Sustainable Waste Consultancy

School of Chemical Engineering

The University of Queensland
Queensland 4072
Phone: (07) 3365 6195
Fax: (07) 3365 4199
28 March 2014
Brisbane City Council
Dear Brisbane City Council,
In response to a brief regarding the development of a 25MW waste-to-energy plant, SWC has
prepared a proposal. The proposal includes the following:

An introduction and preliminary investigation of waste-to-energy technologies

Technical information for anaerobic digestion process and power generation
A process flow diagram detailing the units and flows of the process
A zero-net emissions plan and sustainability study
An economic feasibility study
Analysis on social sustainability of the process
Details of process simulation and optimisation
An exergy analysis over relevant units

If there are any problems or questions regarding the report and the recommendations outlined,
please do not hesitate to contact me using the details above. It was a pleasure undertaking this
project and welcome the opportunity to be involved in the latter stages of the project as well as
future projects.

Yours Sincerely,
Sustainable Waste Consultancy
Louis Fredheim
Chloe Leung
Damien Naidu
Kritik Prasad
Geraldine Terada-Bellis

Project Leader
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

1|Page

MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY

PROPOSAL

Contributors:
Louis Fredheim (42665780)
Chloe Leung (42656452)
Damien Naidu (42661782)
Kritik Prasad (42355894)
Geraldine Terada-Bellis (42355492)

2|Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this project was to design a waste-to-energy plant for the Brisbane City Council that
would be capable of generating 25 MW of electrical power for the city using a feedstock of preprepared municipal solid waste. The final design was an anaerobic digestion process with physical
absorption (though later removed due to economics) and Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG).
From mass and energy balances it was determined that the plant would be receiving a total of 781
000 t/year of municipal solid waste and produce 102 000 t/year of biogas at composition of 52 wt%
CH4, 48 wt% CO2. From this feed of biogas, the gas and steam turbines would be capable of
producing a combined generation rate of 53.1 MW. The air compressor, biogas compressor and
pump required a combined consumption rate of 21.3 MW. This resulted in a net power production
rate of 31.8 MW. In addition to this, the plant would be providing 43.0 MW of low grade heat to the
EcoPark in the form of hot water at 79OC.
From exergy analysis it was determined that the HRSG and condenser each had high irreversibilities
due to the fact that phase changes occurred in these units and that the gas and steam turbines had a
combined irreversibility of 10.3 MW, which is fairly high but could only be reduced by purchasing
more efficient, more expensive turbines. The thermal efficiency of the plant was also calculated as
being 42% and once the low grade heat being supplied to the EcoPark was taken into account, this
thermal efficiency increased to 98%.
A payback period of approximately 10-11 years was calculated, within a predicted plant life of 20
years. A long-term fixed interest rate of 4.65% was assumed according to literature. The calculated
Net Present Value is at $194.9 million (AUD, 2014), with an internal rate of return at 9%. Although
9% does not meet the energy industrys hurdle value of 12%, the project is still feasible. The
levelised cost of energy analysis similarly showed that there is a rate of 27.5c/kWh for the overall
plant, which falls short of the literature value of 7.5c/kWh. This highlights that this plant is a service
more than it is a source of income.
In order to offset the greenhouse gas emissions, SWC will invest and buy carbon credits from swine
waste-to-energy projects, totalling a cost of $1.2 million. The sustainability assessment found that
the process was valuable and significant environmentally, with around 1 million tons of CO2
equivalent not emitted.
The political and social drivers for project include the Brisbane community that want to implement a
process that is safe, minimises greenhouse gas emissions, and minimises cost to ratepayers. The
different levels of government have similar goals to promote waste avoidance and reduction, and
reduce consumption of natural resources. It was found that investment in infrastructure will be
important to ensure that electricity from the biogas can be adequately accepted by the electrical
grid. Community research from other councils suggests that anaerobic digestion is the preferred
waste management technology. The limitations of the process are that relative to other methods,
the extent of waste size reduction is less but a fertiliser can be produced. It was found that SWCs
proposed process is a step forward towards achieving sustainable development.

3|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Aim .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Boundary Conditions .......................................................................................................... 8

2.0 Alternative Technology ............................................................................................... 8

3.0 Process Technical Information .................................................................................. 10
3.1 Trommel and Shredder (U-101) ......................................................................................... 10
3.2 Plate and frame filter (U-103)............................................................................................ 10
3.3 Flare (U-104)..................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Anaerobic DIgester Technical Information (Dranco Process) (R-101) ................................... 10
3.5 Packed Column (V-101) ..................................................................................................... 10
3.6 Flash Drum (U-102) ........................................................................................................... 11
3.7 Combustion Chamber (R-201) ........................................................................................... 11
3.8 Combustion Chamber cooling system ................................................................................ 11
3.9 Gas Turbine (C-202) .......................................................................................................... 11
3.10 Heat Recovery Steam Generator (E-203) .......................................................................... 12
3.11 Steam Turbine (C-203) .................................................................................................... 12
3.12 Condenser (E-203)........................................................................................................... 12

4.0 Environmental Concerns ........................................................................................... 16

4.1 Occupational health and safety issues/environmental issues ............................................. 16
4.2 Zero Net Emissions ........................................................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Methods of Carbon Offsetting ............................................................................................. 16
4.2.2 General Limitations .............................................................................................................. 16
4.2.3 Offset Plan ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.0 Sustainability metrics ................................................................................................ 18

5.1 Metric Definitions ............................................................................................................. 19
5.2 Qualitative Sustainability Assessment ............................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Limitations............................................................................................................................ 21

6.0 Process Simulation and Optimisation ........................................................................ 21

6.1 Stage 1 Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................................................... 21
6.2 Stage 2 Gas Cleaning ...................................................................................................... 22
6.3 Stage 3 Power Generation .............................................................................................. 22

7.0 Exergy Analysis ......................................................................................................... 25

7.1 Exergetic Efficiencies......................................................................................................... 25
7.2 Thermal Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 25

8.0 Economic Analysis .................................................................................................... 26

8.1 Economic Analysis Scope................................................................................................... 26
8.2 Fixed Capital Cost Estimation ............................................................................................ 26
8.3 Operating Costs ................................................................................................................ 27
4|Page

8.4 Sales Revenue .................................................................................................................. 28

8.5 Net Present Value ............................................................................................................. 29
8.6 IRR and discounted cash flow rate of return ...................................................................... 30
8.7 Levelised Cost of Electricity ............................................................................................... 30
8.8 Scenarios and Sensitivities ................................................................................................ 30
Case 1: Varying price of MSW ....................................................................................................... 30
Case 2: Varying Electrical production ........................................................................................... 31
Case 3: No Absorption Column ..................................................................................................... 32
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 33

9.0 Social and Political Drivers ........................................................................................ 34

9.1 A Metrics Based Approach ................................................................................................ 34
9.2 Discussion of Stakeholder Interests ................................................................................... 34
9.2.1 The Brisbane Community ..................................................................................................... 34
9.2.2 Fertiliser Industry ................................................................................................................. 35
9.2.3 The Brisbane City Council..................................................................................................... 35
9.2.4 The State Government & Federal Government ................................................................... 36
9.3 Smart Metrics for Stakeholder Interests ............................................................................ 37

10.0 Limitations to Sustainable Development ................................................................. 38

10.1 Economic Development .................................................................................................. 38
10.2 Environmental Responsibility .......................................................................................... 38
10.3 Social Progress ................................................................................................................ 38

11.0 Conclusions & recommendations ............................................................................ 39

References ..................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix 1: Table of safety/environmental issues with risk prevention/minimisation
actions ........................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 2: Sustainability .............................................................................................. 48
Appendix 3: anaerobic digestion calculations .................................................................. 51
Appendix 4: Absorber Assumptions & Limitations ........................................................... 60
Appendix 5: Power generation assumptions & limitations .............................................. 61
Appendix 6: Economic Analysis Calculations ................................................................... 62

5|Page

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Composition and quantity of Municipal Solid Waste received by the Brisbane City Council ... 8
Table 2: System performance of Loyd Ray Farms from 24/5/11 - 30/6/12 (Duke University 2012) .... 18
Table 3: Definition of metrics ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 4: Definition of output denominators ......................................................................................... 19
Table 5: Summary of metric intensities ................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Environmental burden for landfill scenario ............................................................................ 19
Table 7: Environmental burden for anaerobic digestion scenario ....................................................... 19
Table 8: Anaerobic Digestion qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) ................................................... 20
Table 9: Summary of Waste Technologies and their sustainability indicators (Chirico 2010) ............. 20
Table 11: Total Revenue before tax ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 12: MSW Variation NVP IRR values ............................................................................................. 31
Table 13: Comparative results with no absorber section ..................................................................... 33
Table 14 Brisbane City Council goals for waste reduction .................................................................... 35
Table 15 Queensland targets and milestones in waste processing (Queensland Government 2010) . 36
Table 16 summarising the stakeholder opinions using SMART (the descriptions are inferred from
discussion in section 1.1) ...................................................................................................................... 37
Table 17: Waste technology sustainability table (Chirico 2010)........................................................... 48
Table 18: Landfill Gas-to-Energy qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) .............................................. 48
Table 19: Gasification and Pyrolysis qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) ........................................ 49
Table 20: Plasma Arc Gasification qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)............................................ 49
Table 21: Costs of waste management technologies (Chirico 2010) .................................................... 49
Table 22: Indicators for waste management technologies (Chirico 2010) ........................................... 50

