energy from waste rics information paper

Energy from waste

RICS information paper

1st edition

Acknowledgment

Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer forScotland.

Published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

under the RICS Books imprint

Surveyor Court

Westwood Business Park

Coventry CV4 8JE

UK

www.ricsbooks.com

No responsibility for loss or damage caused to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of the materialincluded in this publication can be accepted by the author or RICS.

ISBN 978 1 84219 544 4

© Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) August 2009. Copyright in all or part of this publication restswith RICS, and save by prior consent of RICS, no part or parts shall be reproduced by any means electronic,mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, now known or to be devised.

Typeset in Great Britain by Columns Design Ltd, Reading, Berks

Contents

RICS information papers 1

Abbreviations and definitions 2

1 Introduction 4

2 Energy from waste issues 52.1 Background information 52.2 Volume of waste arising in the UK 62.3 Policy drivers 6

3 Technologies 123.1 Thermal treatment 123.2 Biological treatment 13

4 Commercial aspects 154.1 Size of market required 154.2 Local authority procurement 15

5 Public perception 17

6 Responsible bodies 196.1 Planning authorities and planning guidance 196.2 Environment Agency 206.3 The Health Protection Agency (HPA) 226.4 Ofgem 226.5 Green pressure groups 22

7 Horizon – what’s next? 24

8 Case studies 26Case study 1: Lakeside EfW project, Colnbrook (a joint venturebetween Grundon and Viridor Waste management)

26

Case study 2: Newhaven EfW project 26Case study 3: Sheffield CHP plant 27Case study 4: Energos gasification plant, Isle of Wight 27Case study 5: AD plant in Leicester 27

Appendix: References 28

ENERGY FROM WASTE | iii

Acknowledgments

RICS would like to express its thanks to the following for their contributions tothis information paper.

Lead author:

Stephen T Haymes

RICS Energy steering group members:

Graham Bocking

Michael Doran

Rebecca Mooney

Barnaby Pilgrim

Other contributors:

David Harker (Sita)

Nick Hollands (Veolia)

Patrick McConville (Energos)

Jeff Rhodes (Biffa)

Richard Skehens (Grundon)

Mike Snell (WRG)

and Paul Green (WRG)

Professor Jim Swithenbanks (Sheffield University)

Tony Watkins (Cyclamax)

iv | ENERGY FROM WASTE

RICS information papers

This is an information paper. Information papers are intended to provideinformation and explanations to RICS members on specific topics of relevanceto their practice. The function of this paper is not to recommend or advise onprofessional procedures to be followed by surveyors.

It is, however, relevant to professional competence to the extent that surveyorsshould be up-to-date and should have informed themselves of informationpapers within a reasonable time of their promulgation.

Members should note that when an allegation of professional negligence ismade against a surveyor, the Court is likely to take account of the contents ofany relevant information papers published by RICS in deciding whether of notthe surveyor has acted with reasonable competence. Also, in any case ofdisciplinary action the panel or board is likely to take this into account.

ENERGY FROM WASTE | 1

Abbreviations and definitions

ACT: Advanced Conversion Technology

AD: Anaerobic Digestion

ATT: Advanced Thermal Technologies

BAT: Best Available Techniques

BMW: Biodegradable Municipal Waste

C&I: Commercial and Industrial

CAA: Civil Aviation Authority

CHP: Combined Heat and Power

CHPQA: Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance

DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EA: Environment Agency

EfW: Energy from Waste

EIA: Environmental Impact Statement

ES: Environmental Statement

EU: European Union

HPA: Health Protection Agency

IPC: Infrastructure Planning Commission

IPPC: Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control

JR: Judicial Review

KTPA: Kilo Tonnes per Annum

LATS: Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

LDD: Local Development Documents

MBT: Mechanical Biological Treatment

MRF: Material Recycling Facility

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

MWMS: Municipal Wastes Management Strategies

NFFO: Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation

NGO: Non-Government Organisation

NIMBY: Not in my backyard!

NOx: Nitrogen Oxide

PAH: Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB: Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PFI: Private Finance Initiative

2 | ENERGY FROM WASTE

PPC: Pollution Prevention and Control

PPM: Parts per million

PPS: Planning and Policy Statement

RDF: Refuse Derived Fuel

RO: Renewables Obligation

ROC: Renewables Obligation Certificate

RPB: Regional Planning Bodies

RSS: Regional Spatial Strategies

SRF: Secondary Recovered Fuel

TPA: Tonnes per Annum

WDA: Waste Disposal Authority

WID: Waste Incineration Directive

WPA: Waste Planning Authority

WRAP: Waste and Resources Action Programme

Definitions

‘Biofuels’: liquid or gaseous fuel for transport produced from biomass.

‘Biomass’: the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues fromagriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and relatedindustries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipalwaste.

‘Bio-waste’: biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste fromhouseholds, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable wastefrom food processing plants. It does not include forestry or agriculturalresidues, manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste such as naturaltextiles, paper or processed wood. It also excludes those by-products of foodproduction that never become waste.

‘Renewable energy’: energy from renewable non-fossil sources, namely wind,solar, aero thermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower,biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases.1

‘Renewable Obligation Certificate’ (ROC): a green certificate issued to anaccredited generator for eligible renewable electricity generated within the UKand supplied to customers within the UK by a licensed electricity supplier.

‘Renewables Obligation’: there is an obligation on UK suppliers of electricity tosource an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources.

‘Waste’: any substance or object which the holder discards, intends to discardor is required to discard under the Waste Framework Directive.2


1 Introduction

For the foreseeable future, the UK’s energy needs will be supplied by a mix offuels and technologies, with fossil fuels and nuclear power likely to be includedin this mix. However, there are a number of factors encouraging expansion ofthe renewable energy market, including the fact that renewables are thecornerstone of the energy policy of the UK government.

One of the most important drivers for change is the problem of security andconsistency of energy supply, which is expected to become more pronouncedover the next five to ten years. The recent spike in the global oil price and thecutting off of Russian gas supplies through the Ukraine in the winter of2008/09 highlight the threats. In fact, there are some claims that the UK’scapacity to supply power is already stretched and may not be sufficient to meetdemand in the coming years.

Renewable energy can be defined as energy from renewable non-fossil sources,namely wind, solar, aero thermal, geothermal, hydrothermal and ocean energy,hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases.

Currently, the main prospects for renewable energy are wind (both on- andoff-shore), limited (in the UK) photovoltaic, wave and tidal power and energycrops. It is not well known that the waste industry already plays a significantrole, with as much as two-thirds of renewable energy coming from this sector,including landfill gas utilisation. In addition there is scope for a more extensiveimplementation of ‘energy from waste’ (EfW) schemes, tapping into moves tohave waste treated and diverted from landfill.

One major issue with many renewable options is that they cannot be suppliedcontinuously, making it difficult to match energy/electricity supply withdemand on a moment-to-moment basis. Also, some of the options produceenergy remote from the main areas of demand, requiring the use of the gridsystem, which is inherently inefficient. Where power is produced in remoteareas of the country, energy is lost in ‘pushing’ the electricity along the manymiles of cabling. EfW offers a more stable alternative, or back-up, to theseother options.

