MSW Treatment State of The Art Gualtieri

MSW Treatment
State of the Art

Stefano Gualtieri
Kozany
5th May 2009
Suez Environnement • EMPLOYEES
65 382
Results 2008
• CONSOLIDATED REVENUES
€ 12,4 Billion
SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT IS THE SOLE

PLAYER OF GLOBAL SIZE DEDICATED
SOLELY TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
Turnover by geographical area Turnover by activity

Employees by geographical area
The diversity of SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT’s SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT’s business is based on two
65,000 employees, 30,000 of whom
international positions is the result of a balanced activities: a solid and growing European
Are in France (75,000 including
selective strategy aimed at seizing base as well as an international platform geared
AGBAR employees
opportunities for profitable growth. towards profitable and growing markets.
5th May 2009 - SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT - MSW Treatment State of the Art 2
¾WASTE ¾ KEY FIGURES
400,000 industrials and commercial clients

More than
¾42 millions tons of waste treated

¾1,024 waste treatment and reuse/recovery/recycling
sites, including :
¾ 252 sorting centres
¾ 116 composting platforms
¾ 146 open landfills
¾ 133 hazardous waste platform
¾ 48 non-hazardous Energy from Waste units
¾ 11 hazardous Energy from Waste units
¾ 9 medical waste treatment sites
¾ 312 transfer stations
¾WASTE ¾ KEY FIGURES
SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT
Operates All Types of Waste
Management Systems
(No Proprietary Technologies)
INTRAKAT & SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT
Cooperation
Table of Contents
• What strategy for MSW Treatment

• EU Packaging Directive 94/62/EC
• Segregated Collection / Sorting Plant
• EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC
• Energy from Waste (EfW)
• Mechanical, Biological Treatment (MBT)
• European Trends
• Conclusions
What strategy for MSW Treatment
Drivers:
1. Regulation
2. Outlets
3. Proven Technology
4. Cost efficiency / Regulation :
Waste Frame Directive (Hierarchy)
Affordability Packaging Directive
Landfill Directive
National Legislation
OUTLETS :
Recycling (metals, glass, paper, …)
Tools :
Separate collection & sorting
Agriculture (compost, …) plant
Industry accepting SRF Mechanical Biological Treatment
Energy from Waste (Recovery) Energy from Waste
Landfill
Landfill
Packaging
Directive
94/62/EC
EU Packaging Directive
•a minimum of 50 % by weight of the packaging

waste has to be recovered
•Within this general target:
- a minimum of 25 % by weight of the
totality of packaging materials contained in
packaging waste has to be recycled
- with a minimum of 15 % by weight for
each packaging material (Metals, Paper, Glass,
Wood, Plastics, …)
Segregated Collection
• The target of the Packaging Directive can only be
reached with a segregated collection
•After this collection a sorting plant is necessary

to clean and separate the different fractions
•The ratio of segregated collection in Western

Europe is between 20 and 45% of MSW weight
•Typically 70 - 80 % of the segregated collected

waste are recycled. The balance has to be treated
(EfW, Landfill)
Landfill
Directive
1999/31/EC
EU Landfill Directive
100 100
75
80
50
60
% 35
40
20
0 0
1995 Date 5Y 8Y 15 Y
Bio fraction of MSW allowed to be landfilled

How to achieve EU Landfill Directive Target
•Energy from Waste divert:

± 100% biodegradable waste diversion
•Mechanical Biological Treatment:

as a minimum stabilises biodegradable
fraction prior to landfilling
Energy from Waste
(EfW)
EfW Areas of focus
• EfW is an Integrated recovery stand alone solution
• Low dependency on external OUTLETS
• Proven technology (600 EfW worlwide)
• Strong Energy Production (500 to 600 kWh/t MSW and possibility to
use the heat) – Waste Frame Directive = Recovery (R1)
• Renewable Energy
EfW Areas of focus
• Material Recovery
− Ferrous & Non Ferrous (5%)
− Bottom ash after sorting for Sub-base Road
Construction (20%) – depending on the national legislation (the case in
Germany – France – Netherlands – Belgium – Luxembourg forbidden in Italy)
• Small Residue in landfill: 3% Fly ash to be stabilized

(Germany: Salt Mine as a recovery material)
• High Capital Investment Cost compared with landfill

• Limited operational cost due to the Energy Production
• The higher is the plant the lower are the global cost
treatment
Suez Environnement
Recent EfW Projects - Kirklees (UK)
•390 000 people
•136 000 t
•70 GWh/a
Suez Environnement
Recent EfW Projects – Zorbau (Germany)
•Merchant plant
•300 000 t/a
•448 GWh/a
Suez Environnement
Recent EfW Projects – Isle of Man
•70 000 people
•60 000 t/a
Suez Environnement
Recent EfW Projects – Argenteuil (Paris)
•510 000 people
•200 000 t
•120 GWh/a
•Heat supplier
Mechanical Biological
Treatment (MBT)
MBT OUTLETS!
± 50%
DRY fraction
MSW Trommel SRF-like ± 5 - 10 %
CO2 + H2O
Fine Fraction (High organic content)