6|Page

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Alternative pathways for conversion of MSW to power ......................................................... 8
Figure 2: The Brayton Cycle Diagram (Feng 2013) ................................................................................ 12
Figure 3: Temperature vs Entropy graph of Rankine Cycle, which the steam turbine follows.
(Beardmore 2013) ................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: 2005 emissions from the agricultural sector (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005) ... 17
Figure 5 - Heat Duty vs. Flow Rate of Air .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 6: Power Generation Breakdown for the Plant (Total 53.12MW) ............................................. 24
Figure 7 - Power Consumption Breakdown for the Plant (Total =21.3MW)......................................... 24
Figure 8 - Net Power Production from the plant (Total = 31.8MW) ..................................................... 24
Figure 9 - Process Unit Exergetic Efficiencies and Irreversibilities........................................................ 25
Figure 10: Capital Cost Breakdown ....................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11: Costs of Operating chart ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 12: Operating costs over time with inflation ............................................................................. 28
Figure 13: Total Sales Revenue (before tax) fractions .......................................................................... 29
Figure 14: Cumulative Cash Flow over Plant life................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Cumulative Cash Flow Diagram Case 1 ................................................................................ 31
Figure 16: Cumulative Cash Flow Case 2 .............................................................................................. 32
Figure 17: Comparative Cash Flow Diagram ......................................................................................... 33
Figure 18 SMART criterion to set objectives (Riley 2010)..................................................................... 34
Figure 19 - community support for different waste processing technologies (Market Research 2009)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 20 Aerobic compost from anaerobic digestate ......................................................................... 35
Figure 21 Waste management pyramid ............................................................................................... 36
Figure 22: Electricity rate prediction as at 2011, using data from previous years (Australia Energy
Market Commission 2011) .................................................................................................................... 39

7|Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIM
The objective of this project was to design a waste-to-energy plant for the Brisbane City Council that would be
capable of generating 25 MW of electrical power for the city using a feedstock of pre-prepared municipal solid waste
(see Table 1).
Sustainable Waste Consulting (SWC) is experienced in providing solutions to these problems and understands that it
is not simply an economic problem that requires a technical solution but rather that for a plant of this nature to
remain operational after start-up, the solution must also be environmentally and socially sound. This concept of the
triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social sustainability) underpinned SWCs approach to the problem.
Table 1: Composition and quantity of Municipal Solid Waste received by the Brisbane City Council

Generated MSW (2012): 780 925 tonnes1

Weight (w/w %)2

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. timber)
Inorganic (e.g. plastic, glass, metal)
1

(State of Waste & Recycling in Queensland 2012)

(Khouszam 1995)

30.28%
41.81%
27.91%

Water (w/w %)2

33.50%
62.00%
-

1.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The boundary conditions imposed by the Brisbane City Council were that the plant must be capable of generating 25
MW of electrical power using a feedstock supplied to the plant that would consist of solid municipal waste. The
waste had already been appropriately sorted according to the requirements of the plant. Additionally, the plant
must achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions and any waste heat generated by the plant must be integrated into
the neighbouring EcoPark. It should also be noted that it is not completely clear at this stage what waste is actually
handled by the Brisbane City Council.

2.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

When designing this waste to energy system, a literature review was carried out to explore the alternative
technologies available. Looking at the feed and the desired output, the following alternative pathways are available:

Figure 1: Alternative pathways for conversion of MSW to power

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

8|Page

There are two main chemical pathways when converting municipal waste - biochemical and thermochemical. The
biochemical pathways consist of using bacteria to breakdown organic materials to generate principally carbon
dioxide and methane. Typically 50-70% methane is produced, depending on digester conditions and feedstock
composition (Rao & Singh 2003) (moist feedstock rich in hydrocarbons is ideal). Bacterial digestion must be carried
out in an anaerobic environment, as the bacteria require this condition for optimal methane production. After
digestion has completed, the by-products (sludge, acid gases) and methane are separated. The pure methane is then
combusted in a gas turbine to produce energy, with the exhaust gas then used to run a steam turbine. The use of
two turbines is called a combined cycle (Motuzas 2014).
Thermochemical alternatives are gasification and combustion. Combustion is comparatively the better documented
of the two technologies, as it has been in use for a longer period. Thermochemical options work best with feed
stream that has a dry feed (Rogoff & Screve 2011).Combustion technology uses oxidizing agents (usually air or O2) to
oxidize hydrocarbons within MSW, which is an exothermic reaction, the resultant heat is then captured (Motuzas
2014).
The simplified reaction is as follows:
MSW + Oxidiser Products + HEAT

The feed must be well-mixed and somewhat homogenous before it enters the combustion chamber, where the solid
waste is moved along the chamber on grates exposing it to high temperatures (up to 900 degrees Celsius) and
oxidizing agents (Rogoff & Screve). As MSW will contain sulfurs and nitrogen constituents, by-products of
combustion will contain SOx, NOx along with CO, CO2, H2O, O2 and ash (Motuzas 2014). Whilst clean O2 and H2O can
be safely released back into the environment, all other by-products and contaminated process water must be
captured and treated to prevent harm to the surrounding environment (especially people in the area). Heat
generated by the combustor can then be used to power steam turbines, and produce power. Although combustion
processes are utilized widely, for this application it was not chosen for two key reasons: MSW for this system is
assumed to be moist and the plant will be placed next to an EcoPark. Combustion processes are not suitable for
residential areas as there is a risk of releasing pollutants into the atmosphere.
The thermochemical alternative to combustion is gasification. Gasification uses reducing agents in contrast to
combustion, (Motuzas 2014) to produce syngas (H2 and CO). In the case of WtE, MSW is heated up and treated with
a gasifying agent which results in an exothermic reaction, producing H2, CO, CO2, N2, H2S and tars (Motuzas 2014)
MSW + Gasifying Agent Products + HEAT

The syngas produced is extremely useful, as it can be used to synthesize useful chemicals such as methanol, ethanol
and fertilizers. Since this project requires the output of electricity, the syngas can be used in a combined cycle using
H2 as fuel for combustion whilst CO will be converted to CO2 using water, which is then removed from the product
(Young 2010).
Flue gas from a gasification unit requires treatment, including a water scrubber for CO to CO2 conversion, an amine
scrubber to absorb acid gases and a tar reformer to convert tar to syngas, thereby increasing the syngas yield
(Andersson & Nielsen 2012). Gasification units have a variety of heating options such as pyrolysis and plasma arc
gasification, which dictate the structure of the unit as well as the pressure and temperature of the operation however this is out of scope for alternative technologies section, and will require consideration in future
development. Although gasification has good prospects, for this particular feed and environment it was not selected.
The feed is not ideal for gasification as it will be moist, and gasification runs at extremely high pressures and
temperatures, which significantly increases the risk of running such a process in a residential area. Additionally, by9|Page

products such as CO and H2S are extremely dangerous for people and wildlife; therefore gasification was deemed
unsuitable for this particular project.

3.0 PROCESS TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The elementary understanding of key flows in the process provides an indication of whether sufficient power can be
produced while meeting environmental and social objectives. It also provides a comparison of expected results in
later reports when more rigorous mass and energy balances are completed.

3.1 TROMMEL AND SHREDDER (U-101)

The trommel is used for size separation. It consists of a rotating screened cylinder, designed at a specific pore size.
The trommel is elevated on one side allowing gravity to assist in the particles travelling down the drum. The
shredder reduces the particle size of the municipal waste entering. It needs to be a fairly robust design that can
handle multiple feed types. The particle size of the waste leaving the shredder is to be 40mm or smaller.

3.2 PLATE AND FRAME FILTER (U-103)

A plate and frame filter is used to reduce the moisture content of the digestate to approximately only 15% moisture.
The filter forces water through the pores of each frame, which allows a cake to form in each hollow frame. The filter
cake is then removed through mechanical agitation, scraping or through the use of an air compressor.

3.3 FLARE (U-104)

A flare is implemented for safety purposes in the case of high methane generation. If a safety issue arises which
requires the venting of methane, it can be burnt to minimize the damage to the atmosphere. Furthermore, in the
case where infrastructure is not upgraded, the flare will be used to burn excess methane.

3.4 ANAEROBIC DIGESTER TECHNICAL INFORMATION (DRANCO PROCESS) (R-101)

The Dry Anaerobic Composting (DRANCO) Process is a high solids content digestion process that has a number of
advantages over the conventional process including higher biogas yields, natural mixing (gravity) and the generation
of fewer pathogens (Abdullahi 2007).
The purpose of an anaerobic digester is to break down biodegradable waste using microorganisms, in the absence of
oxygen. After undergoing four key stages (Hydrolysis, Acidogenesis, Acetogenesis and Methanogenesis) a gas
mixture of CO2 and CH4 is produced (Freguia 2013). The overall reactions can be represented by:
CO2 + 4 H2 CH4 + 2H2O
CH3COOH CH4 + CO2 (main reaction)
(Biarnes 2013)
The fresh municipal solid waste (MSW) feed is heated through direct mixing with saturated steam to the necessary
digester operating temperature. The fresh feed is then mixed with the digestate (solid residue from the digester)
which means no further mixing in the reactor is needed.

3.5 PACKED COLUMN (V-101)

10 | P a g e

A packed absorption column is used to transfer carbon dioxide from the anaerobic digester into a pure solvent
stream of propylene carbonate (PC). This is a physical absorption process and therefore there are no chemical
reactions occurring. PC has a high selectivity and solubility for carbon dioxide, making it an ideal solvent for this
application. The stream entering the combustion chamber will now be a higher quality methane gas. An investigation
into the ideal packing type to be used and sizing of the column is required. A second or third generation packing will
be best suited for application. A research by Chen and Guo compared 38mm Plum Flower Mini Rings (PFMR), Pall
Rings, Intalox Saddles and Super Mini Rings for CO2 absorption processes. It was found that Pall rings provided the
highest mass transfer for a broad range of flow rates. However the ideal packing was Intalox saddle if an operating
flow rate of PC is kept within the range of 40-100 m3/m2h.

3.6 FLASH DRUM (U-102)

A flash drum is used to remove the CO2 from the propylene carbonate mixture. The volatility of CO2 is higher than
that of PC, allowing it to be evaporated through flashing while the PC remains in liquid form in the drum. The CO2
stripped PC is recycled and reused. There will still be some CO2 remaining in this stream, resulting in the need for
fresh PC entering the process, as well as a purge in the recycle. This will result in no accumulation of CO2 in the
absorber, as well as ensuring the purity of the PC remains high.

3.7 COMBUSTION CHAMBER (R-201)

The combustion chamber can be an external unit or integrated into the gas turbine design for smaller scale
operations. As this process deals with high flow rates of methane, an external combustion chamber is employed. The
use of an external combustion chamber will be easier to maintain also. The combustion chamber is a large well
insulated unit operating at high temperatures due to the exothermic energy from the combustion of methane. The
unit will consist of refractory surrounding the inner walls to insulate the system. There will also be burners inside the
chamber, as an ignition source and compressed atmospheric air entering to provide oxygen for the combustion to
occur. This completes the fire triangle as shown below.
The combustion process for CH4 works follows the reaction: CH4+ 2O2 2H2O + CO2

3.8 COMBUSTION CHAMBER COOLING SYSTEM

The combustion chamber is designed to operate at a maximum of 1649C. A cooling jacket is installed around the
chamber which has cooling water pumped through it. As the water passes through the jacket, it will vaporize forming
steam. A heat recovery unit downstream further heats this steam using the stream exiting the gas turbine. This
water is then used in a steam turbine to generate power.