This paper deals with the resurgence of interest in EfW. It highlights issues,provides an update on legislation, government policy and the interests ofresponsible bodies. An explanation of technologies is given, both current andemerging, and how they might help meet the requirements of the renewablesenergy sector.


2 Energy from waste issues

2.1 Background information

Legislation covering waste management, energy production and climatechange point towards the need for renewable energy to be exploited.Introductory statements from recent European Union (EU) papers put thisinto context:

‘Growth in the EU is still accompanied by increasing amounts of waste,causing unnecessary losses of materials and energy, environmentaldamage and negative effects on health and quality of life. It is a strategicgoal of the EU to reduce these negative impacts, turning the EU into aresource efficient “Recycling Society”.’1

‘The Community has long recognized the need to further promoterenewable energy given that its exploitation contributes to climatechange mitigation through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,sustainable development, security of supply and the development of aknowledge based industry creating jobs, economic growth,competitiveness and regional and rural development.’2

This gives a flavour of what lies ahead within the renewables industry and abackdrop for the provision of more EfW, which is gaining support andmomentum in the UK.

EfW is the process of recovering renewable energy in the form of electricity,heat or gaseous and liquid fuels from wastes such as municipal solid waste(MSW), commercial and industrial waste (C&I), as well as agricultural wastes(e.g. slurries, chicken litter).

The main ways of recovering EfW include:

+ conventional incineration and other thermal treatments with energy (andheat) recovery;

+ wastes converted to use as fuels for subsequent thermal treatment, forexample secondary recovered fuels (SRF) and refuse derived fuels (RDF);

+ controlled anaerobic digestion (AD), which produces biogas for electricitygeneration or fuel.

EfW technologies therefore fall into two distinct categories – thermal andbiological. Treatment technologies are not particularly new. Many incinerationplants were commissioned in the UK in the 1970s dealing with MSW, mainly toserve the larger conurbations. Similarly AD is common practice in the wastewater industry, where for over a century it has been used to treat sewage sludge,and this technology can be adapted for other organic waste streams. What haschanged is the tightening-up of pollution and control measures, which hasmeant that the old incinerators have had to be refurbished or simply closeddown. Historically, because of the UK’s use of the inherently cheap landfillalternative, taking advantage of suitable geology and a plethora of sites,treatment technologies have not progressed, unlike in other parts of Europewhere significant investment has been made.


In more recent times progress has been made, with old EfW plants beingrefurbished or sites completely rebuilt to comply with emissions standards, andmore are in the pipeline. Material recycling facilities (MRFs) are producingSRF/RDF which are being utilised as supplementary fuels in cement kilns, andthere is much interest in developing AD plants to treat organic wastes.

The key issues and policy drivers connected with developing EfW arehighlighted below.

2.2 Volume of waste arising in the UK

EfW does have significant growth potential, with large quantities of ‘fuel’ to tapinto. The latest available waste arisings data from DEFRA (www.derfa.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste) indicate that the total amount of UK waste is inthe region of 333 million tonnes per annum. This comprises more than 70million tonnes of MSW and C&I waste which is still disposed to landfill. Inrespect of the organic fraction, approximately 23 million tonnes of organicfood waste is produced each year, excluding agricultural waste and sewagesludge.

2.3 Policy drivers

Given the background of a lack of investment in EfW technologies in the UK, anumber of key legislative drivers have been introduced and are behind a surgetowards its exploitation. These can be summarised as follows.

2.3.1 Current legislation

The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC)3

This has been perhaps the main piece of EU legislation to impact upon thewaste management industry. The key objective is to improve wastemanagement practices with regard to landfill disposal. It places landfill firmlyat the bottom of the waste hierarchy, encouraging reuse, recycling andalternative treatment technologies to be developed. Landfill should thereforebe the last resort for the disposal of residues following treatment. The directivehas a major impact in terms of municipal waste management, with arequirement to reduce quantities of the biodegradable fraction that can be sentto landfill. This will serve to reduce emissions of landfill gas, which containssignificant concentrations of methane, a major contributor to global warming.The proportions of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) permitted to belandfilled are:

+ 75 per cent of 1995 quantities by 2010;

+ 50 per cent of 1995 quantities by 2013;

+ 35 per cent of 1995 quantities by 2020.

With increasing amounts of waste being created from the baseline of 1995,typically at a rate of 3 per cent per annum, the challenging target for the UK isto reduce disposal of biodegradable waste landfilled to 15 per cent of all wasteby 2020 – based on a prediction that the volume of BMW will increase from1995 and 2020. Not meeting these targets could lead to local authorities beingfined. It should be noted that these targets will be difficult to achieve, and thereis a need for new EfW capacity to be installed as quickly as possible.


The Landfill Allowance Trading Regulations4

The requirements of the Landfill Directive have been passed on to all WasteDisposal Authorities (WDAs) in the UK, through a system called the LandfillAllowance Trading Scheme (LATS). The Landfill Allowance Trading Regulationscame into effect in England on 1 April 2005. These regulations set out thedetail for the operation of LATS and impose allowances for English authoritiesup to the period 2020, to allow for long-term planning. LATS is a schemewhereby authorities that perform well, by diverting more biodegradable wastefrom landfill than set out in their allowance, can trade allowances withauthorities that miss their targets. WDAs are able to bank a limited amount ofunused allowances to a future year, with the exception of the set target years of2010, 2013 and 2020.

The penalty for non-compliance with the LATS allowance was set at £150/tonne by the Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment)Regulations 2005, which came into force in May 2005. The government has alsoreserved the right to pass on any fine imposed by the European Court of Justiceon the UK for missing the Landfill Directive targets to the local authorities whohave exceeded allowable levels.

The Landfill Tax Regulations

The Landfill Tax Regulations5 came into effect in England on 1 October 1996.The tax is a specifically targeted levy on the disposal of waste to landfill,introduced by the government to prompt change in UK waste management.The main objectives of the tax are:

+ to ensure that the cost of landfill properly reflects its environmentalimpact; and

+ to help ensure that UK national policy targets for more sustainable wastemanagement are achieved.

There are two rates of landfill tax:

1 A lower rate of £2.50/tonne for specified inactive or inert wastes. These arewastes which do not give off methane or other gases after disposal, andtherefore comprise of insoluble inorganic material such as stone, brick,glass, concrete, tiles and clean soils, which do not have a potential to pollutegroundwater.

2 A standard rate of £40/tonne which is currently applied to all other wastes.The standard rate will increase to £48/tonne in 2010/11 and it has beenannounced in the Chancellor’s April 2009 Budget that the £8/tonneescalator will continue each year until 2013, when it will be at a rate of£72/tonne. This tax has caused a major change within the wastemanagement industry, with alternative methods of waste treatment nowbecoming more attractive. Waste producers are reacting to the increasingcost of handling waste, taking their own corporate responsibility moreseriously, and are actively looking to recycle and to exploit the potential ofEfW to divert waste from landfill.

In the April 2009 Budget, it was also announced that an overhaul of theLandfill Tax Regulations is proposed, to reflect changes in the EU LandfillDirective and recent court rulings. A redefinition of some wastes, currentlyclassed as inert, may mean they attract the higher rate of tax, examples being


pulverised fly ash, slags and incinerator bottom ash. A tightening-up of whatmay be exempt from tax in terms of landfill engineering and daily covermaterials is also proposed.

