extracted from algae within their culture without harvesting the algae. These biofuels require collection from the cultivation system (typically evaporated from the culture), purification, and compression or condensation before delivery or pipeline transmission to consumers, distributors, or retailers. Likewise, biofuels produced at refineries or third-party biofuels production facilities require delivery or pipeline transmission to retailers and distributors prior to consumption by end users. Within the algae biofuels industry, several biotechnology and genetic development companies (e.g. Solazyme, Synthetic Genomics, Targeted Growth) have established themselves as primarily research companies focused upon the selection and modification of algae strains to ensure optimal oil and biomass production within cultivation systems. However, future industry development may include these companies direct involvement in algae cultivation. Alternatively, algae cultivators may forego strain supply and inoculation
76
For additional overview refer to: http://www.ncsu.edu/scrc/public/DIRECTOR/dir071503.html
159
SBI Energy
March 2011
services available through biotechnology companies to rely upon their isolated strains provided through research programs such as the U.S. DOEs Aquatic Species Program (ASP) algae strain library or other similar research strains collections. Algae biofuels requiring refining processes such as gasification, hydroprocessing, or hydrocracking have been developed with assistance from the oil and gas industry, particularly refiners and refinery technology providers such as UOP, Eni, Valero, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and British Petroleum (BP). As representatives of as one of the worlds largest and most established industrial sectors, oil refiners are likely candidates to enter the algae biofuels industry. Several of the oil companies mentioned above have already entered partnerships with algae biofuel technology providers and algae cultivators and have provided technical assistance as well as funding (see below and Chapter 7). With current refining capacity capable of being transitioned to the production of biofuels like biogasoline, renewable diesel, aviation biofuel and hydrogen, oil exploration and production companies (E&P) companies (e.g. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP) could also transition their upstream activities from E&P to algae cultivation through the acquisition of their research partners.
Waste Feedstock Supply Chains

Waste feedstocks are not the primary focus of this review, however, waste feedstock supply chains are important facets of all WtE projects. Figure 5-2 provides an overview of the supply chain for municipal solid waste (MSW). As shown, feedstock is collected from residences and other waste producers, and routed through sorting and materials recovery functions. In nations with recycling requirements, and elsewhere where recycling generates sufficient cash flow, recyclable materials are diverted and sold. Composting is often viewed as a competitor to WtE facilities, and may be employed in lieu of a WtE facility. However, for certain MSW feedstocks, and for very large waste management operations, composting and WtE may work in tandem. Finally, output from the WtE facility will include power or fuel, other commodities such as slag glass and waste heat, landfillable material, and additional recyclable materials (primarily metals).
March 2011
SBI Energy
160
Figure 5-2 Municipal Solid Waste Supply Chain
!=:90''$,#&0)
1*%0/&/!,-#" !"/4,+'('&+#" &#--'&+/#0('"4/&'3
90540(#&)?C 90540(##0 !"%B$#
=0%#&)?")-8%$ 8%0,$((&)?
A$,>,'"/'$ !"#$%&"'(#0 !"%B$#
!"#$%&"'( A$,0@$%>")- A$,>,'&)?
2)$%?>;.*$' :#2 .",&'&#> 6#E$% 90550-&#&$(
D")-+&''
Source: SBI Energy
The most energy/labor intensive portion of the MSW supply chain is waste collection. Waste managers must maintain a fleet of trucks and laborers to collect waste on a daily to weekly basis, and various opportunities for optimization of collection systems and strategies are available (but are not reviewed further in this report). More closely relevant to WtE is the careful balance between recycling, WtE, landfilling, and/or composting. Profit margins and even WtE project viability can be strongly influenced by the fraction of incoming waste that gets diverted to each of these waste management strategies. For instance, for a waste management facility already implementing intensive recycling and composting programs, sufficient residual feedstock may not be available to support an economically viable WtE facility, unless the total volume of waste handled is very large. Therefore, careful consideration of optional waste management strategies should be employed prior to the deployment of a new WtE facility.
161
SBI Energy
March 2011
Non-MSW wastes follow a similar feedstock supply/process chain as compared to MSW, although the process here is more generalized, since a variety of wastes may be handled (Figure 5-3). Feedstock collection and transport is highly variable based on the characteristics of the feedstock being collected. However, most feedstock collection and transport schemes rely on a combination of tipping fees and secondary providers to collect feedstock and deliver to the WtE facility. Some WtE systems, especially in the animal waste or food waste industry, will be co-located next to or near to one or more animal husbandry or food processing facilities. Feedstock is then easily transported via pipeline, conveyor, or other short-distance transportation methods. Relying on one or a very small number of nearby suppliers for feedstock typically produces cost savings for the WtE facility. The disadvantage to such systems is that they are entirely dependent on one or a small number of suppliers for feedstock, and an interruption in supply cannot be easily remedied. Feedstock acquisition can be a substantial hurdle for many non-MSW WtE facilities, and presents a major obstacle to the non-MSW market for WtE technologies. Following delivery to the plant, the incoming feedstock may be sorted or preprocessed, as warranted, and may also be temporarily stored on site. Sorting and preprocessing can remove recyclable materials (for example metal scrap from construction waste) and other feedstock components that are not suitable for WtE. Preprocessing may also include the addition or removal of water, or physical alterations such as grinding or shredding. Feedstock is then provided to the WtE facility, which produces energy or fuel and waste streams, and may also produce additional recyclable materials and other commodities such as slag for roadbed or digestate for soil amendment.
Figure 5-3 Generalized Non-MSW Waste Feedstock Supply Chain
.$$-(#0,B 90''$,#&0)")- F%")(40%#
A$,>,'"/'$ !"#$%&"'(#0 !"%B$#
2)$%?>;.*$' :#2 .",&'&#> 6#E$% 90550-&#&$( D")-+&''
=0%#&)?")-8%$ 8%0,$((&)?
@,(2,"",0+'$3
Source: SBI Energy
March 2011
SBI Energy
162
Waste to Energy Product Promotion

WtE product promotion encompasses raising awareness and the promotion of WtE technologies to potential end users via focused marketing and professional networks, and to the public at large in order to bolster public opinion, government support, and facilitate project approval and implementation. These two facets are described below. Promotion to the End User WtE product promotion to the end user follows a similar promotion and project identification process as compared to many other energy and large municipal projects. Typically, the first step is to identify potential end users and preliminarily assess their willingness or ability to implement a WtE facility that would be relevant to their particular perceived demand or need. For instance, a review of landfill sites that do not currently have installed waste to energy facilities would provide an initial cut of potential prospects. Perhaps more commonly, this initial step is completed through professional networking circles, including industry groups, conferences, and professional contacts, wherein the promoter might identify a potential demand for a WtE installation under a specific potential end user. Finally, some end users that are aware of WtE technologies and their benefits may directly approach an EPC contractor or specialty component manufacturer, either through person-to-person contact, or through a request for proposals (RFPs), in order to evaluate potential for implementation of a WtE plant. WtE product promotion to the end user is therefore largely about maximizing potential opportunities generated along these three paths broad scale identification of potential end users, networking, and response to requests for proposals. Most companies approach this using focused marketing, directed to potential end users via industry magazines, conferences, and sponsorship of or presence at events and meetings that potential end users are likely to attend. As an example, a company that produces pyrolysis based solutions to waste management might publish technology descriptions and case studies in several industry magazines, set up booths at and attend industry conferences where potential end users will be present, attend local, regional, or national government and regulatory hearings related to waste management and waste to energy, sponsor a hosted dinner or other event at a conference or other gathering, arrange business lunches with key potential clients and partners, and other similar activities.
163
SBI Energy
March 2011
These activities help to get the promoting companys name out, make connections, and establish itself as a leader or potential leader in the industry, which in turn generates potential project leads and maintain an early awareness of upcoming RFPs and other potential work. These largely networking-based activities are usually supplemented by printed and internetbased materials that describe a WtE technology, its potential for implementation, its potential benefits, descriptions from previous or current users, case studies, and other printed or multimedia material that helps to establish the credibility of the company in question. Because end users will need to invest very large sums of money in order to get a WtE project off of the ground, the most successful companies focus strongly on establishing trusted relationships with potential end users, sometimes years before a potential project enters even the initial planning stages. Smaller specialty equipment manufacturers those that work almost exclusively through an EPC contractor or other project manager may employ marketing strategies that are similar to these, but with a stronger focus on presence at conferences combined with printed and internet based media, and less of a focus on specific WtE projects. These companies commonly attempt to align themselves closely with other specialty equipment manufacturers or specific EPC contractors that depend on the original companys products and services. Thus, their marketing strategies align more closely with traditional product marketing, but still entail a large networking and interpersonal marketing component. Promotion to Government and the Public Promotion of WtE technologies to the government involves a combination of limited lobbying, support for demonstration projects, and involvement in regulatory decisionmaking processes. Lobbying in the WtE industry occurs at the federal and to a lesser extent regional government levels. At the state and federal levels in the US, the WtE industry has voiced strong support (often unsuccessfully) for the inclusion of waste based power to be eligible for renewable fuels status. In Europe and the US, major industry activities include a push for the widescale implementation of waste management plans and strategies that explicitly incorporate WtE technologies, or which require minimization of landfilling in favor of other end uses of waste including WtE. Demonstration projects serve an important role for establishing the viability of novel or relatively untested technologies. When successful, demonstration projects can be used to form the basis of future commercial scale engineering design, and also serve as positive publicity for the WtE companies involved in the demonstration project. Demonstration
March 2011
SBI Energy
164
projects frequently involve a government funding component, which is acquired via a combination of networking and applications for grant or other available government funding sources. Many WtE companies, especially in the US and Europe, are finding that careful interface with the public at large is an increasingly important facet of project development and successful WtE technology implementation. Especially for MSW projects, publicly elected local officials and other local government representatives hold the authority to approve or not approve a WtE project. In the US, incinerator development in the 1980s was stymied by the concerns of environmental and other interest groups, which decried the technologies as foul, polluting, and wasteful. Current WtE facilities face similar potential for backlash, as concerns regarding airborne emissions and waste management procedures are raising the hackles of environmentalists and anti-development community members. Opposition in the UK has been particularly strong as discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, public interest groups have stopped WtE projects at the local level, requiring appeal to higher level government to keep a WtE project moving. Eager not to meet the same fate as MSW incinerators in the US during previous decades, the WtE industry is more strongly targeting public opinion. For instance, the UKs Confederation of Business Industrys report, Going to Waste: Making the Case for Energy from Waste, links high recycling rates with WtE facilities, in order to demonstrate that the two need not be mutually exclusive.77 Sita, which is a waste management company that serves much of the UK, has been pushing key government officials to add a list of benefits to publicly circulated planning documentation. The company has requested that such documentation be required to include a list of project benefits to the community, for each WtE project considered. WtE companies with thermal technologies in the US have attempted to distance themselves from the negative public opinion surrounding incinerators. To date they have had a reasonable amount of success, in that large segments of the public voice support for pyrolysis and gasification projects on the blogosphere and during public comment forums. However, increased backlash from environmental groups is stirring, and environmental activist groups such as Greenaction78 and the Energy Justice Network79 have coined the term, Incinerators in
77
CBI, 2010. Going to Waste: Making the Case for Energy from Waste. Available at http://climatechange.cbi.org.uk/uploaded/Going_to_waste_300910.pdf Accessed on December 29, 2010. 78 See http://www.greenaction.org/incinerators/alert062004.shtml 79 See http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/
165
SBI Energy
March 2011
Disguise, meant to refer to pyrolitic and gasification WtE technologies. These and an increasing number of environmental activists have been speaking out against thermal WtE facilities.80 Typically, interest groups will recommend alternative waste management strategies, that focus more strongly on recycling and composting, rather than thermal WtE. Interestingly, many of these interest groups actively support anaerobic digestion technology, based on its lower potential for the generation of toxic air emissions. Failure to adequately handle public relations for thermal WtE technologies could have substantial consequences for thermal WtE technologies markets, in the US, the UK, and possibly in mainland Europe.
Summary
The WtE facilities supply chain is characterized by materials manufacturers and fabricators, equipment OEMs, specialty equipment manufacturers, EPC contractors, permitting and environmental contractors, WtE operators, and end users. Feedstock supply chains are also highly relevant to WtE projects, and may involve collection and transport/delivery, sorting and preprocessing, recycling, landfilling, composting, energy/fuel production, and byproduct commodity production. These are reviewed and briefly assessed for potential optimization strategies. WtE product promotion can be roughly divided into two categories: efforts focused on potential end users, and efforts focused on the government and public at large. End user promotion focuses on maximizing opportunities created along three primary paths: broad scale identification of potential end users, networking, and response to RFPs. On the public and government sides, WtE promotion consists of a combination of lobbying to incentivize WtE technologies and products, demonstration projects, and public relations. Public relations for thermal WtE technologies in particular are an area of concern. Anti-WtE publications and activities by environmental groups appear to be gaining momentum both in the US and the UK. If the WtE industry fails to respond effectively to these concerns, thermal WtE technology markets could be substantially affected.
80
See http://charlottesierraclub.org/2010/11/20/the-risks-of-incinerators-a-science-based-analysis/ for links to several relevant reports.
March 2011
SBI Energy
166
Job Creation Estimates
Chapter 6
Waste to Energy Technologies Job Creation Estimates
Scope
This chapter evaluates the potential for job creation among the five WtE technologies considered in this report. Modes of job creation relevant to the overall WtE industry are discussed, and the general methods employed for the estimation of WtE industry job creation are disclosed. Finally, a review of job creation, broken down according to temporary construction verses permanent operation period jobs is included, with a summary of anticipated industry-wide job creation values, at the close of this chapter.
Modes of Job Creation