3.9 GAS TURBINE (C-202)

A gas turbine works similarly to steam turbine, except the operating fluid is air that has been heated to high
temperatures and raised to high pressures. A gas turbine follows the Brayton Cycle, which consists of four key steps
(Compression, Heat Addition, Expansion, Heat Rejection). Compression and heat addition happens at the
combustion chamber (Grundfos 2014).

11 | P a g e

Figure 2: The Brayton Cycle Diagram (Feng 2013)

3.10 HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR (E-203)

Exhaust gases from the gas turbine (C-202) still contains significant energy, which can be effectively utilized. The air
leaving the turbine can be used to vaporise water using an effective heat exchanger. The heat exchanger for this
application is known as a Waste Heat Recovery Unit (BCS Incorporated 2008). The heat system has two inflows which
are water and hot exhaust air from the turbine. This unit has been designed to also compress the exhaust steam and
therefore pressurise it before it enters the steam turbine. The gas stream leaving this system is flue gas.

3.11 STEAM TURBINE (C-203)

Steam turbines are used to convert heat energy into shaft work, which is then ultimately used to produce electrical
energy via a generator. As steam passes through the turbine, it rotates a series of blades similar to the gas turbine
(Chaibakhsh & Ghaffari 2008). A steam turbine usually consists of three main zones, a high, intermediate and low
pressure zone. As steam passes each zone, the pressure reduces as work is produced. After passing through all three
zones, the steam leaves the system at a lower pressure than when it entered. If the temperature is maintained when
passing through a turbine, the pressure significantly reduces to allow for the expansion. The Steam Turbine follows a
non-ideal Rankine cycle pathway, due to non-isentropic pumping and expansion in the turbine, as seen in the figure
below.

Figure 3: Temperature vs Entropy graph of Rankine Cycle, which the steam turbine follows. (Beardmore 2013)

3.12 CONDENSER (E-203)

The condenser is used to condense the steam exiting the steam turbine. Gases are expensive, difficult and more
energy demanding to pump in comparison to liquids. By condensing the steam, the energy required for pumping
purposes is significantly lower. Furthermore, by condensing the steam, the cooling water is heated. This heated
water is fed to the EcoPark.

12 | P a g e

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e

15 | P a g e

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

The population of Brisbane is continually rising and as it rises, so too does the demand for energy and the need for
space for municipal waste. Converting municipal waste to energy is an environmentally friendly technique to reduce
the stress on land and energy while consuming a readily available waste product of society.

4.1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Operation of the energy generation plant poses risk to both employees and civilians and therefore prevention and
extensive research in the possible hazards. The safety procedures applied to ensure occupational health and safety
should also account for environmental risks as mishandling could cause environmental disasters. Considering these
two issues, operation of units is of particular importance as there are many risks when starting up, in operation and
shutting down. There will be a number of anaerobic digesters in the plant, and while in operation, there is an
increase in pressure due to the production of biogas.
In order to safely produce this gas, the air within the digesters must first be displaced during start up. Extensive
training in operating all units in the plant is recommended for employees so in the event of automatic failures,
manual start up and shut down can be done. Appendix 1 summarises the risks and the preventative measures taken
to minimize those risks.

4.2 ZERO NET EMISSIONS

In accordance with the project requirements, SWC are committed to a zero-net emissions goal. Despite optimisation
of the process and using a source of renewable energy, the process still emits approximately in the order of 154 000
tons/year.
4.2.1 METHODS OF CARBON OFFSETTING
An overview of carbon offsetting is provided to classify and clarify the methods available. Generally, there are three
main methods of carbon offsetting; sequestration projects, methane collection and combustion, energy efficiency
projects and renewable energy investments. Sequestration projects generally involve reforestation, preservation of
current forests and restoration of forests. Methane collection, evidently, is the collection and containment of
methane generated by any sources of emittance. Examples of such sources include landfills, animal farms and
industrial waste. This is collected and either flared to produce carbon dioxide (25 times less potent than methane) or
captured and anaerobically digested to produce useful energy (which also emits carbon dioxide). Energy efficiency
projects aim to increase efficiency of companies in any industry, state, companies, buildings etc.
4.2.2 GENERAL LIMITATIONS
Embarking on carbon offsetting is an arduous and complex task as there are criteria the carbon offset must fulfil to
ensure permanent and effective offsetting. The three main criteria are; additionality, verification and monitoring,
lack of permanence and leakage.
The first criterion to be fulfilled is additionality, meaning that without the company/persons purchasing the offset,
the project would not have occurred. The second, verification and monitoring is required by an objective third party.
Their role is to verify the offset method by providing quantified and accurate results. Thirdly, permeance is to ensure
that the offset is long-term and will not be released in the future. Finally, leakage is an offset project that directly
increases greenhouse gas emissions in another area. For example, a forest that is protected from logging results in
another forest elsewhere being logged, thereby negating the offset.

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

16 | P a g e

Prior to the investigation into carbon offsetting options, baseline emissions were taken into account. Under the
assumption that the municipal waste would have either been incinerated or left in a landfill where it would be
released as methane, the current project would generate carbon offset credits as it is producing less greenhouse
gases. However, SWC recognises and wants to commit to its moral responsibility.
4.2.3 OFFSET PLAN
Following extensive research, SWC has chosen to fund a renewable energy project as the company believes it is the
most effective and accountable form of carbon offsetting. The project consists of implementing a waste-to-energy
anaerobic digester to capture the methane from livestock waste. Currently, livestock waste management in Australia
typically involves treatment to convert to manure (used for land application such as spreading irrigation). In 2005,
the emissions from agriculture totalled to 15.7 per cent of Australias greenhouse gas emissions, amounting to 87.9
MtCO2-e (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005). In the figure below, it can be seen that manure management
makes up around 3.4 MtCO2-e and is a significant emissions contributor to the agricultural sector.

Figure 4: 2005 emissions from the agricultural sector (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005)

There are several projects that utilise livestock waste to energy such as Geopower Energy Limited and Duke
University have implemented pig effluent digesters and achieved success. Environmentally, these projects provide
many benefits, the following were found by Duke University and Biomass Producer:

Stops direct discharges of waste, such as seepages and runoffs

Reduction of ammonia emissions
Reduction of odours
Reduction of disease-transmitting vectors and pathogens
Reduction of groundwater and soil contamination from nutrients and heavy metals.
Diversification of income sources through waste
Conversion of organic nitrogen to useful nitrogen
Reduction of waste

The innovative project at the Loyd Ray Farms in North Carolina by Duke University has proven successful, the table
below outlines the system performance. The project consisted of an in-ground lined and covered anaerobic digester.
Methane from the digestion would be collected under the cover and powered a 65-kW microturbine. The carbon
offsets generated from this operation were used to assist Duke Universitys zero gen target by 2024. The electricity
generated was used for farm operations. Geopower had a similar set up, but sold the electricity generated to homes.

17 | P a g e

Table 2: System performance of Loyd Ray Farms from 24/5/11 - 30/6/12 (Duke University 2012)

System Uptime
Biogas Production
REC Production
Monthly Average Production
Monthly Average during Best Producing Months
(December 2011 February 2012)
Actual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential
Climate Action Reserve: Climate Reserve
Tonnes (CRT) verified tons

62%
8.3 million scf
367.5 MWh
24.5-29 MWh
44 MWh
2087 MTCO2-e
5183 MTCO2-e
1442 (CRT)

The total turnkey cost was $1.2 million (EPA n.d.) and included the electrical (digester, gas conditioning unit,
microturbine) and environmental (aeration basin and jet aeration system) systems. Taking the actual greenhouse gas
emission reductions from table 1, SWC estimates implementing this system in a similar sized farm would achieve the
same reductions. Since the national agricultural management plan for animal waste is to be converted to manure,
this satisfies the legitimacy of the carbon offset. Due to the financial burden, the project satisfies additionality as it
would have been a cost that the farmer would not be viable. A third party will be employed to monitor and verify the
results in a similar manner to Duke University. The permeance of this project can be seen as the captured methane is
destroyed and will not be released at a later time. There may be some issues with leakage but with proper
maintenance and quality checks of the HDPE cover (used to capture the methane) will ensure that no leakage occurs.
In terms of the cost to SWC, since the estimated carbon offsets are much greater than what is currently being
produced by the plant, a joint venture with another company and government incentives (currently $120 million is
being set aside for local governments to utilise for environmental projects). SWC also plans to sell some of the
carbon credits generated as a source of revenue whilst continuing to retire carbon credits as an effort to lower the
overall global emissions.

5.0 SUSTAINABILITY METRICS

Sustainability underpins the motivation for the proposed municipal waste to energy project. In order to assess this, a
sustainability metrics study was conducted. In the assessment, the performance in terms of environmental,
economic and social sustainability was identified. The metrics are a guide to highlight where improvements can be
made and when conducted over time, provides data for the progress of company. With many sustainable
development progress metrics available, SWC chose to use a model that was simple, time effective, and useful. The
reason this was chosen was because often measurements which factor in too many components produce
incomparable results with other industries or less versatile results (Beaver et al. 2002). A core set of metrics were
chosen, with the following five indicators analysed: material intensity, energy intensity, water consumption, toxic
emissions, and pollutant emissions. As a general rule, the lower the metric, the more effective the process, however
a lot of data was not available and as a consequence, metrics involving societal effects were difficult to determine. A
set of qualitative data was incorporated from the Georgia Institute of Technology and is further analysed to provide
more understanding.

