WTE Option AZMAT.pptx

7/31/2019 WTE Option AZMAT.pptx

1/29

Solid Waste Management for Chichawatni Town

Waste to Energy Option- Structuring on PPP Modality

WHY Opting WTE Option in the UrbanProvince

The problems caused by solid andliquid wastes can be significantly

mitigated through the adoptionof environment-friendly waste-

to-energy technologies


2/29



WHY Opting WTE Options Contd

Countrys growing energy deficit ismaking the government become keen

on alternative and renewable energysources. Waste to energy is one ofthese, and it is receiving increasing

attention.


3/29



a range of processes where temperature isused to reduce the volume of waste and torender it harmless.

Thermaltreatment

as above, with the recovery of heat energy toproduce steam and/or generate electricity

Waste toEnergy (WTE)

mass burn, fluidized bed, modular, rotary kiln,refuse derived fuel: low risk, adequatelytested, therefore considered as PREFERREDOPTION

ConventionalWTE

gasification, pyrolysis, plasmaAdvanced WTE


4/29



9482

57

85

114

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Landfill System RDF andCombustion

Mass BurnCombustion

Gasification Plasma ArcGasification

UnitCost

-US$pertonne

Life Cycle Cost Analysis under WTE Optionssource: Vulcan Innovation Project Vulcan County , Jan-2012


5/29



Municipal Solid Waste

Recycled & Converted to Fuel RDF

Pellets Energy and By-products

The technology of

conversion of MSWto useful RDF (fuel) istodays requirement.

Low grade coal used inpower stations arehaving high ashcontent from 40-45%

while RDF fuel ishaving 20-25 % ashcontent is consideredbetter quality due to

less ash contents andless pollutant


6/29



Alternative Energy Sources Green Energy

With increase inelectricity demandover the period, thereis no choice except toexplore other sourcesincluding Waste ToEnergy

The option not onlyprovides green

energy but alsoadopts ZERO WASTE

concept; a preferredoption

T f Chi h i S l d f M d l WTE


7/29



The population of the town as per Census-98 was 72,732 and present population

is estimated as about 98,000. The generation of MSW as per TMAs assessment is

about 40 tons out of which about 50% is collected and disposed in open dumps.

Town of Chichawatni Selected for Model WTE

The town is located in

Sahiwal District at adistance of about 50km from it. Theconstruction of WTEwill act as a Role Modelfor other urban centres


8/29



Study Area - Boundaries

The territory of TMAis adopted for thepurposes ofcollection anddisposal of MSW;area under the townis about 1,861 acres
http://plans%20by%20rameez/CHECHAWATNI.jpg


9/29


10/29

Annual Operation and Maintenance



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4045

50

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

(Budgeted)

Annual

Expenditure-millionR

s.

Status of Annual O&M

Source: TMA, Chichawatni

Establishment

86%

POL, Repair,

etc.14%

SWM-Annual O&M Expenses

The annual O&M is about Rs.45 million per year, establishment isthe major contributor which is about 86%, other miscellaneous

expenses are about 14%.

l i i


11/29



Planning Horizon

Year 2040 will be used as planning horizon,

however, WTE is proposed to be staggered overthe period, preferably in three stages as under:

# Stage-1, 2012

# Stage-2, 2030

# Stage-3, 2040


12/29

45

109

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

MSW

Generation-

Tonsp

erday

Year

Generation of MSW over the Period



60

It is noted from the exhibit that: the present generation ofabout 45 tons will increase to about 109 tons by the Year-

2040.