Forward movement of an industry or industry sector results in the creation of new jobs, as existing human resources reach capacity and new temporary or permanent hires are made. Within the WtE industries considered for this report, the purchase, installation, and operation of new WtE facilities will result in increased demand for fabricators, construction workers, consultants, construction managers, and operation period workers, managers, and administrators. These modes of job creation are evaluated in this chapter. Additional/secondary jobs may be expected to occur outside of the WtE industry, as a result of growth within the WtE industry. For instance, if a large new WtE plant hires 40 permanent workers, managers, and administrators to run the new facility, some of those workers will purchase new homes, cars, and other items, which will support additional job creation. Additionally, daily plant operation may require the purchase of chemicals, services, trucks, and various other items, which may also contribute to additional job creation. These secondary routes of job creation are difficult to consistently define and quantify, and therefore are not considered further in this report. Increasing demand for WtE technologies is expected to drive job creation during the construction and operations phases, within the WtE industry in question, and also within industries supporting the production and installation of ancillary equipment. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, ancillary equipment for WtE technologies includes air emissions controls, feedstock handling facilities, energy conveyance infrastructure, and other equipment aside
167
SBI Energy
March 2011
from the primary WtE technology. Thus, some degree of job creation can be expected in support of production, installation, and operation of each of these WtE project components. The purpose of this chapter is to quantify the job creation potential of the various WtE technologies considered in this report, in light of these considerations.
Job Creation Projections and Methods

The following analysis provides estimates of anticipated job creation for each of the five WtE technologies reviewed in support of this study. Projections are included for the 2011 through 2021 period, and are informed by market valuation data shown in Chapter 3, project cost data discussed in Chapter 4, and announced and anticipated job creation rates that were researched and evaluated during the data collection phase of this analysis. The trends presented below are therefore based on real world job creation numbers for actual proposed and implemented projects, extrapolated across the total global market for each WtE technology. Incineration Of the five WtE technologies reviewed in this report, incinerators show the strongest potential for job creation during the 2011 through 2021 period. This is largely based on incinerators anticipated large WtE market share which ranges from approximately 50% to 65% of the total global WtE market, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. Due to the relatively high capital costs of incinerators, job creation in the incinerator market strongly favors temporary construction jobs over permanent operations period jobs moreso than any of the other technologies considered in this report: for each permanent operation period job created by an incinerator project, approximately 6.9 temporary construction period jobs are created.
March 2011
SBI Energy
168
Figure 6-1 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
As shown in Figure 6-1, anticipated growth in the global incinerator market will result in the addition of approximately 6,500 new temporary construction jobs and 975 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. These figures are anticipated to increase along with projected increases in the global incinerator market. In 2021, new incinerator projects will result in the creation of approximately 16,200 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,400 new permanent operations period jobs. Figure 6-2 summarizes total/cumulative jobs that will be created within the global incineration market through 2021. As shown, during the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for incinerators and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 113,000 temporary construction jobs and 16,600 permanent operation jobs. The global distribution of created jobs is expected to reflect national market expansion rates, with the most total jobs created in China, followed by the UK, the US, India, and Canada.
169
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 6-2 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Incineration; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Gasification Potential for jobs creation in the gasification market was evaluated based on jobs creation information available for gasification projects in the North American market, and extrapolated into the European and Asian markets. Separate jobs creation data specific to the European and Asian markets were not identified by the analyst. WtE gasifiers are anticipated to result in the creation of a similar number of total construction jobs as compared to the plasma gasification market, but with a greater number of operations period jobs, as compared to the plasma gasification market. In general, for each permanent operation period job created by a gasification project, approximately 3.0 temporary construction jobs are also created.
March 2011
SBI Energy
170
Figure 6-3 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
As shown in Figure 6-3, anticipated growth in the global gasification market will result in the addition of approximately 1,600 new temporary construction jobs and 520 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. These figures are anticipated to increase along with projected increases in the global gasification market. In 2021, new gasification projects will result in the creation of approximately 5,800 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,900 new permanent operations period jobs. Figure 6-4 summarizes total/cumulative jobs that will be created in the global gasification market through 2021. As shown, during the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for WtE gasifiers and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 36,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent operation period jobs. The global distribution of created jobs for gasification is expected to reflect national market expansion rates, with the most total jobs created in China, followed by India and the US.
171
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 6-4 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Plasma Gasification Similar to the gasification market, reliable jobs creation data for plasma gasification were only available for anticipated projects located in the North American market. Therefore, the global job creation potential for the plasma gasification market was evaluated by extrapolating North American jobs data into the European and Asian markets. Plasma gasifiers are anticipated to result in the creation of a similar number of total construction jobs as compared to the WtE gasification market, but with fewer operations period jobs, as compared to the plasma gasification market. In general, for each permanent operation period job created by a plasma gasification project, approximately 5.2 temporary construction jobs are also created. As shown in Figure 6-5, anticipated growth in the global plasma gasification market will result in the addition of approximately 530 new temporary construction jobs and 100 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. These jobs creation figures are lower than for any of the other technologies, and are due largely to lower market values for plasma gasification in 2011, as compared to the other technologies discussed in this report. However, by 2021, new plasma gasification projects will result in the creation of approximately 5,600 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,100 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. Figure 6-6 summarizes total/cumulative jobs that will be created in the global plasma gasification market through 2021. As shown, during the 2011 through 2021
March 2011
SBI Energy
172
period, global sales and installations for plasma gasifiers and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 6,700 permanent operation period jobs. The global distribution of created jobs is expected to reflect national market expansion rates, with the most total jobs created in China, followed by the UK, the US, India, and Canada.
Figure 6-5 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Figure 6-6 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Plasma Gasification; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
173
SBI Energy
March 2011
Pyrolysis The global pyrolysis market will result in the creation of one new construction job for each $326,000 in capital costs spent on new pyrolysis projects. This represents the highest rate of construction job creation on the basis of dollars spent for any of the WtE technologies discussed in this report. The global pyrolysis market is expected to result in the creation of more cumulative total temporary construction jobs than any of the other technologies discussed in this report, except incineration. Overall, for each permanent operation period job created by a pyrolysis project, approximately 5.5 temporary construction jobs are also created.
Figure 6-7 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
As shown in Figure 6-7, anticipated growth in the global pyrolysis market will result in the addition of approximately 1,100 new temporary construction jobs and 200 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. However, by 2021, new pyrolysis projects will result in the creation of approximately 8,500 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 1,500 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. Figure 6-8 summarizes total/cumulative jobs that will be created in the global pyrolysis market through 2021. As shown, during the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for pyrolysis plants and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 57,000 temporary construction jobs and 10,000 permanent operation period jobs The global distribution of
March 2011
SBI Energy
174
created jobs is expected to reflect national market expansion rates, with the most total jobs created in China, followed by the UK, the US, India, and Canada.
Figure 6-8 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Pyrolysis; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Anaerobic Digestion In comparison to all other technologies, the anaerobic digester market is expected to result in the highest rate of permanent operations period job creation. This is largely a result of the inclusion of smaller on-farm and animal husbandry type digesters within the scope of this report. Digesters treating MSW, which are comparatively larger and in most cases benefit from greater economies of scale, are expected to result in job creation rates that are more similar to those described for the thermal WtE technologies, as discussed previously. Although the global market for anaerobic digesters is much smaller than the global market for incinerators, the global anaerobic digester market is expected to generate a similar number of total permanent operations period jobs, as compared to the incineration market. Overall, for each permanent operation period job created in the global anaerobic digester market, approximately 1.4 temporary construction jobs are also created.
175
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 6-9 Projected Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Annual Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
As shown in Figure 6-9, anticipated growth in the global anaerobic digestion market will result in the addition of approximately 1,300 new temporary construction jobs and 900 new permanent operations period jobs in 2011. By 2021, new anaerobic digester projects will result in the creation of approximately 3,900 new temporary construction jobs and approximately 2,800 new permanent operations period jobs, on an annual basis. Figure 6-10 summarizes total/cumulative jobs that will be created in the global anaerobic digester market through 2021. As shown, during the 2011 through 2021 period, global sales and installations for anaerobic digester plants and ancillaries will have resulted in the creation of approximately 27,000 temporary construction jobs and 19,000 permanent operation period jobs The global distribution of created jobs is expected to reflect national market expansion rates, with the most total jobs created in China, followed by the UK, the US, India, and Canada.
March 2011
SBI Energy
176
Figure 6-10 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation Rates for Anaerobic Digestion; 2011 to 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created)
Source: SBI Energy
Summary
Job creation within the WtE industry is anticipated as demand for WtE technologies increases, during the coming decade. Specifically, the purchase, installation, and operation of new WtE facilities will result in increased demand for fabricators, construction workers, consultants, construction managers, and operation period workers, managers, and administrators. Job creation rates for these and associated functions are evaluated. Secondary and indirect sources of job creation are not evaluated. As shown in Figure 6-11, the projected increases in the WtE market (see Chapter 3) are expected to result in concurrent job creation. A cumulative total of approximately 333,000 construction and operation period jobs are anticipated through 2021. Of these, approximately 39% will be associated with incineration, 20% with pyrolysis, 14% with gasification, an additional 14% with anaerobic digestion, and the remaining 12% with plasma gasification.
177
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 6-11 Total Cumulative Construction and Operation Period Job Creation for all WtE Technologies; 2011 - 2021 (Cumulative Total Number of Jobs Created, Thousands)
Source: SBI Energy
March 2011
SBI Energy
178
Competitive Profiles
Chapter 7
Scope
The profiles contained in this report include product and system suppliers selected on the basis of their previous and ongoing business activity in the WtE technology markets considered in this study, or potential as suppliers to future projects. The companies profiled include firms whose sole business function is within the WtE industry, as well as larger companies that are more broadly focused in waste management and associated services (i.e., Veolia), and conglomerates that service an array of different industry sectors (Siemens).
Methodology and Selection of Profiles