The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation

The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) was put in place under the powers ofthe Electricity Act 1989, under which electricity generation in the UK wasprivatised. NFFO refers to a collection of orders requiring the electricitydistribution network operators in England and Wales to purchase electricityfrom the nuclear power and renewable energy sectors. Similar mechanismsoperate in Scotland (the Scottish Renewable Orders under the ScottishRenewables Obligation) and Northern Ireland (the Northern Ireland Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation).

Five orders were made under the NFFO, before the UK government replaced itwith the Renewables Obligation. The first order or ‘tranche’ was on 1 October1990 with an average price of 7.51 pence per kWh being paid to renewableenergy generators; the fifth and last was issued in September 1998 at an averageof 2.71 pence per kWh. Although the Renewables Obligation is now thegovernment’s main mechanism for expanding the renewables sector, the last ofthe existing orders will continue in effect until it expires in 2018. Contractsresulting from the first two tranches, however, terminated in 1998, allowinggenerators from these rounds to now sell electricity under the new mechanism.

The Renewables Obligations Order 2002

The Renewables Obligations Order 20026 (as amended 2006)7 is thegovernment’s main mechanism for supporting renewable energy. The Orderrequires electricity suppliers to source an annually increasing percentage ofelectricity from renewables. For each megawatt hour of renewable energygenerated, a tradable certificate called a Renewables Obligation Certificate(ROC) is issued. The initial target of 10 per cent renewable by 2010 goes up to20 per cent by 2020, and may need to be in the 30-40 per cent range thereafterif the 2050 carbon emission goal is to be reached. Some EfW generation iseligible for ROCs.

ROCs are banded and are payable on the biodegradable fraction of the wastetreated. Double ROCs can be obtained for energy generated from AD andadvanced thermal treatment. Conventional incineration can achieve a singleROC for the biodegradable fraction, provided that certain efficiencies are met(refer to ‘Waste Development Framework’, below). Recent revisions to thescheme, made in 2006, have incorporated waste recovery operationscombusting over 90 per cent biomass and EfW plants combusting waste with‘good quality’ combined heat and power (CHP). This works to increase therange of alternative treatment technologies that qualify for ROCs, and shouldcontribute to increasing the financial viability of these options.

Waste Incineration Directive8

In the UK, the directive (WID) is implemented through the Waste Incineration(England and Wales) Regulations 2002.9 The directive aims to limit the risksthat waste incineration poses to the environment and human health. The WIDrules apply to most activities that involve burning waste, including burningwaste for fuel.


The directive also applies to co-incinerators, such as combustion plants andcement works which burn waste as a fuel. Some wastes are exempt from therequirements of the directive.

Agricultural Waste Regulations 200610

These came into force in 2006 to extend the existing waste managementcontrols to cover agriculture. These regulations implement EU legislation, inparticular the new Waste Framework Directive (2008)11 and Landfill Directiveand ensure that farming is under the same controls that have applied to othersectors for many years. The changes mean that farmers no longer are able toburn or bury many types of waste on farms, instead they have to:

+ send or take their waste for disposal off-farm at licensed sites;

+ register a licensing exemption with the Environment Agency to recyclewaste on-farm or apply to the Environment Agency for a licence tocontinue disposal.

Therefore unregulated burying or burning of agricultural waste on farms isprohibited.

The use of manure, slurry and effluent on farm as a fertiliser as part of goodagricultural practice, where not being discarded as waste, will continue to bepermitted, subject to certain conditions. The main impact of these Regulationsis likely to be on the non-natural waste streams from farms, such as plastic andcardboard packaging materials, tyres, oils and metals.

The Waste Strategy for England 2007

This also sets targets of 50 per cent recycling and composting of all wastes by2020. Local authorities are well on the way towards meeting this target, withthe introduction of source-segregated collection of recyclables and compostingof garden waste. Recycling has increased significantly over the last five yearsand local authorities are mandated to achieve certain rates (LATS targets).However, there is a much-publicised problem with the recycling market. Priceshave always been volatile, but in the current recession they have plummeted,thanks to demand in China and India evaporating. The market will recover intime, particularly for good quality paper and card, which should be recycledtogether with non-combustibles such as metal and glass. Plastic has highenergy content, and those types with a high-density can be recycled or fed intothe EfW combustion process. It is the remainder, the poor quality orcontaminated materials that are not worth recycling together with the organicresidue (food in particular) that needs to be treated and where the potentiallies for extracting energy. The strategy says that recovery of energy from wastethat cannot sensibly be recycled is an essential component of a well-balancedenergy policy, and it goes on to say that it expects EfW to account for 25 percent of MSW by 2020.

Wales

Wise About Waste: The National Waste Strategy for Wales (2002) is currentlyunder review, although the Welsh Assembly government has stated that EfW isthe best method to deal with non-recyclable waste, but only where themaximum level of EfW required automatically mirrors minimum recyclinglevels. It currently proposes that the maximum amount of EfW should be 30per cent by 2024/25.


Scotland

Scottish policies contained in ‘Moving towards Zero Waste’ were announced bythe Scottish parliament in 2008 and include targets for recycling and landfilldivergence. The amount of municipal waste being recycled or composted is tobe increased to 60 per cent by 2020 and there is a new target of 70 per cent by2025. Landfill from municipal waste is to be reduced to 5 per cent by 2025. Nomore than 25 per cent of municipal waste is to be used to generate energy by2025. Large, inefficient incinerators are to be rejected.

To demonstrate the importance of bringing on-stream new technologies, theEU has published ‘The Need for a European Strategic Energy Technology Plan(SETPLAN)’ (Nov 2007),12 which is aimed at delivering sustainable, secure andcompetitive energy. The report recognises that harnessing technologies is vital,that Europe should lead the world in this area and that time is of the essence.

Key EU technology challenges for the next ten years to meet 2020 targetsinclude the promotion of second generation biofuels which are competitivealternatives to fossil fuels, while respecting the sustainability of theirproduction, and to meet the 2050 vision, to bring the next generation ofrenewable energy technologies to market. Biofuel derived from waste can playan important role as the appropriate technologies are developed.

The Climate Change Act 2008

This sets a challenging commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per centby 2050. Climate change and the cost of energy and security of future supplyare major issues. EfW can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the wasteindustry, energy suppliers and users alike.

The Planning and Energy Act 2008

This enables local planning authorities to set requirements for energy use andenergy efficiency in their local plans. Typically, new builds are expected to draw10 per cent of their power supply from renewable sources.

The New Waste Development Framework 2008

This provides that member states must replace the existing Waste Frameworkon hazardous waste and waste oils directives within a two-year transitionperiod. The directive sets out a new baseline for the five stages of the wastehierarchy: prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, recovery and finaldisposal. These steps should be followed in priority order, although this may bechanged in certain circumstances in the interests of the best overallenvironmental outcome throughout the lifecycle of a product or substance. Inrespect of EfW, the changes in the directive that are relevant include:

+ Incineration activities for processing MSW can be classed as recoveryoperations, as long as they generate energy above given efficiency standards(the energy efficiency formula is in annex II to the directive). According tothe Commission, this has the effect that only the most energy efficientexisting municipal solid waste incinerators will be classed as recoveryinstallations. It is considered that EfW plants of a scale above 150k tonnesper annum (tpa) can meet the efficiency standard, but it will be moredifficult for the smaller-scale projects. This is important in respect of ROCeligibility.


