Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of Their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
May 2020
Dennis Gammer Practice Manager, CCS, H2 and Industry Susie Elks Energy Policy Advisor
Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Contents
1. Executive Summary ...... 1
2. Introduction...... 2 Introduction to Energy Systems Catapult ...... 2 Introduction to the report ...... 2
3. The Potential of EfW with CCUS in the UK...... 3 Plant Size...... 3 Sector Size ...... 3 The Circular Economy ...... 4
4. Capture of CO2 from EfW Plants ...... 5 The Purity of the EfW Off gas ...... 5 The Scale of the Plants ...... 5
The Concentration of CO2 in the EfW Off gas ...... 5
5. Preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment of EfW with Post Combustion Treatment ...... 7
6. Potential Impact on UK Clusters ...... 13 Teesside...... 13 Merseyside ...... 14
7. Whole Energy System Impact ...... 15
8. The Policy Environment for EfW with and without CCUS...... 17
9. Conclusions ...... 18
10. Acknowledgements ...... 19
11. References ...... 20
12. Appendices ...... 22 Appendix 1: EfW with CCUS – Policy Background and Implications ...... 22 Appendix 2 - Tables of Cost Sources and Assumptions ...... 28
Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Energy Systems Catapult Limited. For full copyright, legal information and defined terms, please refer to the “Licence / Disclaimer” section at the back of this document.
All information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Energy Systems Catapult Limited. No warranty or representation is given concerning such information, which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon the Energy Systems Catapult Limited or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.
Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
1. Executive Summary
Energy from Waste (EfW) plants currently emit around 11 Mte CO2 per year in the UK, with proposed and under-construction facilities potentially adding another 9 Mte CO2 per year. Reducing these emissions would have a material impact on the UK’s low carbon energy transition. Preliminary analysis of the potential of fitting carbon capture (CCUS) equipment to the growing number of EfW plants in the UK as a means of CO2 reduction has therefore been undertaken.
The key conclusion from this analysis is that the cost of EfW-CCUS technology as a means of emissions abatement is competitive with other industrial abatement options, but that its uptake would require policies reflecting its ability to generate “negative emissions” as a consequence of using the biogenic content of part of the carbon in waste.
The analysis has also shown that:
• Many EfW plants are geographically well located for CCUS, being in industrial clusters near
to accessible CO2 storage locations • A significant proportion of the UK’s EfW fleet is relatively new [1] compared to other industrial facilities, and they therefore have a long life ahead of them in which to benefit from a CCUS retrofit investment • CCUS significantly improves the sustainability of EfW facilities and can therefore mitigate many of the system level environmental issues that threaten the long-term sustainability of EfW in the UK • On a lowest system transition cost basis, fitting CCUS to EfW plants could lead to 20% of all
captured CO2 in the UK being derived from EfW plants by 2050, with a corresponding 20%
overall increase in CO2 being captured in the same timeframe compared with the case without EfW-CCUS being available
In addition to the technical analysis, current policies surrounding CCUS and waste treatment have been reviewed. This has found that although being driven by the same environmental pressures, there is conceptual tension between waste combustion with energy recovery and increased recycling as options, which although carefully managed in current policy would need further consideration if EfW with CCUS is to be incentivised. Due to the biogenic content in waste, adding CCUS to EfW actually reduces net carbon in the system, which may be more effective than other disposal options e.g. landfill.
There are three key recommendations arising from this analysis:
• EfW with CCUS should be included in the options the Government assesses when it considers an investment in the decarbonisation of industrial clusters. Learnings from experience from Japanese, Dutch and Norwegian projects should be sought. • Policy is developed that reflects the system value of the “negative emissions” that EfW with CCUS can provide. For large installations consideration should be given to the preferential placement of new plants in known/developing CCUS areas. • A more detailed option and techno-economic analysis is carried out that focuses on the technical options available for decarbonising EfW plants, the economic sensitivities to changes in waste quality/price, and which reviews the relative strengths of modern waste treatment options from a lifecycle analysis and cost perspective.
Page 1 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
2. Introduction Introduction to Energy Systems Catapult
Energy Systems Catapult was set up to accelerate the transformation of the UK’s energy system and ensure UK businesses and consumers capture the opportunities of clean growth.
The Catapult is an independent, not-for-profit centre of excellence that bridges the gap between industry, government, academia and research.
We take a whole system view of the energy sector, helping us to identify and address innovation priorities and market barriers, to decarbonise the energy system at the lowest cost. Introduction to the report
At the end of 2017, 40 Energy from Waste (EfW) plants were operational in the UK, with 16 in construction and 13 in active development. The 40 existing facilities collectively emit around 11
Mte CO2 per year, with the remainder potentially adding another 9 Mte CO2 per year. Reducing these emissions would have a material impact on the UK’s low carbon energy transition.
Although whole energy system models have demonstrated that CCUS can play a critical role in decarbonising at the lowest possible cost, progress in deployment has been slow. In recent years impactful amounts of renewables have been installed, and coal fired power stations have been largely displaced from the UK market, removing the largest point sources of carbon dioxide.
Gas fired power stations now constitute the largest emissions in the energy supply sector, but it remains to be seen if these, when fitted with CCUS, will play a role in high load factor power generation as nuclear plants are decommissioned. Industry, including steelworks, refineries, chemical plant and cement works, emits about 15% [2] of the UK GHG total, generally each works having several point sources with few individual sources being over 0.5Mte/a CO2. Most industrial CCUS demonstrations in operation today are around 1Mte/a, and the economies of scale on projects begin to level off at around 3Mte/a – hence the attraction of working with clusters of emitters.
Several reports [3], [4] have concluded that the economies of scale of CCUS favour large installations, because offshore CO2 transportation and storage costs reduce rapidly with increasing throughput. Therefore, clusters of onshore emitters with close geographical proximity (or otherwise easily connected) are being identified as optimal places to kick-start CCUS in the UK before progression to larger-scale CCUS rollout. BEIS is actively supporting this as part of the Clean Growth Strategy [5] and has commissioned the “Industrial Clusters Mission” targeting the creation of “Net Zero” zones to attract new businesses.
This short report provides an initial assessment of the potential for EfW with CCUS plants in the UK, their carbon reduction potential, and the policy implications and challenges associated with its widespread implementation in the UK.
Page 2 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
3. The Potential of EfW with CCUS in the UK Plant Size
In the UK, most new EfW plants combust about 350kte/a of waste, releasing about 350kte/a CO2 each. There are a few plants of around twice this scale (multiple combustion units) either operational or in development, with Viridor’s Runcorn plant and Ferrybridge 1&2 set to burn over 1Mte/a. The industry has greatly improved the operational performance of EfW units, and they run at high availability and have electrical LHV efficiencies of approximately 25% [6].
Figure 1 below shows how the CO2 emissions from new and proposed EfW and biomass plants compare with current industrial emissions in two exemplar “clusters” in the UK. The current industrial emissions data is taken from point source data for the sites [7], although it should be noted that in general only around 50% of the emissions are likely to be economically capturable by post combustion methods [8], [9]. The data used in Figures 1, 5 and 6 are tabulated in Appendix 2.4. The values for EfW and biomass emissions in Figure 1 are estimates from plants which are either operating or under construction (with the exception of EfW at Redcar and Protos which have not received all approvals).