The construction, installation, and operation of a single WtE facility require numerous specialty and non-specialty component and materials manufacturers, engineers, construction contractors and construction managers, and in some cases contracted operators. The profiles provided below are not intended to represent the entire array of manufacturing corporations that are, in one way or another, involved in the construction and operation of WtE facilities. Rather, the profiles are limited to manufacturers able to supply key components and services needed for the installation of WtE facilities. Construction contractors and other local labor forces were not considered. This chapter also includes examples of a few startup companies, which show excellent potential to become active suppliers to WtE projects as the WtE market increases through the coming years.
179
SBI Energy
March 2011
Alpha Bio Systems, Inc.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Private 9912 W. York Street Wichita, KS 67215 USA 888-265-7929 / 316-265-7929 www.alphabiosystems.com 8 Randall L. Kressler, President Terry Loucks, Executive Vice President Stephen Kinal, Production Manager Bill Karges, Field Service Manager Eric Borland, VP and General Manager Tim Galliher, VP of Sales and Marketing Chad Dolan, National Account Manager December $1 million - $10 million
Key Executives
Fiscal Year End Revenue

81
Overview Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. is a liquid microbe bioremediation product manufacturer for the agricultural, industrial, commercial, aquatic pond management and household industries. Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. was founded in 1995 and offers a variety of solutions front-to-backend for livestock operations, including sampling and analysis, recommendation of treatment program and treatment of SafeOne, and after sales services monthly to ensure effective solutions. The company has identified over 200 strains of facultative microbes that have a variety of applications in various industries. Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. is marketed and serviced by iSi Environmental Services. Performance Alpha Bio Systems has estimated annual sales of $150,000. iSi Environmental Services, marketer and service provider of Alpha Bio Systems equipment, saw a three-year growth in revenue of 45% between the years of 2006 and 2009. Reported revenue for 2009 was $9.6 million and the company was ranked #3635 on the 2010 Inc. 5000.
Total revenues in the 2010 fiscal year of the selected companies of this chapter are estimated on the basis of the companies quarterly earnings reports through the 3rd fiscal quarter (Q3) of 2010 and associated internal analyst estimates for earnings in the entire fiscal year.
81
March 2011
SBI Energy
180
Product Portfolio Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. provides solutions for dairy, feedlots, poultry, swine, equipment comprehensive nutrient management plans, and wastewater and manure fertilization. The company also manufactures several products including separators, pumps, mixers and aerators. ABS also develops and manufacturers aeration systems that are scalable for various applications.
Product PTS Submersible Chopper Pumps ABS 260 Separator / ABS 300 Separator Alpha TBM Submersible Mixer Aeration Systems Descriptions Used for heavy applications requiring preliminary chopping of solid materials Planetary drive with separate chamber to keep slurry from making contact with drive Has triangle support to be mounted in existing pit installations. Used with microbial treatment to provide a bio-remedial solution. Also prevents winter ice build-up.
iSi offers turnkey management hazardous waste management services including technical asbestos services, bioremediation, consulting services, hazardous waste management, industrial cleaning, oil spill cleanups, and remediation services. Company News and Developments Alpha Bio Systems, Inc. has distributors throughout the United States. The company is active in supplying products for facilities including the Reinford Farm in Berkeley, CA.
181
SBI Energy
March 2011
The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public 13024 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 700 Charlotte, NC 28277 U.S.A. 704-625-4900 www.babcock.com 18,800 Brandon C. Bethards, President & CEO Mary Pat Salomone, COO Michael Taff, CFO & Senior VP Christofer M. Mowry, President of Nuclear Energy, Inc. Winfred D. Nash, President of Operations Group, Inc. Richard L. Killion, President and COO of Power Generation Group, Inc. S. Robert Cochran, President of Technical Service Group, Inc. James D. Canafax, Senior VP, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary George Dudich, Senior VP - Business Development & Strategic Planning December $2.673 B (2010e)
Key Executives
Overview The Babcock & Wilcox Company is global leader and provider of energy products and services. Established in 1867, Babcock, Wilcox & Company manufactured and marketed the water tube boiler. In 2007, B&W and BWXT combined operations under the name The Babcock & Wilcox Company. The Babcock & Wilcox company consists of four business units: B&W Nuclear Energy, B&W Nuclear Operations Group, B&W Power Generation Group, and B&W Technical Services Group. B&W provides products and services to a broad range of industries including clean energy technologies, construction, environmental, fossil power, government services, industrial power & process steam, nuclear medicine, nuclear power and commercial, and pulp and paper. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance B&W reported revenues of $688.5 million for the second quarter of 2010, a decrease of 6% or $43.6 million from the same period during the 2009 fiscal year. The decrease in revenues is due to the decrease in demand in the power generation industry and decline in U.S. utility investments. Revenues for the 2010 fiscal year are estimated to decrease to $2.67 billion, about 6.7% (2009: $2.85 billion).
March 2011
SBI Energy
182
Figure 7-1 Babcock and Wilcox Revenues, 2007-2010e
3.5 3.0
Sales ($ Billion)
3.20
3.40 2.85 2.67
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010e
Product Portfolio The Babcock & Wilcox Company offers a wide variety of auxiliary equipment, boilers, boiler replacement parts, commercial nuclear plant components and environmental equipment. B&W boilers have the ability to burn almost any fuel into steam in an efficient, safe and reliable manner. B&W offers two boiler options for waste-to-energy products: the municipal solid waste (MSW) boiler and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) boiler. B&W also provides construction, environmental equipment services, field engineering services, laboratory management and services, manufacturing, nuclear operations management, operations & maintenance of fossil power, power plant upgrades, and research and development services. Company News and Developments Babcock & Wilcox began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol BWC. B&W provides about 25% of the worlds boiler-powered electricity with top customers including American Electric Power and FirstEnergy. B&Ws biggest competitors including Bechtel National, Inc., Foster Wheeler AG, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. In 2010, B&W became an independent, publicly traded company. B&W has plans to increase global presence through strategic acquisitions, mergers and partnerships.
183
SBI Energy
March 2011
BlueFire Renewables Inc.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public 31 Musick Irvine, CA 92618 U.S.A 949-588-3767 www.bfreinc.com/ 9 Arnold R. Klann, CEO and President Christopher D. Scott, CFO and Principal Accountant John E. Cuzens, CTO and Senior VP Necitas Sumait, Senior VP, Secretary and Director William Davis, Project Management Chris Nichols, Director Victor Doolan, Director December $1 million (2010e)
Key Executives
Overview BlueFire Renewables, Inc. is a development-stage company that produces and operates biorefineries to produce ethanol as well as provides professional services to biorefineries worldwide. One of four companies awarded funding by the U.S. Department of Energy; BlueFire is working to construct a commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facility. The company was developed in 1989 as a related company to ARK Energy. At this time, the company began researching technologies to develop thermal hosts and determined that concentrated acid hydrolysis process had the potential to be economically viable through new technology use, newer construction materials, and modern control systems. In August 2010, BlueFire Ethanol Fuels changed its name to BlueFire Renewables, Inc. Performance BlueFire Renewables, Inc. is a startup company reporting revenues in 2007 of $49,000 and $1,075,508 in 2008. The United States Department of Energy has awarded BlueFire Renewables a total of $5,865,860 in funding since the companys start in 2006, but has been awarded a total of $88 million in funding. BlueFire Renewables reported total revenues of $538,405 for the six months ended September 30, 2010.
March 2011
SBI Energy
184
Figure 7-2 BlueFire Renewables, Inc., Revenues, 2007-2010e
4,500,000.0 4,000,000.0 3,500,000.0