+ By 2020, member states must take all necessary measures to ensure thatat least 50 per cent of paper, plastics, metal and glass from household andsimilar origin is prepared for reuse or recycled.

How member states, and in particular UK government intend to deal with theimplementation of the new directive, has yet to be set out.13

Residues from AD/incineration

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), in conjunction with theEnvironment Agency, is producing quality protocols for digestate to reassurepotential users of a consistent quality and to stimulate the market. Technologyfor the recovery of metals from incinerator bottom ash is well developed and amarket for ash to be used, for example in road surfacing and constructionmaterials, is to be encouraged.

2.3.2 Emerging legislation

Renewable Heat Obligation Act

Almost half of the final energy consumed in the UK (49 per cent) is in the formof heat, the generation of which accounts for around 47 per cent of UK CO2

emissions. At present, the amount of renewable heat in the UK is low (at 0.6per cent of heat demand). The government introduced the Renewable HeatObligation Act in 2005 which makes provision to increase the proportion ofheating fuel derived from renewable sources, and for connected purposes.Regulations are proposed to be brought forward, and are under consultation.Suppliers of heating fuel may need to demonstrate that a specific proportion ofthe fuel they supply is derived from renewable heat sources.

The EU proposal in January 2008 for a directive on the promotion of use ofenergy from renewable sources14 recognised the need to push renewableenergy, since its exploitation will reduce climate change and contribute towardssecurity of supply and economic growth.

In December 2008 the EU published a Green Paper, On the management ofbio-waste in the European Union. The Paper aims to explore options for thefurther development of the management of bio-waste. It summarisesimportant background information about current policies on bio-wastemanagement and new research findings in the field, presents core issues fordebate, and invites stakeholders to contribute their knowledge and views onthe way forward. It aims to prepare a debate on the possible need for futurepolicy action, seeking views on how to improve bio-waste management in linewith the waste hierarchy, possible economic, social and environmental gains, aswell as the most efficient policy instruments to reach this objective.


3 Technologies

The treatment options that could be adopted, depending upon waste type,composition and quantities required to be treated, are summarised below.

3.1 Thermal treatment

The types of thermal technology that are currently available and those thatcould potentially come into the market can be summarised as follows.

3.1.1 Conventional incineration (with energy recovery)

These plants are designed to handle large volumes of MSW with no pre-treatment, excluding any measures to divert recyclate. Most modern plantstend to use the ‘moving grate’ design, although some utilise ‘fluidised bed’combustion. With moving grate plants the waste is slowly propelled throughthe furnace by a moving mechanical grate; waste continuously enters at oneend and the ash is discharged at the other. The process is aided by gravity, andas the waste descends, it goes through three stages of drying, combustion andthen finally burnout. Attention is given to ensuring the necessary conditionsfor optimum combustion are achieved. The capacity of such plants is typically100,000–300,000 tpa, although larger complexes are in operation or are beingproposed using dual lines. Incineration reduces the volume of the waste solidsby around 90 per cent, and reduces the weight by around 75 per cent. Theresidual material is called bottom ash, with a smaller volume of ‘fly ash’, whichis composed of residues captured from the flue gas cleaning systems. Thetraditional grate and boiler system is the most common and well-proventhermal process, and is capable of using a wide variety of fuels that arecombusted to generate heat. The heat can then be used to generate electricityor power for heating. Combustion technology produces both heat andelectrical power, in the ratio of two to three times as much heat energy aselectrical, therefore the introduction of combined heat and power (CHP)should be encouraged wherever practicable to increase efficiencies. In 2005there were 19 EfW plants operating in the UK using this type of technology,with more in development. The plants are fuelled by MSW, C&I or RDF, butdry waste is most suited to combustion. The Institution of MechanicalEngineers has recently published a paper, ‘Energy from Waste – A WastedOpportunity’, which advocates the development of this technology.15

3.1.2 Advanced thermal technologies (ATT)

ATT systems such as gasification or pyrolysis are more suited to waste streamsof a more uniform nature, for example SRF and RDF fuels. These processesheat the waste under controlled conditions to produce fuel gases, together withtars, char and ash. Gasification is one of the newer technologies, in which thebiomass fuel is heated, in an oxygen deficient atmosphere, to produce a gascontaining hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane. The gas can then beused as a fuel in a turbine or combustion engine to generate electricity. Newgas clean-up technology ensures that the resultant gas is suitable to be burnt ina variety of gas engines producing very low emissions. Gasifiers can operate ata smaller scale than conventional incineration, and can be provided in modular


form to suit a range of different scales of operation or waste types. Pyrolysis isanother emerging technology, sharing many characteristics as gasification, butheating the biomass fuel in the complete absence of air. Synthetic gas, liquidolefin and char are produced in various quantities. The gas and oil can beprocessed, stored and transported if necessary, and then combusted in anengine, gas turbine or boiler. Char can be recovered from the residue and usedas a fuel, or the residue passed to a gasifier. The residues can also be used inpetrochemical and other applications.

As mentioned, advanced thermal technologies are most suited for pre-preparedSRF and RDF, which are increasingly being made by mechanical biologicaltreatment (MBT) plants. The difference between SRF and RDF is that SRFmeets the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) standard, whereasRDF does not. SRF is being assessed in terms of quality, with up to fivedifferent classes being considered. The quality depends upon the level of sourcesegregation and pre-treatment to regulate the amount of plastic and metalcontent, to produce a floc or pellet. These materials can be used as asupplementary fuel in cement kilns, or burnt for energy recovery andelectricity generation in EfW plants. Their calorific value is low and theyfrequently have a high moisture and chlorine content. Better-quality fuel isproduced if the input material is source segregated and not contaminated. Theenergy required to produce the fuel at the MBT plant must be taken intoaccount in the overall carbon balance.

All thermal treatment results in emissions to air, mainly of carbon dioxide andwater, with lower levels of other substances. Strict environmental standardsnow apply in all European countries governing these emissions. All EfW plantsmust meet these standards, which can be achieved through the installation ofvery effective gas cleaning systems. These standards are more rigorous thanthose which apply to fossil fuel power stations. In fact the Waste IncinerationDirective (WID) applies standards that are three times more onerous thanthose for fossil fuel power stations. For example, nitrogen oxide (NOx)emission for an EfW plant operating under WID will be set below 200 parts permillion (ppm), whilst power stations are generally limited to 600 ppm, andcement works typically 1600 ppm. Emissions of dioxins (per tonne of wastefrom MSW incineration) have decreased by 99.8 per cent in the past 20 years,and the EfW industry accounts for just 0.27 per cent of the total amount ofdioxins and furans emitted in the UK each year. In comparison accidental firesaccount for 16 per cent, and fireworks 14 per cent.

Modern emission control systems are also capable of reducing particulatelevels to meet increasingly stringent criteria under WID.

