Search

According to Directive 98/2008/EC, the operation carried out by an incinerator of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is classified either as energy recovery (R1) or as disposal (D10) depending on the result achieved by the application of the R1 formula. In 2011 the DG Environment of the European Commission (EC) issued some non-binding guidelines on the interpretation of such a formula that clarified many aspects related to its application. A point not fully clarified by the EC guidelines is the determination of the energy contained in the treated waste (E W ). For this term of the formula, reference is made to the indirect method for the calculation of boiler thermal efficiency, as defined by the norm EN 12952-15. However, the application of such a norm to an entire year of operation of a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) boiler is not immediate. Therefore, a practical method for the calculation of the E W term has been developed in the framework of a collaboration between the MatER Study Centre and the Lombardy Region (Italy). The method is based on: (i) the identification of the most reliable data available from the Distributed Control System (DCS) of the plant; (ii) the definition of a control volume around the boiler(s) also based on the availability of data; (iii) the closure of the mass balance for such a control volume; (iv) the energy balance of the same control volume that gives, thus, the E W term of the R1 formula. The method has been applied in 2015–2016 to nine plants, generating a number of interesting data reported and discussed in this work, such as R1 index values, Lower Heating Values (LHV) of the treated wastes, main sources of energy losses in WtE boilers, etc. For one case study, discussed in detail in this work, the law of propagation of uncertainties has been applied according to the ISO/IEC Guide 98–3, leading to the assessment of the accuracy of the method, which resulted in ±2.4% with a confidence level of circa 95%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A number of waste gasification technologies are currently proposed as an alternative to conventional Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants. Assessing their potential is made difficult by the scarce operating experience and the fragmentary data available. After defining a conceptual framework to classify and assess waste gasification technologies, this paper compares two of the proposed technologies with conventional WtE plants. Performances are evaluated by proprietary software developed at Politecnico di Milano and compared on the basis of a coherent set of assumptions. Since the two gasification technologies are configured as “two-step oxidation” processes, their energy performances are very similar to those of conventional plants. The potential benefits that may justify their adoption relate to material recovery and operation/emission control: recovery of metals in non-oxidized form; collection of ashes in inert, vitrified form; combustion control; lower generation of some pollutants. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article is part of a set of six coordinated papers reporting the main findings of a research project carried out by five Italian universities on “Material and energy recovery in Integrated Waste Management Systems (IWMS)”. An overview of the project and a summary of the most relevant results can be found in the introductory article of the series. This paper describes the work related to the evaluation of mass and energy balances, which has consisted of three major efforts (i) development of a model for quantifying the energy content and the elemental compositions of the waste streams appearing in a IWMS; (ii) upgrade of an earlier model to predict the performances of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants; (iii) evaluation of mass and energy balances of all the scenarios and the recovery paths considered in the project. Results show that not only the amount of material available for energy recovery is significantly higher than the Unsorted Residual Waste (URW) left after Separate Collection (SC), because selection and recycling generate significant amounts of residues, but its heating value is higher than that of the original, gross waste. Therefore, the energy potential of what is left after recycling is always higher than the complement to 100% of the Source Separation Level (SSL). Also, increasing SSL has marginal effects on the potential for energy recovery: nearly doubling SSL (from 35% to 65%) reduces the energy potential only by one fourth. Consequently, even at high SSL energy recovery is a fundamental step of a sustainable waste management system. Variations of SSL do bring about variations of the composition, heating value and moisture content of the material fed to WtE plants, but these variations (i) are smaller than one can expect; (ii) have marginal effects on the performances of the WtE plant. These considerations suggest that the mere value of SSL is not a good indicator of the quality of the waste management system, nor of its energy and environmental outcome. Given the well-known dependence of the efficiency of steam power plants with their power output, the efficiency of energy recovery crucially depends on the size of the IWMS served by the WtE plant. A fivefold increase of the amount of gross waste handled in the IWMS (from 150,000 to 750,000 tons per year of gross waste) allows increasing the electric efficiencies of the WtE plant by about 6–7 percentage points (from 21–23% to 28.5% circa). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper discusses configuration, attainable performances and thermodynamic features of stand-alone plants for the co-production of de-carbonized hydrogen and electricity from natural gas (NG) based on commercially available technology. We focus on the two basic technologies currently used in large industrial applications: fired tubular reformer (FTR) and auto-thermal reformer (ATR). In both cases we assume that NG is pre-heated and humidified in a saturator providing water for the reforming reaction; this reduces the amount of steam to be bled from the power cycle and increases electricity production. Outputs flows are made available at conditions suitable for transport via pipeline: 60bar for pure hydrogen, 150bar for pure CO2. To reduce hydrogen compression power requirements reforming is carried out at relatively high pressures: 25bar for FTR, 70bar for ATR. Reformed gas is cooled and then passed through two water–gas shift reactors to optimize heat recovery and maximize the conversion to hydrogen. In plants with CO2 capture, shifted gas goes through an amine-based chemical absorption system that removes most of the CO2. Pure hydrogen is obtained by pressure swing absorption (PSA), leaving a purge gas utilized to fire the reformer (in FTR) and to boost electricity production. For the power cycle we consider conventional steam cycles (SC) and combined cycles (CC). The scale of plants based on a CC is determined by the gas turbine. To maintain NG input within the same range (around 1200MW), we considered a General Electric 7FA for ATR, a 6FA for FTR. The scale of plants with SC is set by assuming the same NG input of the corresponding CC plant. Heat and mass balances are evaluated by a model accounting for the constraints posed by commercial technology, as well as the effects of scale. Results show that, from a performance standpoint, the technologies of choice for the production of de-carbonized hydrogen from NG are FTR with SC or ATR with CC. When operated at high steam-to-carbon ratios, the latter reach CO2 emissions chargeable to hydrogen of 10–11kg of CO2 per GJLHV—less than 20% of NG—with an equivalent efficiency of hydrogen production in excess of 77%. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The objective of this study is to assess the technical and economic potential of four alternative processes suitable for post-combustion CO2 capture from natural gas-fired power plants. These include: CO2 permeable membranes; molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs); pressurized CO2 absorption integrated with a multi-shaft gas turbine and heat recovery steam cycle; and supersonic flow-driven CO2 anti-sublimation and inertial separation. A common technical and economic framework is defined, and the performance and costs of the systems are evaluated based on process simulations and preliminary sizing. A state-of-the-art natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) without CO2 capture is taken as the reference case, whereas the same NGCC designed with CO2 capture (using chemical absorption with aqueous monoethanolamine solvent) is used as a base case. In an additional benchmarking case, the same NGCC is equipped with aqueous piperazine (PZ) CO2 absorption, to assess the techno-economic perspective of an advanced amine solvent. The comparison highlights that a combined cycle integrated with MCFCs looks the most attractive technology, both in terms of energy penalty and economics, i.e., CO2 avoided cost of 49 $/tCO2 avoided, and the specific primary energy consumption per unit of CO2 avoided (SPECCA) equal to 0.31 MJLHV/kgCO2 avoided. The second-best capture technology is PZ scrubbing (SPECCA = 2.73 MJLHV/kgCO2 avoided and cost of CO2 avoided = 68 $/tCO2 avoided), followed by the monoethanolamine (MEA) base case (SPECCA = 3.34 MJLHV/kgCO2 avoided and cost of CO2 avoided = 75 $/tCO2 avoided), and the supersonic flow driven CO2 anti-sublimation and inertial separation system and CO2 permeable membranes. The analysis shows that the integrated MCFC–NGCC systems allow the capture of CO2 with considerable reductions in energy penalty and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]