Sales ($ Million)
4,318,213.00
3,000,000.0 2,500,000.0 2,000,000.0 1,500,000.0 1,000,000.0 500,000.0 0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010e 49,000.00 1,075,508.00 1,000,000.00
Product Portfolio BlueFire is the only viable, worldwide cellulose-to-ethanol company to use the Arkenol patented process. BlueFire has experience with generating ethanol from wood wastes, urban trash, municipal solid waste, rice and wheat straws and other agricultural residues. The companys first North American Waste to Ethanol Production Facility is in its final stages of development in California. Company News and Developments BlueFire is positioned to become the leading worldwide developer, owner and operator of biorefineries. As the only North American company to be licensed to use the Arkenol Process Technology, BlueFire has several biorefineries currently in various stages of development.
185
SBI Energy
March 2011
Covanta Energy Corporation

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public 40 Lane Road Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 U.S.A. 973-882-9000 / 866-268-2682 http://www.covantaenergy.com 4,100 Samuel Zell, Chairman Anthony Orlando, President, CEO and Director Sanjiv Khattri, CFO, EVP Seth Myones, President, Americas John Klett, EVP and COO Timothy J. Simpson, EVP, General Counsel, Secretary Thomas E. Bucks, VP, Chief Accounting Officer December $1709.14 M (2010e)
Key Executives
Overview Covanta Energy Corporation, a subsidiary of Covanta Holding Corporation (NYSE: CVA), is a global owner and operator of waste to energy power projects headquartered in Fairfield, New Jersey. Covanta processes over 5% of the United States waste. Founded in 1939 under the company name Ogden, Covanta Energy Corporation started as a public utility holding company. In 2001, the company changes its name to Covanta Energy Corporation and subsequently files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2002. In 2004, Danielson Holding Corporation acquired Covanta. Covanta Holding Corporation operates through its subsidiaries, which are engaged predominantly in the waste-to-energy services. Covanta Energy Corporation operates power projects and independent power facilities across the United States as well as in Asia and Europe. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance Total revenues for Covanta Energy Corporation is estimated to increase in its 2010 fiscal year to $1709.14 million or about 10.5% from the previous fiscal year (2009: $1550.47 million). Demand for Covantas products has risen significantly due to the growing interest in the
March 2011
SBI Energy
186
clean technology sector and government initiatives designed to combat climate change.82 Through the first three quarters of the 2010 fiscal year, Covantas sales remained significantly higher at approximately $429.661 million or 12.7% lower than the same period of the 2009 fiscal year (Q1-Q3 2009 sales: $381.085 million).
Figure 7-3 Covanta Energy Corporation, Revenues, 2006-2010e
1,800.0 1,600.0 1,400.0

Sales ($ Million)
1,664.25 1,550.47 1,433.09 1,268.54
1,709.14
1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e
Product Portfolio Covanta Energy Corporation operates approximately 40 waste-to-energy facilities in the United States, Europe and Asia. Covanta offers other renewable facilities including eight wood biomass facilities and three biogas products projects. Covanta Energy led the development of the largest private power project in the Philippines. A 440-megawatt facility, the Quezon Power Project, subsidiaries of Covanta Energy own 26% of the facility as well as the contract to operate it.4 With competitors like The AES Corporation, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. and Calpine Corporation, Covanta Energy Corporation is a major competitor operating more than 40 power plants generating more than 9 million megawatts of electricity and 9 billion pounds of steam which is sold to a variety of industries.
82
Efficiency and waste to drive green technology sector. Reuters Analysis. Friday September 4, 2009. www.reuters.com 4 International Energy www.covantaenergy.com
187
SBI Energy
March 2011
Company News and Developments On October 14, 2010, Covanta Holding Corporation announced plans for Covanta Energy to construct the first Scottish energy-from-waste plant. The facility is expected to generate 24megawatts of renewable energy which is enough energy to power approximately 80,000 homes.
March 2011
SBI Energy
188
Ener-G PLC
Company Details Company Type Descriptions Private ENER-G House Daniel Adamson Road Manchester M50 1DT UK +44 (0) 161 745 7450 http://www.energ.co.uk/energy-from-waste 780 Hugh Richmond, Managing Director of Natural Power Derek Duffill, Group Managing Director June $199.1 (2010)
Company Address
Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue
Overview Ener-G PLC was incorporated in 2001 in Manchester, United Kingdom. In 2007, the company changed its name from Ener-G Efficiency Plc to Ener-G Plc. Ener-G Plc is a sustainable energy technology business providing energy cogeneration and management, renewable energy, and energy from waste products and services to customers worldwide. Energos, is Ener-Gs energy from waste business, which uses its own patented gasification technology. Ener-G conducts operations through its subsidiaries: Ener-G Natural Power, Ener-G Systems Ltd., HERA Ener-G, Ener-G Efficiency, Utility Auditing Limited and Waste Gas Technology Ltd. The company provides services to customers in the hospitality, defense, industrial, transport and government industries. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance The company has an estimated annual turnover of $111.67 million. The company, currently a private company, is looking at an initial public offering in order to raise funds for the next phase expansion. The IPO could list within the next twelve to eighteen months. The company has increased turnover by a little under a third in 2010 to $199.1 million for the 2010 fiscal year (2009: $154.7 million).
189
SBI Energy
March 2011
Product Portfolio Ener-G offers key products in combined heat and power (CHP), biogas generation, energy from waste, ground source heat pump and energy management products and services. The company also offers solutions including biogas utilization and efficient lighting controls. Company News and Developments Ener-G has operations in 17 countries across Europe including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Mexico, South Africa, United States, Canada and Spain. The company is pursuing opportunities overseas on landfill sites. Ener-G is positioned as Europes leading cogeneration system (CHP), from 33kW to 10 MW, supplier.
March 2011
SBI Energy
190
Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue Descriptions Public Fabrikstr. 1 DE-51643 GUMMERSBACH Nordrhein-Westfalen Germany +49 (0)2261 226 1850 http://www.fisia-babcock.com 302 Dr. Ing. Gian Paolo Maccone, Managing Director Dr. Ing. Peter Riemenschneider, Managing Director and General Manager December $2.99 billion (2010e)
Overview Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH is the German unit of Impregilo SpA, an Italian construction company (IPGI.MI). Impregilo SpA is a multinational construction and civil engineering business headquartered in Sesto San Giovanni, outside of Milan. The company was founded in 1959 and today leads the Italian engineering and general contracting of environmental sectors. Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH first began in 1824 when Matthias Noell founded a black smiths shop in Wurzburg, Germany. In 1961, the company constructed its first waste-to-energy plant in Goppingen, Germany. The Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH was established in 2002 in Gummersbach, Germany. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance The Impregilo Group employs approximately 15,000 people and reported revenues of $3.7 billion in its 2009 fiscal year. Total revenues for Impregilo Group is estimated to decrease in its 2010 fiscal year to $2.99 billion. Impregilo reported total revenue of $692.7 million for its most recent quarter ending September 30, 2010. The decrease in Impregilo correlates with the decline in Italys economy and decrease in construction investments.
191
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 7-4 Fisia Babcock Environment, GmbH, Revenues, 2006-2010e
3.0 2.63 2.5 Sales (! Billion) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2006 2007
2.96 2.71 2.19 1.73
2008
2009
2010e
Product Portfolio Fisia Babcock Environment offers a range of waste-to-energy, hazardous waste, gas cleaning for waste-to-energy and industry, gas cleaning for power stations and after sales service products. The company also serves as a general contractor, system supplier and engineering provider for waste-to-energy facilities.
Waste-to-Energy Firing Systems Steam Generators Residue Handling and Treatment Gas Cleaning Product Waste Feeding System, Charging Hopper, Shut-off Damper, Expansion Joint, Fuel Shaft and Hydraulic Driven Ram Feeder including Moving Grates with Air or Water Cooling, Roller Grates, Rotary Kilns Vertical or Horizontal Pass Boilers, Pendant or Standing Designs Ash dischargers and slag handling plants, Fly Ash Treatment, Slag Treatment and Slag Stabilization Processes Electrostatic Precipitators, Fabric Filters, Wet Flue Gas Cleaning, Spray Absorption, Dry Absorption, Catalytic and Non-Catalytic DeNOx Processes, Activated Carbon Filter Plants
Company News and Developments On October 6, 2010, Fisia Babcock Environment announced that the company has been commissioned to plan and construct the waste incineration plant MPZ 1 in Moscow. The MPZ 1 facility will become one of the largest waste-to-energy plants in Russia. The contract is aligned with FBEs strategy in Eastern Europe. FBE also received orders to construct a waste treatment plant in the Baltic State.
March 2011
SBI Energy
192
Florida Syngas LLC

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public PO Box 704 Grant, FL 32949 U.S.A. 321-722-0176 www.floridasyngas.com 10 John P. Sessa, President Dr. Albin Czernichowski, Chief Technology Officer Lawrence W. Bell, VP of Marketing Jim Brenner, Director of Chemical Engineering Peter Barile, Director of Environmental Engineering Shinobu Doi, Director of Systems Engineering John Warren, Director of Government Relations December $0.00
Key Executives
Overview Florida Syngas LLC was founded August 29, 2007 by John Sessa and Dr. Albin Czernichowski. In June 2008, the company responds with waste-to-energy solutions and in November completed the second prototype in Grant, Florida. In February 2009, Florida Syngas debuted its GlidArc product at the National Biodiesel Convention held in San Francisco, CA. Performance Florida Syngas is currently seeking investors to support development of its GlidArc product which is in Alpha State and demonstratable at present time. The company has a 10 MW standing order with Advent Power Systems, a pending proposal with Pure Biofuels, and multiple license inquiries from the American Samoa, Paul Oil Company. Product Portfolio Florida Syngas manufactures and markets GlidArc Technology, which uses waste products to make Syngas through electrical discharge plasma. Syngas can be used to produce clean, hydrogen rich gas as fuel for gas generators, reduce fertilizer runoff and water pollution, manufacture ultra-clean synthetic gasoline and jet fuels, and produce methanol using commercial Tropsch Systems.
193
SBI Energy
March 2011
Company News and Developments GlidArc is in its Alpha Stage and is completely demonstratable. Florida Syngas is seeking investors in order to isolate new technologies with various market applications. With the ability to service every waste steam and energy market, Florida Syngas offers a unique investment opportunity. On October 17, 2010, the company announced plans to develop a Coal to Liquid Fuel (CTL) Plant in Florida in partnership with Radhe Renewable Energy Ltd. and TopLine Energy Systems.
March 2011
SBI Energy
194
Frontline BioEnergy, LLC