CO2 Emissions on Merseyside, 2025 CO2 Emissions on Teesside, 2025
13% 37% 45% 28% 59%
18%
Core Fossil Emitters EFW Emitters Core Fossil Emitters EFW Emitters BiomassEmitters BiomassEmitters
Figure 1: Charts showing the relative size of key emitters in two Industrial Clusters
Sector Size
At the end of 2017 there were 40 EfW plants in operation in the UK, burning around 12Mte/a of waste and emitting around 11Mte/a of CO2 (approximately 3% of total UK emissions), with plants in planning and construction set to lift this total to 20 Mte/a CO2 in the mid-2020s [1]. By way of comparison, in 2016 the cement industry emitted under 7 Mte/a, chemicals 9 Mte/a, iron and steel 13Mte/a, and refining 13Mt/a [2]. Hence EfW emissions are a significant and material component of industrial emissions in the UK [7]. Biomass energy plants are also now large point source emitters, even without the contributions from Drax.
The current European waste incineration fleet emits around 90 Mte/a and the USA fleet around 32 Mte/a [10], so enhancing UK expertise in this area could create a valuable exportable technology platform.
Page 3 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
The Circular Economy
Most players in the EfW industry expect it to grow in the short term [11]. Although the quantity of residual waste may shrink over time, due to future improvements to recycling rates (which have been flat for ten years [12]), reduced use of landfill will increase demand. Recently, European and UK [13] strategies to increase waste recycling and encourage the development of a more circular economy have been published. If, following consultations, this is converted to supported policy, changes to the quantity and quality of UK waste is likely. For example, plastic components make up about a third of the calorific value of the waste [14], [15], of which more could be recycled, with the unrecyclable plastic simply landfilled as means of “carbon capture”. Similarly, food waste is often incinerated in EfWs in preference to landfill because in the ground it gets converted to methane, which if released to the atmosphere is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The UK has made good progress in reducing GHG emissions from landfill sites, by encouraging EfW. New policy could segregate food waste and push it towards Anaerobic Digestion (AD) for conversion to biogas (which also produces CO2 emissions) or other recovery techniques. The waste industry has assessed and published studies on its future capacity including the impacts of radical changes in recycling [11], [12].
Analysis of these show that the supply of combustible waste that can be used as feedstock for EfW plants is unlikely to recede so as to leave an overcapacity in the short or medium terms, but that longer term growth rates of EfW to 2030 would be curtailed. Overcapacity in the EfW sector would not just be an issue for the residual waste market but could be seen as disincentivising “better” treatments from a circular economy viewpoint, although deep, lifecycle and system level analysis of all options would be needed to justify any change to the system.
Due to the biogenic content in waste, adding CCUS to EfW actually reduces net carbon in the system, which may be more effective than some recycling or other disposal options.
Page 4 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
4. Capture of CO2 from EfW Plants
For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that an amine solvent scrubber system is the most easily commercialised technology for removing CO2 from the EfW flue gas. This technology has been deployed at small scale (3kte/a) on an EfW plant in Japan [16], and a larger scale unit 1 (60kt/a CO2) is being built in the Netherlands in 2019 [17] , with both projects utilising the CO2 in horticulture rather than providing geological storage. Further, amine technologies were tested in a pilot unit at the Klemetstrud EfW plant in Norway [18] as part of the preparation for their CCUS project which is currently progressing towards its Final Investment Decision (FID). This 340 kte/a plant will store the CO2 in a geological store off the west coast of Norway.
With regards the basic cost of post combustion capture from EfW compared to emission capture from other sources, there are three main properties of the technology that need to be examined:
The Purity of the EfW Off gas
Emissions to the air from EfW plants are regulated, and modern plants are equipped with abatement devices to deal with the plethora of potential toxins that waste combustion can create. These will help clean the gas prior to amine scrubbing. In the light of the successful operation and testing of solvents referenced above, it has been assumed that if there are any potential contaminants which affect the solvent these can be economically dealt with. The use of the amine may increase nitrogen losses from the plant, but on balance air quality improvements are to be expected from the scrubbing step of the capture plant [19].
The Scale of the Plants
As noted above, individual EfW plants have smaller CO2 emissions than many UK industrial sites. However, as individual point sources they are comparable in size to many candidate plants in current UK CCUS cluster projects, such as the H2 plants in Teesside [9] and Merseyside.
The Concentration of CO2 in the EfW Off gas
High CO2 concentrations in the off gas reduce the capital and operating costs of capture by an amine solvent. The absorber tower can be made smaller, and the solvent can be used more efficiently. The impact on costs of gas concentration was published by Husebye and Element Energy [20], [21] and is shown courtesy of Element Energy in Figure 2 below. The off gas from an
EfW plant contains about 12% CO2. This is richer in CO2 than current CCGT off gas (3.5% CO2) or fired heater off gases (9% CO2) which are common throughout the chemicals and refining industries.
1 Footnote : Another 100kte/a CO2 capture plant has recently been bid for in Twence in Holland “€24.1M deal to start EFW plants CCS system” https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1582982/%E2%82%AC241m-deal-start-efw-plants-ccs- system
Page 5 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
CCGT Fired Heater EfW Plant
Figure 2: Cost of Abatement vs CO2 concentration in Flue gas (simplified from Element Energy [20]), arrows added by author
The relatively high CO2 concentration in the off gas from an EfW plant (similar to coal) should lead to competitive abatement costs when compared to other sources, except for some direct process emissions in the cement and steel sectors, which have higher CO2 concentrations.
A richer, higher pressure off gas could be made available if the waste was gasified rather than combusted, making a step change reduction in the cost of capture and offering a cleaner off gas. However, we have focussed on post combustion for this study because a new incineration fleet has been built, and with a few exceptions, gasification projects from which CO2 could be captured are struggling to fulfil their promise. Vacuum pressure swing adsorption and enzymatic capture are alternative technologies also worthy of evaluation.
Page 6 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
5. Preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment of EfW with Post Combustion Treatment
The costs associated with constructing and operating modern EfW facilities in the UK are available from several publications carried out for local boroughs [22], [23]. Similarly, capital and operating costs for the amine capture plant were based on studies for similarly sized capture plants [9], [24] in the UK and Europe. These references are tabulated in Appendix 2. Additionally, Klemetsrud publications [10] [18] were useful in showing energy integration options, land requirements and timescales for project construction.
The impact of adding CCUS to a typical existing 350kte/a EfW plant is summarised in Figure 3 below, which also summarises the key economic assumptions that have been used in our indicative techno-economic assessments. The assumed power price and carbon price relationship have been derived using a Plexos model of the UK power market.
Figure 3: Outline Cost Structure for EfW plants with and without a CCUS Retrofit
Page 7 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Using the assumptions from Figure 3, an assumption that all non-biogenic CO2 emitted attracts a carbon tax per Figure 3, and stored biogenic carbon attracts a credit, a simple picture of revenue streams for a typical EfW-CCUS plant can be constructed per Figure 4 below:
Income and Expenditure for 350kte/a EfW Plants, £M/a 35 30 25 20 15 10
£M/a 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 Gate Fee Power Operations Carbon Tax Storage Total
EFW EFW with CCS
Figure 4: Revenue items for EfW Plants (2030)
It can be seen that gate fees, and by implication plant throughput, are key to sustaining good revenues, and that the treatment of carbon taxation is key to the relative economics of EfW and EfW with CCUS plants. Currently, EfW plants do not pay carbon tax and no credit is available to EfW plants with CCUS for storing or using biogenic CO2.