Aerobic maturation
± 10 - 20 %
Refining Stabilised
Residue
± 10 - 20 %
Compost
±5%
Recyclables (Metals)
Mechanical Biological Treatment
Areas of focus
• A complex process with succession of

treatment steps (high operation cost)
• Difficulties to manage large quantity of waste

• MBT Plant itself has a Lower Capital Cost
Investment than EfW but this is no longer the
case if a dedicated SRF Plant is taken into
account and has no interest if this Plant is an
EfW!
Areas of focus
High dependency on waste composition & external outlets
SRF: ± 50%
Co combustion (Cement Kiln or Power Plant) at additional cost
EfW at cost of an EfW
Landfill
Stabilised Reject in Landfill: ± 10 – 20 %

Compost: 10 – 20 %
Agricultural reuse depends on National legislation
Spain & France allow it but under very stringent standards
Forbidden in Germany, Belgium, Italy
Odours & Dust require a specific management
Note: 1. Often sustainability of outlet market is not in the hand of the

public sector. In case of co combustion it is necessary to convince
Industry and their neighbours to accept it.
2. Any Waste Treatment requires long term investments and secured
outlets for end products / residues, which is difficult to achieve with MBT
treatment.
MBT is a Pre Treatment solution and not a end

solution
Global cost depend on external constraints and

In particular on Landfill taxes and cost
High Landfill taxes lead to more complex

treatment to find alternative outlets (refining
compost for example) but this complexity has a
cost
Suez Environnement
Recent MBT Projects – Crobern (Germany)
300 000 t/a of MSW & CIW
Suez Environnement
Recent MBT Projects – Montpellier (Fr)
173 000 t/a MSW
Suez Environnement
Recent MBT Projects – Bruchsal Germany
100 000 t C&IW (no biological treatment)
European Trends (Eurosat)
A practical example BELGIUM
Similarities with Greece
• Population: 10,5 Million people

• Annual Waste Production: 5 Mt/a
A practical example BELGIUM
MSW Mt/a in Belgium - Treatment Evolution
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Landfill EfW Recycling Composting
Trends:
•Landfill decrease due to the implementation of taxes and a landfill ban law in the North
•Incineration remain a way of treatment (note in Belgium, Incineration has increased
due to the incineration of C&I Waste – not included in the graph)
•Segregated Collection and sorting allows to increase the recycling and composting
(very few MBT plant because there is no specific market for SRF in Belgium)
CONCLUSIONS
• Treatment Strategy is highly influenced by local
regulations which can be more stringent than EU
Directive (e.g. Germany with landfill “ban”)
• Taxes are also a strong driver (UK 40 £/t and 72 £/t
in 2013, Netherlands 100 €/t)
• To achieve EU Directives:
Segregated Collection is needed
For the rest of MSW, there is not “one” unique
solution
• Trends: Large quantities are managed at more
efficient cost on EfW
SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT
Thank you for your attention

MSW Treatment State of The Art Gualtieri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSW Treatment State of The Art Gualtieri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSW Treatment

State of the Art

SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT IS THE SOLE

Turnover by geographical area Turnover by activity

400,000 industrials and commercial clients

¾42 millions tons of waste treated

¾ 252 sorting centres

¾ 116 composting platforms

¾ 146 open landfills

¾ 133 hazardous waste platform

¾ 48 non-hazardous Energy from Waste units

¾ 11 hazardous Energy from Waste units

¾ 9 medical waste treatment sites

¾ 312 transfer stations

• What strategy for MSW Treatment

•a minimum of 50 % by weight of the packaging

•After this collection a sorting plant is necessary

•The ratio of segregated collection in Western

•Typically 70 - 80 % of the segregated collected

Bio fraction of MSW allowed to be landfilled

•Energy from Waste divert:

•Mechanical Biological Treatment:

• Small Residue in landfill: 3% Fly ash to be stabilized

• High Capital Investment Cost compared with landfill

Fine Fraction (High organic content)

• A complex process with succession of

• Difficulties to manage large quantity of waste

Stabilised Reject in Landfill: ± 10 – 20 %

Note: 1. Often sustainability of outlet market is not in the hand of the

MBT is a Pre Treatment solution and not a end

Global cost depend on external constraints and

High Landfill taxes lead to more complex

Similarities with Greece

• Population: 10,5 Million people

Landfill EfW Recycling Composting

Thank you for your attention

You might also like