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue Descriptions Private 1421 S. Bell Ave. Suite 105 Ames, IA 50010 515-292-1200 www.frontlinebioenergy.com 18 Bill Lee, CEO John P. Reardon, Director of Process Development Jerod Smeenk, Director of Project Engineering T.J. Paskach, Manager of Business Development March $0.00
Overview Frontline BioEnergy offers clients capabilities including process engineering and plant and control system design, procurement of major equipment, startup assistance, ongoing, highly available technical support, and engineering capabilities. The company has been facing a decline in investments and has been unable to move many projects to their next stage in development. Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company (CVEC) manages the companys assets including its technology and intellectual property. CVEC is working with Frontline BioEnergy to provide thermal energy for its corn ethanol process. Performance While the company has been quite successful in developing technologies, there has not been enough investment in the company at this time to move these projects beyond the conceptual engineering phase. Demand has decreased because there is very low natural gas pricing, lack of federal and additional state legislation addressing carbon emissions, regulatory uncertainty and rapidly changing EPA regulations and a highly challenging investment environment in the United States. Product Portfolio Frontline BioEnergy offers products in renewable energy, electric power generation, industrial heat, and syngas & biofuels including process heat/steam generation, combustion turbines, internal combustion gen-set, internal combustion engines, utility boilers, and high pressure steam turbines.
195
SBI Energy
March 2011
Company News and Developments Frontline BioEnergy provides biomass gasification systems for application in industrial scale projects. Frontline has a vast amount of industry experience and one of the largest operating biomass gasifiers in North America. In November 2010, the company announced plans to suspend operations, but are still accepting inquiries from perspective investors.
March 2011
SBI Energy
196
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB)

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Private 8550 Arlington Blvd., Suite 304 Fairfax, VA 22031 U.S.A. 703-573-5800 / 800-573-5801 http://www.gbbinc.com/ 16 Harvey Gershman, President Bob Brickner, Executive Vice President Tim Bratton, Senior Vice President Frank Bernheisel, Vice President Chace Anderson, Vice President Tom Reardom, Vice President Chris Lund, Vice President December <$1.37 million
Key Executives
Overview Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) was established in 1980 and today serves as an international management-consulting firm with a reputation for developing sustainable solid waste programs. GBB provides services for association / state projects, business development, collection and route optimization, commercial and industrial recycling, construction waste and demolition debris recycling, disaster debris recovery consulting services, district energy systems, economic flow control and alternative revenue strategies, expert witness, full cost management, landfill, litter surveys, materials recovery facilities, public education, residential recycling plans and marketing studies, solid waste management plan / strategic planning, tires recycling, transfer station and disposal, and waste-to-energy / alternative technologies. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) has an annual turnover of less than $1.37 million. GBBs FleetRoute software was chosen for use in the City of Baltimore to analyze current collection practices and establish re-routing strategies that are estimated to generate savings of over $6 million per year.
197
SBI Energy
March 2011
Product Portfolio GBB offers three products for the solid waste management industry: FleetRoute, MatTrack, and Mobile Sorter System. GBBs Waste-to-Energy services include solid waste management planning and implementation, landfill management, collection and routing, feasibility studies, construction monitoring, acceptance testing, evaluation of operations, full-cost accounting, community information, technical assistance and training, recycling, market analysis, construction waste and demolition debris recycling, waste-to-energy project development, and waste composition and quantity analysis. GBB has provided Waste-to-Energy / Alternative Technologies services to clients like the City of Alexandria and Arlington County, Virginia; the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority; St. Elizabeths Hospital, and; the City of Springfield, Massachusetts among others. Company News and Developments GBB has offices nationwide in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Tennessee, Oregon, California, Maryland and Virginia. GBB has worked on projects worldwide for both publicand private sector organization. GBB has a long history of working with municipal and state level organizations.
March 2011
SBI Energy
198
Martin GmbH
Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue Descriptions Private Leopoldstrae 248 80807 Munich Germany 49 89 356 17 0 http://www.martingmbh.de/ 2,500 Dipl.-Kfm. Ludwig A. von Mutius, Managing Director Dipl.-Phys. Edmund W. Fleck, Managing Director Dipl.-Ing. Johannes J.E. Martin, Managing Director December $320 M (2010e)
Overview Established in 1925 under the name Josef Martin Feuerungsbau GmbH, Martin GmbH has grown to become one of the world leaders in the construction of waste-to-energy plants. As of November 2009, Martin GmbH became a subsidiary of Finetech GmbH & Co. KG. Martin Services SAS was founded in 2010 with the primary task of taking care of existing plants by carrying out overhaul work and supplying spare parts. Martin GmbH has partnerships with Covanta Energy Corporation, Constructions Industrielles de la Mediterranee, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Environment Engineering Co., Ltd. The company is active in North American, South American, Asian, and European markets. Performance The acquisition of Martin GmbH by Finetech GmbH & Co. KG is expected to grow both companies significantly on the global scale. Finetech has a global operation presence with offices in China, Germany, the United States and Malaysia. Product Portfolio Martin GmbH offers technologies in several categories including delivery, feeds, combustion systems, reverse-acting grate Vario, horizontal grates, flue gas recirculation, SYNCOM process, SYNCOM-Plus, dischargers, combustion of sewage sludge, SNCR process, energy recovery, flue gas cleaning system and NOx reduction. Martin also provides general contractor, component / lot supplier, engineering partner, plant service, spare parts, modernization / optimization / modifications, and research and development services. Martin
199
SBI Energy
March 2011
offers various boiler designs specific to energy recovery from waste including tail-end boilers, pendant-type boilers, tail-end boiler with vertical economizers, and two-drum boilers. Company News and Developments Finetech operates in Germany, Arizona, China and Malaysia. The acquisition of Martin GmbH by Finetech will increase the global reach of both companies. Both companies are active in all major countries.
March 2011
SBI Energy
200
Pyrogenesis Canada, Inc.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Private 200-1744 William St. Montreal, Quebec H3J1R4 Canada 514-937-0002 www.pyrogenesis.com/ 45 Peter Pascali, President Antonio Pisegna, Finance Director and Director Gillian Holcroft, Chief Operating Officer and Director Pierre Carabin, Chief Engineer Tom Whitton, Business Development Leader December $2.5 million (2010e)
Key Executives
Overview PyroGenesis Canada, Inc. is an engineering company providing solutions for plasma-based waste treatment and waste-to-energy systems. Founded in 1991, the company has grown into a respected global company supplying products and services to various industries and highprofile clientele. The company has partnerships with the US Department of Defense and holds several patented and proven technologies. PyroGenesis provides a range of high power plasma torches that are used in waste destruction, heat treatment and advanced material research and development. Performance Pyrogenesis has an estimated annual turnover between $1 million to $10 million. Product Portfolio PyroGenesis Canada offers a broad range of products that support the waste-to-energy industry including:
201
SBI Energy
March 2011
Product Name Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS) Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS) Drosrite Plasma Torches Custom Equipment Waste-to-Energy Systems using Plasma
Descriptions Used to treat combustible waste, cabin waste, sludge, oil, bio-sludge, and good waste onboard cruise ships and naval ships. Used to treat a range of wastes including industrial, hazardous, and clinical wastes. Used to extract heat from energy in the process residue. Used to supply high energy required for gasification of waste material. Turnkey Solutions for a variety of specialized needs. Plasma based water treatment systems both land and marine-based
The company also offers engineering services including research and development on custom high temperature reactors. Company News and Developments PyroGenesis Canadas key clients include US Navy, Carnival Cruise Lines, Fincantieri Shipyards, CanMet Energy Technology Center, National Technology University of Athens, McGill University, Northrup Grumman Newsport News Shipbuilding, and the US Air Force. Currently the company exports to Greece and the United States. At present, PyroGenesis is actively pursuing opportunities in Italy, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The company is focusing on the environment, medical / biotechnology / chemical, service industry, defense and pulp and paper industry sectors.
March 2011
SBI Energy
202
QinetiQ
Company Details Company Type Descriptions Public Cody Technology Park Ively Road Farnborough Hampshire GU14 0LX UK +44 (0) 8700 100 942 www.qinetiq.com 13,078 Leo Quinn, Group Chief Executive Lynton Boardman, Group Legal & Compliance Director Andy Brierley, Director Organisational Development Duane Andrews, Chief Executive Officer, North America Mike Stolarik, Chief Operating Officer JD Crouch, Vice President for Strategic Development Tom Weston, Chief Financial Officer March $2,449.2 M (2010)
Company Address
Phone URL Employees
Key Executives
Fiscal Year End Revenue83
Overview A leading provider of research and engineering services, QinetiQ was founded in July 2001 from the division of the Defence Evaluation Research Agency. QinetiQ provides solutions in the Defense, Aerospace and Security markets including solutions such as technical assistance and support for programs, technology, evaluation, research and development and training delivery. QinetiQ is an international provider of services and products for military, government and commercial customers. Some of QinetiQs major customers include the UK Ministry of Defence, NASA, and the US Department of Defense. Performance QinetiQ reported total revenues of $2,449.2 million for fiscal year 2010, an increase of $151.2 million from fiscal year 2009 ($2,298 million). Demand for QinetiQs services depends on availability of funding in the defense and government sectors, which correlates with the economic conditions and spending.
83
203
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 7-5 QinetiQ, Revenues, 2006-2010e
3,000.0 2,500.0
Sales ($ Million)
2,723.90 2,298.00
2,449.20
2,000.0 1,500.0 1,051.70 1,000.0 500.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1,149.50
Product Portfolio QinetiQ develops a broad range of products in key markets of Defence, Security, and Energy and Environment. QinetiQ offers waste-to-energy capabilities in sonochemistry, pyrolysis waste processing, integrated waste management, and material reclamation from household waste. Company News and Developments QinetiQ operates throughout the UK, North America and Australia and is a recognized partner to customers worldwide. Currently, QinetiQ is developing a Pyrolysis Waste Disposal System for the US Army. QinetiQs top competitors include BAE Systems plc, HP Enterprise Services, and Thales. On October 8, 2010, QinetiQ sold its interest in S&IS.
March 2011
SBI Energy
204
Siemens AG
Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public Siemens AG Wittelsbacherplatz 2 80333 Munich Germany +49 (89) 636-34794 www.siemens.com/ 405,000 Gerhard Cromme, Chairman of the Supervisory Board Peter Loescher, President of the Managing Board, CEO Josef Ackermann, Second Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory Board Berthold Huber, First Deputy Chairman of the Supervisory, Employee Representative September $103.8 B (2010)
Key Executives
Fiscal Year End Revenue84
Overview In 1847, Werner von Siemens and Johann Georg Halske founded what would become a global leader in the energy, industrial, IT, financial services, and real estate sectors. Siemens Industry and Energy Sectors are leading global suppliers of a broad range of products, solutions and services for production, conversion and transport of the primary fuels oil and gas as well as power generation, transmission and distribution. Siemens Energy Sector operates six business units including fossil power generation, renewable energy, oil & gas, energy service, power transmission, and power distribution. Siemens Industry Sector operates six business units including industry automation products, drive technologies, building technologies, OSRAM, industry solutions, and mobility. Performance Siemens produced the largest operating profit in company history during fiscal year 2010 with the largest contribution generated by the companys Energy Sector in the amount of $4.9 billion, a 7% increase over the previous year. The company reported total revenues of $103.8 billion for fiscal year 2010, a decrease of about 0.8% (2009: $104.65 billion).
84
205
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 7-6 Siemens AG, Revenues, 2007-2010e
Product Portfolio Siemens Energy is the only company worldwide that provides clients with their own products and solutions for the entire chain of energy conversion from generation to distribution. Siemens offers a wide variety of products supporting power generation including gas turbines, steam turbines, generators, power plants, small hydro power, wind power, solar power, geothermal power, photovoltaic inverters, environmental systems, fuel gasifier and fuel cells. Siemens Industry Sector produces a MEMCOR or membrane filtration systems. Company News and Developments Siemens expanded its operations in ecofriendly products and solutions. Siemens market share increased in Asia, Australia and growth was particularly strong in emerging countries with revenue in India increasing 17%, revenue in China rising 12% and revenue in Brazil growing 32%. Siemens Industry Sector has about 207,000 employees worldwide, operations in more than 130 countries. Siemens Energy Sector employs about 85,000 employees worldwide.
March 2011
SBI Energy
206
Takuma Co., Ltd.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public 2-2-33 Kinrakuji-cho Amagasaki, Hyogo 660-0806 Japan 81-66483-2609 http://www.takuma.co.jp/ 3,283 Hajime Tejima, President, Executive President, Representative Director Tsutomu Tanaka, Senior Managing Executive Officer Yasuyuki Moriura, Chief Director of Compliance & CSR Promotion Shigehiro Shibakawa, Chief Senior Director of Engineering Yuson Wakimoto, Chief Director of Energy & New Environment Joji Hashimoto, Chief Dir of International Business in Main Sales Supervision Unit Takaaki Kato, General Manager, Corp. Planning & Administrative Div. Kengo Numata, Deputy Chief Dir Energy & New Environment Kazuo Taniguchi, Executive Officer, Assistant Manager of Project Center Masayuki Kumada, Executive Officer, Assistant Manager of Project Center Shiro Matsumura, Deputy Chief Director of Environment Shunichi Matsuhashi, Deputy Chief Director of Business Administration March
Key Executives