Although power is not the main driver of EfW economics, levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) were calculated for comparative purposes. A simple spreadsheet-based analysis, discounting (at 7.5%) showed that without a CfD for the CCUS plant, a new EfW and a new EfW with CCUS plant would have similar LCOEs when the carbon price is around £90/te. A recent BEIS study [25] assumes this carbon price occurs in 2035. At a carbon price of £45/te, a CfD of around £136/MWh for the CCUS plant would be required to make the addition of CCUS financially plausible. Possible pathways to reduce this penalty include retrofitting an older EfW plant, reducing the capital cost of capture (high contingency in this estimate).
Page 8 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Possible reductions in CfD required to make CCUS attractive, £/MWh
Increase Decrease
160 140 136 120
100 -28.3 -9.4 80
60 -24.9 CfD, £/MWh CfD, 40 -16.9 20 0 New EfW, new EfW retrofit 20% CCUS plant 13% Throughput +10% 10% gate CCUS cheaper cheaper premium
Figure 5: Cost reductions in CfD
More sophisticated financial analysis would be needed to provide more detailed conclusions.
This analysis was also used to examine sensitivities around cost and revenue factors. The outcomes of this are tabulated in Figure 6 below. The capital cost sensitivities are based upon the upper cost estimates from EfW and CCUS experts. The lower gate fee represents the fluctuations that can occur and the economic impact this could have on an EfW plant given that the viability of these types of plant are heavily dependent on gate fees.
Page 9 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Sensitivity Base Case Costs and Flows Per Figure 3 Carbon Price £45/te, Gate Fees £80/te, CO2 Transport and Storage costs £17/te
Sensitivity Compensating Income Required CfD or Gate Price Higher Capital ( downside) EfW Capital +10% 7.5% increase EfW/CCUS Capital +10% 15% increase or 12.5% increase
EfW pays Carbon Tax on non- Bio carbon EfW pays carbon at £45/te 27%increase
Lower Gate Fees ( downside) EfW gate Fees -10% EfW with CCUS -10% 13%increase
Higher Waste Throughput ( upside) EfW +10% 6% decrease EfW/CCUS +10% 12% decrease or 10% decrease EfW/CCUS +10%, with 10% more power 21% decrease or 17% decrease
Figure 6: Sensitivities of Economics to Some Key Parameters
Adding CCUS to an EfW investment increases a project’s exposure to capital overspend, and because the receipts from power sales are a lower contributor to revenue than gate fees, CfDs for power are unlikely to stabilise the investment case as much as an equivalent contract based on secure gate fees.
There are a range of factors that influence the economics of EfW facilities, and the economics of adding capture to these facilities. These are summarised below:
Positive factors:
• The feedstock has a negative cost (assuming gate fees remain): Normally the energy loss
associated with regeneration of CO2 has a punitive effect on plant economics. In the case of EfW, the capture plant does lose some ability to export power and therefore loses some revenue, but the bulk of its revenue comes from gate fees which is unaffected.
• Few EfW plants in UK currently utilise their ability to release cheap heat: Most EfW plants can increase steam production at the expense of power production, in the ratio of 4-5:1 MWth/MWe. If possible, an increase in feed rates could sustain power production. However, of the 40 EfW facilities in operation in the UK, only eight have an outlet to export heat1, so there is an untapped opportunity to provide capture plants with steam.
Page 10 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
• Carbon Capture increases the use of the energy in the waste fuel: Most plants produce electricity only, at best using 30% of the energy in the fuel. Co-producing heat and exporting this and electricity to the CCUS plant uses around 50% of the energy in the waste fuel.
• The UK EfW fleet is young: To pay off the high investment cost of CCUS, reliability and a long investment period are required. EfW plants are by far the youngest set of large emitters in the UK. Most of the large units are under 6 years old - at least one “generation” younger than most UK energy intensive industries. Hence there is plenty of operational life left in the EfW fleet to make CCUS retrofit viable.
• Adding CCUS significantly improves the emissions performance of EfW facilities and
therefore increases the long-term sustainability of EfW technology: The CO2 emissions performance of conventional EfW facilities is unlikely to be sustainable in the long-term as
emissions constraints bite harder. Adding CCUS substantially reduces CO2 emissions and can ultimately deliver negative emissions, thereby improving emissions performance significantly and (potentially) attracting revenue from carbon “credits”, perhaps via offset deals with companies who find it difficult to reduce their own emissions.
Negative factors:
• The average new-build plant is suboptimal in scale for CCUS: Small CCUS plants find CO2 transportation and storage costs punitive. Plants need to be in a close cluster or located
close to a CO2 pipeline to be attractive.
• Recycling is the preferred option for waste rather than incineration: High levels of recycling are unlikely to cause problems for a dozen or so EfW plants which are in good locations for CCUS. However, increasing capital investment in combustion by adding CCUS may be seen as increasing investment risk.
• Susceptibility to feedstock “Impurities”: The CCUS solvent is susceptible to degradation from many types of contaminant. It is not yet known if EfW flue gas when operated at full scale over long periods produces problems of this type. This technology risk is likely to have a negative impact on investment appetite, until operational experience is gained.
• CCUS uses energy that might otherwise be sellable: Other opportunities may exist to improve plant efficiency by using or selling heat, and these may be more investible than adding a CCUS plant.
• The public acceptability of waste incineration remains a challenge: In spite of the
reduction in CO2 emissions, air quality upside from deploying CCUS and the efficiency increase in terms of using the energy in waste, the public may prefer other waste treatment methods.
• EfW facilities have an inherent economic exposure to gate price fluctuations and plant throughput and it is unclear how these might evolve in the future: Adding CCUS increases exposure to gate prices, and other policy driven value streams.
Page 11 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
In terms of sustainability, unabated EfW power plants produce power of carbon intensity around 600g/kWh (excluding biogenic carbon). This is about 50% higher than a typical CCGT, and already higher than the current grid average intensity which is around 220 g/kWh. Assuming that the decarbonisation of the power sector continues as expected, by 2030 the carbon intensity of unabated EfW will be significantly higher than grid average, further weakening their attractiveness.
Overall though, there are no techno-economic reasons that would make CO2 capture from EfW plants infeasible or that would lead to it having inherently higher cost than other industrial capture options.
Page 12 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
6. Potential Impact on UK Clusters
Following its work on the Clean Growth Strategy, UK Government has followed up recommendations and actions on industrial decarbonisation, announcing funding for work on clusters at COP 24. More recently the Industrial Clusters Mission has been launched, which has identified onshore clusters of interest. When studied in detail, there are several opportunities for EfW plants with CCUS to make up part of cluster projects, mostly within the Mission clusters, as up to two thirds of large EfW plants are in industrial cluster regions. The location of others outside the Mission clusters also provide some brand-new opportunities.
In the interests of brevity, we illustrate these in two examples – Teesside and Merseyside - for which some outline information was provided in Figure 1. Many other clusters, including Scotland and the Humber (Drax, Ferrybridge, Hull) also have new large EfW / Biomass emitters.
