London |
02076 920 670 |
Exeter |
01392 927 961 |
Manchester |
01612 970 026 |
Bristol |
01173 270 092 |
If the UK government is turning waste away from landfill
where is it going?
Incineration is on the rise in the UK, and with energy
recovery (EfW) provides an attractive option.
“Waste incinerated with energy
recovery also rose by 1% to 11% in 2006/7.”[iii]
At present
incineration has a very negative public perception this can be overcome with
government funding for the following projects. A key factor is that these plants
are CHP plants, with greater efficiency.
Approach 1 - Subsidise development of CHP EfW. Most standard power plants achieve around 60% efficiency, after driving turbines to create power large quantities of heat are vented, CHP captures this heat and distributes the heat (as steam) to near buy industrial / commercial / amenity and residential sites, achieving efficiencies of up to 90% - 95%[iv] in the process.
At present 1 MW of heat is worth 25% of 1 MW Electricity,
this is the main factor in the absence of CHP in the UK, ROCs have gone some way
to addressing this with regards to renewables but for CHP in waste incineration
there is little incentive. Funding could be sought from the climate change levy,
as EfW is effectively meeting a percentage of UK energy supply that would be met
from fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.
CHP makes sense as most of the energy we use is used
for heat, as the above graph shows.
Heat can be used for cooling too.
Unnecessary conversion of heat to electricity and
then electricity to heat further adds to inefficacy.
Incineration is extremely well regulated, in terms of
emissions, under EPR. As such the main emphasis of change should be placed on
getting as much energy recovery from waste as possible. This means CHP.
Sourcing Power from waste aligns very well with the what
might be considered to be an emerging energy crisis, nuclear plants are aging
with replacement 25 years away, renewables are not being implemented on a large
enough scale.
Many argue that Incineration will detract from recycling
rates, but the UK stands to gain far more from energy recovery than it does from
shipping wastes back to China / India for reuse. In many respects on a global
scale it is more responsible for us to deal with our waste here in the UK.
Encouraging Incineration will result in Landfill Waste being
greatly reduced, or perhaps eliminated. In Japan manufacture of paving slabs
from incinerator ash results in no waste at all.
Pros:
Cheap Heat
Energy, Good PR with Plant Operators
Cons:
BIG
infrastructure costs, laying steam piping etc, disruption to local traffic
etc, during works.
Increased road traffic in vicinity of plants.
Approach 2 -
Lessen the influence of public consultation in the planning process.
Would you ask a member of the public for advice on dentistry
or medicine? No. So why ask for their opinion on a complex CHP incineration
plant.
Public consultation within the planning process gives far too
much opportunity and influence over the outcome of an incinerator project. All
too often sit on the fence solutions such as MBT are used, when incineration is
obviously the answer.
It would be prudent for the IPC to ensure the construction
of a number of CHP incinerators in the UK.
The Netherlands has a population of 16 million and
runs 11 EfW plants, small scale is necessary to maximise benefit from localised
heat distribution, on like for like basis it would be prudent to build around 40
- 45 plants in the UK. Urgency is certainly required.
Pros:
Things
would get done, projects started and finished.
Cons:
People
will not like the government.
Approach 3 -
Export Tax on Combustible Waste.
By forcing the
hand of potential waste exporters, more waste would be available for
incineration. Keeping the domestic cost low and enabling cheap production of
power, waste is a resource we can use at home, why send it abroad.
Pros:
More waste
available for incineration.
Cons:
We are
incinerating a finite resource when we burn oil based plastics.
Case
Study - CHP in Scandinavia:
The
Swedish have long recognised that CHP is an excellent way to maximise energy
recovery both from waste and fossil fuels.
SYSAV incineration plant in Malmö, Sweden capable
of handling 25 metric tons per hour household waste. To the left of the
main stack, a new identical oven line is under construction (March
2007).[vii]
The Malmö plant “produces approximately 1,400,000
MWh of district heating a year, which roughly equates to the district
heating of 70,000 small houses. The steam boilers produced around
250,000 MWh of electricity a year in total, some of which is used in the
plant itself.”[viii]
A lot of local businesses and homes will have
benefitted from cheap heat from the plant, which will have no doubt gone
a long way to overcoming public opposition to the plant.
Perhaps instead of building Gas fired Power stations the UK should follow Sweden’s example.
[iv] The Institution of Engineering and Technology - CHP
[v] COGEN - Report on Principals of CHP in the Netherlands