85
$1.14 B (2010)
Overview Takuma Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of boilers, plant machinery, pollution prevention plants, environmental equipment plants, and heating and cooling equipment and feedwater / drainage sanitation equipment and facilities. Established June 10, 1938, Takuma Co., Ltd. has grown to developing a broad range of waste treatment technologies including bulky waste shredders and crushers, incinerator ash melting plants, recycling plants, and district heating systems that utilize excess heat.
85
207
SBI Energy
March 2011
Performance Takuma Co., Ltd. reported a decrease of $117.32 million in total revenues for the 2010 fiscal year (2009: $1.25 billion). The decrease in revenues is due to the decrease in demand in the power generation industry and decline in U.S. utility investments.
Figure 7-7 Takuma Co., Ltd., Revenues, 2006-2010e
1.40 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

Sales ($ Bllion)
1.13
1.18
1.27
1.25
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Product Portfolio Takuma produces a variety of products including boiler power plants, fluidized-bed combustion system, RDF combustion systems, waste heat boilers for gas turbines, waste heat boilers for non-ferrous metal roasting plant, waste heat boiler for cement plant, waste heat boiler for industrial waste incineration plant, and radiant type impregnating plant. Company News and Developments The company announced a settlement to a lawsuit in November 2010, which is expected to create a significant loss for Q2 of FY 2011 in the amount of $7.78 million. Additionally, the company has received a surcharge order from the Japan Fair Trade Commission to pay $5,631.24 million surcharges before January 11, 2011.
March 2011
SBI Energy
208
UTS-Residual Processing LLC

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue Descriptions Private 109 South Main Street, Suite C Eaton Rapids, Michigan 48827, USA 1 517 6630663 www.uts-residuals.com/ 55 Andrew Benedek, CEO Bernard Sheff, Member December $4.21 M (2010e)
Overview In 1992, UTS-Residuals was founded by Dipl.-Ing. Adam Burger under the name UmweltTechnik-Sud GmbH. In 2007, the company changed its name to UTS Biogastechnik GmbH and was under the new leadership of Dr. Andrew Benedek. UTS-Residual Processing LLC was established in 2009 through a partnership between Bernard B. Sheff and UTS BioEnergy LLC. UTS-Residual Processing is one of the leading providers of biogas products and services in Germany having equipped over 1500 biogas facilities. Performance In 2009, UTS Biogastechnik GmbHs three largest business divisions became independent companies. Due to European government subsidies that are in place and the lower cost of feed to the biogas plants, the company is expecting to see higher turnover for the 2010 fiscal year. The American operations, UTS BioEnergy and UTS-Residuals have estimated annual sales of $220,000. Product Portfolio UTS-Residual Processing offers a broad range of products including pumps, mixing technology, service boxes, solids feeders, separators, spare parts, and planning services. UTSResidual Processing has equipped over 1500 biogas plants making it one of the leading biogas companies in Germany. The company offers turn-key biogas plants, single component biogas plants, pump and mixing technology, feeding systems for solid materials, hydraulic misers, in-house production, installation services, biological process consulting, equipment-
209
SBI Energy
March 2011
related financing, equipment-related insurance concepts, and control systems with remote supervision. Company News and Developments The company is looking to expand operations and participate more in international business. Plans are underway to tackle the European market and then begin looking at opportunities in the United States. The company has plans to position itself as the world market leader in the design and construction of biogas plants, as well as after sales services including customer support, maintenance and servicing, and the development of advanced components and systems. UTS has partnerships with CENO Membrane Technology GmbH, Damstahl GmbH, LOG Hydraulik GmbH, ALS Anlagen- und Luftleit- Systembau GmbH, Initiative CO2, HTI Wilhelm Gienger KG, and Frank & Dvorak.
March 2011
SBI Energy
210
Veolia Environnement S.A.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Descriptions Public 36-38 Avenue Kleber Paris, 75116 France 33 1 71 75 00 00 www.veolia.com 312,000 Antoine Fr, CEO, Sr. EVP, Director and Chairman of Exec. Committee Pierre-Fran Riolacci, CFO Denis Gasquet, COO, Sr. Exec. VP and CEO of Veolia Environmental Services Olivier Barbaroux, Sr. EVP and CEO of Veolia-Energy-Dalkia Cyrille Du Peloux, Sr. EVP and CEO of Veolia Transport December $58.2 B (2010e)
Key Executives

86
Overview Veolia Environnement (Euronext Paris: VIE) is a leading environmental management company based in Paris, France. Veolia Environment services more than 80 million people in over 60 countries with their water and wastewater services making the company the worlds largest water company. In 1853, Compagnie Generale des Eaux was created by imperial decree. In 2003, the companys name was changed to Veolia Environnement. Veolia holds a strong position in the industry because the company is the only operator that manages all types of waste including solid, liquid, hazardous and non-hazardous worldwide. Performance Total revenues for Veolia Environnement is estimated to increase in its 2010 fiscal year to $47.28 billion or less than 1% from the previous fiscal year (2009: $47.17 billion). Demand for Veolia Environnements products and services. Veolia Environnements nine month consolidated revenue grew .8% to $34,771.3 million for the first three quarters of 2010.
86
211
SBI Energy
March 2011
Figure 7-8 Veolia Environnement S.A., Revenues, 2006-2010e
50.0 45.0 40.0

Sales ($ Billion)
48.82 39.10 43.59
47.17
47.29
35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e
Product Portfolio Veolia Environnement offers environmental industrial solutions in almost every industry including the food industry, automakers and automotive equipment manufacturers, chemical producers, electronics manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, pulp and paper mills, oil companies and steelmakers. Company News and Developments Veolia Environnements demand depends much on the state of the United States economy. The companys top competitors include Severn Trent Plc, SUEZ Environnement, and Thames Water Holdings Plc. Veolia Environnement is positioned to handle urban growth trends. With a presence in 74 countries, Veolia is considered the benchmark in the industry because of their solutions in the water, waste, energy optimization and transportation areas.
March 2011
SBI Energy
212
Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.

