DOCSLIB.ORG

The Next Generation of Sanitation & Waste Treatment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) technology for sludge and micropollutants treatment Kobe Nagar CEO, 374Water Inc. Lead Engineer Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University GLOBAL SLUDGE PROBLEM COSTS SOCIETY $BB Wastewater Sludge in Wastewater Sludge Industrial Wastewater Developing Countries USA Sludge - USA Current treatment creates secondary pollution “10 million pounds of poop from New York are stranded in a rural Alabama rail yard” “Safe” storage and landfilling are not sustainable It never really goes away – we just move it around… CURRENT TREATMENT METHODS ARE LIMITED Climate Adaptable Technology Limited Treatment and excess use of non- biodegradable products ► Shifting of weather patterns around the world, causing shortages and ► GenX (PFAS), PAHs, pesticides, droughts in some areas and floods in pharmaceuticals, microplastics others. ► Nutrient pollution from land application ► By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s excess nitrogen and phosphorus population may face water shortages. https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/water-scarcity “We can not solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them” - Albert Einstein Could SCWO be the alternative to sludge treatment? SCWO Process + + + >374 °C ~221 Bar Organic Air Clean Lower GHG Energy Waste Water Emissions Sustainable, decentralized & superior on-site treatment This barrel is an The same energy as in 87 kWh 3 gallons of worth of dump! gasoline 6 Giphy.com SUPERCRITICAL WATER SC Water has similar strength as Acetone to dissolve organic compounds Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) Solution SCWO Process + + + + + >374 °C 250 Bar Electricity Organic Waste Air Heat SCWO converts organic waste into clean water, heat, electricity and CO2 in seconds! 8 BREAKTHROUGH TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY Very fast reaction (seconds) - small footprint Complete elimination of pathogens & micro-pollutants Energy-efficient and possibility for off-grid operation at scale No pollution, no odor The industrial-scale pilot unit on Duke campus can treat Can cotreat hazardous the fecal waste of ~1000 people per day industrial wastes (oil, chemical, pharma, etc.) Scalable and offer competitive cost to AD and other methods UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ADDRESSED Fecal slurry & septage A TRUE OMNI PROCESSOR Biosolids disposal Animal waste treatment Cost (ROM) = CapEx + OpEx Hazardous waste treatment Compact $$$ SCWO $$$$ Lime stabilization $$$ Anaerobic Incineration $$$$ $$$ Drying + digestion Polluting Clean 0* $$ Incineration Dumping Anaerobic ponds, $$$ Drying beds Landfilling Land application $$ $* $$ Composting Lagoon, Sprayfield Space Intensive * Not including lawsuits LOWER COST, ENERGY, AND FOOTPRINT Incineration Anaerobic Digestion SCWO Treatment (VSR) CapEx OpEx Plant Footprint Energy consumption Polluting emissions Sustainable 12 WHY SCWO? WHY NOW? Innovation • Mixing tee configuration - avoids fouling and limits corrosion • Integrated energy recovery system – enables the system to run off the grid and generate electricity at a large scale • Safety – using air (vs. pure oxygen) and having the ability to limit temperature and