3.2 Biological treatment

Biological treatment for energy recovery is essentially the AD process, and maybe classified as recycling when the digestate is used on land or for theproduction of growing media. If no such use is envisaged, it should beclassified as pre-treatment before landfilling or incineration. In addition,anaerobic digestion (producing biogas for energy purposes) should be seen asenergy recovery.

AD is highlighted in the Waste Strategy 2007 as an environmentally beneficialsolution for treating food waste. The biogas produced through AD is identifiedin the Renewable Heat and Energy Saving Strategy 200916 as a potential source


of renewable heat and energy. High-profile reports by National Grid and theConservative Party have also highlighted the potential of developing thistechnology, for which the government is now in the process of developing animplementation strategy.

The AD process is particularly suited to wet organic material, and is being usedin small on-farm digesters, but there is much interest in developing thistechnology for other wastes, such as the organic fraction of MSW and wastefrom the food and drink industries. The process can be summarised as follows.

+ AD involves the digestion of organic wastes in the absence of air. Theenclosed system results in the production of biogas. The process takes placein a warmed, sealed, airless container, where bacteria ferment organicmaterial to produce biogas (a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide)suitable for fuelling transport and electricity. The methane is generallyburnt on-site for heating or to produce electricity. The digester needs anenergy input to retain the material at temperatures between 20 and 40°C(the mesophilic range), or up to 60°C (the thermophilic range) in order tospeed digestion. The AD process is dependent upon a good quality,source-segregated stream, otherwise the bacteria that feed on the organicmaterial will not work efficiently, inhibiting methane production. Suitedfor relatively small-scale applications, odour can be an issue, so the plant isbest sited in rural locations. AD is considered to have a low carbonfootprint, as all of the methane generated, a potent greenhouse gas, is burntfor energy recovery. The waste residues can be a liability, but effort is beingmade to allow it to be used as a soil conditioner. Waste and ResourcesAction Programme (WRAP) and the Environment Agency (EA) areproducing quality protocols on this aspect.

+ There are other technologies being developed, such as conversion of gasesand plastics to biofuels. Bio-hydrogen production is an emergingtechnology, where hydrogen can be produced by digesting organic waste,particularly carbohydrate-based biomass, for example brewery waste. Stillin the development stage, these technologies need more research beforethey can be adopted on any commercial scale.


4 Commercial aspects

With the ongoing drive towards recycling and treatment of waste, there is aneed to quickly install sufficient capacity to accommodate these requirements.

4.1 Size of market required

The total waste management services market in the UK is currently valued ataround £6 billion, and is projected to double by 2015.

According to the Environmental Knowledge Transfer Network report (2007/2008),17 which sought to provide a business case for the enhancement of theUK’s capability of EfW, there is a need to develop up to 468 treatment plants,comprising a mix of incineration (80 plants), advanced thermal treatment (100gasification/pyrolysis plants) and anaerobic digestion (288 plants). Thisassumes that the plant capacity for each technology is 250k tpa, 100k tpa and20k tpa, respectively.

The capital cost for a conventional incinerator with a capacity of 250k tpa(20MW thermal/electric output) is estimated to be in the region of £120–150m; a gasification/pyrolysis plant with a capacity of 100k tpa (7MWthermal/electric) is estimated to be in the region of £40–70m), and an ADplant with a capacity of 20k tpa (1–2MW electric) would cost in the region of£5–8m.

4.2 Local authority procurement

The capital outlay in developing the associated infrastructure and processingplant can be very high, particularly for large-scale EfW projects. To obtain therequired funding and the ongoing investment, a secure base business has beennecessary to satisfy the banks. Therefore, to date, the major EfW projects arebeing linked to the private finance initiative (PFI) process and local authorityprocurement. To be successful, the project needs to be deliverable in terms offinance, proven technology that has tried and tested reference plants, togetherwith a suitable site with an excellent chance of obtaining planning permissionand environmental permit. Procurement is an onerous process for all partiesinvolved. It is very time-consuming, taking up a lot of man-hours following thevarious stages of dialogue, pre-qualification, outline submission, detailedsubmission and final bids. The process can take two to five years to complete.These schemes are obviously focused towards the municipal sector andachieving Landfill Directive targets. Local authority EfW plants can be sized totreat a proportion of local C&I waste, but there is likely to be a large volume ofthis waste type that needs to be accommodated elsewhere. Therefore, merchantfacilities are also likely to feature, particularly now that the landfill tax isbeginning to impact significantly upon trade and industry.

It appears that many local authorities are moving toward the more traditionalEfW incineration technology. Councils are also seeking to secure sites andplanning consent before the PFI process is started. This enhances the chancesof being awarded PFI credits, as projects are de-risked and public acceptance issought at an early stage. Suitable sites are hard to find and the planning process


very time-consuming and expensive, so this move by the local authoritiesshould be welcomed. UK examples of authorities adopting this approachinclude Norfolk, Peterborough, Lincolnshire and Staffordshire. Authorities arealso tending to break up the contracts into manageable sizes and differentservice requirements, which can then be rolled out in phases ‘without puttingall the eggs into one basket’.

The major waste management contractors appear to be concentrating theirefforts on delivering a mix of traditional incineration with CHP if possible,where large quantities of MSW are involved, together with the potential forgasification for dealing with lower volumes of contracted waste and alsoutilising SRF/RDF fuels that have been generated from MRFs and MBTs. AD isbeing considered for specific organic waste streams. Again the projects must bedeliverable and bankable, particularly in the current economic climate.

Clearly there is a need for much more treatment capacity to be installed, in atimely fashion. One aspect that will impact upon deliverability is publicperception.


5 Public perception

The waste management industry in the UK has suffered from poor publicperception, and for thermal treatment plants in particular, this has been one ofthe barriers to their uptake. New plants are required to meet EU directives andthere is a need for the industry to promote itself as a more high-tech andsophisticated sector, so to this end communication is vital. To ensure thatplanning permissions and permits are secured in time, the public need to beinformed on modern day thermal facilities and environmental controls.Operational EfW plants, such as the Veolia plant at Marchwood nearSouthampton, are examples of best practice, particularly in their outwarddesign and appearance as well as process technology and efficiency.

Public concerns that need to be addressed relate predominantly to poisonousand cancerous dioxins and carbon dioxide emissions and, to a lesser degree,fine particulate emissions. Also, large-scale plants are considered ‘greedyburners’, pulling in waste from far afield, hindering recycling efforts as well ascausing unacceptable visual, traffic and noise impacts. The need for the plant isalso often questioned in the first place. Pressure groups and active reporting bythe media play a role in influencing public perception. No wonder then that inrecent times planning permissions for EfW plants have been very hard tosecure.

In fact the science of EfW is well understood, and with regard to dioxinemissions there is a significant amount of knowledge relating to potentialhealth impacts. In 2004 the Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (Defra) published a report entitled ‘Review of Environmental andHealth Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and SimilarWastes’. The report concluded that ‘Published studies of the health ofcommunities living in the vicinity of incinerators have failed to establish anyconvincing links between incinerator emissions and adverse effects on publichealth; specifically no impact was demonstrated on the incidence of cancer,respiratory health symptoms or reproductive outcomes.’ In April 2006 thisstudy was taken further by Enviros and Birmingham University, which showeda very low risk18 (refer to sections 6.2 and 6.3, below).