18 | P a g e

5.1 METRIC DEFINITIONS

Table 3: Definition of metrics

Metric
Material intensity
Environmental Burden

Definition
Mass of material wasted (not converted to required product) per unit
output
Mass of greenhouse gases per unit output

Water consumption

Mass of water consumed per unit output

Pollutant emissions

Mass of toxic material emitted by process per unit output

Table 4: Definition of output denominators

Output denominators

Definition

Value

Output product

Final product from process

222 850 MWh

Dollars of Revenue

Revenue obtained for one kilogram of product

$9 600 000

Table 5: Summary of metric intensities

Metric

Unit

Per MWh of Product

Baseline Metrics

Per dollar of Revenue

Baseline Metrics Efficiency

Material

3.8 tMSW/MWh

0.089tMSW/$

Water

Kg

0.58kg/MWh

0.013kg/$

Pollutants

0.69tCO2-e/MWh

0.016tCO2-e/$

The water metric calculated took into account that there was a 2% purge each year causing a use of 0.58kg of water
for every MWh produced. The intensity of this metric can be improved via further optimisation of the plant to
increase the recycle of water. In terms of pollutants, the metric is not expected to change since it would increase due
to an increase in municipal waste, which would in turn increase the power produced. Similar to the pollutant metric,
the material metric is not expected to change since an increase in municipal waste would correspond to an increase
in power produced. However, if there are optimisation options to the process i.e. improvement to operating
conditions and units (in line with exergy calculations in section 7), the metric would decrease and result in a more
efficient process.
Table 6: Environmental burden for landfill scenario

Substance

Potency factor PF

Carbon dioxide
Methane
Total

1
21

Tonnes
49 196.16
53 295.84

Emissions
EB value = W x PF
49 196.16
1 119 212.64
1 168 000 tCO2-e/y

Table 7: Environmental burden for anaerobic digestion scenario

Substance
Carbon dioxide
Total

Potency factor PF
1

Tonnes
153 554

Emissions
EB value = W x PF
153 554
154 000 tCO2-e/y
19 | P a g e

It is assumed that if not for the proposed project, the municipal waste would have been sent to a landfill. The tables
above demonstrate the significance and importance of the project, stopping the emittance of around 1 014 000
tCO2-e per year. With the projected increases in municipal waste in Brisbane (Queensland Government 2008), it is
predicted that this project will increase its offset of greenhouse gases per year.

5.2 QUALITATIVE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

From the Georgia Institute of Technology study by Jennifer Chirico, the following represents a qualitative comparison
between waste management technologies.
Table 8: Anaerobic Digestion qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)

Technology

Anaerobic
Digestion

Principle
Futurity

Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting

Sustainability
Med
High
High

Equity

Impact on visual, odour, noise, traffic, Med

public health, property value, stigma by
nearby community

Public Participation

Public support

High

Environment

Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential

Med
Med
High

Economic

Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee

Med
Med
Med
Low

Table 9: Summary of Waste Technologies and their sustainability indicators (Chirico 2010)

Waste Technology

Futurity

Equity

Public
Participation

Environment

Economic

Traditional Waste
Technologies
Landfill
Recycling
Composting
Incineration

Low
Med
High
Low

Low
Med
High
Low

Low
High
High
Low

Low
Med
High
Low

High
High
High
Med

Low

Low

Med

Med

High

Med
Med

High
High

Med
Med

High
High

Med
Med

High

Med

High

Med

Med

Advanced Waste
Technologies
Landfill Gas-toEnergy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Mechanical Biological
Treatment

By allocating a number for low, medium and high (1,2,3 respectively) located in Appendix 2, table 17, the qualitative
assessment is analysed and discussed below.
20 | P a g e

From the qualitative assessment, it can be seen that for advanced waste technologies, gasification/pyrolysis,
gasification and anaerobic digestion are all sustainably competitive with each other. Landfill gas-to-energy stands as
the least sustainable with high land space use and low futurity, however with high economic sustainability and high
number of facilities. Table 22 in Appendix 2 show that the emissions for those technologies are all categorised as low.
A key difference and reason anaerobic digestion was chosen was the public participation, with favourable perception
of the technology from the public. Table 8 also shows that there is high sustainability in terms of recycling rate,
composting rate, and renewable energy potential. High public participation is an advantage for getting the project
approved without delay due to disagreement from the general public. The social issues for this project are discussed
in further detail in section 9. Plasma arc gasification in terms of sustainability may not yet be viable as the number of
facilities is low (not well established technology in industry) with the highest average capital cost. As mentioned in
section 2, the operating conditions for gasification are extremely high, that combined with the feed provided from
BBC therefore justifies choosing anaerobic digestion. The average capital cost and average operating cost of these
technologies are shown in appendix 2, table 21, showing anaerobic digestion to have relatively high capital cost and
the highest annual operating cost. This shows cause for concern and would be critical for this proposal to be
accepted, for that reason, an economic analysis is performed in section 8.
5.2.1 LIMITATIONS
The limitations of these studies are clear due to the lack of data available. The quantitative assessment was not able
to be benchmarked with other technologies or plants. Since this is at the scoping stage, there is no plant data for
annual performance to determine where improvements can be made. This would need to be further investigated in
the later stages of project development with a more extensive feasibility study. The final feasibility study would also
include detailed impact to the environment in terms of waste products. The qualitative study provided key
differences for the different technologies with some quantitative figures for the costing, however without
quantitative figures for social sustainability, it is difficult to justify. The lack of data also meant there were many
aspects of sustainability which were not covered; as such the overall sustainability of this project cannot be
quantitatively determined.

6.0 PROCESS SIMULATION AND OPTIMISATION

Following the selection of the process, mass and energy balances were performed using a combination of Microsoft
Excel and the simulation software ASPEN Plus to provide a greater understanding of where the main mass and
energy inventories existed within the plant and to assist in process optimisation. This analysis also provided the basis
for the sustainability metrics review and the economic analysis.

6.1 STAGE 1 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

The first stage of the process requiring mass and energy balances is the anaerobic digestion section. As this section
deals with a number of complex solid streams which are difficult to model reliably in ASPEN Plus, it was decided that
this subsystem would be modelled in Microsoft Excel, using yield and composition values from literature.
In reality there is likely to be multiple digesters in series. The specifics of this will be determined when the
equipment is sized. However, it is assumed that output product compositions and flows in this calculation would still
give a good indication of expected flows.
The results of the mass and energy balances are displayed on PFD. The details of the calculations and assumptions
are listed in Appendix 3.

21 | P a g e

6.2 STAGE 2 GAS CLEANING

The second stage of the process is the biogas cleaning subsystem, which consists of an absorption column (V-101), a
flash tank (U-102), a compressor (C-101) and two heat exchangers (E-101 & E-102). Significant process optimisation
was performed on this subsystem to minimise operating costs and to maximise the separation rate of carbon dioxide
from the biogas. This included the addition of the flash drum, two heat exchangers and a recycle system which did
not exist in the original feasibility report. The first heat exchanger (E-102), was added downstream of the biogas
compressor (C-101) to cool the biogas from the high temperature of 409OC after it has been compressed to 60 bar
down to 20OC before it enters the column, as the absorption process operates much more effectively at lower
temperatures. Although this is not shown in this model, this cooling process would be achieved by performing
indirect heat exchange with either the column bottoms stream (14) or the CO2 removal stream (15) as both of these
streams are at subzero temperatures.
The recycle stream (16) was achieved by adding a flash drum downstream of the column bottoms flow which flashes
the high pressure propylene carbonate and carbon dioxide mixture at 1 bar, separating these streams, providing a
relatively pure CO2 stream (15) and a clean propylene carbonate stream (16) for recycle back to mix with fresh PC
makeup (3) and be heated up to 0OC in the consequent heat exchanger (see Appendix 4 for assumptions).

6.3 STAGE 3 POWER GENERATION

The third stage of the process is the power generation subsystem which consists of a gas cycle and a steam cycle.
The gas cycle consists of a combustion chamber (R-201) that combusts the biogas and compressed air to generate
hot flue gases that power a gas turbine (C-202). These hot flue gases are then used to vaporise water into steam to
power a steam turbine (C-203). A number of process optimisations were implemented in this subsystem to increase
efficiency, which maximises the power output of the plant and the amount of heat that can be transferred to the
neighbouring EcoPark.
The first major process optimisation was the use of the combustion chamber as the Heat Recovery Steam Generator
(HRSG). Upon initially running the simulation, the combustion chamber operated at the adiabatic flame temperature
of approximately 2200OC. Whilst this would maximise power output of the gas turbine, it was realised that there are
no practical materials that a combustion chamber could be made out of to consistently and safely withstand
temperatures of 2200OC. MacAdam et al. (n.d.) suggested that 1649OC was the safe operating temperature of an
existing combustion chamber so this value was used. Further literature review suggested that many plants achieve
this lower temperature by running excess air through the chamber which will not react and will absorb the excess
heat. This in turn increases the power output of the gas turbine due to the increased air flow rate. However, this
increase in power output is commensurate with the increase in power input to the compressor to pressurise this
excess air, meaning that this option results in a significant energy penalty to the process. Instead, to utilise this heat
duty (28.92 MW of heat), a cooling jacket (or similar heat transfer system) will be used to cool the reactor to the
desired operating temperature of 1649OC. The cooling jacket will use water from the steam cycle, vaporising it and
providing steam. This option results in a significantly reduced energy penalty as the excess heat duty is simply
transferred from the gas cycle to the steam cycle and will increase the power output of the steam turbine with only
minor increases in power consumption through the pump (D-201).
The next major optimisation was the addition of an extra heat exchanger (E-201) which would provide heat to the
pressurised water exiting the pump (D-201) from the flue gases leaving the first heat exchanger (E-202). This
provides 13.45 MW of heat that was previously not being utilised.
Another process optimisation included a change to the form in which heat was supplied to the EcoPark. Rather than
directly using hot exhaust flue gases for heat transfer to the EcoPark, a two stage heat exchange process was
22 | P a g e

developed to transfer this heat. The heat lost from condensing the exhaust steam from the turbine will be used to
heat 175 kg/s of water up to 71OC. Following this, a heat exchanger (E-204) on the exhaust flue gases will be used to
further heat this water up to 79OC. In total, 43.04MW of heat are supplied to the EcoPark. This is currently in the
form of hot water, however, SWC are flexible and are capable of tailoring a solution based on the needs of the
Brisbane City Council and the EcoPark.
Other minor process improvements included optimising the flow rate of air into the combustion chamber to
maximise the heat duty released by the chamber. The following graph demonstrates that when the air flow rate is
below a critical point, the heat duty is less than the maximum and when the air flow rate is greater than this critical
point, the heat duty is again less than the maximum:

Combustion Chamber Heat Duty vs. Air Flow Rate

33

Heat Duty (MW)

32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Air Flow Rate (kmol/s)

Figure 5 - Heat Duty vs. Flow Rate of Air

This critical value (approximately 0.92 kmol/s) represents the stoichiometric quantity of air required to react
perfectly with all of the methane in the combustion chamber. However, in reality excess air will be required to
ensure that only complete combustion occurs. If any parts of the reactor are starved of oxygen, they will undergo
incomplete combustion which is detrimental as it results in the production of toxic CO and reduces the efficiency of
the process. As such, 10% excess air (1.012 kmol/s) was added based on literature values from (Engineering Toolbox
n.d.).
The following two graphs represent the power generation and power consumption breakdowns respectively for the
plant on a unit basis: Figure 8 compares the power generation to the power consumption for the plant to generate
an overall net power production:

23 | P a g e

Power Generation
Breakdown

Power Consumption
Breakdown
Air Compressor (C-201)

Gas Turbine (C-201)

Steam Turbine (C-202)

Biogas Compressor (C101)

Pump (D-201)

Figure 6: Power Generation Breakdown for the Plant (Total 53.12MW)

Figure 7 - Power Consumption Breakdown for the Plant (Total =21.3MW)

Net Power Production

60

Power (MW)

50
40

Steam Turbine
Gas Turbine

30

Pump

20

Biogas Compressor

10

Air Compressor

0
Generation

Consumption

Net Power
Production

Figure 8 - Net Power Production from the plant (Total = 31.8MW)

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

24 | P a g e

7.0 EXERGY ANALYSIS

7.1 EXERGETIC EFFICIENCIES
Following the completion of process optimisation and the mass and energy balances, an exergy analysis was performed
for each mechanical process unit to quantify their irreversibilities and to determine their exergetic efficiencies. This
would provide us with an understanding of how well each unit was performing in terms of extracting or supplying
energy to the system. Note that chemical exergy was not considered as part of this analysis, so any process unit with
chemical reactions occurring was not considered. The following graph represents both the irreversible work and the
exergetic efficiencies of each relevant process unit:

1.00

12

0.80

10

0.60

8
6

0.40

0.20

0.00

Irreversibility (MW)

Exergetic Efficiency

Figure 9 - Process Unit Exergetic Efficiencies and Irreversibilities

Exergetic
Efficiency
Irreversibilities

As can be seen from the graph, many of the units have significantly different efficiencies, but the overall effect of the
efficiency on the process is negligible as they have relatively small irreversibilities. Most of the units are operating at
relatively high efficiencies, with the flash tank being the exception to this, operating at an extremely low exergetic
efficiency of 6%. This is due to the fact that a flash tank is designed to throttle the process fluid, simultaneously
dropping the pressure and cooling it, which massively reduces its exergy. The gas and steam turbines operate at
efficiencies of 80 and 92% respectively, with a combined irreversibility in excess of 10 MW. This is fairly high but
unfortunately unavoidable. This could only be reduced by purchasing a more efficient gas turbine, which would increase
capital costs and would most likely prove prohibitive.
The HRSG operates at an efficiency of approximately 57%, however, it has a high irreversibility of approximately 10.4
MW. This is for two reasons firstly because the heat being supplied into this heater is extremely large, 28.4 MW, so
any loss of efficiency will result in a large irreversibility and secondly because this heat exchanger involves a phase
change generating steam from water, which massively increases the entropy of that stream, decreasing the exergy
and hence reducing the efficiency of the unit. This also occurs in the condenser, in which the process steam is
condensed to water, resulting in a low efficiency and a high irreversibility.

7.2 THERMAL EFFICIENCY

The thermal efficiency of the plant was also calculated using the heating value of the methane that is combusted.
Methane is capable of releasing approximately 50 MJ/kg when it is combusted (REFERENCE), meaning that heat is being
supplied at almost 74.9 MW. As mentioned earlier, the plant will be generating approximately 31.8 MW of electrical
energy, meaning that we will be achieving 42% for our thermal efficiency.
25 | P a g e
SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

1 =

31.8
=
0.42

74.9

This is quite reasonable for a power plant, although somewhat lower than the typical efficiency of a combined cycle
power plant. When the 42 MW of low grade heat that is being supplied to the EcoPark is taken into account, the
thermal efficiency of the plant is 98%, which is very high.

8.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

2 =

+ (31.8 + 42)
=
0.98

74.9

The sustainability of any processing plant is strongly related to its economic performance. Estimation of a plants
economic performance strongly effects whether or not it is considered a worthwhile investment by stakeholders. It is
important to keep in mind that this waste-to-energy plant will not be implemented with profit in mind; however it must
not run at a negative overall cost which would not be sustainable for rate payers or the council.
Economic performance can be estimated using a variety of different methods; however for this preliminary scoping
stage an order-of-magnitude study was conducted. An error of 30-50% can be expected for the values estimated in
this study, in comparison to the actual economic performance (Towler & Sinnott 2007). This study is a rough estimate,
designed to screen for any issues before moving onto the next phase of project development. This estimate uses similar
plant costing and sizing values to scale to the estimated capacities based on the preliminary mass and energy balances.
It is assumed that construction will start in 2019, and will be completed in 2 years. The plant life is estimated to be
around 20 years, therefore analysis will be carried from 2019 to 2039.
This analysis will include capital cost estimation (Capex), operating cost estimation (Opex), net present value (NPV),
payback period, internal rate of return (IRR) and the levelised cost of energy (LCoE).

8.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCOPE

The scope of the economic analysis does not include the following:

Trommel and Shredder (U-101)

Flare (U-104)
Solid Waste Compacter (U-103)

8.2 FIXED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION

The capital cost was estimated by approximating the cost of equipment, the land cost, contingency, working capital,
start-up expenses, indirect expenses, grid connection costs. The equipment costing was done by using correlation
factors from various literature sources. See Appendix 6 for a table of unit costing details with information on
correlations used. Note that the cost is estimated in different currencies from different years, therefore inflation and
conversion factors must be applied.
The Hands factor (Couper 2003) has been applied to most equipment costs as a simple way to account for delivery,
installation and construction costs. It has not been applied to the anaerobic digester and the gas turbines, as the six
tenths factor scaling method was applied and the reference data used already contained additional costs.

26 | P a g e

A land factor of 1.21 (Towler & Sinnott 2007) was applied to all calculated prices to adjust for the Australian market.

Capital Cost Breakdown

Anaerobic Digester (R-101)
Compressors
Packed Column (V-101)
Flash Drum (U-102)
Pump (D-201)
Heat Exchangers
Combine Cycle
Land
Other expenses
Figure 10: Capital Cost Breakdown

See Figure 10 for a graphical cost breakdown. Total calculated cost is $359 549 000. It is evident that the anaerobic
digester accounts for more than half of the total capital costs of the project. As capacity increases so does the cost of
the anaerobic digester, therefore any increase in the anaerobic digester will have a significant impact on the capital cost.
As expected, other expenses which includes any cost which isnt directly related to equipment or land costs.

8.3 OPERATING COSTS

Operating Cost Breakdown

PC
Purged PC replacement
Utility Water
Labour
Operating Supplies
Supervision
Payroll Charges
Maintenance
Plant indirect expenses

Figure 11: Costs of Operating chart

The overall cost of operation in one year is around $37 million. The key expenses are maintenance, plant indirect costs,
purged PC and PC. A yearly cost that has not been covered is interest, but this will be addressed in the cash flow analysis.
It was assumed that no royalties would be paid on materials, which may have to be revised later in the design
phase.These values are estimated in current economic conditions; however it is likely that the cost of raw materials and
wages will fluctuate with inflation, as well as other factors. It is difficult to predict fluctuations of each factor, which is a
limitation of this estimation. It is however quite simple to predict inflated future prices using the Chemical plant index
(Couper 2003). This is an international standard of chemical engineering, provided by Chemical Engineering2010

27 | P a g e

The following graph was generated by taking past CPI values from Couper 2003 table 4.5, creating a trend and using
those to extrapolate future CPI values. See appendix (6) equation 11 for more detail. The year of the CPI and the year of
each respective price must be the same. The operating costs accounting for inflation can be seen on the following
figure:

$ Millions (AUD)

55

Operating Costs vs. Time

50
45
Operating Costs

40
35
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Years
Figure 12: Operating costs over time with inflation

As expected, there will be a steady increase in operating costs in line with inflation. Although this seems to give a good
indication of what future costs may look like, more complex factors like interest rates and time value of money is
required to examined for the true economic performance of the plant. Before complex analysis can be carried out,
yearly revenue must be considered.

8.4 SALES REVENUE

It is assumed that the plant operates on 3 sources of income sale of electricity to the grid, waste heat sold to the ecopark and charging for collection of processing of MSW. The following table summarises total yearly sales revenue in
2014 AUD.
Table 10: Total Revenue before tax

Sale

Price

Electricity

$43.1/MWh

Hot water to
Ecopark

$0.19/MWh

$73, 000

MSW take on
charge

$100/tonne

$89
Million

Total Sales Revenue

(before Tax)

Annual
Income
$12
Million

$101
Million

Methods

Assumptions

Constant amount of electricity

being sold to the grid, which
may not be the case for some
areas with peaks and falls in
demand.
A constant amount of heat is
being sold to the nearby ecopark for a fixed rate.

Wholesale price is assumed

to be constant, as the
electricity market is very
constant.
Prices
from
Towler & Sinnott 2007.
Hot water tariff from
Towler & Sinnott
2007, where 42 MW
of heat is constantly
produced year round.
Costs which would have Towler & Sinnott 2007.
otherwise gone into placing
the waste into the landfill is
assumed to be now directed
to the plant as revenue.

28 | P a g e

Figure 13: Total Sales Revenue (before tax) fractions

As figure 4 demonstrates, the majority of the plant revenue comes from the charge of taking MSW. This makes the plant
economically feasible, however it is important to consider that this charge could be venerable to variation depending on
policies by the local and state governments.