avoid runaway reaction Proven pilot plant • Pilot plant at Duke Campus operational since 2015 – demonstrating successful treatment various feedstocks and micro-pollutants Demand for sustainable solutions • Running off the grid • Flooding resilient • Future proofing regulations for micro-pollutants • Phase-out of Hearth Incinerators by 2025 Our Path to Date ► Operating & ► Running with ►Reliability testing safety procedures slurries prototype A ► Construction ► New reactor ► Commercial ► Commissioning design development 2014 2016 2018-19 2013 2015 2017 ► Reactor design ► Liquids treatment ► Energy recovery ► Electrical & ► Aspen Plus investigations control design modeling ► New slurry pump ► Procurement ► Slurry handling ► Prototype B design 14 A fully functional prototype – 1 ton per day (Nix1) 15 Inside our pilot, the Nix1 16 Inside Prototype A WASTE TYPES & CALORIFIC VALUE Dewatered Waste Primary secondary activated Food Waste sludge sludge sludge (WAS) Dry solids: 20-30% Dry solids: 13% Dry solids: 27% Dry solids: 30% Ash content: ~27% Ash content: 18% Ash content: ~35% Ash content: 6% Calorific value: Calorific value: Calorific value: Calorific value: 16.3 MJ/kg 13.9 MJ/kg 15.7 MJ/kgdry dry dry 16-19 MJ/kgdry We use the energy embedded in the waste to fuel the reaction no need to digest the waste first Typical Biosolids Treatment Performance Analysis Influent Effluent Removal % COD (mg/L) 214,000 70 99.97 Total N (mg/L) 10,875 200 98.2 NH3 (mg/L) 443 17.6 - NO3 (mg/L) 183 15.9 - NO2 (mg/L) 14.9 0.4 - -3 PO4 (mg/L) 4930 67.9 98.6 pH 6.8 7.02 - 19 SLUDGE TREATMENT – TYPICAL RESULTS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE (WAS) SCWO EFFLUENT Pre-feed processing included diluting the feedstock ppm mg/l to 11.5% solids, macerating and adding co-fuel. To 70 26 reach a 180,000 mgO2/L COD, 11.5% COD Ammonia In Effluent In Effluent concentration – we added 0.05 kg of diesel and 0.44 kg of water to each kg of sludge. After reaching a smooth consistency, the slurry was fed to the SCWO reactor using a high pressure >99% 93.7% 95.6% pump. It was preheated to 200 ºC and reacted at supercritical conditions. VSR Nitrogen Phosphate Removal Removal Calorific value (0-20 kJ/ kg dry) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand): high conversion of over 13.4 kJ/kg 99.9%, from 170,000ppm to 70ppm (effluent is clean water and inert minerals; after further filtration results improve even further). Ash content (0-40%) VSR (Volatile Solids Reduction): current technologies can reach a range of 16-40% of VSR. We reached >99% - a 34.8% standard SCWO capability. Ammonia, Nitrogen, Phosphorous: most of the nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas. Total nitrogen in the effluent is Solids (0-30%) 90 mg/L, phosphate level in the dry mineral output stream is 17.4% ~10% mass as P2O5. 