13/29



Urban waste is normally dividedinto three big groups:

Inert waste

metals, glass,

soil, slags andashes

Putrescible

food waste,

yardtrimmings

Combustibles

paper,

cardboard,plastics, wood,tyres, leather,

textiles

C iti f MSW i L I L ti P ki t


14/29

Composition of MSW in Low Income Locations - Pakistan

15

3 3

6

60

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Paper Metal Glass Plastic Organic

matter

Others

MSW

Composition-%

Composition of SW in Low Income Countries-Year-2025

Source: UNEP



35.57

10.838.54

7

1.69 1.91

34.46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

WasteComposition-

%age

Composition of MSW, KarachiAverage of three Studies(PCSIR,Nespak,Globex)

Combustible is about 75%

As per UNEP, the expected composition in the future will be

about 70% combustible material, whereas assessment madeby different agencies for Karachi city, it exhibits about 75% ascombustible material

C iti f MSW i Diff t Citi i th C t


15/29

Composition of MSW in Different Cities in the Country



4.625

0.5 2.675 1.85

5.65

1.4 2.4

18

4.275

14.175

1.45

38.4

4.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MSW

Composition

-%

Assessment made by Pak-EPA for cities in the country isexhibited; Combustible material is estimated as about 68%

MSW C b tibl C t


16/29

Combustible

68%

Non-Combustible

32%

MSW - Combustible Components



The combustible portion of MSW as 68% is adopted for thetown

Electricity Generation Rate


17/29

Electricity Generation Rate

Hyderabad-India

Garbage(MSW) generation MSW GenerationRDF Power Projects -11MW 700 tons/dayVenkateshwara

RDF Power Project-12MW 700 tons/day

433

0100200300400

500600

kWhperTonofM

SW

Electricity Generation Rate in the WorldSource: Waste Management World Jan-Feb-2011

Generation Rate Average Generation Rate

0

200

400

600

800

6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

ElectricityOutput-kWh/ton

Calorific value-KJ/Kg

Calorific value & Electricity GenerationSource: World Bank-2000

World Bank Islamabad Case

The electricity generation rate works out as400-450 kWh/ton

Based on calorific Value of about 6,500 Kj/kg, the

generation rate works out as about 450 kWh/ton

of MSW

The average of the situation for various cities in the

World, is 433 kWh/ton of combustible MSW



Power Generation from MSW under Options


18/29



Average of the options consideredis 1.22 MW out of 60 tons of MSW

1.75

0.80

1.110.968

1.22

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

Hyderabad(India)-Min Chennai(India)-Min WTEs Elsewhere(Europe-Asia)

MSW-Urban Pakistan

Power Generation from MSW under Options(60 ton MSW)

WTE Capacity - Year-2012 WTE Capacity - Year-2020


19/29



Power Generation over the Period is in the order of 1.09-2.64 MW

(present & Year-2040)

Nr. Description Unit Quantity

1 Municipal Solid Waste-Year-2012 ton 44.83

2 RDF

2.1 Conversion Factor 0.20

2.2 RDF Production ton 9

2.3 Calorific Value

Kcal/kg 2,500

KJ/kg 10,467

kWh/kg 2.91

kWh/ton 2,908MWh/ton 2.91

3 Potential Energy

KJ/day 93,849,215

KJ/hr 3,910,384.00

MW 1.09

Nr. Description Unit Quantity


2 RDF



2.3 Calorific Value

Kcal/kg 2,500

KJ/kg 10,467

kWh/kg 2.91

kWh/ton 2,908MWh/ton 2.91

3 Potential Energy

KJ/day 120,948,278

KJ/hr 5,039,512.00

MW 1.40

WTE Capacity - Year-2030Nr. Description Unit Quantity


2

RDF



2.3 Calorific Value

Kcal/kg 2,500

KJ/kg 10,467

kWh/kg 2.91

kWh/ton 2,908

MWh/ton 2.91

3 Potential Energy

KJ/day 166,081,982

KJ/hr 6,920,083.00

MW 1.92

WTE Capacity - Year-2040Nr. Description Unit Quantity


2 RDF



2.3 Calorific Value

Kcal/kg 2,500

KJ/kg 10,467

kWh/kg 2.91

kWh/ton 2,908

MWh/ton 2.91

3 Potential Energy

KJ/day 228,059,183

KJ/hr 9,502,466.00

MW 2.64

MSW-WTE Option - Power Generation


20/29



Power Generation over the Period: present generation ofslightly above 1 MW will be above 2.5 MW by the end of

planning horizon

1.09

2.64

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2012 2020 2030 2040

Powergeneration-

MW

Year

MSW WTE Option Power Generation


21/29



Proposed Generation Capacity

Year-20121-MW

Year-20301+1=2 MW

Year-20401+1+0.5=2.5 MW

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) a better Fuel than Coal


22/29



Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)-a better Fuel than CoalRefused derived fuel has better emission and burning characteristics and it is a lowcost substitute for other fossil fuels like coal, gas. The usual efficiency of boiler withuse of coal and RDF is as under:

Using Coal - 48%

Using RDF - 53%

Obviously with the use of RDF, the boil efficiency is higher than that by coal.