8.5 NET PRESENT VALUE

Several economic analysis tools are available to quantitatively indicate whether a proposed plant will be profitable. Net
present value (NPV) is one of these tools, and amongst the most powerful, and most commonly used by companies. The
net present value is the estimated value (in todays dollars) of the project over its lifetime, taking interest and time value
of money into account and is therefore discounted. To find the NPV of a project, first the cash flow after tax and the
interest rate must be determined. The corporate tax rate is taken to be 34% of yearly gross profits (Couper 2003).
Interest rate was assumed to be a long term fixed rate of 4.65%. It is expected that interest rates for local councils will
be favourable, as infrastructure such as this project is expected to benefit the entire community (Towler & Sinnott 2007).
Depreciation for cash flow was calculated linearly, simply by dividing the fixed capital cost by the lifetime of the plant
(Towler & Sinnott 2007).
The cash flow after tax is simply the gross earning of any one-year after taxes and depreciation, which may be negative
before the project breaks even with its capital investment.
Figure 14: Cumulative Cash Flow over Plant life

29 | P a g e

The cumulative cash flow rate is represented in figure 4. The Payback Period may be estimated graphically, which
indicates payback from 10-11 years after the project is implemented. The faster the payback, the better for the
company. The NPV was calculated using equation 12 in appendix 6.
The calculated NPV for the base proposal was around $194.9 million, which is a feasible scenario; as a negative NPV
indicates that the investment will never make any return (Towler & Sinnott 2007). Using the NPV, the internal rate of
return (IRR) and the Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return can be calculated.

8.6 IRR AND DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW RATE OF RETURN

IRR and Discounted Cash Flow After tax (DCFROR) are two different names for the same thing. Both refer to the
maximum possible interest rate that could be paid on the project, by setting the NPV to zero. If the NPV is zero the
project will not make a loss, or a gain. The NPV is calculated by setting equation 10 to equal zero, then using goal seek in
excel to approximate the IRR value. The IRR value obtained for this project was 9%, which is under the 12% hurdle rate
set by companies when weighing up the risks of investment (Towler & Sinnott 2007). However as the NPV is not running
negative, for this project IRR of 9% is deemed acceptable.

8.7 LEVELISED COST OF ELECTRICITY

This analysis tool is a method specific to the energy market, and therefore will indicate whether the project is a
competitive option for power generation. The levelised cost of energy (LCoE) is simply the total energy produced over
the lifetime of the plant divided by the total cost of the plant over the lifetime. This can be expressed as (Smart 2014):
=

--- (13)

Where the capacity of the plant is the total amount of time the plant runs, which is taken at 0.85 for the calculations.
The calculated LCoE for this project is 24.7 c/kWh. A literature value for a similar combined cycle natural gas combustion
system was found to be 7.5c/kWh (Towler & Sinnott 2007). This result leads to the conclusion that the proposed wasteto-energy plant is not an economically feasible option for energy production alone. However because the plant will
serve as a waste mitigation process, this poor LCoE result does not make the proposed plant unfeasible.

8.8 SCENARIOS AND SENSITIVITIES

So far the economic analysis has only provided results for a base case, with a fixed price of waste and a fixed system
power output. In order to verify how robust the economics of this plant is, a few scenarios will be explored.
1. Varying prices of MSW taking charge, as given values from Towler & Sinnott 2007 gave a range from $72-$140/tonne
of MSW.
2. Varying electricity production, from 10% of the current fixed rate.
3. A case with no Absorption column present.

CASE 1: VARYING PRICE OF MSW

30 | P a g e

Since so much of the revenue is dependent on the $100/tonne charge on taking the MSW, it is important to consider

Figure 15: Cumulative Cash Flow Diagram Case 1

the entire range of costs, which may be used if and when the plant is implemented. The cost of waste was varied from
$70 to $140 in increments of $10, and the resulting NPV, Cumulative Cash flow and IRR values are as follows: As
predicted, the higher the amount charged, the higher the cumulative cash flow is. This diagram shows that the model is
quite robust, as even at $70/tonne MSW, a profit is made. The NVP and IRR values showed the same trend, the higher
the charge, the better the economics:

Table 11: MSW Variation NVP IRR values

MSW
($/tonne)
NVP
($
AUD,
2014)
IRR

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

-19
Million

52
Million

123
Million

195
Million

266
Million

337
Million

409
Million

480
Million

3.3%

5.4%

7.4%

9%

10.8%

12.4%

14%

15.5%

It is key to note that the NVP for $70/tonne is negative, meaning that this investment is not economically feasible. This
suggests that if the charge goes too far below $80/tonne, the plant will no longer be profitable. This also suggests that
the economics are quite sensitive to the charge on the MSW.

CASE 2: VARYING ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION

31 | P a g e

Cumulative Cash Flow (After Tax)

600

$ Millions (AUD, 2014)

400
200
28.6MW

0
0

10

15

20

31.8MW
35MW

-200
-400
-600

Plant Life (years)

Figure 16: Cumulative Cash Flow Case 2

This diagram shows very little difference between different values of electrical production. This is because revenue from
selling electricity to the grid is a very small part of the income of the plant; therefore minor changes will not affect the
overall cash flow.
CASE 3: NO ABSORPTION COLUMN
During the economic analysis it was noted that the PC purchase and disposal was a significant percentage of the annual
operating cost. It was noted that since such a high quality natural gas is being produced from the anaerobic digester, gas
sweetening was not required for the downstream integrated gas and steam turbine cycle. A simulation within Aspen
Plus showed that the power output was within 10% of the base case power output.
In order to determine the economic saving through removing this section, the absorption and associated units (biogas
compressor, PC Heat exchanger and flash drum) were removed from capital costs, and PC purchase and disposal were
removed from the operating costs. Figure 8 demonstrates that by optimising the process with no absorption achieves an
increased profit towards the end of the plants life.

32 | P a g e

Figure 17: Comparative Cash Flow Diagram

Table 12: Comparative results with no absorber section

Analysis Method

No Absorber

Literature Values

Net Present Value $198 Million

(NPV)

$268 Million

Should be greater than or

equal to 0

Payback Period

9.5 years

11%

12% hurdle value

19c/kWh

7.5c/kWh

Internal Rate
Return (IRR)

Original

10.5 years
of 9%

Levelised Cost of 24c/kWh

Energy

In line with the cumulative cash flow diagram, the results show an improvement in overall economic performance.
However the IRR and LCoE values still do not compare with literature values. Another issue that may come up is the
composition of the natural gas produced in the anaerobic digester. If the quality is decreased, gas sweetening will be
necessary and therefore with optimisation option would be out of the question.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the calculations within the economic analysis, it is recommended that the project can be approved to progress
to the next more detailed design phase. This project is economically feasible, however it is not a competitive option as a
power plant, and the revenue should be considered an extra rather than an investment. It is recommended that for the
next phase, more rigorous sizing and costing are used, to decrease the error. Obtaining closed-source historical plant
data would allow for increased precision. Further sensitivity analysis should also be carried out, on a larger number of
parameters such as biogas quality, and ability for increased waste capacity in the anaerobic digester in scenario of
population increase.

33 | P a g e

9.0 SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DRIVERS

The waste to energy project could be judged a success if it achieves a clear set objectives. There are a number of
stakeholder perspectives that can be used to evaluate the project; they are complex and dynamic this early in the design.
Therefore the objectives evaluated in this section may need to be updated through stakeholder consultation during the
life of the project.

9.1 A METRICS BASED APPROACH

The social and political drivers can be assessed using a defined set of metrics. There is a variety of ways to apply a
metrics approach. The Business Process Engineering website defines the SMART approach to metrics management (see
Figure 12). It is a simple tool but if applied appropriately produces results that can help convert the waste energy
project into an actionable plan for results, with clearly defined objectives (Zahorsky 2014).

Figure 18 SMART criterion to set objectives (Riley 2010)

9.2 DISCUSSION OF STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

9.2.1 THE BRISBANE COMMUNITY
The level of support for the technologies chosen will be an important indication of whether the process will be
supported. A survey of the Brisbane region would help assess the level of support the process would have and keep the
community informed about developments in waste management. A similar survey was conducted for councils in
Western Australia in 20091.
When considering process location the survey found the most popular site was the site of an already established waste
processing facility. This site was even more popular than another that was adjacent to industrial processes that could
supply excess heat. However respondents said they would reconsider if the site showed significant benefits compared
to the preferred site. This provides a positive view for the BCC as there could be room to work on community attitudes
to the location so waste heat can be harnessed by situating the plant by the neighbouring EcoPark. When respondents
were asked about solutions to improve the environmental performance in waste management they focused exclusively
on improvements in recycling and education of households about waste minimisation. This suggests that there needs to
be a paradigm shift in community views better recognising that waste processing and resource recovery as an important
means by which the environmental impact can be minimised (Market Research 2009).The study also conducted surveys
of specific technologies and found a high level of support for anaerobic digestion (see Table 12). The survey also found
that the community would go for less efficient process if it had added safety benefits.
1

849 participants across the six councils which provided a theoretical sample error of 3.5% at
the 95% confidence level

34 | P a g e

Figure 19 - community support for different waste processing technologies (Market Research 2009)

Technology
Level of support
Anaerobic Digestion
64%
Gasification
59%
Pyrolysis
55%
Combustion
35%
The survey group specifically highlighted the need for ongoing communication and engagement, this will be especially
important as this project would be working on a larger scale than the one surveyed. The results of this survey also agree
with similar surveys, for example a survey in 2000 into the Hunter region (Hunter Valley Research Foundation 2000). In
summary it found that important objectives for any technology were:
Safety for the community,
Minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions,
Construction and ongoing operation at minimal cost to ratepayers,
Effectiveness in reducing volumes going to landfill (Market Research 2009).
9.2.2 FERTILISER INDUSTRY
The overall reduction in waste sent to landfills presents an opportunity to generate fertiliser by remediating the
digestate purged. The fertiliser can be used to protect soils against erosion, inhibit plant disease and promote the
growth of crops (Ryan 2010). However, the compost would emit carbon dioxide so further offsetting of this carbon will
be needed to achieve zero net emissions.