Teesside
The Teesside cluster has been worked up for many years, promoted by the Teesside Collective and much study work has already been delivered. Closure of the SSI steelworks, which was the “anchor” site for a large CCUS development was a setback. However, if we consider recent investments in EfW and biomass power stations, and entertain these as potential CCUS options, this cluster looks potentially very attractive. Key emitters in the cluster are shown in Figure 7 below:
Figure 7: Map of Teesside emitters – EfW /Biomass in Blue (Basemap contain OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) = OS Openmap)
Page 13 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
The core sites in the Teesside Collective proposal were the SSI Steelworks, the BOC Limited H2 Plant and CF Fertilisers ammonia plant. However, these have been recently supplemented [26] by the Teesside Renewable Energy Plant (Biomass), Teesside EfW Plant, Port Clarence EfW plant, etc. Arguably, these modern additions have improved the region as a candidate cluster for future CCUS investment in spite of the steelworks’ closure.
Teesside can boast a close proximity of many plants, with relatively easy interconnectivity, which few others can rival. This should contribute to keeping costs down.
Merseyside
The recent Cadent study highlighted Essar Refinery, Kemira Growhow and Encirc glassworks as potential participant plants in a new industrial hydrogen hub in this area. If EfW/Biomass projects are included in CCUS development plans, the new EfW plant and biomass plants at Protos26 are geographically very close to the Kemira and Encirc plants. UPM (pulp) is also included as it is on the existing pipe from Hamilton store.
Figure 8: Map of Merseyside emitters - EfW/Biomass in Blue (Basemap contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) - OS Openmap)
In addition to the Industrial Mission clusters, emitting sites on the Thames stretching up across East Anglia are large and diverse and could be connected in the future to the Hewett store which the UK has already appraised.
Page 14 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
7. Whole Energy System Impact
A preliminary assessment of the potential impact of EfW with CCUS plants on an optimised UK energy transition pathway has been performed using ESC’s “ESME“ [27] whole energy system model. The ESME model contains techno-economic descriptions of all energy production and conversion technologies, starting with primary energy sources (wind, coal, gas etc) and converting these to end user level applications such as transportation, heat in buildings and homes, and electricity. It is a lowest cost optimiser with the objective function to minimise the overall cost of the UK energy system transition in line with meeting our GHG reduction commitments2 . It searches for the lowest cost combinations of technologies that deliver the lowest-cost energy system transition pathway (including meeting interim carbon budgets) in five-yearly time steps out to 2050.
Figure 9: ESC’s “ESME” model
Version 4.4 of the ESME model was run using ESC’s standard capital and operating cost assumptions2, with updated data for waste combustion and gasification technology, with and without CCUS. “Dry waste” is modelled as a finite resource in ESME, and it is only selected for incineration when it is economically advantageous to do so. The assumed cost of dry waste in these runs was -£80/te in 2020, similar to today’s gate fees, and that and its availability is assumed not to change significantly out to 2050.
The key results of this ESME analysis are as follows:
ESME Runs – EfW without CCUS
Without CCUS being available on EfW facilities, ESME deploys incineration (about 1 GWe, utilising under half the available dry waste) until the 2020s, and then closes down all power generation from waste by 2040. This is a direct consequence of the tightening carbon budgets limiting the applicability of EfW facilities due to their relatively high carbon footprint.
2 Footnote: The ESME model targets 80% decarbonisation by 2050 – this report predates the CCC Report “Net Zero - The UK's contribution to stopping global warming Committee on Climate Change May 2019”
Page 15 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
ESME Runs – EfW with CCUS
With CCUS being available on EfW facilities, ESME deploys EfW with CCUS at the maximum permitted build rate in the early 2020s, retrofitting CCUS to all EfW plants starting in the early 2020s. It continues to build and use incineration technology (with CCUS) out to 2050, deploying 1.7GWe and using all the available dry waste by 2040. This is the earliest deployment of CCUS selected by the ESME model, highlighting its attractiveness as part of a lowest-cost decarbonisation pathway. ESME does not generally deploy waste gasification technology when CCUS is available for retro-fitting to combustion EfW facilities (EfW-CCUS is selected in preference to waste gasification technology even though their cost and performance assumptions are similar as the model is not configured to exploit other value adding opportunities for gasification other than energy). Utilisation of waste heat was not an important factor in determining the level of deployment.
The lowest-cost energy system transition pathway produced by the ESME model shows that by
2050 one fifth of all CO2 captured in the UK could be from EfW plants, see Figure 10 below.
mtCO2 Captured 100 Industry
90 CCGT with CCS 80 H2 Plant (SMR with CCS) 70 H2 Plant (Biomass Gasification 60 with CCS) Incineration of Waste with CCS 50
40 MtCO2/year
30
20
10
0 ESME v4.41 Database 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 02-04-19 Update
Figure 10: Captured CO2 in the UK (ESME lowest-cost pathway) - ESME adopts EfW with CCUS early, and uses all the available dry waste
In runs including waste incineration with CCUS as an option, ESME outputs showed increases of 25% (10Mte/a) in “negative emissions”. Much of the “headroom” created by these emission savings are used to reduce expenditure on much more expensive abatement options in the transport sector. The total estimated undiscounted savings of this are £3Bn/a in the year 2050 (£2010), equivalent to a cumulative discounted sum of £10Bn by 2050. These figures are likely to rise further if a “Net Zero” constraint had been imposed by the model.
Page 16 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
8. The Policy Environment for EfW with and without CCUS
A review of historic policy decisions and the current policy effecting EfW and CCUS investments is provided in Appendix 1. This includes landfill taxes, incentives for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant (of which EfW is an example) and policy which incentivises efficiency improvements in combustion and gasification of waste and other feedstocks (Advanced Conversion Technologies (ACT). Additionally, recently emerging policies on waste and recycling are described along with their compatibility with EfW with CCUS technology. This specifically considers possible distortions that incentives for EfW with CCUS could produce.
In terms of how current policies are likely to impact on EfW investments, the following apply:
New EfW Plants (unabated)
• Do not currently pay carbon tax for non-biogenic CO2 emissions in the EU ETS. This is worth an increasing amount, as under phase 4 (2020-30) of the EU ETS some energy intensive industries will be expected to be granted less free credits, face more stringent qualifications for these, and pay an increasing tax (currently c.£20/te).
• Do not receive ROCs, as this scheme has closed. Advanced plants (under the ACT initiative) may attract CfDs, and recently these have been gasification technologies. The latest incineration plants have little subsidy, especially if they have no heat offtake, and are moving away from being supported by long term contracts to a more “merchant” model.
EfW Plants with CCUS
• Would expect to receive CfD, as they are producing clean power. However, as described in section 5, this isn’t the main economic driver for EfW plants at present, as power production is currently a modest income stream when compared to gate fees.
• Wouldn’t benefit otherwise from adding CCUS, as unabated plants don’t pay carbon tax for their non-biogenic emission, and there is no policy to reward the “negative emissions”
brought about by storing CO2 from biogenic content.
In summary, the current policy environment provides very little incentive to fit carbon capture to EfW plants. This may be at odds with an opportunity that offers relatively low-cost abatement for modestly sized ventures, negates the need for abatement in more expensive areas of the system, and offers “Net Zero” potential.