In respect of any adverse impact upon property values, Veolia commissioned areport by Cluttons to study house values around their three sites in Hampshire.Pre- and post-development studies showed no major diminution in value.Importantly, once the EfW plants were commissioned, they became accepted,and new investment came into the localities as a result.

Communication with and education of all stakeholders is key, withconsultation at all levels during the planning and permitting process and thenvia liaison committees throughout the life of operation. Perhaps culturally theUK should move towards community development schemes, particularly inrespect of CHP, and lessons could be learnt from other European countries inthis respect.

We have seen that EfW plants can be built and operated quite successfully inurban areas. The architecture of new plants advertises their presence, ratherthan trying to hide it in some remote locality. They are and should be regarded


as a positive contributor to any municipality, sited where there are good roadcommunications, with minimum impact on local amenities.

Furthermore, EfW is compatible with high recycling rates, as can be shown inmany European countries that have a high percentage of recycling and a heavyreliance on EfW plants.

The potential for growth in the ‘green energy’ industry is extremely large – forexample, the renewables sector in Denmark already delivers more than 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity supply, with wind and combined heat andpower (CHP) schemes very much in evidence. Conversely, the UK is 27th in aleague table of 29 EU countries for renewable energy use, with just 3.5 per centof the nation’s supply coming from renewables.

The main outlets for residual waste in Europe are shown in the following table.This demonstrates that high levels of recycling can be compatible with highlevels of incineration.

Country Percentage (%)of MSW

landfilled

Percentage(%) of MSW

Recycled/compostedand other

Percentage(%) ofMSW

incinerated

MSWgenerated

percapita/kg

Greece 91.8 8.2 0 428Portugal 74.8 3.5 21.7 452UnitedKingdom

74 18 8 592

Ireland 69 31 0 732Finland 63.3 27.6 9.1 450Italy 61.8 28.9 9.4 523Spain 59.3 34.2 6.6 609France 38.1 28.2 33.7 561Austria 30 59.3 10.7 610Luxembourg 22.6 35.7 41.6 658Germany 19.9 57.2 22.9 638Sweden 13.6 41.4 45 471Belgium 12.6 51.8 35.7 446Denmark 5 41.2 53.8 675Netherlands 2.7 64.4 32.9 599EU 15 44.9 36.4 18.7 577

Source: Defra e-digest environmental statistics website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/ (February 2006)


6 Responsible bodies

Responsible bodies that play an important role include the regional and localplanning authorities, Environment Agency, Ofgem and regional electricitycompanies (RECs), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Environmental HealthOffice (EHO) and Health Protection Agency. Also key to the process are thepublic and green pressure groups.

6.1 Planning authorities and planning guidance

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) and Planning for Sustainable WasteManagement are an integral part of changes the government has put in motionto refine decision making with regard to waste planning and wastemanagement. These alterations have also seen changes to the decision makingprinciples in the Waste Strategy 2000 and new guidance on Municipal WasteManagement Strategies (MWMS).

PPS10 provides a set of strategic decision-making principles that should beadhered to in the preparation of planning strategies. These principles areimportant for the delivery of the key planning objectives for sustainable wastemanagement set out in PPS10. PPS10 can also be used as a materialconsideration in determining planning applications, and may supersede anauthority’s current polices where this is deemed appropriate by that authority.This is because many authorities are in a transitional period between the oldand new systems of strategic planning.

The principles require the following:

+ Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) should prepare Regional SpatialStrategies (RSSs), which aim to provide sufficient opportunities to meet theidentified needs of their area for waste management for all waste streams.In turn, planning authorities should prepare Local DevelopmentDocuments (LDDs) that reflect their contribution to delivering the RSS.

+ Waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planningconcerns, such as transport, housing, economic growth, natural resourcesand regeneration, recognising the positive contribution that wastemanagement can make to the development of sustainable communities,and should be integrated effectively with other strategies, includingMWMS.

+ The planned provision of new capacity and its spatial distribution shouldbe based on clear policy objectives, robust analysis of data and information,and an appraisal of options. Policy objectives should be in line with theplanning policies set out in PPS10 and be linked to measurable indicatorsof change.

+ Sustainability appraisal (incorporating strategic environmentalassessment) should be applied so as to shape planning strategies thatsupport the government’s key planning objectives for waste managementset out in PPS10.

+ Indicators should be monitored and reported in the RPB and the WastePlanning Authority (WPA) annual monitoring reports. Such monitoring


should be the basis on which the RPB and the WPA periodically review androll forward their waste planning strategies. Reviews should reflect anychanges to the national waste strategy and should occur at least every fiveyears, or sooner if there are signs of under-provision of waste managementcapacity or over-provision of disposal options, where these wouldundermine movement up the waste hierarchy.

Progress on these plans has been slow, often being delayed by local electionsand time taken for consultation and examination. Authorities are tending to beinsular in the development of their waste management policies, contrary toDefra guidelines which advise working together, pooling expertise andresources to extract economies of scale. There are some good examples,however, including some London boroughs, West Midlands and Teessideauthorities that are making the process work.

As evidenced by the case studies (see section 8), developers of EfW projectsmust do their homework, accept that to secure planning permission will be along haul, and be prepared for an expensive public relations campaign.

There are two ways of approaching the planning system. The first and moretraditional approach is to start at the ground floor, discussing proposals withparish, district and county/unitary authority levels. Explaining the upsides anddownsides and, importantly, educating and seeking public acceptance, is vitallyimportant. The setting up of liaison committees at an early stage and providingvisitor centres as part of the project development allows public engagementthroughout.

The second way is to adopt an approach starting at the top, at governmentlevel, for very large schemes that are arguably in the national interest. The newInfrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is to cater for very largedevelopments including EfW where electricity production is in excess of 50MW. This is already dealt with by the Electricity Act 1989 and there are projectsseeking to obtain permits via this route. To reach the power threshold, thecapacity of the EfW plant needs to be in excess of 600k tpa, which brings withit issues of proximity, traffic, noise, and visual intrusion. The likelihood ofsuccess is questionable, because if the local planning authority objects, theproposal would still need to go through a public inquiry and possibly a judicialreview (JR). The level of acceptability could be enhanced if the 50MW triggerlevel was to be reduced; however, the future of IPC is uncertain, with theConservative Party opposing its introduction.

EfW falls under Schedule 1 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIA)Regulations19 and therefore environmental statements (ES) are required toaccompany planning applications. The scoping of the ES is important and anagreed methodology to deal with the issues should be sought at an early stage.Section 106 agreements, potentially onerous planning conditions and acontribution to the Community Infrastructure Levy (if imposed by the localplanning authority) all need to be considered and practicable solutions soughtat an early stage to address outstanding issues.

6.2 Environment Agency

The Environment Agency (EA) supports the need to create less waste, recyclemore and maximise the use of residual waste in a safe and environmentallyfriendly way. The EA considers that recovering EfW can contribute to a


balanced energy policy, and that it may be appropriate for local authorities toinclude EfW in their strategies and plans, provided that:

+ it does not undermine the prevention or minimising of waste, or re-use,recycling or composting;

+ it forms part of a properly considered and appraised regional or localstrategy;

+ it is consistent with the statutory aim to establish an integrated andadequate network of waste disposal installations and to enable waste to bedisposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

The EA also considers that energy generated by incineration should berecovered, as far as practicable, for example using combined heat and power(CHP) schemes, consistent with the requirements of best available techniques(BAT).

