landfill mining: an option to trigger resources?landfill mining: an option to trigger resources?...

Landfill Mining: An Option to Trigger Resources?

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Quicker

RWTH Aachen University – Unit of Technology of Fuels

8th CEWEP Waste-to-Energy Congress 2016

Circular Economy Meets Energy Union

16-17 June 2016 Rotterdam


Peter Quicker

8th CEWEP Waste-to-Energy Congress | 16-17 June 2016 Rotterdam

2 von 54

Quelle: www.propubs.com/industries/global-landfill-mining/conferences/introduction


Peter Quicker


Content

3 von 54

I. Introduction

i. Project structure

ii. Goals & Approach

II. RDF-Production

i. Landfill material excavation

ii. Mechanical treatment of landfill material

III. Trials for thermal recovery of RDF

i. Waste incineration plant EEW Hannover

ii. RDF power plant Bernburg

iii. Cement plant CEMEX Beckum

IV. Conclusion

Introduction


Peter Quicker


Introduction

Project structure

5 von 54

• Funding from Federal Ministry of Education and Research

• Program

„r³ – Innovative Technologies for Resource

Efficiency – Strategic Metals and Minerals“

• Project period: August 2012 – July 2015

• Project partners

Companies

Universities

Institutes


Peter Quicker


Introduction

Ambition & Approach

6 von 54

• Development of methods for recovery of selected resources from

municipal waste and slag landfills

• Excavation and treatment of 8,000 Mg old-deposit (80s to 2010s)

• Study on landfill reclamation and resource usage:

Technology

Ecology

Economy

• Preparation of guidelines for the implementation of landfill mining projects

• Our task

Thermal recycling of RDF-fractions generated from landfill material

Pyrolytic treatment of mechanically generated metal concentrates

(disintegration of composite material)

Landfill material excavation

RDF-Production


Peter Quicker


Landfill Pohlsche Heide District Minden-Lübecke

8 von 54

1988-1991

1995-2002

1991-1995


Peter Quicker



9 von 54


Peter Quicker



10 von 54


Peter Quicker



11 von 54

Mechanical treatment of landfill material

RDF-Production


Peter Quicker


Mechanical & thermal treatment of landfill material – Overview

13 von 54

Vor-konditionierung

Rohdeponat K1, 2 und 3

MBAPohlsche Heide LVP

Sortieranlage

HKW Minden

8000 t

Gewerbeabfall-sortieranlage

Zwischenlager

Deponat-EBS

ca. 180 t

ca. 25 t

FluffProduktion

EEW Hannover Zementwerk

ca. 100 t

Kunststoffe

ca. 75 t

Leichtfraktion Schwerfraktion

Folien

ca. 75 t

Frischmüll (Hannover)

Frisch-EBS (Minden)

Zumischung

ca. 80 t

Zumischung

EAB Bernburg

ca. 200 t

Leichtfraktion

Raw landfill material

K1, 2 and 3

Interim

storage

Pre-

conditioning

MBT Pohlsche

Heide

Landfill material RDFFresh RDF (Minden)

Admixture

Plastics Foils

Lightweight fraction Heavy fraction

CHP Minden

Admixture

Fluff

production

Cement

plant

Fresh waste

Lightweight fraction

Lightweight

packaging

sortingplant

Commercial

waste

sorting plant


Peter Quicker


• Sampling according to LAGA PN 98: Several samples (320 liter)

Mechanical treatment of landfill material – Output

RDF material analysis (from mechanical-biological waste treatment plant in Pohlsche Heide)