Page 17 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
9. Conclusions
Landfill of waste is not acceptable to the public for environmental reasons and policy has been put in place to discourage this. Construction of EFW plants has therefore increased and looks set to continue, although these are still high emitting units, and debate continues on the overall environmental benefits, with government assistance to those attempting to improve efficiency. A push to improve recycle rates may cause current growth rates of EfW to be curtailed.
In the meantime, CO2 reduction is still a core policy as the UK strives to meet its reduction commitments, and CCUS is recognised as being essential to deliver deep decarbonisation. EfW with CCUS offers competitive economics with many other industrial options for demonstration scale or bolt-on projects within many industrial clusters, in spite of being sub-optimal in scale. This competitiveness stems from their dominant revenue stream not being related to energy use, the feedstock having a negative price and the off gas being relatively rich in CO2. The plants are much newer than traditional industrial options, offering a long and stable payback time for the CCUS investment.
At energy system level, EfW with CCUS is likely to be valued greatly. It abates the non-biogenic carbon in waste and creates a negative emission from biogenic carbon that can be used to offset greater potential abatement costs in the transport and heat sectors. The ESME model, which develops lowest-cost energy system transition pathways to 2050, chooses to convert all EfW plants to EfW with CCUS in the 2020s and uses all available feedstock by 2040. The addition of CCUS to EfW plants in this way would deliver a cumulative discounted energy system cost saving of £10 Bn to 2050. To deliver this in practice requires CCUS to be “up and running “and for EfW facilities to be favourably located for CCUS (e.g. through appropriate clustering).
Based on outline economic data, carbon prices of £45/te and CfDs around £136/MWh would be required to make adding CCUS to EFW a viable option, although more detailed work on this is required.
It is therefore recommended that policy evolves to include EFW with CCUS as an option for CCUS with other industrial emission opportunities. This policy would need to fully reward the creation of negative emissions, which as system analysis has shown, obviate the need for expenditure on emission reductions from sectors which are much more cost to abate, and are instrumental in driving us to “Net Zero” solutions.
It is also recommended that a much fuller assessment of technology options is made than this short study could tackle, with engineering, detailed costings and financial appraisal of the best options. If not available to government already, life cycle and cost analysis comparing different options currently available for treatment of wastes should be refreshed – including AD for food waste, recycling of plastics etc as alternatives to incineration or gasification.
Page 18 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
10. Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to BEIS, Viridor and Carbon Clean Solutions for helpful guidance at the beginning of this project. Thanks also go to Bilaal Hussain, Senior Analyst for Modelling at ESC for his ESME modelling input, and Susanna Elks, Energy Policy Advisor at ESC for the section on policy issues.
Page 19 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
11. References
[1] Tolvik Consulting, “UK Energy from Waste Statistics - 2017,” 2018.
[2] Department For Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics: 1990 to 2018,” 4 February 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national- statistics-1990-to-2018. [Accessed 10 February 2020].
[3] CCUS Cost Challenge Taskforce, “Delivering Clean Growth: CCUS Cost Challenge Task Force,” 2018.
[4] Energy Technologies Institute, “Taking Stock of UK CO2 Storage,” 2017.
[5] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “Clean Growth Strategy,” 2018.
[6] F. Di Maria, S. Contini, G. Bidini, A. Boncompagni, M. Lasagni and F. Sisani, “Energetic Efficiency of an Existing Waste to Energy Power Plant,” Energy Procedia, vol. 101, pp. 1175- 1182, 2016.
[7] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory,” [Online]. Available: http://naei.beis.gov.uk/.
[8] Shell, “CO2 Capture for refineries, a practical approach,” Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 179- 185, 2009.
[9] Foster Wheeler, “BOC HPU CCUS Study,” 2014.
[10] J. Stuen, “Carbon Capture from Waste to Energy in Oslo”.
[11] Tolvik Consulting, “UK Residual Waste: 2030 Market Review,” 2017.
[12] C. Jonas, ““Filling the Gap” Impact of the Resource and Waste Strategy,” Lets Recycle, 21 February 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/filling-the- gap-impact-of-the-resources-and-waste-strategy/. [Accessed March 2019].
[13] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Resources and Waste Strategy for England,” 2018.
[14] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Energy recovery for residual waste, a carbon based approach,” 2014.
[15] The United Kingdom without Incineration Network, “Evaluation of the climate change impacts of waste incineration in the United Kingdom,” 2018.
[16] IEAGHG, “Waste Power CCU Projects in Japan,” 2016.
Page 20 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
[17] E. Slow, “AVR to capture CO2 in Holland,” letsrecycle.com, 8 June 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/avr-to-capture-co2-in-holland/. [Accessed March 2019].
[18] Gassnova, “Full-scale CCS,” [Online]. Available: https://gassnova.no/en/full-scale-ccs. [Accessed March 2019].
[19] European Environment Agency, “Air pollution impacts from carbon capture and storage (CCS),” 2011.
[20] Element Energy, “Demonstrating CO2 capture in the UK cement, chemicals and oil refining sector by 2025,” 2014.
[21] J. Husebye, A. Brunsvold, S. Roussanaly and X. Zhang, “Techno-economic evaluation of amine based CO2 Capture,” Energy Procedia, vol. 23, pp. 381-390, 2012.
[22] G. Thornton, Project Transform Waste PFI OBC, Final Modelling Assumptions.
[23] AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Addendum to EfW Business Case,” Aberdeen City Council, 2015.
[24] IEAGHG, “Techno-Ecoomic Evaluation of SMR Based Standalone (Merchant) Hydrogen Plant with CCS,” 2017.
[25] AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Assessing the Cost Reduction Potential and Competitiveness of Novel (Next Generation) UK Carbon Capture Technology Benchmarking State-of-the-art and Next Generation Technologies,” Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2018.
[26] Ends Waste & Bioenergy, 2019.
[27] Energy Technologies Institute, “ESME,” [Online]. Available: https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/strategy/esme. [Accessed March 2019].
Page 21 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
12. Appendices
Appendix 1: EfW with CCUS – Policy Background and Implications
Past EfW Policies
During the 1980s, EfW was not favourably perceived within the UK; the prevalence of landfill- suitable sites (former quarries), combined with negative public perception and the introduction of tighter emission controls on incineration in 1989 resulted in no new plants being built from 1980- 1993.
In the mid-1990s, increased governmental and EU awareness of GHG emissions led to comparisons of the emissions from different waste disposal mechanisms. These showed that EfW was preferential to landfill, though it was dependant on the proportion of biogenic carbon in the waste, with high levels of biogenic waste making EfW more attractive.
This combined with the public discontent with landfill led to the production of the European Union Landfill Directive, which specified targets for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill. To ensure they met these targets, many local authorities financed EfW plants with Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) from 1996 to 2009. As another measure the government also introduced the UK 1996 Landfill Tax which made EfW economically competitive with landfill. ¹
In 2002 and 2005 the Renewables Obligations scheme was introduced to Britain and Northern Ireland. This subsidised renewable generation through obligating electricity suppliers to procure a specific proportion of electricity from renewable sources and to prove it with the procurement of Renewable Obligation Certificates. EfW incinerators without CHP Quality Assurance Programme (CHPQA) status, accreditation which can only be obtained by high-quality efficient CHP plants, were not eligible for the scheme. EfW with CHPQA and ACT EfW plants were included, and therefore supported, due to their superior efficiency and the co-benefits of heat or hydrogen.