20 pH level in effluent: 6.6 Fate of N and P and S during treatment N Forms SCWO Exhaust • Organic Process Gas <3 ppm NH • Urea v 3 N gas <5 ppmv NOx • Ammonium 2 <3 ppmv SOx • Heterocycles P Forms Solid minerals • Organic Phosphate precipitates • Phosphate Ca3(PO4)2 S Forms MgNH4PO4·6H2O - • HS , COS, organic Sulfates, Hydrates • Mercaptans CaSO4 21 Treatment of Emerging Contaminants Experimental Approach • Spike trace contaminants to during IPA phase and to biosolids Results • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen: spiked 10 mg/L each Effluent: ND at < 1 µg/L Removal > 99.99% • Triclosan: spiked: 100 µg/L Effluent: ND at < 0.1 µg/L Removal > 99.9% • PFOS: spiked: 2-6 mg/L Effluent: 5-30 µg/L Removal 98.6-99.7% • PFOA: spiked: 2-7 mg/L Effluent: 0.1-0.4 µg/L Removal > 99.8% Emerging contaminants are well removed This reduces concerns for water reuse 22 SCWO PFAS (FOREVER CHEMICAL) TREATMENT We spiked a biosolids slurry with high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA before feeding it to the Supercritical Water Oxidation omni- 6.3 mg/l 7.3 mg/l processor Spiked biosolids Spiked biosolids slurry with PFOS slurry with PFOA SCWO EFFLUENT Effluent Analysis 6.000 > 99.7% > 99.9% 1.000 0.167 PFOS PFOA Removal Removal 0.028 0.005 Non-detect Concentration (µg/L) 4 mg/l (<0.2 ppmv) 0.001 Fluorides in liquid effluent, PFBA PFBS PFDA PFHpA PFHxA PFHxS PFNA PFOA PFOS PFPA HF (@vent) showing recovery of F ppb ng/l 0.079 0.000 0.010 0.142 0.069 0.004 0.000 0.120 5.336 0.070 atoms as F- Co-fuels and Other Wastes Co-treated with Biosolids Tested to date in our pilot • Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) • Diesel Typical removal • Waste motor oil, vegetable oil • COD: 99-99.9% • Landfill leachate • Total nitrogen: 50-98% • Food waste • Total phosphorous: 73-99% • Plastics waste (PET, PE) Lessons learned • Successful treatment • Quantified impacts e.g. on emissions • Broadens scope of SCWO application • Enables synergistic opportunities Adding waste cooking Mixing ground food oil to biosolids waste and scraps 24 OUR VISION – DECENTRALIZED ON-SITE TREATMENT Mixed waste streams Raw sludge & Biosolids Hazardous waste • Primary from pits or septic emptying Fecal sludge • Secondary sludge Animal waste (Digested or undigested) Other applications • Industrial WWTP • CAPOs Sludge • Military and Emergency responses Cluster of Buildings Communities on microgrid Example SCWO treatment Nix6 facility in 20 ft. container One 40 ft container treats for 1000-3000 people waste from 6,000 people Energy Minerals Distilled water CO2 (carbonation, capture) Energy Balances Nix1 Nix6 Nix30 Nix200 (prototype) (commercial) (commercial) (commercial) (not optimized for efficiency) 5.1 ton/day 25.5 ton/day 170 ton/day Losses 1 ton/day 20 kW 26 kW 10 kW 12.5 kW 167 kW 300 kWh/day 4000 kWh/day Cost - Distributed Treatment (community to city scale solutions) Power Distilled Total Capacity wet Estimated consumed water treatment metric ton /day Land use CapEx or produced costs (CAPEX (people*) ($/Unit) produced (ga/day) + OPEX) Nix6 One 40’ Consumes 5.1 wet ton/day ISO 700 $2M $144 per ton 10 kW Community container Nix30 Three 40’ Produces 25.5 wet ton/day ISO 3,600 $4.5M $55 per ton 12.5 kW Town Containers Nix200 Produces 170 wet ton/day ~5000 ft2 24,000 $17M $26 per ton 167 kW City Scale 27 IMPLEMENTATION (EXISTING WWTP) Feed Secondary Plant Discharge/ treatment Land Application Clarifier (Primary treatment) Sludge Water Brackish Water (Option for RO) (Dewatering) Filter & 10-15% slurry Dewatering mixed with FOG (option) to SCWO unit Minerals SCWO Distilled (Fertilizer) Water 28 OWASA (CHAPEL HILL) CASE STUDY Not in use / Two Nix 30 units extra capacity X X XX X X X X X X X X X Eliminate
Recommended publications
  • Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies

    Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies

    Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members August 2001 Health Care Without Harm 1755 S Street, N.W. Unit 6B Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202.234.0091 www.noharm.org Health Care Without Harm 1755 S Street, N.W. Suite 6B Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202.234.0091 www.noharm.org Printed with soy-based inks on Rolland Evolution, a 100% processed chlorine-free paper. Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals, Environmental Advocates, and Community Members August 2001 Health Care Without Harm www.noharm.org Preface THE FOUR LAWS OF ECOLOGY . Meanwhile, many hospital staff, such as Hollie Shaner, RN of Fletcher-Allen Health Care in Burlington, Ver- 1. Everything is connected to everything else, mont, were appalled by the sheer volumes of waste and 2. Everything must go somewhere, the lack of reduction and recycling efforts. These indi- viduals became champions within their facilities or 3. Nature knows best, systems to change the way that waste was being managed. 4. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle, 1971 In the spring of 1996, more than 600 people – most of them community activists – gathered in Baton Rouge, Up to now, there has been no single resource that pro- Louisiana to attend the Third Citizens Conference on vided a good frame of reference, objectively portrayed, of Dioxin and Other Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals. The non-incineration technologies for the treatment of health largest workshop at the conference was by far the one care wastes.
  • Medical Waste Treatment Technologies

    Medical Waste Treatment Technologies

    Medical Waste Treatment Technologies Ruth Stringer International Science and Policy Coordinator Health Care Without Harm Dhaka January 2011 Who is Health Care Without Harm? An International network focussing on two fundamental rights: • Right to healthcare • Right to a healthy environment Health Care Without Harm • Issues • Offices in – Medical waste –USA –Mercury – Europe – PVC – Latin America – Climate and health – South East Asia – Food • Key partners in – Green buildings –South Africa – Pharmaceuticals – India –Nurses – Tanzania – Safer materials –Mexico • Members in 53 countries Global mercury phase-out • HCWH and WHO partnering to eliminate mercury from healthcare • Part of UN Environment Programme's Mercury Products Partnership. • www.mercuryfreehealthcare.org • HCWH and WHO are principal cooperating agencies • 8-country project to reduce impacts from medical waste – esp dioxins and mercury • Model hospitals in Argentina, India, Latvia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Senegal and Vietnam • Technology development in Tanzania Incineration No longer a preferred treatment technology in many places Meeting modern emission standards costs millions of dollars Ash must be treated as hazardous waste Small incinerators are highly polluting Maintenance costs can be high, breakdowns common Decline in Medical Waste Incinerators in the U.S. 8,000 6,200 6,000 5,000 4,000 2,400 2,000 Incinerators 115 83 57 #of Medical Waste Waste Medical #of 0 1988 1994 1997 2003 2006 2008 Year SOURCES: 1988: “Hospital Waste Combustion Study-Data Gathering Phase,” USEPA, December 1998; 1994: “Medical Waste Incinerators-Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines: Industry Profile Report for New and Existing Facilities,” USEPA, July 1994; 1997: 40 CFR 60 in the Federal Register, Vol.
  • Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities

    Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities

    WASTE TECHNOLOGIES: WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITIES A Report for the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning (SWIP) Working Group Complied by WSP Environmental Ltd for the Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment and Conservation May 2013 Quality Management Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Date May 2013 Prepared by Kevin Whiting, Steven Wood and Mick Fanning Signature Checked by Matthew Venn Signature Authorised by Kevin Whiting Signature Project number 00038022 Report number File reference Project number: 00038022 Dated: May 2013 2 Revised: Waste Technologies: Waste to Energy Facilities A Report for the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning (SWIP) Working Group, commissioned by the Government of Western Australia, Department of Environment and Conservation. May 2013 Client Waste Management Branch Department of Environment and Conservation Level 4 The Atrium, 168 St George’s Terrace, PERTH, WA 6000 Locked Bag 104 Bentley DC WA 6983 Consultants Kevin Whiting Head of Energy-from-Waste & Biomass Tel: +44 207 7314 4647 [email protected] Mick Fanning Associate Consultant Tel: +44 207 7314 5883 [email protected] Steven Wood Principal Consultant Tel: +44 121 3524768 [email protected] Registered Address WSP Environmental Limited 01152332 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF 3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 6 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................
  • The Omni Processor

    The Omni Processor

    The Omni Processor Peter Janicki CEO & Founder Janicki Bioenergy & My Background Founded by Peter and Susan Janicki in 1993 730 employees 135 engineers 3 years ago we were approached by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation They wanted SOLUTIONS: -from someone with technology development experience -with a new perspective on sanitation -not someone entrenched in traditional sanitation solutions That was the start of the OP journey… New Delhi, India, March 2014 The Problem: How can we destroy human born fecal pathogens such that they cannot make people sick and contaminate the local water supply without adding financial burden to the community? Kibera slum, Kenya, June 2014 Peter and Susan Janicki entering Mukuru slum, Kenya, July 2012 The Janicki Bioenergy team spent time investigating the problem in order to: • Drive the vision of the solution and • Ensure that the solution would be practical in the real world setting 2.5 billion people live without access to adequate sanitation Sara VanTassel, President of Janicki Bioenergy with children in Kibera slum, Kenya, June 2014 Kenya, June 2014 1.5 million children die of diarrhea every year Kenya, June 2014 The scale of the problem is massive Ivory Coast, March 2014 The inputs to the problem are varied: • Digested and undigested sludge • Very wet to very dry sludge • Garbage • Foreign objects • Dirt and other inorganic content South Africa, July 2012 Current Solution #1: Manual Emptying of Pit Latrines -Step 1: Waste goes into pit South Africa, July 2012 Current Solution #1: Manual Emptying
  • Metering and Conveying Silica Sand for Sedron Technologies General Description