Figure 20 Aerobic compost from anaerobic digestate

9.2.3 THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

The council has taken waste management quite seriously. It has a zero waste goal. It recognises like the survey in WA
that there needs to be a significant behavioural shift within the community (Brisbane City Council 2009). It has set a
number of goals in the short to medium term (see Table 13).
Table 13 Brisbane City Council goals for waste reduction

Indicator
1. Total domestic waste to
landfill
2. Total domestic waste
recycled/recovered
3. Recycled from the domestic
waste stream
4. Green waste
recycled/recovered
5. Recyclables in the general
waste bin (domestic)

Actual 2008
Statistics
380 000t
75%
128 000t
25%
75 000t
47 000t
32%

Target

Goal 2013

Goal 2020

Goal 2026

Initially reduce
by 4%
Increase by 4%

55%

27%

10%

45%

73%

90%

Initially increase
by 6%
-

100 000t

150 000t

200 000t

100 000t

150 000t

200 000t

20%

8%

5%

Reduce by 2%

35 | P a g e

This process will contribute to goals for indicators 1, 2 and 4 in particular. The councils efforts in waste management
seem to focus on reducing, reusing and recycling waste given material available on its website. This is justified as
national reports showed that Queenslands MSW resource recovery rate was 48%, 3% below the Australian average
(Brisbane City Council 2014). Additionally, this focus follows the hierarchy in waste management options with the
council prioritising the higher tiers (see Figure 16).

Council focus

Proposed process

Figure 21 Waste management pyramid

9.2.4 THE STATE GOVERNMENT & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The state government has tried to waste management by legislating the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011.
Following the act the Queensland government drafted Queenslands Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy which
highlights that recovering organic waste a high priority in waste management. This is especially important because
Queensland has Australias third lowest resource recovery rate at around 52%, which 8% below the national average.
This is likely a result of different factors including:
The absence of a landfill levy (except for a six-month period in 2011/12)
Less developed resource recovery infrastructure (Queensland Government 2010).
Queensland currently does not have landfill levy. There is a proposal in Queenslands waste reduction strategy report to
introduce a levy. Its strategy states that $120million (within first 4years) of the levy surplus will be dedicated to local
governments to better focus on waste management (Queensland Government 2010).
The implementation of infrastructure will be very important, particularly with electricity. For example, the biogas from
the Swannbank landfill in Brisbane currently produces more electricity from biogas than the power infrastructure can
accept. There is also the potential to supply extra biogas to the EcoPark, but there may be a limit that will adequately
meet their needs (Queensland Government 2010). The Federal and Queensland reports in waste management released
in 2011 outline similar goals in targets for resource recovery. Table 16 outlines the state governments goals in this area.
Table 14 Queensland targets and milestones in waste processing (Queensland Government 2010)

Target
1. Reduce waste disposal to
landfill
4. Increase recycling of
regulated waste
5. Increase recycling of
MSW Increase recycling of
household waste to
150 kg person-1 year-1
6. Reduce generation of
waste

2008 baseline

By 2014

By 2017

By 2020

- no strategy

Reduce by 25%

Reduce by 40%

Reduce by 50%

30%

35%

40%

45%

23%
64 kg person-1
year-1

50%
80 kg person-1 year-

20%
100 kg person-1
year-1

60%
150 kg person-1
year-1

2.4 tonnes
person-1 year-1

5% reduction
2.3t person-1 year-1

10% reduction
2.2t person-1 year-1

15% reduction
2.0t person-1 year-1

36 | P a g e

9.3 SMART METRICS FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

Table 15 summarising the stakeholder opinions using SMART (the descriptions are inferred from discussion in section 1.1)

SMART
SPECIFIC

DESCRIPTION
The Brisbane Community: for governments to implement a solution that is safe, minimises greenhouse gas emissions, minimises cost to ratepayers, reduces the volume of material landfilled and using a technology
that has successful applications elsewhere in the world. They also would like to be informed about developments in this area. Ultimate goal of zero waste.
Fertiliser Industry: for governments to recognise the value and pressure on the industry and as a result receive the aerobic compost at minimal cost
Environmental Groups: for governments and individuals to invest in technology that minimises greenhouse gases, damage to the soil and air quality. The waste management pyramid would be a good way to design
waste management techniques.
The Brisbane City Council: to reduce the amount of material landfilled, increase recycling/recovery of domestic and green waste and reduce recyclables in general waste. It overall has a zero waste goal (agrees with
waste pyramid) and wants a significant behavioural shift within the community.

MEASURE

The State Government & Federal Government: promote waste avoidance and reduction, reduce consumption of natural resources, ensure shared responsibility between governments, and implement national
frameworks into waste management.
The Brisbane Community: in community complaints when process is operational, zero net emissions is met, reduction in landfilled waste has reduced costs to the council to deal with waste, using media platforms
(internet, brochures etc.) to keep the community informed with a survey to check community views in Brisbane.
Fertiliser Industry: measure the amount, quality and cost to businesses using the fertiliser
Environmental Groups: zero net emissions is met, investigation into several technologies, ongoing studies into soil and air quality and meeting waste reduction measures from any level of government
The Brisbane City Council: see Table 13 for indicators

ACHIEVABLE
&
REALISTIC

The State Government & Federal Government: see Table 15 for indicators
The Brisbane Community: these goals seem reasonable and fit within the framework of the process. It is important to consider that WA survey regarded safety as more important than efficiency.
Fertiliser Industry: require research and development into the digestate composition to assess the expected quality/quantity of fertiliser
Environmental Groups : these goals seem reasonable and surveys into soil/air quality will be needed as well as a plan during design to minimise impacts
The Brisbane City Council: zero net generation while an enviable goal is unlikely to achievable and as such the council has not set any timed constraints on this goal. Other specific goals are reasonable and this
project will help contribute to achieving them.

TIMED

The State Government & Federal Government: similar to BBC, it has already begun implementing national frameworks which align very similarly with state government legislation.
The Brisbane Community: throughout design and plant life. Survey community before detailed design.
Fertiliser Industry: should be delivered during plant operation, dependent on aerobic composting time
Environmental Groups: ongoing monitoring with HSE & risk assessment studies during design phase
The Brisbane City Council: see Table 13 for indicators
The State Government & Federal Government: see Table 15 for indicators

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

37 | P a g e

10.0 LIMITATIONS TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SWC has designed an anaerobic digestion system to utilize the green waste of the Brisbane city council to generate
electricity; however as with most processes there are advantages and limitations to compliance with sustainable
development.

10.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic Development can be viewed as improving the economic wellbeing of the community, wealth of the
country and quality of life by building the areas capacity to adapt to economic change (Loveridge and Morse 2014).
SWC assists in economic development, as the digestion process will create jobs for the economy (Synergy 2014).
Others factors which promote economic development is the increase in energy security through SWC Anaerobic
Digestion process. As the process produces 31MW, this will assist in securing Brisbanes energy demand, resulting in
less dependence on oil supply. This will help the economy as Australia is a coal exporter, as there is a potential to
increase the volume of coal exported, as the nations demand will be less (Australian Coal Association 2014).
A deeper investigation by Goodbody Economic Consultants indicated that the key economic factors for promoting
sustainable development are investment in physical capital and human capital. Human capital is essentially the stock
of competencies (Goodbody Economics Consultants 2014).
Another factor to be considered to promote economic development is integration with social progress and
environmental responsibility. For example, the increase in coal exported would have a positive effect on the
economy; however it could lead to promoting global warming. The interrelations between all the three pillars are
required to achieve sustainable development.

10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Internationally, global warming is recognized as a major issue. A limitation of our process is that indirectly it can
promote global warming. For example by increasing the volume of coal available for export, SWC potentially assist
with global warming. However after analysis, SWC has concluded that as Australia generally provides clean black coal,
it is preferred that other countries imported coal is received from Australia rather than elsewhere, as this will help
the Australia economy and also the environment. Companies will find methods to supply themselves with coal. In
the case Australia does not supply coal, the companies will find other coal suppliers, which may be brown coal. This
brown coal will contribute to global warming more than black coal. Therefore the exporting of black coal can be
justified.
The construction of this plant could affect biodiversity of the area. As the construction of the plant will require
deforestation of some areas, the natural habitats of fauna may be affected.

10.3 SOCIAL PROGRESS

Social Progress can be defined as the aggregate improvement in quality of life for the population. This indicates that
income and health status need to improve. Social progress and economic development are closely related. The
overall population of Queensland is showing a constantly increasing trend (as shown in figure 19, which assumes a
2% population growth per year) which illustrates that waste to be received at SWCs site will still increase even with
recycling increasing, as there is a direct proportionality between waste and population.
Other social factors which need to be considered are the effects of this process on energy supply and demand. As
the demand for electricity is constantly changing, the process is required to accommodate respectively. The process
developed intends to produce a portion of the energy required by Brisbane. Therefore it can be used to offset and
SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

38 | P a g e

reduce the demand on other energy producers in areas around Brisbane or a more favourable option of reducing
electricity costs. However it is unlikely that electricity prices will change, as the price of electricity has shown a trend
of increasing over time, as seen in figure 14 developed by the Australia Energy Commission.

Figure 22: Electricity rate prediction as at 2011, using data from previous years (Australia Energy Market Commission
2011)

In recent years the solar industry had seen a significant rise as the Australia Government agreed to contract 44c per
kWh to many households across Australia (Free Solar Pty Ltd 2014). Recent changes in the government has led to
abolishment of any new 44c per kWh contract and reducing to 8c per kWh (soon to be removed also), which had
resulted in a decrease in solar panel installations in households. This limitation for the solar industry provides an
optimistic potential for anaerobic digestion.