Concurrently, EU policy supported EfW through the 2005 European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) excluding EfW emissions and the 2009 EU Renewables Energy Directive assuring commitment to renewable electricity, heat and transport fuel out to 2020. Domestically, the 2004 landfill allowance trading scheme in England and the 2010 landfill tax escalator ensured EfWplant enjoyed continued competitive advantage over landfill options whilst in 2012 PFI evolved into PF2 and continued to provide funding, though on a reduced scale, for EfW projects.
The government aimed to further incentivise improved EfW efficiencies and ‘renewable’ heat generation. When RHIs were introduced in 2011, CHP plants were eligible for the funding; though only if they were not accredited under the Renewable Obligation (RO) scheme. CHPs were also incentivised to reach CHPQA status through the 2001 Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme, which allows businesses tax breaks on eligible equipment and the 2001 Climate Change Levy which removes tax on the generated electricity from a ‘renewable’ source2. Current Situation- Subsidies and The Story
Last year (2018) ROCs were closed to new entrants; although current plants signed up to the schemes will continue to get subsidies out to 2027 or 2037 depending on when they were constructed. The scheme has been replaced by Contracts for Difference (CfDs); contracts awarded
Page 22 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
through an auction, to eligible renewable energy technologies guaranteeing the price they will be paid for the electricity they supply. EfW incinerators with no heat retrieval are not eligible for CfDs however, reflecting the government’s continued support, CHP EfW plants were eligible in Pot 1 (for established technologies), due to their greater efficiencies and ACT plants were eligible in Pot 2 (for less established technologies), due to their whole system benefits.
Unfortunately, this initiative has not caused a large uptake of these technologies with only six ACT plants and two CHP plants gaining contracts in the 1st and 2nd auctions, and with lower strike prices than hoped for. The low number of gasification and pyrolysis projects is due to the complex nature of the technology and the associated high risk, often leading to unexpectedly high capital costs, long construction periods and protracted commissioning periods. This coupled with the low strike price currently makes the projects less appealing than conventional incinerators.
The construction rate of CHP technology has been higher than ACTs in the past, however, once built, EfW plants often struggle to find a market for heat that is as robust as anticipated. This is because of the relative selling prices of electricity and heat and the relative difficulty in developing a market for heat. Furthermore, it can be difficult for EfW plants to gain planning approval in residential areas due to objections from residents (fearing increases in traffic, noise, smell, pollutants), meaning EfW CHP plants are often placed in areas with no potential for district heating. This is worsened by the relatively small penetration of heat networks in the UK and the slow growth of this market. The Future Waste Landscape and the Implications for EfW
Defra released its vision for the future of waste management, the Resources and Waste Strategy for England, in December 2018. It outlines a number of flagship policies which it hopes will create a step change in waste management in the UK and enable the UK to meet its 2020 and 2030 recycling targets. It supports EfW plants processing the residual waste left after extensive ”reduce, reuse and recycle“ practises and places specific emphasis on its support for EfW plants achieving greater efficiencies and producing outputs which have system-wide benefits.
A key policy in the strategy with implications for the EfW industry, is the suggestion of households separating the biogenic portion of the waste stream from municipal waste for use in anaerobic digesters. This was included in the strategy as a suggestion, with its enactment being subject to consultation, but its inclusion could suggest the future direction of travel. Simultaneously, there is a large consumer movement to reduce plastic use in every-day lives which is widely supported by the proposals in the strategy. This could lead to a reduction in plastic use and an increased use of alternative materials such as bioplastics. In combination, these factors make it difficult to project with certainty the future volume and composition (be it energy, carbon or biogenic content) of UK waste, which clearly has implications for the future shape of the EfW industry.
Overall it is unclear what capacity of EfW plants, and which technologies, will be both necessary and viable in the future. There is a specific emphasis on the UK not having an overcapacity of EfW plants due to fears this brings waste down the waste hierarchy; though data from other countries suggests that increased EfW capacity is correlated with the exact opposite. The government’s method of ensuring there is not excess capacity is to ensure investment is market driven. This does not remove the concerns that the rigid long-term contracts entered into by municipalities mean that a variation or short fall of municipal waste in a region could lead to the unnecessary incineration of waste, as often raised by several groups currently campaigning against EfW plants.
Page 23 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Possible Incentives for CCUS
The benefits of CCUS development are widely known. Without action from government it is unlikely these benefits will be realised; as in conjunction with the large up-front costs, there are currently only minor potential revenue streams and therefore little short-term incentive for companies to invest in this technology. Therefore, just as with any location in the system, the EfW industry would require funding assistance from the government to be able to construct CCUS technology.
Potential incentive mechanisms to facilitate the deployment of CCUS on other high emitters in the UK economy have been explored. They generally fall into the category of transitional technology incentives or long-term carbon reduction incentives. The same incentive mechanisms would be applicable for EfW plants:
Current Incentives
• The current Contracts for Difference could potentially apply to EfW incineration plant with CCUS. These contracts substantially reduce the investment risk of a project by ensuring a price for generated electricity for the next 15 years. If these contracts were adapted to reflect the value of negative emissions, they could represent a higher income for CCUS plants.
Possible Transitional Incentives
• Government co-investment could deliver CCUS demonstration projects by filling the gap in both capital and risk allocation between industrial commitments and the requirements of a project. In 2007 and 2012 the government set up competitions to provide funding for industrial scale CCUS demonstration projects. Both competitions were cancelled due to the government claiming the final projects were not good value for money. For this funding route to be used it will require increased government support with an assurance of continuity for industry. Also, a new funding process must reflect lessons learnt from the previous two competitions (such as separately funding the transmission and storage infrastructure as national assets and the government taking on additional risk).
• The government can support projects by applying tax incentives to plants with CCUS or plants which significantly reduce emissions.
• Grant funding from innovation funds such as the UN’s proposed NER400 can add significant capital. This can have particular weight if used to target the high-risk links in the process which do not attract industry funding.
• Loan guarantees can reduce the risk of the project through raising the credit rating, thereby attracting valuable funding.
• Capital and operating subsidies can also reduce the risk of a project and help secure quality investments.
Creating a Market
• The government could, theoretically, reduce the permitted GHG emissions from EfW plants. This would put the cost of installing CCUS on to the plants themselves. CCUS would likely be too costly for EfW plants to install and remain competitive with landfill or international
Page 24 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
markets. This would lead to a net increase in emissions as EfW plants are likely to experience widespread closures.
• Carbon pricing has been discussed in the UK for many years. The current EU ETS (which is to be re-explored after Brexit) is the closest the UK has to a comprehensive emissions trading scheme with it covering 45% of all emissions in the EU. Currently EfW plants are not within the scheme and would not be able to sell the abated emissions on the market. If this was changed, or EfW plants were included in the EU ETS/future schemes this could be an additional revenue stream for EfW plants with CCUS; particularly if it specifically rewarded negative emissions. The current carbon price is too low to remunerate the high costs of CCUS installation, though in the future the price of carbon may increase. In this eventuality CCUS may become a substantial revenue stream or cost saving mechanism across the economy, particularly for EfW with CCUS due to the negative emission potential.