    Metering and Conveying Silica Sand for Sedron Technologies General Description

    Metering and Conveying Silica Sand for Sedron Technologies General Description KWS Provides Critical Equipment Safe drinking water and clean sanitation systems are basic needs for everyone in the world. However, to Sedron Technologies approximately 4.5 billion people do not have access to these necessities. Viruses and diseases spread due to poor sanitation. Traditional sanitation systems are not feasible in certain areas of the world. New technology is needed to solve the problem of poor sanitation. Fortunately, many new ideas and developments are helping to create safe drinking water and clean sanitation. Sedron Technologies developed a decentralized waste treatment system using a Janicki Omni Processor that kills pathogens while recovering valuable resources from biosolids and other waste streams. The Omni Processor processes waste without piped water, sewer or electrical connections and can transform waste into useful resources such as energy and water. The process starts with biosolids mixed with hydrated lime and silica sand being fed to a dryer where moisture is removed. The dried solid waste is then burned to produce heat in a boiler to generate steam and power a turbine generator to produce electricity. The electricity powers the processor with excess electricity sold back to the power grid. For more information about Sedron Technologies and the Janicki Omni Processor, watch the Netix documentary “Inside Bill’s Brain: Decoding Bill Gates” or go to YouTube for various videos on the Janicki Omni Processor. Design Parameters Product Type: Silica Sand Material Density: 92 Lbs. per Cubic Foot Conveyor System Capacity: 23 Cubic Feet per Hour Duty: 24 hours per Day, 7 Days per Week KWS Advantages KWS has been working with Sedron Technologies on several phases of the Janicki Omni Processor waste treatment system and provided bulk material handling equipment for metering biosolids to the boiler to generate electricity.
  • Waste Treatment Solutions

    Waste Treatment Solutions

    Waste Treatment Solutions Waste Treatment Solutions As industry leaders, we offer customers across North America reliable, safe and compliant solutions for over 600 hazardous waste streams, PCBs, TSCA and non-hazardous waste. Unequaled service. Solutions you can trust. USecology.com To support the needs of customers from coast to coast, US Ecology has 19 treatment and recycling facilities throughout North America, including some of the largest treatment and stabilization operations. This enables us to accept waste in a wide range of consistencies and shipping containers, from bulk liquids and solids to drums, totes and bags. Plus, our facilities are backed by six state-of-the-art hazardous and radioactive waste landfills, along with a nationwide transportation network. Treatment Processes US Ecology’s RCRA-permitted and TSCA-approved facilities US Ecology is the only commercial offer a wide variety of waste treatment technologies. treatment company in the USA • Chemical oxidation processes to treat waste that is USEPA-authorized to delist containing organic contaminants 15 inorganic hazardous wastes. • Microencapsulation to reduce the leachability Delisting offers an attractive, safe of hazardous debris streams, allowing material to be safely disposed in RCRA Subtitle C landfills and more compliant disposal • Chemical stabilization de-characterizes waste, option, particularly for those with enabling safe landfill disposal F-listed hazardous waste codes. • Thermal desorption to process and/or recycle high organic contaminated materials For more information: • Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) air Call (800) 592-5489 or management system enables management go to www.usecology.com of high-VOC, RCRA-regulated wastes • Wastewater treatment for hazardous and non-hazardous wastewater, including oily and corrosive streams • Cyanide destruction and oxidizer deactivation treatment technologies.
  • Innovations to Market