Company Details Company Type Company Address Phone URL Employees Key Executives Fiscal Year End Revenue Descriptions Public 4 Liberty Ln. West Hampton, NH 03842 United States 603-929-3000 / 800-682-0026 www.wheelabratortechnologies.com/ 2,100 Mark A. Weidman, President Gary Aguinaga, VP UK Operations William Roberts, VP Operations David M. (Dave) Beavens, VP Finance December $12.5 B (2010e)
Overview Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (New York Stock Exchange [NYSE]: WM), one of the largest renewable energy networks in North America. Wheelabrator is a leading global producer of clean energy through the environmentally sound conversion of municipal solid waste and other renewable waste fuels. Wheelabrator operates waste-to-energy facilities as well as a variety of independent power plants generating electricity through the conversion of an assortment of fuels, including waste wood, tires, waste coal, and natural gas. Wheelabrator Technologies was founded in 1908 in Ohio under the name of the Sand Mixing Machine Company. In 1975, Wheelabrator Technologies, operating as Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., opened the first large-scale waste-toenergy project in the United States. Today, Wheelabrator operates 17 waste-to-energy facilities nationwide totaling a combined processing capacity of 21,000 tons per day of municipal solid waste into 609 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity. Wheelabrator also operates five independent power projects that have the generating capacity of 227 MW of additional clean energy. Performance Revenues for Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE: WM), parent company of Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., are expected to increase roughly 6.5% to $12535.9 million in its 2010 fiscal year (2009: $11791 million). Analysts estimate an increase of 3.95% in its 2011 fiscal year to $13033.1 million. Waste Management implemented sales performance management
213
SBI Energy
March 2011
technology to drive the companys sales force effectiveness including automation of the administration and maintenance of incentive plans and improved employee productivity through more precise measurement of key business metrics with corresponding variable incentive plans. Demand for Wheelabrators services depends on waste volume, which correlates with the economic conditions and spending. The significant decrease in total revenues for Wheelabrators 2009 fiscal year correlates with the industry trends during that time.
Figure 7-9 Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., Revenues, 2006-2010e
13,500.0 13,000.0
Sales ($ Million)
13,363.00
13,310.00
13,388.00
12,535.90 12,500.0 12,000.0 11,500.0 11,000.0 10,500.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e 11,791.00
Product Portfolio Wheelabrator Technologies is the leading owner and operator of waste-to-energy facilities representing state of the art modern materials handling, trash combustion, refuse boiler design, air quality control, electric power generation and ash residue recycling and management systems in the United States. Wheelabrators mass burn technology converts solid waste into renewable electrical power. Wheelabrators dryer absorbers, also known as dry scrubbers, are systems that are used to control acid gases, heavy metals, and organic pollutants. Wheelabrator offers some facilities that are approved to accept and destroy special waste products including confidential business, health care provider or government documents,
March 2011
SBI Energy
214
defective or obsolete consumer products, outdate pharmaceuticals, outdated health care and beauty products, and USDA regulated international wastes. Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. competes with Covanta Energy Corporation and Republic Services, Inc. in the alternative energy sources, energy & utilities, environmental services & equipment, and solid waste services & recycling industries. Company News and Developments Waste Management and Shanghai Chengtou have formed a joint venture to pursue waste-toenergy opportunities in the Chinese market. Waste Management purchased 40% of SEG, one of Chinas leading providers of environmental services. On April 29, 2010, Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. completed the purchase of the Southeastern Public Service Authoritys Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) plant. The acquisition is one of several growth strategies that Wheelabrator is implementing in order to ensure reliable performance in the waste-to-energy industry worldwide.
215
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
Chapter 8
End Users
Scope
As discussed throughout this report, waste to energy technologies are applicable across several different industries, including the municipal solid waste management industry, the food production industry (i.e. generators of food waste), the wastewater treatment industry, and the dairy/animal husbandry industry, the healthcare industry/hospitals, and various other industries including manufacturing. The point of commonality among these industries is, of course, that they generate or handle substantial amounts of liquid or solid waste, and that that waste can be used as feedstock to a waste to energy facility. The municipal solid waste industry handles enormous volumes of trash on an annual basis (at least 2.1 billion tons per year, as discussed in Chapter 2) and there is substantial potential for the generation of new potential waste to energy end users within the industry. Other potential end users of thermal waste to energy technologies commonly include hospitals, materials and product manufacturers, and food and meat processors. Finally, anaerobic digesters are applicable across many different industries, and may be used in support of industries or processes that generate sanitary wastewater, dairy and animal husbandry waste, municipal solid waste, food processing wastes, greenwaste, and various other organic rich wastes. End users are defined as the final purchasers or owner/operators of a waste to energy technology. Therefore, this chapter considers the waste to energy operator/manager, but does not consider additional users of the electricity or fuel produced by a waste to energy facility.
Waste to Energy End Users: Thermal Technologies

As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, thermal technologies include incineration, gasification, plasma gasification, pyrolysis, and depolymerization. These technologies share applications that are generally similar in nature. As a result, they also serve similar categories of end users, as discussed below.
215
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
Table 8-1 Thermal Technology End Users

End User Category Equipment and Product Manufacturers Food Processing Industry Hazardous Waste Managers Meat Processing Industry Municipal Greenwaste/Woodwaste Collection Services Municipal Solid Waste Handling/Landfilling/Recovery Facilities Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Source: SBI Energy
Common Feedstocks Waste Paint, Unrecyclable Plastics, Wood Waste Liquid and/or Solid Food Wastes Hospital/Biohazard Wastes, Hazardous or Toxic Industrial Wastes Meat Processing Wastes Greenwaste and Other Biomass Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Waste (Sewage)
Applicability High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Low/Rare
Incineration End users for incineration can be categorized as primarily legacy end users in the residential/commercial municipal solid waste industry in North America and Europe, the municipal solid waste industry in global regions with less stringent environmental laws, and waste handlers and managers for various contaminated and hazardous waste streams. These include, but are not limited to, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, hospital wastes, sewage sludge, and select other hazardous or toxic wastes. Historically, end users in the waste management industry viewed incineration as a preferred technology for the ultimate disposal of many wastes, especially municipal solid wastes. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, escalating concerns regarding pollutant emissions have soured waste managers tastes in regards to incineration. Waste managers in countries with stringent environmental regulations are therefore relatively unlikely to consider incineration for the destruction of municipal solid waste. End users for incineration have therefore shifted substantially in recent decades, away from municipal solid waste handlers and generally towards hazardous waste handlers. For hazardous wastes, incineration represents a relatively low cost solution to waste disposal. These users can also typically charge a high rate for the disposal of hazardous wastes, which produces favorable economics for incinerator use, even with installation of substantial pollution control mechanisms. However, as gasification and pyrolysis technologies gain wider application, end users of incineration will be faced with more competing options for
March 2011
SBI Energy
216
End Users
waste disposal. As a result, as existing incinerators reach the ends of their lifecycles, it is likely that many will be replaced with alternative thermal waste to energy technologies. Gasification and Plasma Gasification End users for gasification, including plasma gasification, are typically heavily invested in the waste management industry. According to SBI Energys surveys, end users for gasification and plasma gasification are primarily handlers of municipal waste (61% of total projects), industrial waste (27% of total projects), and wood waste (12% of total projects). These users typically select gasification based on lower anticipated emissions as compared to incinerators, and to realize various environmental benefits over bulk landfilling, including volume and mass reduction, rendering inactive of potentially harmful biological wastes and biosolids, and in some cases, to support recycling of materials as a component of the gasification process. End users are constrained in their selection of gasification and plasma gasification by the technologies relatively high cost. In many areas, including much of the United States, landfill capacity is still relatively inexpensive to purchase and operate. Thus, potential end users of gasification and plasma gasification are often faced with a choice between a higher cost gasification plant or a lower cost landfill. In many European countries, and in some portions of the United States, landfill capacity is more expensive, to the point that gasification is reasonably feasible, or even preferred. Future increases in land prices, or additional regulations and restrictions on landfilling, could be expected to drive more end users toward gasification rather than landfilling. In the United States, such a scenario is considered unlikely within the near term (5 years), but due to anticipated increases in stringency regarding environmental protection, land use change, and waste management, increasing regulations and higher land costs could start to drive more end users towards gasification by the middle-end of this decade. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions during the transport of municipal solid waste are also expected to dive additional interest in gasification among end users. Unlike landfills, gasification facilities require a relatively small land area, meaning that they can be sited in industrial urban areas, rather than miles away and distant from municipal waste sources, where many truck trips may result in higher transport related GHG emissions. Current users of incineration also represent an additional potential group of end users that could reasonably be expected to switch over to gasification in the ensuing 10 to 20 years. As existing incinerators wear out or become obsolete, the potential environmental benefits, in
217
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
terms of emissions reductions, is expected to drive many current incineration end users towards gasification (or pyrolysis technologies see below). Pyrolysis and Depolymerization End users for pyrolysis and depolymerization have substantial overlap with those for gasification and incineration. Like incineration, pyrolysis and depolymerization are capable of handling an extremely wide array of input material, including hazardous wastes, metal containing wastes, industrial wastes, municipal solid wastes, and other toxic and nontoxic wastes. Unlike incineration and gasification, pyrolysis and depolymerization occur under very low oxygen levels which significantly limit the formation of toxic air emissions that can be generated by incinerators and some gasifiers. Therefore, current end users for aging incinerators are potentially good future target candidates for pyrolysis and depolymerization. Like gasification technologies, pyrolysis and depolymerization are relatively expensive technologies, and across much of the world, end users are more likely to select landfilling rather than pyrolysis or depolymerization. As discussed for gasification technologies, in the event that landfilling becomes more expensive or disincentivized through regulation, a shift towards pyrolysis and depolymerization could be expected. Further, in areas where landfilling is very expensive or infeasible, including urbanized areas and countries with high landfilling costs or landfilling restrictions, pyrolysis and depolymerization may be more reasonable in terms of return on investment. As discussed in Chapter 2, several pyrolysis and depolymerization technologies can also handle wet feedstocks, which put them into potential competition with anaerobic digesters for feedstocks like meat and food processing wastes. However, due to the relatively lower cost of digesters, application of digester technology is considered to be more likely in most cases where the organic fraction of waste can be easily separated from other fractions.
Waste to Energy End Users: Anaerobic Digesters