• The Parliamentary Advisory Group on Carbon Capture and Storage suggested that after industrial scale CCUS technology has been demonstrated, fossil fuel suppliers should be obligated to capture a set volume of emissions through a ‘CCUS Obligation Scheme’. The captured and stored emissions would be recorded through a CCUS Certificate Scheme which would underpin an increasing obligation for the proportion of stored emissions. This would create an independent revenue stream for CCUS and fund the construction of further projects under the ‘polluter pays’ philosophy. ³ Exploration of the Potential Impact on the System of EfW with CCUS
For the government to consider incentivising CCUS on EfW plants, the interactions with current EfW policy must first be considered along with any potential distortions which could result from the incentives. Through this process it could be seen whether EfW is an appealing location for CCUS in the future and if so, how potential distortions can be mitigated or removed through effective policy.
This report has considered the potential interactions with current EfW policy, along with any potential distortions, which could arise from placing CCUS on EfW plants. Outlined below are some of the key points which arose from this work;
Adhering to the Waste Hierarchy - Too much capacity and prioritising biomass use
As discussed in Section 3.3, there are concerns that rigid waste contracts and an over-capacity of EfW plants could incentivise waste to move down the waste hierarchy. If EfW with CCUS incentivises the construction of EfW plants, this could interfere with the government’s strategy of ensuring the correct capacity is built by entrusting investment decisions to the market.
If EfW plants are rewarded based on the captured emissions, there are three possible distortions which could occur:
• Incentivised burning of high-emission items • Incentivised burning of non-waste items • Incentivised burning of biomass
The first and second could occur if the plants rewards were based on the volume of emissions captured and the third if they were based on negative emissions. The first is the unfavourable combustion of plastic and other materials which would have benefited the system more if not combusted. The second is a scenario where it is beneficial for plants to operate at maximum
Page 25 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
capacity and therefore to source items to combust; be it old waste from landfill or items which could have been reused in the system. The third, if widely adopted, could have the largest impact on the wider system. There is a finite amount of biomass in the UK economy. If EfW with CCUS incentivises negative emissions it is important this does not lead to the combustion of biomass from non-waste sources or disincentivise biogenic waste going to gasification plants, as these resources have the potential to provide wider system benefits. One exception would be the combustion of bio-plastic if this has an increased presence in the economy. These materials breakdown to methane in landfill and are not readily recyclable. The combustion of these materials for energy retrieval and negative emissions from CCUS would create an interesting chain in the circular economy.
It must be ensured that the incentives for CCUS with EfW do not disincentivise investment in ACT, which may offer long term benefits. This could occur because the added risk of ACT combined with the added capital in CCUS is likely to prevent investment in ACT with CCUS projects. Therefore, only incineration plants will be able to gain the benefits from the CCUS incentive schemes which may make them a much more attractive project than new ACT plants. It must be ensured that this does not lead to the exclusive construction of incineration plants.
Imports/Exports
It is difficult to estimate the future flows of waste across international borders, this being dependent on additional capacity, overheads and transport costs. However, if a large number of UK EfW plants were gaining additional revenue from the use of CCUS, they may be able to lower their gate fee and compete with European EfW plants; depending on the excess capacity of European EfW plants. This could lead to the UK being paid to import waste. It is also interesting to consider the UK being paid to produce negative emissions for other European countries through EfW with CCUS. Conclusions
The discussion above and the wider assessment conducted for this work, suggest that EfW plants are in a favourable position for CCUS demonstration projects and subject to careful subsidy/support constraints, CCUS could present a long-term solution for EfW emissions. Positioning EfW as an option for CCUS demonstration projects removes the potential distortions to the market which could produce excess EfW plant capacity and widespread incineration of biomass in the future energy system, whilst also acting as a solution to the current inertia in CCUS investment. Using CCUS as a widespread solution to EfW emissions should be carefully considered. Specific attention should be paid to how the abated emissions are tallied, where the waste is sourced from and the eligible capacity of EfW. With appropriate measures this should ensure counter-productive combustion of system-assets (i.e. biomass or items suited for higher up the waste hierarchy) and an overcapacity of EfW plants are not incentivised.
To encourage investment in CCUS with EfW projects, it seems pragmatic that not only ACT plants but also incinerators fitting CCUS are eligible for the available funding. In this way CCUS can be demonstrated on a mature technology, reducing the risk of the project and helping it become mature for the market. It is key that in parallel ACT projects are not disincentivised and continue to be developed. In this way, once CCUS has been demonstrated in conjunction with a mature technology and ACT has be developed in parallel, the two could be combined in projects with a reduced, and acceptable, level of risk.
Page 26 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Furthermore, with the current necessity of decarbonising domestic heating, there is a substantial argument for CHP plants with CCUS, as they could provide low-cost, negative-emission heat through district networks. This could offset the costs of installing low-carbon heat technologies in individual households and reinforcing constrained gas or electricity network infrastructure. The timing of this is key, as once new infrastructure has been installed many of the benefits of installing a district heat network will be reduced. References
1) Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284612/p b14130-energy-waste-201402.pdf
2) Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/O_And_EFW_Guidance_FULL.pdf
3) Available at: http://www.CCUSassociation.org/news-and-events/reports-and-publications/parliamentary- advisory-group-on-CCUS-report/
Page 27 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
Appendix 2 - Tables of Cost Sources and Assumptions
2.1 References for Assumptions Used in Figure 3
ASSUMPTIONS ( Figure 3 ) REFERENCES ( Typical) Technical CO2 generation teCO2/te Feed 1 UK Without Incineration Network, Evaluation of the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Incineration, Oct 2018 Waste throughput, te/a 350,000 Typical size of new large units - Ends Waste& Bioenergy/Tolvik Reports in Refrences EFW LHV Efficency% (100%power) 30 A Preliminary comparative performance evluation of Highly efficient Waste to Energy Plants, Energy Procedia 45 ( 2014) LCV of Feed ,MJ/kg 8.9 UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2017 , Tolvik 2018 Heat out /power out (Z) 5 CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energuy from Waste Power Plants, Environment Agency, 2013 CC heat requirement, GJ/te CO2 2.3 Best from GHGT-12 Shell Cansolv Capture Technology:Acheivement from First Commercial Plant, Energy Procedia* 63 (2014) CO2 Capture rate,% 94 Best published figures from operating units %Waste carbon biogenic, % 50 UK Without Incineration Network, Evaluation of the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Incineration, Oct 2018 Economic Gate Fee £/te 80 UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2017 , Tolvik 2018 Power Price, £/MWh. 2030 60 Baringa : Power sector CCS and H2 Turbine Asset Modelling , 2017. Available at https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/carbon-capture-storage Carbon Price, £/te 2030 45 Baringa : Power sector CCS and H2 Turbine Asset Modelling , 2017. Available at https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/carbon-capture-storage CO2 Trans & Storage, £/te 17 Progressing Development of the UK’s Strategic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource
2.2 Table of References used for Capex and Opex Data
Page 28 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
2.3 Development of Data used in This Report from References Above
1.1 Capital Cost Estimate for CO2 Capture Addition Example : From Foster Wheeler Study for Stockton Borough Council ( Reference 8)
Description of Headline Figures from above study
Teesside Unit: Total Installed Cost ( TIC) £43.5M in Q42014 (+/-30% ) Scope Includes : Capture ( 304kte/a, 90% capture, 17% CO2 in flue) , Regenrator, Compression, Cooling Supply, MEA tank, power Scope Excludes: Offsite modifications ( H2 Plant) Cost includes: EPC, EPC mangt, Cost Excludes : Owners Cost, Land, Finance, Commissioning, Contingency,Insurances,Technology Fees Fixed Cost ( Opex) £3.95M/a Variable Cost (Inc. Power) £4.43M/a
Development of Teesside TIC Cost to Estimate for CCUS for EfW Plant, 330 kte/a
Total Installed Cost from above 43.5
Scale multiplier to TIC( gas flow) 1.27 55.245 Allowance for EFW Mods/Tie-Ins8 63.245 Contingency 20% TIC Fees/Ins/Int 5% TIC Commissioning/Charge 2% TIC Pre Feed 5% TIC Spares 1% TIC Land 5% TIC Owners Cost 10% TIC Escalation Q42014-2017 5% TIC
Total Cost Build factors 53%
Capital Estimate for 330kte/a addition, £M 2017 £97M
1.2. Opex Estimate for CO2 Capture Addition
This was taken directly from the same reference £4M/a 2. 1Capital Cost Estimation of Core EfW Plant Example : Unit Cost of EFW plant from GCCSi, EFW Section 14.7 Cost and Pricing
Description of Headline Figures from above study
"High" scenario figures show £7000/MWe, flat over time
Development Cost to Estimate for EfW Plant 350kte/a/32MW
Capital Estimate , £M 2017 £224M
More convincingly ,this figure matches those in published figures from a number of recently completed UK projects with similar waste throughputs
2. 2 Opex Cost Estimation of Core EfW Plant Example : Addendum to Energy from Waste Business Case ) Aberdeen City Council ( Reference 23)
Description of Headline Figures from above study Opex is given for a 150kte/a unit Maintenance £11/te Variable Opex £19/te Fixed opex £10/te
Adjustments to above
Maintenance - adjusted for scale 8 Variable opex - no adjustment 19 Fixed Opex -adjusted for scale 5 (Insurance separate) Total Opex with 6% Escalation from 2015 £12M/a
Page 29 of 33 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK
2.4 Site Data used in Figures 1,5,6
Table of Merseyside and Teesside Emitters
Site Operator Data Source Reference Data Reference Vaue Calc Emission kte/a Notes
Mersey Core Fossil kte CO2 /a Stanlow Refinery Essar Oil (UK) Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 623457.9319 2286 Ince Kemira Growhow UK Ltd NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 183046.6364 671 Ince Encirc Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 56488.35372 207 Total Core Fossil 3164 Mersey EfW Hooton Bio Power Peel and CoGen BWSC 1 te/a waste capacity 240000 240 Protos EfW (Ince) Biffa & Covanta& Peel 2 te/a waste capacity 350000 0 pre FID RuncornEfW Viridor Laing GM 3 te/a waste capacity 1100000 1,100 Lostock EfW ( Nantwich) Tata. 12 miles SE of Runcorn( just off map) 4 te/a waste capacity 500000 100 p20 ( thru FID) Total EfW Emission 1440 Mersey Bio Mersey Bioenergy Bioenergy Infra Group 2 te/a waste wood capacity 140000 140 Ince Bio Bioenergy Infra Group 2 te/a waste wood capacity 170000 170 UPM-Kymmene (UK) 5 te/a CO2 from Shotton 350000 350 Grannox/ PDM Group Saria 6 te/a meat and bone meal 46000 70 Total Bio Emission 730 Teesside Core Fossil Wilton Olefins 6 SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 324569.7273 1190 Billingham CF Fertilisers UK Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 180845.4545 663 Wilton SembCorp Utilities (UK) Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 137474.4106 0 (CHP power) Seal Sands INEOS Nitriles (UK) Ltd NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 104538 383 Seal Sands CONOCOPHILLIPS NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 86380.67698 317 Teesside Hydrogen Plant BOC Limited NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 76703.33411 281 Cassel Works Lucite International UK Ltd NAEI 2016 te C/a 2016 61988.65502 227 Total Core Fossil Emission 3062 ( excluding CHP) Teesside Efw Teeside EfW Plant/NEERC Suez 7 kte/a capacity 756 756 Wilton 11 EfW Plant Suez 7 kte/a capacity 600 600 Redcar EfW PMAC Energy 8 te/a capacity 500000 0 pre FID Total Efw 1356 Teeside Bio Teeside Renewable Energy Plant MGT Teesside Ltd 9,10 te/a pellets & wood chip 1500 1800 Wilton 10 biomass Sembcorp 7 kte/a capacity 293 300 Port Clarence Energy Project Glennmont Partners 11 te/ waste wood capacity 325,000 350 Total Bio 2450
1 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/construction-starts-hooton-gasification-plant/ 2 http://bioenergyinfrastructure.co.uk/site 3 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/viridor-increase-runcorn-efw-capacity/ 4 https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1580347/cip-fcc-move-600000t-yr-efw-plant-forward 5 private communication - similar order of magnitude figure in www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/EfW%20plant%20databasewww.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/EfW%20plant%20database.xlsx.xlsx 6 https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Tolvik-UK-Biomass-Statistics-2017-2.pdf 7 https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tolvik-EfW-Statistics-2018-Report_June-2019_published.pdf 8 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/plans-redcar-efw-plant/ 9 Average of a number of wide ranging sources , including https://www.banktrack.org/project/mgt_teesside_biomass_power_station/pdf 10 https://www.shi-fw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MGT-TEESSIDE-HERALDS-A-NEW-300-MW-CLASS-BIOMASS-CFB-POWER-PLANT.pdf 11 http://www.volund.dk/References_and_cases/Multi-fuel_energy_solutions/Teesside
Notes on Conversion of Plant Capcity to Estimates of CO2 Emission
1 1.Following study of numerous published analytical data and Environmental Agency data, WIN estimated that 1 te of UK Waste (MSW) produced 1 Te of CO2 See Table 7 of UK WIN publication "Evaluation of the climate change impacts of waste incineration in the United Kingdom October 2018 (Rev 1.01: April 2019) "
2 2.Although the carbon content of RDF, wood waste , pellets is higher than the above, the annual emission levels may be offset by lower plant availability ( Ref 6). Calculations on emissions default conservatively to 1 te of waste capacity produced 1 te CO2 where insufficeint information is available Information on Carbon content of feeds can be found for example at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-016-1223-9 https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/carbon-emissions-of-different-fuels/ http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19019
3 3.Other published emissions include
Klemetsrudanlegget in Norway 1 Te waste produces 1.14 Te CO2 http://task41project5.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Stuen.pdf Slide 5
Page 1 of 33
Energy Systems Catapult supports innovators in unleashing opportunities from the transition to a clean, intelligent energy system.
Energy Systems Catapult 7th Floor, Cannon House 18 Priory Queensway Birmingham B4 6BS es.catapult.org.uk [email protected] +44 (0)121 203 3700
© 2020 Energy Systems Catapult