An environmental permit for any industrial site, including EfW plants, will notbe issued if the EA considers they will cause significant pollution to theenvironment, or harm to human health. The EA will make sure that thestandards used in designing, maintaining and operating EfW plants are at leastas good as the agreed European standards.

When the EA receives an application for an environmental permit to operatean EfW plant, it will consult members of the local community, the localauthority and the public health bodies for their views on the potential effect onthe environment and public health.

The EA regulates the performance of EfW plants by:

+ requiring continuous emissions monitors to be used to measureconcentrations of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, total organic compounds andparticulate matter, which might pollute the environment or harm humanhealth;

+ requiring twice-yearly monitoring of hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals anddioxins, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAHs);

+ carrying out check monitoring of pollutants using independentcontractors, normally once a year or carrying out on-site auditing ofoperator monitoring;

+ inspecting sites regularly and carrying out unannounced inspections; and

+ requiring operators to inform the EA within 24 hours if any of theemission limits set in the environmental permit are exceeded, or if they failto comply with any of the operating conditions.

If the EfW plant operator does not comply with its environmental permit, theEA will take action in line with its enforcement and prosecution policy.

Permits contain continuous improvement conditions and there is a need forcareful design of the EfW plant at the outset to allow for retro-fittingimprovements that may be required, particularly the tightening of emissionsunder WID.

The EA provides views on the environmental impact of EfW plants andcomments upon draft spatial plans and responds to consultation on planningapplications.


The EA will also consult the local public health bodies (the primary care trustin England or the local health board in Wales) on an application for anenvironmental permit for an EfW plant. The local public health bodies areasked to comment on the potential health impacts of the proposed plant, andthe EA will take their views into account when a decision is made on whetherto grant a permit.

Local authorities regulate many of the smaller incinerators (less than 1tonne/hour waste), whilst the EA regulates about 100 of the more complex andlarger plants (greater than 1 tonne/hour non-hazardous waste, and allhazardous waste incinerators).

The EA regulates all EfW plants burning municipal waste. These plants aresubject to the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime,which aims to prevent, reduce or eliminate pollution at source. The EA closelymonitors these EfW plants to make sure that the emissions are as low as theycan be, to protect the environment and human health. The requirements of EUdirectives like IPPC and WID are incorporated in the national EnvironmentalPermitting Regulations.

6.3 The Health Protection Agency (HPA)

The HPA provides authoritative advice to government, agencies and to thepublic. The HPA has recently published positive statements on incineration ofMSW, including ‘Modern, well managed waste incinerators will only make avery small contribution to background levels of air pollution’, and ‘providedthey comply with modern regulatory requirements, such as WID, they shouldcontribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air.’

6.4 Ofgem

Ofgem is the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets. Protecting consumers isOfgem’s first priority, but one of its roles includes the management of theRenewables Obligation. One of the impacts of the Renewables Obligation isthat electricity suppliers in England and Wales are legally obliged to produceevidence of supplies being produced from renewable sources.

Specific eligibility for ROCs on the part of biomass, waste and co-firingstations is dependent upon certain conditions being met. These includeoperators of such generating stations having appropriate fuel measurementprocedures in place. Separate guidance on fuel measurement and samplingrequirements, including guidance on the eligibility of biomass, waste andco-firing, is provided by Ofgen; these are known as ‘NFFO arrangements’.

Combined heat and power (CHP) stations that are fuelled by waste are eligiblefor support under the orders. CHP generating stations burning waste will needto be accredited under the Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance(CHPQA) programme before seeking accreditation under the RO.


6.5 Green pressure groups

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the general public play animportant role in the development process. They are consulted throughout theplanning and permit application stages, and have the ability to lobby andpotentially prevent the construction of new EfW facilities by influencing localauthorities to refuse planning permission, seek judicial review and generallyfrustrate or prolong the time taken to obtain consents at considerable cost tothe applicant. Concerns on health effects, particularly concerning dioxins andnano-particulates, are often stressed, but the EA and HPA have recently statedthat there is little reason for concern in respect of the performance of modernEfW plants.


7 Horizon – what’s next?

There is a need for the UK to use energy more efficiently. The majority ofenergy consumption takes place in urban areas, but the majority of energyproduction takes place in relatively isolated areas where there is room for thevery large plants required by current fossil/nuclear-fuelled technologies.Traditionally, the UK has relied upon large-scale, out-of-town power stations,built upon the coalfields or close to ports. However, these power stationssquander two-thirds of energy as waste heat during operation, as well as in theprocess of transmitting energy around the country. Supplying energy andelectricity locally means less greenhouse gas produced during transportation.Localised micro-grids, isolated from the national grid, are necessary to ensureenergy and electricity supply at its most efficient, but these must be developedwith the support of the public, to avoid ‘NIMBY’ responses to local CHPplants.

Government and social thinking needs to look at the longer term in respect ofmajor infrastructure developments, seeking to bring together EfW with districtheating schemes to maximise efficiencies of CHP. Traditional incineration isbetween 23 per cent and 28 per cent efficient, whereas CHP has the potential toincrease overall efficiencies to 80–85 per cent. The proposed Renewables HeatObligation, when enforced through regulations, should help CHP schemes aswell as pure renewable heat projects to be developed.

London, in particular, is advocating a decentralised energy policy, with the aimof cutting transmission losses and increasing the use of renewably sourced heatin homes, offices and industry. Installation of CHP plants, predominantlyusing natural gas turbines, is underway, but renewable fuels, such as biomassand RDF, are being called for too. The Greater London Authority has set up theLondon Climate Change Agency, which advocates decentralisation for certaintypes of EfW technologies, and at the Environment Agency conference in late2008, Mayor Boris Johnson explained that he had authorised CHP plantsthroughout London and was committed to producing 20 per cent of London’senergy locally by 2025. He also maintained that, properly managed, wastecould provide two-thirds of the capital’s energy.

The cost of implementing EfW, particularly CHP technologies, can be muchhigher in cities than in smaller settlements where installation might be morestraightforward. Retro-fitting CHP systems will remain, in the short term atleast, expensive, although decentralised CHP with district heating schemes aregoing ahead, including a mixture of retro-fitting and new build in places suchas London, Southampton and Birmingham.

The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation is promoting an EfWfacility in Dagenham as part of a Sustainable Industries Park. The Corporationhas formed a partnership with waste management firm Cyclamax to develop a100k tpa capacity gasification plant which would have the potential to produce15 MW, providing enough power for up to 20,000 homes, divertingcommercial waste from landfill. The Park will enable occupants to use wastematerials from one company to provide power or raw materials for another,providing cost savings, minimising on-site waste and encouraging innovation.


Closed Loop, a plastics re-processor, is already located on the Park. This type ofdevelopment could be replicated elsewhere, and a similar one for example isbeing proposed in Teesside.