    Innovations to Market

    September 2013 SPECIAL FOCUS Featured Session Bringing Innovations to Market. Page 4 Featured Session Energy Generation in Fort Worth. Page 6 Innovation Showcase A Highlight of WEFTEC Programming. Page 8 Pavilion Exhibitors InnovatIon Innovation-award winning companies. Page 16 Innovation Showcase Visualize the potential of the water sector Actionable Water Market Intelligence ™ ® BlueTech Research, an O2 Environmental company, is an intelligence service focused exclusively on identifying key opportunities and emerging trends in the global water industry. We are the premier source of actionable BlueTech® Research offers analyst directed water market intelligence for strategic advisory services, providing market business decisions on innovative intelligence, technology assessments and technologies and companies. strategic advice. ® Our clients use BlueTech Research for: BlueTech® Intelligence Briefings ents. Snappy and informative,with distilled details prepared by BlueTech® Research water • Identifying and assessing water industry experts. companies and technologies BlueTech® Innovation Tracker™ • Understanding new water Innovation Company Tracker tool to map and analyse water technology market opportunities technology companies. and identifying areas for growth ® • Analyzing water technology patent BlueTech Insight Reports trends and identifying water Detailed reports providing insight and analysis on key water technology market areas. technology licensing, investment and acquisition opportunities BlueTech® Webinars Technology and Market
  • Waste Management

    Waste Management

    10 Waste Management Coordinating Lead Authors: Jean Bogner (USA) Lead Authors: Mohammed Abdelrafie Ahmed (Sudan), Cristobal Diaz (Cuba), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Qingxian Gao (China), Seiji Hashimoto (Japan), Katarina Mareckova (Slovakia), Riitta Pipatti (Finland), Tianzhu Zhang (China) Contributing Authors: Luis Diaz (USA), Peter Kjeldsen (Denmark), Suvi Monni (Finland) Review Editors: Robert Gregory (UK), R.T.M. Sutamihardja (Indonesia) This chapter should be cited as: Bogner, J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang, Waste Management, In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Waste Management Chapter 10 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................. 587 10.5 Policies and measures: waste management and climate ....................................................... 607 10.1 Introduction .................................................... 588 10.5.1 Reducing landfill CH4 emissions .......................607 10.2 Status of the waste management sector ..... 591 10.5.2 Incineration and other thermal processes for waste-to-energy ...............................................608 10.2.1 Waste generation ............................................591 10.5.3 Waste minimization, re-use and
  • Composting.Pdf

    Composting.Pdf

    CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies Composting Prevention Product (Non-Waste) Preparing for re-use Recycling Recovery Disposal Technological Waste aspects Financial aspects Governance capability Institutional aspects Public awareness & cooperation of residents Social conditions United Nations Avenue, Gigiri National Institute for Environmental Studies IGES Centre Collaborating with UNEP PO Box 30552, 00100 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, on Environmental Technologies (CCET) Nairobi, Kenya Ibaraki 305-8506, 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Tel: +254 (0)20 762 1234 Japan Kanagawa 240-0115, Email: [email protected] www.nies.go.jp/index-e.html Japan www.unep.org Tel: +81-46-855-3840 www.ccet.jp Economy Division International Environmental Technology Centre 2-110 Ryokuchi koen, Tsurumi-ku, Osaka 538-0036, Japan Tel: +81 6 6915 4581 Email: [email protected] www.unep.org/ietc August 2020 CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies: Composting Authors Copyright Kosuke Kawai (National Institute for Environmental © United Nations Environment Programme, 2020 Studies, NIES), Chen Liu (Institute for Global This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part Environmental Strategies, IGES), and Premakumara and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes Jagath Dickella Gamaralalage (IGES) without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Project Coordination of CCET Guideline series The United Nations Environment Programme would Kazunobu Onogawa (IGES), Yasuhiko Hotta (IGES), appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses Keith Alverson (UNEP IETC), Shunichi Honda (UNEP this publication as a source. IETC), Misato Dilley (UNEP IETC) No use of this publication may be made for resale or for Peer Reviewers any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior Members of the Japan Society of Material Cycles and permission in writing the United Nations Environment Waste Management (JSMCWM): Kiyohiko Nakasaki Programme.
  • Waste to Energy