14 von 54

Foil

Sorting

residue

Fines

Non-ferrous

Iron

Plastics 3D

Minerals

Wood

TextilesPaper and board

20 to 40 mm

40 to 60 mm

60 to 80 mm

< 20 mm

> 80 mm


Peter Quicker



15 von 54

Plastics 3-D


Peter Quicker



16 von 54

Foils


Peter Quicker



High calorific material

17 von 54

Calorific value [kJ/kg] 9.800 – 17.300

Chlorine content [%] up to 2,5

Ash content [%] ca. 30 – 42

Water content [%] ca. 11 – 40


Peter Quicker



Fines

18 von 54


Peter Quicker



Sorting residue

19 von 54

Waste-to-energy plant EEW Hannover

Combustion trials


Peter Quicker


Combustion test EEW Hannover

21 von 54

Plant layout

Wa

ste

Bottom

ash

Lime

milk Dust

Boiler

Spray absorber

Fabric filter

Induced draft

Entrained flow

reactor

Filter dust

Rec

ircu

latio

n

Clean gas

ChimneyA

C


Peter Quicker



Input

22 von 54

• Mono-combustion of landfill material RDF from MBT

• Combustion of crude landfill material in mixture with fresh waste

Ratio Landfill material : Fresh waste

1 : 10, 1 : 5, 1 : 3

Mixture 1:3Landfill material RDFFresh waste


Peter Quicker



Input

23 von 54

Landfill material RDFFresh waste


Peter Quicker


Landfill material RDFFresh waste


Flame image

24 von 54

Landfill material – Fresh

waste 1 : 3


Peter Quicker



Bottom ash

25 von 54

Slag from landfill material

Slag from fresh waste


Peter Quicker



Results

26 von 54

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00

Ste

am

mass f

low

[Mg

/h]

Referenzzeitraum 1 Versuchszeitraum Referenzzeitraum 2

Crude landfill material/ Fresh waste mixtureRDF from landfill material

Steam

Reference period 1 Trial period Reference period 2


Peter Quicker



Results

27 von 54

• HCl raw gas values (mean values over trial time)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Referenzvorher

Mono-EBS 1:10 1:5 1:3 Referenznachher

HC

lconcentr

atio

n[m

g/m

³i.N

.]

Crude landfill material/ Fresh waste mixture

HClRaw gas

Reference

period 1Reference

period 2

Mono

RDF


Peter Quicker



Results

28 von 54

• HCl clean gas values (mean values over trial time) HClClean gas

0

5

10

15

Referenzvorher


HC

lconcentr

ation

[mg/m

³i.N

.]

Limit value

Reference

period 1Reference

period 2

Mono

RDF



Peter Quicker



Results

29 von 54

• SO2 raw gas values (mean values over trial time)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Referenzvorher


SO

2concentr

atio

n[m

g/m

³i.N

.]


SO2

Raw gas

Reference

period 1Reference

period 2

Mono

RDF


Peter Quicker


0

20

40

60

80

100

Referenzvorher


CO

concentr

atio

n[m

g/m

³ i.N

.]Combustion test EEW Hannover

Results

30 von 54

• CO values (mean values over trial time)


CO

Reference

period 1Reference

period 2

Mono

RDF


Peter Quicker



Results

31 von 54

• Moisture (mean values over trial time)

15

16

17

18

19

20

Referenzvorher


Wasserg

ehalt im

RG

[V

ol.-%

]

Moisture

Reference

period 1Reference

period 2

Mono

RDF



Peter Quicker



Results

32 von 54

• RDF monocombustion possible

• Raw gas values of RDF mono-combustion

HCl: significant increase by a factor of 2-3 Exceedance of emission limit

SO2: moderate increase

• Increase of lime milk consumption (ca. factor 2)

• Flue gas moisture noticeably higher

• Target value in steam production not reached because of low calorific value

• Crude landfill material only applicable in very high dilution with fresh waste (>1:10)

• Opinion of operator:

Combustion of landfill material RDF in 1 : 1 mixture with fresh waste

should be no problem

Refuse-derived fuel power plant Bernburg

Combustion trials


Peter Quicker


Combustion test EAB Bernburg

Plant layout

34 von 54

Quelle: www.eew-energyfromwaste.com 2014

SNCR

BICAR

HOK


Peter Quicker



Input

35 von 54

• Mono-combustion of landfill material RDF from preconditioning

1 year storage (drying!) and post-screening (about 50 % mass loss!!!)