The initial recyclingb i i h h

All shredded High density


23/29



process begins with theshredding of the incomingwaste and magneticseparation and removal offerrous material.

material is dried tofacilitate effectiveseparation andclassification

g yplastics, in the formof bottles, areseparated via agravity method

The material, remaining in theprocess flow, is segregatedutilizing a series of air-separators and screeners to

categorize light combustiblesand heavy generally non-combustible material

The light combustible materials are compactedto form the RDF Fuel Pellets which are:Transported to a Boiler Operation where steam is generated to driveturbines for electricity generation.

Ash is transported for further processing / conditioning in SLF

The steam is condensed and returned to the Boiler Operation to begina new cycle

Non-Combustibles such comprise glass, sand, ceramics, heavy

plastics and fly ash. The method enables the processing ofMunicipal Solid Waste (MSW) resulting in the conversion of90% into recyclable materials: fuel, metals, glass, sand, andplastics.

WTE based on RDFProcess Diagram

Transport Conveyor System


24/29



MSW Truck Unloading Area

Secondary Shredding

Magnetic Separation

Drying

Primary & Secondary Shredding

Pelletizers

Transport Conveyor System

Electrical Generators

Boilers

Pellets Storage

RDF WTE Process Diagram

Electricity to Grid or

Industries-Homes

Sanitary

Landfill(SLF) for

Inerts -

Ash


25/29



Nr. Description UnitQuanti

tyUnit

RateAmount, Rs.

1WTE Equipment-

MachineryL.S.

1246,706,020

2Land Cost(Lease

value/year)Sq.M.

6,000 100600,000

3 Consultants' Fee % 1 3 7,401,181

4 Contingencies %1 10

24,670,602

Total 279,377,803

Nr. Description Amount, Rs.

1 Staffing-Manpower 4,830,000

2 Material Supplies 7,128,000

3 Ash Disposal 5,613,300

4 Annual maintenance 4,934,120

Total 22,505,420

The capital cost of WTE facility as Rs.279 million whereas annual O&M

cost works out as Rs.22.5 million


26/29



The entire investment is paid back over a period of 10-years.

(300)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

AxisCumulativeCashFlow-millionRs.

Year

Cumulative Cash Flow Investment is Rs.279 million

Packback Period:10 Yrs


27/29



The Monte Carlo Simulation has been established; the exhibit provides variation of NPV

under different variables considered for the sensitivity analysis. Evidently, the quality ofMSW should provide CV above 2,500 Kcal/Kg, discount rate shall not exceed 14% andTipping fee in the order of Rs.100-150 per household per month be levied to ensurefinancial viability of the proposed WTE


28/29

Nr. Stage-Year Unit

Installed Capacity

Installed Cumulative

1 Stage-I, Year-2012 MW 1 12 Stage-2, Year-2030 MW 1 2

3 Stage-6, Year-2040 MW 0.5 2.5Solid Waste Management for Chichawatni Town



29/29



Collection &Disposal

EngineeringConsultants-

PMDFC

ConstructionContractors

ProcurementManufacturer-

Suppliers

Project Cost

Rs.39.5 millionWTE

Engineering Procurement Construction

EPC ContractPPP to manageImplementation

& Operate

Project Cost

Rs.279 million

SWM, Chichawatni Town

Waste To Energy Option

Implementation & Operation under TMAImplementation and Operation under PPP-

BOT

WTE Option AZMAT.pptx

Documents

Transcript of WTE Option AZMAT.pptx