Separate from the thermal WtE technologies discussed above, anaerobic digesters have two major advantages in terms of applicability and ease of implementation: (1) they are relatively inexpensive, and (2) they are easily scalable, e.g., they can be implemented as large or small installations depending on the volume of feedstock that is to be treated. As a result, anaerobic digesters can be installed onto relatively small scale operations where the end user may not have access to the same amounts of capital that would be needed for implementation of other
March 2011
SBI Energy
218
End Users
waste to energy technologies. They can also be installed in support of mid to large sized operations, typically at a lower cost than thermal waste to energy technologies, and are applicable across an array of waste generators and industries. As a result, the anaerobic digester industry enjoys a wide diversity of end users, for which the technology is readily applicable. Table 8-2 provides a list of the most common potential end users for anaerobic digesters.
Table 8-2 Anaerobic Digester End Users
End User Category Dairy/Animal Husbandry Food Processing Industry Meat Processing Industry Municipal Greenwaste/Woodwaste Collection Services Municipal Solid Waste Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Source: SBI Energy
Common Feedstocks Liquid and/or Solid Excrement and Facility Washdown Liquid and/or Solid Food Wastes Meat Processing Wastes Greenwaste and Other Biomass Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Waste (Sewage)
Applicability High High High Moderate Moderate High
The biogas produced by anaerobic digesters comprises about 50 to 80% methane, 20-50% carbon dioxide, and a small amount of other minor constituents. Biogas can therefore be combusted directly, providing a source of electricity generation or heating that can be used by the end user, or sold onto an electricity grid or to a nearby user. Biogas can also be cleaned up and purified into biomethane, suitable for use as a direct replacement for natural gas. Biomethane can also be combusted for electricity generation, used on site for other purposes, or sold to external users, thereby generating an additional income stream for the end user of the anaerobic digester facility. Dairies and Animal Husbandry Dairies and other animal husbandry operations generate significant levels of animal waste and other associated wastes, including excrement, waste bedding, soiled straw, and various other materials, sometimes even including dead animals. These waste streams can contain high bacterial concentrations, organic matter, and various water quality pollutants. Anaerobic digesters can be applied to the facilitys wastewater treatment process, allowing generation of biogas for the production of heat and electricity. As a result, dairy and animal husbandry end users for anaerobic digesters benefit from improved effluent water quality, combined with the production of biogas that can be processed into biomethane or electricity plus heat.
219
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
The choice to install an anaerobic digester at a dairy or other animal husbandry operation is most commonly based almost exclusively on economic considerations, although some regions, in particular Europe, are generally supportive of digesters to reduce total methane emissions (methane is a powerful greenhouse gas). Digesters can also help to control odors, which may be a substantial consideration for facilities located near urban or other built areas. The rate of electricity production on a per animal basis can vary substantially, based on the types of animals being raised, and the design parameters of the facility. For instance, for dairies, typical generation rates can range from about 5 to 18 kWh per cow per day, depending largely upon feedstock collection efficiency, biogas composition, and the efficiency of the electricity generation technology used to generate power. However, anaerobic digesters also provide several usable co products, including biosolids that can be dried and used for animal bedding, and liquid effluent with high nitrogen content, and is useful as a fertilizer. These additional streams provide additional benefit to facility operators, most commonly by offsetting other operational expenses, such as bedding costs. As an example of benefits to the end user, in California during 2009 and early 2010, as a result of very low commodity prices for milk, the net profit generated by anaerobic digesters for the sale of electricity in some California dairies exceeded the net profit generated by the sale of milk from those same dairies. Although implementation rates for anaerobic digesters at animal husbandry facilities are higher in Europe than the United States, saturation remains low globally, and dairy and animal husbandry operations are expected to continue to be viable end users throughout the term of this report. Food and Meat Processing Industries Food and meat processing industries are common end users for anaerobic digesters. These industries can generate substantial volumes of highly organic-laden water that, when discharged to a municipal wastewater treatment plant, can place a high treatment burden on that facility. As a result, many food and meat processing plants often incorporate waste treatment into their own, on site processes. Installation of an anaerobic digester can be used to support these treatment processes, and producing an income stream from the sale of electricity that can at least partially offset other waste treatment or disposal costs. Although anaerobic digesters can provide substantial benefit, relatively few food and meat processing plants have digester facilities installed. For instance, as of 2009, there were 49 anaerobic digesters in the United States Midwest, but when considering preparation facilities for beverages, bakeries sugar, meat preparation, milling, fruit and vegetable processing, and
March 2011
SBI Energy
220
End Users
snack food processing plants, there are between 1,700 and 3,300 sites for additional potential facilities.87 Thus, the end user market for anaerobic digesters in the food and meat processing industries is broad and substantial. Due to the relatively large number of food and waste processing facilities that do not yet have waste to energy facilities, this category of end user is expected to grow substantially over the next decade. Municipal Greenwaste and Municipal Solid Waste Anaerobic digesters can be used to digest the organic fraction of municipal wastes. Digesters are most commonly implemented at municipal solid waste handling facilities, where the waste is highly sorted. Often called mechanical biological treatment (MBT), anaerobic digester end users in the municipal solid waste industry must separate out organic fractions suitable for digestion, separate from other recyclable and residual fractions. Thus, end users of anaerobic digesters in the municipal solid waste industry must typically engineer a significant fraction of their waste handling process around the separation of digester feedstock materials. Anaerobic digesters are much less commonly applied to mixed municipal solid waste. This is because for most (but not all) digester designs, plastics, metals, and other non-digestable waste fractions result in various engineering problems related to feedstock handling, maintenance of throughput efficiency, and cleaning. Anaerobic digesters handling municipal solid waste are also sometimes fed greenwaste as a supplement. By definition, greenwaste is comprised of organic materials that are suitable for digestion in most installations. Greenwaste could also be used as a standalone digester feedstock. In the United States, however, the use of greenwaste only feedstocks, and the incorporation of greenwaste into other digester feedstock, is relatively uncommon. This is due in large part to a prevalence and presently expanding presence of composting and bioamendment operations, which compete for feedstock with digesters. Compost and bioamendments are commonly preferred over straight digestion due to their saleability and relatively high market price. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are increasingly employing anaerobic digesters, especially at large facilities. According to the US EPA, over 500 large (treatment
87
Combined Heat and Power Application Center, 2009. Applications and Markets. Available at: http://www.chpcentermw.org/06-06_Food.html Accessed on December 3, 2010.
221
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
capacity over 5 million gallons per day of wastewater) WWTPs in the United States employ anaerobic digesters during processing.88 A WWTP manager typically makes the decision to install an anaerobic digester based on a combination of factors. These include maintaining or improving treatment levels for effluent water quality, generating heat and electricity for use on site, generating electricity for use off site/sale onto the electricity grid. The electricity and heat produced by an anaerobic digester can provide substantial benefits to a WWTP. Electricity generated from biogas typically offsets a substantial portion, or all of, the electricity requirements of the WWTP. Some facilities also elect to sell a portion of the electricity that they produce to the local utility. Less commonly, some WWTPs also sell a portion of the biogas produced at their facility to nearby industrial users. Heat produced during power generation can also be used on site, to help meet the digesters operational heating requirements, and also provide space heating or other process heating (such as biosolids drying) to the remainder of the WWTP facility. Table 8-3 shows typical production and electricity cost parameters that are relevant to the installation of an anaerobic digester, combined with a separate electricity generation facility, such as a reciprocating engine, microturbine, or fuel cell. Municipal wastewater treatment providers will continue to be a significant category of end users for anaerobic digesters through the next five to ten years, after which point the category will become to show signs of saturation, and new installations will begin to decline.
United States EPA (US EPA), 2010. Combined Heat and Power Partnership: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Available at http://www.epa.gov/chp/markets/wastewater.html Accessed on December 3, 2010.
88
March 2011
SBI Energy
222
End Users
Table 8-3 WWTP Anaerobic Digester Typical Production Rate and Cost Parameters
Parameter Category Typical Municipal Wastewater Processing Rate Anaerobic Digester Typical Biogas Production Rate Electricity Production Rate, Approximate Heat Production Rate, Approximate Electricity Production Cost, using Reciprocating Engine Electricity Production Cost, using Microturbine Electricity Production Cost, using Fuel Cell Typical Minimum WWTP Capacityd
a b c
Value 100 gallons/day per person served 1.0 ft3/day per person served 22 kW/MGDa 2.8 MMBtub/MGD 0.1 to 3.8 cents/kWh 3.0 to 6.5 cents/kWh 9.1 to 10.2 cents/kWhc 5 MGD or greaterd
d
Notes: million gallons per day; million British thermal units; based on fuel cell cost data from 2008; cost and design parameters for systems under ~5 MGD capacity are more variable and should generally be assessed on a site-by-site basis. Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Combined Heat and Power. Available at http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/wastewater_fs.pdf Accessed on December 3, 2010.
Summary
End users are defined as the final purchasers or owner/operators of a waste to energy technology that is, waste to energy operators/managers, but not additional users of the electricity or fuel produced by a waste to energy facility. End users of waste to energy technologies can be roughly separated into those for which thermal waste tpo energy technologies are applicable, and those for which non-thermal technologies (i.e. anaerobic digesters) are applicable. Thermal waste to energy technologies are generally applicable to end users that manage feedstocks with low water content, although plasma gasification and some pyrolysis technologies can be applied to wet feedstocks. Anaerobic digesters are widely applicable to wet organic feedstocks and to those organic feedstocks that can be easily wetted. End users for incineration can be categorized as primarily legacy end users in the residential/commercial municipal solid waste industry in North American and Europe, the municipal solid waste industry in global regions with less stringent environmental laws, and waste handlers and managers for various contaminated and hazardous waste streams. However, escalating concerns regarding pollutant emissions have soured waste managers tastes in regards to incineration. As gasification and pyrolysis technologies gain wider application, end users of incineration will be faced with more competing options for waste disposal.
223
SBI Energy
March 2011
End Users
End users for gasification, including plasma gasification, are typically heavily invested in the waste management industry, including handlers of municipal waste (61% of total projects), industrial waste (27% of total projects), and wood waste (12% of total projects). High cost is an issue for gasification, and the technology is most commonly applicable to end users who are faced with high landfill costs, or the need for regional facilities due to waste transport minimization constraints. End users for pyrolysis and depolymerization have substantial overlap with those for gasification and incineration. Therefore, current end users for aging incinerators are potentially good future target candidates for pyrolysis and depolymerization. Pyrolysis and depolymerization are relatively expensive, and many end users may not be able to recoup sufficient return on investment to justify their application. Nonetheless they represent a cleaner alternative to incineration and in many cases gasification, and are expected to see an increase in end users over the term of this report. Anaerobic digesters are relatively inexpensive, and are widely applicable to well sorted organic wastes. The most common end users include the dairy/animal husbandry industry, the food processing industry, the meat processing industry, municipal greenwaste and wood waste collection services, municipal solid waste, and municipal wastewater treatment plants. While anaerobic digesters have enjoyed greater application in Europe than the United States, neither market appears to be nearing saturation, and anaerobic digesters are expected to show gains in end users through the term of this report, especially in the near to mid-term.
March 2011
SBI Energy
224

6166019

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

6166019

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Thermal and Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies Worldwide

SBI 11200 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

800.706.8242 240.747.3097 www.sbireports.com

This page intentionally left blank

Why Buy From Us?

About the Author

This page intentionally left blank

THERMAL AND DIGESTION WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE

This page intentionally left blank

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................. 1

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 2: Overview of Waste to Energy Technologies ........ 29

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 3: Waste to Energy Technologies Market Size and Growth..............................................................................57

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 4: Waste to Energy Technologies Market and Product Trends .....................................................................117

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 5: Waste to Energy Technologies Supply Chain and Promotion...................................................................... 155

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 6: Waste to Energy Technologies Job Creation Estimates...............................................................................167

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 7: Competitive Profiles.............................................. 179

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Chapter 8: End Users .............................................................. 215

This page intentionally left blank

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Global Waste and Management and Role of Waste to Energy

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Waste to Energy Feedstocks and Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Applications, Benefits, and Drawbacks of Waste to Energy Technologies

Waste to Energy Market Valuations

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and Estimated by SBI Energy.

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Source: Calculated and estimated by SBI Energy

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Waste to Energy Product Pricing

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Figure 1-10 Plasma Gasifier Costs (USD)

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Figure 1-11 Pyrolysis Costs (USD)

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Figure 1-12 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, Animal Wastes/Wastewater (USD)

Thermal & Digestion Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Figure 113 Anaerobic Digestion Costs, MSW (USD)

!"#$%&"'( !")+",#%$%(")- ."/%&,"#0%(