Peter Quicker



Input

36 von 54

RDF from fresh waste RDF from landfill material


Peter Quicker



Input

37 von 54

RDF from landfill materialRDF from fresh waste


Peter Quicker



Flame image

38 von 54

RDF from landfill materialRDF from fresh waste


Peter Quicker



Results

39 von 54

• Steam production

Combustion of RDF from

landfill material


Peter Quicker



Results

40 von 54

• Emissions

HClHCl

Bicarbonate consumption

SO2

Combustion of RDF from

landfill material


Peter Quicker



Results

41 von 54

• Mono-combustion possible: No difference to normal operation

• No problems with material logistics

Reason: Material was comparatively dry (1 year storage)

• Raw gas values RDF mono-combustion

HCl: significant increase by a factor of 2-3 to 2.400 – 4.700 mg/m³i.N.

SO2: unremarkable

• Consumption increase of sodium bicarbonate (ca. factor 2-3)

• Stable steam generation

• Operating staff:

„Combustion behavior of landfill material RDF better than some fresh RDF“

Cement plant CEMEX Beckum

Combustion trials


Peter Quicker


Combustion test cement plant CEMEX Beckum

Plant layout

43 von 54

Quelle: CEMEX Deutschland 2014


Peter Quicker



Input

44 von 54

• High-calorific material with 13 - 15 MJ/kg

• 2 Mg/h (= ca. 5 % of total FWL)


Peter Quicker



Input

45 von 54

RDF from fresh waste RDF from landfill material


Peter Quicker



Results

46 von 54

• Troubles in conveying

Significant tendency to agglomeration

Bridging over screw conveyors

Blocking beyond rotary valve


Peter Quicker



Ergebnisse

47 von 54


Peter Quicker



Results

48 von 54

• Troubles in conveying

Significant tendency to agglomeration

Bridging by discharge screw conveyors (isolated)

Frequent damer to reduce impact on rotary valve

• Too high chlorine values

Values from analysis of CEMEX sampling: Average value: 2,45 %!

Too high chlorine content in hot meal

Too much chlorine in bypass dust

Cl values in clinker (still) okay

• Massive incrustations in preheater tower

Higher pressure drop and personnel effort


Peter Quicker



Results

49 von 54

• Due to difficult material handling reduction in throughput from 2 to 1,5 Mg/h

• Conveying problems and chlorine concentration led to test termination

• Conclusion

Troubles in conveying

Chlorine is biggest problem

Heavy metal content often above acceptance criterion

Drying necessary

• Operator: „Material is not applicable“

Complex treatment

Conclusion


Peter Quicker


Conclusion

Landfill material

51 von 54

• Very heterogeneous with different compositions

Much inert material due to soil cover (ash content, fines)

High moisture content

High content of chlorine (from „0“ to 2,5 %) and sulfur possible

Dull and brittle plastic consistency (lack of plasticizer?)

• Untreated landfill material is only applicable in very high mixture

• Treatment to RDF necessary

Crushing

Fractioning (fine and heavy product separation)

Metal separation

(Storage for) Drying?

• (Very) low RDF production


Peter Quicker


Interim conclusion

Thermal treatment

52 von 54

• Incineration in WtE plant possible

• Recommended conditions

Treatment with separation of fines and metals

Drying (perhaps by storage) appears to be advantageous

Incinerator

- Classical WtE technology with variable grate

- With great effort (and in mixture) also for simpler systems applicable

Increase in raw gas values and consumptions of adsorbents expected

• Combustion of untreated material seems not to be reasonable

But what can be done with the separated fines?

• Application in cement plants not possible

• Landfill Mining only for material and energy recovery is unrealistic

Economical not feasible

Many thanks to

EEW Energy from Waste GmbH

CEMEX Deutschland AG

Pader Entsorgung GmbH & Co. KG

and Energie Anlage Bernburg GmbH

for the support with the trials

and

the authorities granting aid PTJ and BMBF

for the funding.

Thank youfor your attention

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Quicker

RWTH Aachen University

52056 Aachen

www.teer.rwth-aachen.de

landfill mining: an option to trigger resources?landfill mining: an option to trigger resources?...

Documents