    Waste to Energy

    WASTE TO ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING Summary for policymakers What is Waste-to-Energy? Thermal Waste-to-Energy (WtE), also known as incineration with energy recovery, is a major waste treatment method in some developed countries and the most widely adopted technology that dominates the global WtE market. The European Union, however, which has relied on waste incineration for the past few decades, is now moving away from thermal WtE and other forms of incineration and is focusing on more FLUE GAS ecologically acceptable solutions such as EMISSIONS waste prevention, reuse and recycling as INPUTS AND Flue gas emissions contain the greenhouse it shifts towards a circular economy. gases and pollutants from the waste, which OUTPUTS OF requires further treatment before emission to the atmosphere. Emissions may include THERMAL carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, volatile WASTE-TO- organic compounds, persistent organic ENERGY pollutants (e.g. furans and dioxins) and some heavy metals. PLANTS HEAT WASTE FEEDSTOCK Thermal energy is one of the energy products from the combustion Municipal solid waste, sorted of waste feedstock, which can or unsorted, is often used as the be used in district heating waste feedstock for thermal WtE system in plant. During the incineration process, vicinity. the volume of the waste feedstock can be greatly reduced by 90%. ELECTRICITY BOTTOM ASH Electricity is one of the energy Bottom ash is the residual material products of thermal WtE, which is from incineration. It contains the then transferred to the power grid non-combustible fraction of waste to power up households.
  • Tot, Bojana. ANALYSIS of BIODEGRADABLE WASTE

    Tot, Bojana. ANALYSIS of BIODEGRADABLE WASTE

    ANALYSIS OF BIODEGRADABLE WASTE TREATMENT IN ORDER TO REDUCE QUANTITY OF DISPOSED WASTE Bojana Tot1 , Svjetlana Jokanović1 , Goran Vujic1 , Bojan Batinić1, Nemanja Stanisavljević1, Bojana 1 1 Beronja , Dejan Ubavin 1 Department of Environmental Engineering and Occupational Safety and Health, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia ABSTRACT According to data obtained by analysis of quantity and composition of municipal solid waste in Republic of Serbia, the most significant waste fraction 40% represents organic waste, and roughly can be divided into food waste and garden or yard waste. In Serbia, practically all biodegradable waste ends up on non sanitary landfills, contributing to a large negative impact due to high production of methane, one of the most significant greenhouse gases (GHG). In order to comply with increasing national and international requirements, one of the main objectives is the reduction to 75% (by weight) of the total quantities of biodegradable municipal solid waste which ends up at landfill until 2016 a the first step to accomplish this requirements. This paper analyzes possible ways for the treatment of biodegradable waste from households in Serbian municipalities in order to achieve this goal. Therefore, in this paper, flows of garden and other biodegradable waste in municipal solid waste are analyzed by MFA (Material Flow Analysis) and two scenarios are presented. For decision makers in the field of waste management, the obtained information will be of great importance in order to develop an appropriate waste management system and to achieve specific targets for biodegradable waste treatment according to national and EU Directives. 1. INTRODUCION Organic waste can represent 20 to 80% of total municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, depending on the country economic development level.
  • 913 11 Treatment of Waste for Landfill

    913 11 Treatment of Waste for Landfill

    30/1/2020 on withdrawn was Treatmentdocument of waste for landfill Report – GEHO1111BVDF-E-E This 913_11, Version 2 Treatment of waste for landfill Version 2 Page 1 of 52 November 2011 We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make it a better place for people and wildlife. We operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding; make sure there is enough water for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water quality and apply the environmental standards within which industry can operate. Acting to reduce climate change and helping people and wildlife adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do. We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of partners including government, business, local authorities, other agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve. 30/1/2020 on Published by: Further copies of this report are available Environment Agency Horizon house, Deanery Road withdrawnfrom our publications catalogue: http://publications.environment- Bristol BS1 5AH Email: enquiries@environment- agency.gov.uk or our National Customer agency.gov.uk Contact Centre: T: 03708 506506 www.environment-agency.gov.uk was Email: enquiries@environment- agency.gov.uk. © Environment Agency 2011 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. February 2007 amended November 2011 document This Treatment of waste for landfill Version 2 Page 2 of 52 November 2011 Overview All waste must be treated before it can be landfilled, with a few exceptions.