When it comes to the New Towns, incorporating EfW projects in the planningprocess from the outset is crucial to sustainability. The planning system will becentral to promoting EfW in the built environment, and there is evidence toshow that investors are looking more favourably towards the renewable energysector and the link with new-build developments. Building CHP plants closeenough to new developments to supply green energy efficiently and sustainablywill contribute to the overall carbon-reduction packages of these eco-buildings.

In summary there will be a tendency to go for a mix of technologies, and thebest solution for any area will depend upon the demographics of population,industry, land-use, cost/affordability. Proven and bankable technologiesincluding incineration, gasification and AD will be developed and targeted forparticular sectors of the waste management industry

EfW has the potential to reduce our ecological footprint in terms of wastegeneration, resource extraction, carbon creation, and odour emission, whileincreasing our use of renewable energy. A spate of EfW schemes is expectedover the next few years, making this an exciting time for the industry, duringwhich all sorts of new opportunities will be created for surveyors.


8 Case studies

Case study 1: Lakeside EfW project, Colnbrook (a jointventure between Grundon and Viridor Wastemanagement)

The plant is visible from the M25 Motorway, to the south of Heathrow.

This project incorporates provision for a front-end MRF and a 400,000 tpaEfW plant incorporating traditional grate incineration technology, to supplyup to 37 MW of electricity. There is a visitor centre and capability for CHP tobe added in the future. The planning application cost over £600,000, and theplanning consultation process took nine years to complete. The planningconsent was granted in 2000 and an upgraded pollution prevention andcontrol (PPC) to meet WID standards in 2003. The plant is proposed toaccommodate an MSW contract from the local authorities, as well as othercontracted waste under the control of Grundon and Viridor. Constructioncommenced in 2005 and the plant was starting to be commissioned in May2009.

Case study 2: Newhaven EfW project

This is a 240,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) EfW project being developed byVeolia as part of its integrated waste management contract with East Sussex/Brighton & Hove councils. The plant is located at the urban fringe, alongsidethe River Ouse and adjacent to an AONB and the South Downs National Park,where significant attention was given to design and visual impactconsiderations. The following is a chronology of key milestones,demonstrating timescales and hurdles that can be encountered in advancingmajor EfW development.

+ Planning application submitted October 2005.

+ Committee resolution to ‘approve’ February 2007 (16 months todetermine, due to scale of objections and wide range of issues).

+ Government Office consulted as ‘departure application’ and confirmed no‘call-in’ April 2007

+ Planning permission release delayed due to CPO process for siteprocurement.

+ County Council redetermine application November 2007 and resolve togrant permission.

+ S106 signed November 2007 and planning certificate issued.

+ Judicial review proceedings commenced by FoE and local objector groupDecember 2007.

+ Pre-commencement planning conditions discharged March 2008.

+ Development commenced April 2008.

+ Judicial review application heard and rejected July 2008.

+ Court of Appeal rejects further claim November 2008.

+ Development completion expected autumn 2011.


The planning process may become less drawn out for future EfW projects if theindustry can improve the public perception and acceptability by engaging allinterested parties in the debate.

Case study 3: Sheffield CHP plant

Sheffield generates 240k tpa of MSW, of which 25 per cent is recycled and 60per cent of energy is recovered, with 15 per cent residual waste to landfill. TheCHP plant, operated by Veolia, includes the harnessing of heat in the form ofhot water. The facility was originally built in the 1970s at the time of the oilcrisis. Nearby residential flats were experiencing difficulties with expensiveelectric floor heating, which the tenants could not afford to use. The CHPproject was devised and pipes were installed to supply the flats with a newheating system.

The plant has recently been upgraded to comply with WID and Permitregulations, and additional customers, such as municipal buildings and twouniversities, have been connected to the UK’s largest distributed energynetwork via 45km of water pipes.

University of Sheffield has carried out monitoring surveys of atmosphericpollution in the city, which shows that in respect of NOx, CO and particulates,the sensitive monitoring equipment cannot detect whether the CHP plant isrunning or not. Therefore the plant is making a negligible contribution toatmospheric pollution, compared with the background and much greatercontributors such as industry, cars, commerce and housing.

Case study 4: Energos gasification plant, Isle of Wight

The plant was commissioned in early 2009 and treats up to 30,000 tpa of RDFthat is being produced on-site by Island Waste Services Limited, a subsidiary ofBiffa. The project takes the processed residual MSW to generate sufficientelectricity to power 2,000 homes on the island. Using the Energos technology,it is the first gasification plant in the UK to treat municipal waste in asignificant quantity, obtain accreditation as an advanced conversiontechnology (ACT) and receive ROCs.

Case study 5: AD plant in Leicester

As part of a PFI contract with Leicester City Council, Biffa operate this ADfacility, which was purpose-built to compost the city’s organic waste collectedfrom 117,000 homes. The plant is located on Severn Trent Water’s sewagetreatment plant at Wanlip, which takes up approximately 0.5 ha. All treatmentis carried out in an enclosed building with in-built air filters to control odourand dust. Processed organic material, which has been separated from MSW at anearby MBT facility, is liquefied and delivered to sealed cylindrical digestiontanks. Under anaerobic conditions methane is produced and harnessed togenerate electricity.

The plant is designed for a processing capacity of 40k tpa, with a target toproduce up to 1.5MW of electricity.


Appendix

References1 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23

April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sourcesand amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and2003/30/EC).

2 (European Directive 75/442/EC as amended).

3 Green Paper on the Management of Bio-Waste in the European Union(SEC (2008) 2936)/COM/2008/0811final.

4 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliamentary and of the Councilon the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable sources (Presentedby the Commission) (COM (2008) 30 final) (SEC (2008) 57) (SEC (2008)85).

5 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of Waste.

6 Landfill Allowance and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations2005 (SI 2005/880).

7 Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (SI 2006/1527).

8 Renewables Obligations Order 2002 (SI 2002/914).

9 Renewables Obligations Order 2006 (SI 2006/1004).

10 Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4December 2000 on the incineration of waste.

11 Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2980).

12 Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/937)(‘The Agricultural Waste Regulations’).

13 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19November 2008 on Waste and repealing certain Directives.

14 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and theCommittee of the Regions. A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan(SET-Plan) ‘Towards a low carbon future’ (SEC (2007) 1508), (SEC (2007)1509), (SEC (2007) 1510), (SEC (2007) 1511).

15 Bowyer, C., The Burning Question, article in RICS Land Journal, Feb/March2009.

16 Proposal of the European Parliament and of the Council for a Directive onthe Promotion of the use of Energy from Renewable Sources (COM (2008)30 final), (SEC (2008) 57), (SEC (2008) 85).

17 Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Energy from Waste Paper – A WastedOpportunity: www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/5D806D76-0E95-4189-8C9D-9D6CD9FD388E/0/EnergyfromWasteReport.pdf

18 www.regensw.co.uk/downloads/RegenSW_296.pdf

19 Knowledge Transfer Network Paper, November 2007: http://ipmnet.globalwatchonline.com


20 Defra report, ‘Review of Environmental and Health Effects of WasteManagement: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes’.See also Envirosand Birmingham University, Review of Environmental and Health Effects ofWaste Management, 2004, and Enviros report for Waste Symposium,Sardinia 2007.

21 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Englandand Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293).