11.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

39 | P a g e

The report presented an anaerobic digestion process to generate biogas. The gas was upgraded using physical
absorption with PC, and then subsequently combusted to generate heat for a steam-gas heat generation cycle. The
net power from the plant generated 31.8MW. This was an improvement from previous results due improved heat
recovery. The EcoPark will be supplied with 43MW of low grade heat in the form of 79oC water. The process is
producing 155 000 t CO2 a year which will be offset by purchasing carbon offsets swine waste to energy plants that
costs $1.2million. If the no absorber scenario is used the NPV of $268 million with a lifetime of 20years. The internal
rate of return 9%, which was lower than the hurdle literature value. The levelised cost of energy is 24.7c per kWh
which is more expensive than standard power plants. Therefore though the plant is economically feasible, it should
be considered more of a waste management process than a power plant.
The public perception for anaerobic digestion is quite high therefore with community engagement the public could
support the proposed process. There is scope for further investigation to get more accurate results for mass and
energy calculations as well as evaluations for sustainability.
Recommendations

Investigate sizing trommels, filters shredders. Also investigate whether an evaporator would also be needed.
Conduct exergy on chemical units to better understand efficiencies in the design
Further consideration into methods of disposing of excess PC from absorber. More importantly, revisiting the
alternative technology section to look at other ways of upgrading methane content of biogas as a physical
absorption process proved to be uneconomical given the high quality of biogas going into the absorber.
Look at building a pilot plant to investigate values approximated in this report.
Consider investigating more exergetic efficient turbine designs against the increased capital costs.
Conduct full HSE studies into occupational health and safety issues/environmental issues to identify
opportunities to improve our plant sustainability.
Legislative frameworks in this area are dynamic (e.g. carbon credits) so this will need to be incorporated into the
results of this report.
Update the sustainability metrics as better data is available throughout the design of the project.
Look into the design of multiple anaerobic digesters in series to better model the real design of the process.
Further investigation into the start-up and shut-down procedures for the anaerobic digester will be required.
Investigate the use of different equations of state to reduce the error in the Aspen model.
ASPEN Plus was not capable of performing supercritical steam calculations when heat exchangers are used,
meaning that subcritical (220 bar) steam had to be used in the simulation despite the fact that supercritical
power plants are more efficient. Further investigation into models using supercritical steam could lead to better
design
The thermal efficiency of the plant was quite high (98%) this was importantly because it was assumed that the
stream supplied to the EcoPark was fully utilised. The validity of this should be checked as it will affect the
overall plant efficiency
Conducting a survey into the Brisbane community to better understand their views on waste processing and
their ideas about possible solutions will be important to meet community standards.
Consulting widely with stakeholders (fertiliser industry and green groups) will also be needed to ensure that byproducts (fertiliser) can be effectively utilised and whether the reports views on sustainability in regard to the
environment are accurate.

REFERENCES

40 | P a g e

Abdullahi, Y.A., Akunna, J.C. & Stewart, N.A. 2007, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid wastes containing variable
proportions of waste types, Water Science & Technology, vol 56, pp 143-149
Ahring, B & Hartmann, H 2006, Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste: an overview, Water Science & Technology, vol 53, pp 7-2
Air Gas Methane MSDS 2013, Composition, Information on Ingredients, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/001033.pdf>
Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural Development 2004, Methane Safety, viewed March 17 2014,
<http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9038/$file/729-2.pdf?OpenElement>
American Biogas Council 2014, Biogas to Bio-methane/Renewable Natural Gas, viewed March 21 2014,
<https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_processing.asp>
Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Wastes at the city of Kaiserslautern n.d., Technical Description, viewed May 15
2014, <http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy /doc/anaerobic/07bm_073_1993.pdf>.
Andersson, KJ and Nielsen, PEH, 2012, Options in tar reforming in biomass gasification, HaldorTopsoe viewed 20
March 2014, <http://www.gasification-freiberg.org/PortalData/1/Resources/documents/paper/ifc_2012/12-1.pdf>
AspenTech 2010, Physical Property Methods, viewed June 2 2014,
<http://www.chemeng.lth.se/ket050/Arkiv/AspenPhysPropMethodsV7_2-Ref.pdf>
Australia Energy Market Commission 2011, Possible Future Retain Electricity Price movements viewed 1 June 2014,
<http://www.aemc.gov.au/market-reviews/completed/possible-future-retail-electricity-price-movements-1-july2011-to-30-june-2014.html>
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002, Solid Waste Generated in Australia, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyReleaseDate/3B0DD93AB123A68BCA257234007B6A2F
?OpenDocument>
Australian Coal Association 2014, Coal Exports, viewed 30 May 2014 <http://www.newgencoal.com.au/coal-aenergy-security/coal-exports.html>
BCS Incorporated 2008, Waste Heat Recovery Technology and Opportunities in U.S. Industry, Department of Energy,
viewed 23 March 2014,
<https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/intensiveprocesses/pdfs/waste_heat_recovery.pdf>
Beardmore, R 2013, Thermodynamics Steam Turbine, Roymech, viewed 23March 2014,
<http://www.roymech.co.uk/Related/Thermos/Thermos_Steam_Turbine.html>
Biarnes, M 2013, Biomass to Biogas Anaerobic Digestion, E-Instruments, viewed 23 March 2014, <http://www.einst.com/biomass-to-biogas/>
Bloch, M 2014, Carbon dioxide emissions calculator, viewed 20 March 2014, <http://www.carbonify.com/carboncalculator.htm>
Bolzonella, D &Pavan, P 2005, Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge:influence of the solid
retention time in the wastewatertreatment process, Water Science & Technology, vol 40, pp 1453 1460.
Bolzonella, D, & Cecchi, F & Pavan, P 2006, Dry anaerobic digestion of differently sorted organic municipal solid
waste: a full-scale experience, Water Science & Technology, vol 53, pp 23-32
41 | P a g e

Brisbane City Council 2009, Brisbane City Council Waste Minimisation Strategy 2009-2026, viewed May 12 2014,
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites /default/files/Towards_zero_waste_strategy.pdf>.
Brisbane City Council 2014, Brisbane City Council goals in recycling and reusing, viewed May 28 2014,
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/contact-council/your-say>.
Budge, T, Butt, A & Alan, P 2007, 'Opportunities, Implications and Strategies for Achieving Zero Net Emissions',
Sustainability Victoria and the Central Victorian Greenhouse Alliance, viewed 14 March
2014,<http://www.cvga.net.au/main/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=12&Itemid=72 >
Chaibakhsh, A &Ghaffari, A 2008, Steam Turbine Model, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol 16, pp 11451162.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012, State of Waste and Recycling in Queensland, viewed
March 25 2014, <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/pdf/state-of-waste-recycling-report.pdf>.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2013, State of Waste & Recycling in Queensland, viewed March
19 2014, <https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/pdf/state-of-waste-recycling-report2013.pdf>
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council 2007, EMRC Resource Recovery Facility, viewed 1 June 2014
<http://www.emrc.org.au/Documents/8020/download/333/EMRC-Resource-Recovery-Facility-Waste-CompositionStudy-Nolan-ITU-2003.pdf>
Engineering Toolbox n.d., Combustion Efficiency and Excess Air, viewed 18 May 2014,
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiler-combustion-efficiency-d_271.html>
Environmental Change Institute n.d., Waste and landfill, viewed 13 March 2014,
<http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter05.pdf>
Environmental Protection Agency n.d. Clean Energy & Climate Change - Waste Management, viewed 14 March 2014,
<http://www.epa.gov/region9/climatechange/waste.html>
Facility, 12th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, Savannah, Georgia, USA, pp. 41-46.
Feng, L 2013, MAE431 Energy Systems Presentation, PowerPoint slides, University of Buffalo, New York.
Freguia, S 2013, CHEE4012 Module 3: Biological Treatment Processes, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland,
Brisbane.
Funk, K, Milford, J & Simpkons, T 2013, 'Waste Not, Want Not: Analyzing the economic and Envrionemntal Viability
of Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Technology for Site-Specific Optimization of Renewable Energy Options', Joint Institute for
Strategic Energy Analysis, viewed 14 March 2014, <http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52829.pdf>
GE Power Systems n.d., Steam Cycle Optimisation, Evaluation, and Performance Testing Considerations, viewed 6th
June 2014
Goodbody Economics Consultants 2001, Sustainability of Development, viewed 30 May 2014
<http://www.forfas.ie/media/ncc010501b_sustainability_of_development.pdf>
Grundfos 2014, Heat Rejection, viewed 23rd March 2014, <http://au.grundfos.com/service-support/encyclopediasearch/heat-rejection.html>
Hanson, J, Edil, T.B. & Yesiller, N 2000, Thermal Properties of High Water Materials, viewed May 12 2014,
<http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=cenv_fac>.
42 | P a g e

Hunter Valley Research Foundation 2000, Hunter Region Waste Project Community Attitudes Survey, viewed May 13
2014,
<http://www.lakemac.com.au/downloads/Hunter%20Region%20Waste%20Project%20Community%20Attitudes%20
Survey%20-%20November%202000.PDF>
Industrial Health and Safety Information 2012, Gas Flammability Limit, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.sensidynegasdetection.com/gasinsite-gas-detection-blog/what-is-a-gas-flammability-limit.html>
Jayarama, RP 2011, Municipal solid waste management: processing, energy recovery, global examples, CRC Press,
Leiden.
Khouzam, K 1995, Feasibility Study of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, viewed May 13 2014,
<http://solar.org.au/papers/97papers/046KHOUZ.pdf>.
Loveridge, S & Morse L 1996, Is It For Our Community? viewed 30 May 2014
<http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/business-retention/about/docs/1ISITFOR.pdf>
Market Research 2009, Community Attitudes Towards Resource Recovery Technologies, viewed May 15 2014,
<http://www.emrc.org.au/resources.html>.
Monnet F, 2003, Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste, viewed March 20 2014,
<http://www.biogasmax.co.uk/media/introanaerobicdigestion__073323000_1011_24042007.pdf>
Motuzas, J, 2014, Energy systems and Sustainable Development: Gasification and Combustion, PowerPoint slides,
University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration 2014, Standards Limit and Control Noise Exposure, viewed March 20
2014 <https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/standards.html >
Office of Fossil Energy 2014, How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work, viewed 23 March 2014,
<http://energy.gov/fe/how-gas-turbine-power-plants-work>
Queensland Government 2010, Queenslands Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy 2010-2020, viewed May 17
2014,
<http://rti.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2010/nov/qld%20waste%20reduction%20strategy/Attachments/wastestrategy.pdf>.
Queensland Government 2011, Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011,
<https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WasteRedRecA11.pdf>
Randell Environmental Consulting 2014, Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia, viewed 27 May 2014,
<http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4b666638-1103-490e-bdef480581a38d93/files/wgrra.pdf>.
Rao, MS and Singh, SP, 2003, Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic studies and gas yield
organic loading relationships for process optimization, Bioresource Technology, vol. 95, pp. 173-185.
Riley, J 2010, Explain the role of marketing objectives, viewed May 28 2014,
<http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/business-studies/comments/qa-explain-the-role-of-marketing-objectives>.
Rodrigue, JP 2013, The Geography of Transport Systems, 3rdedn, Routledge, London
Rogoff, MJ and Screve, F, 2011,Waste-to-EnergyTechnologies and Project Implementation, 2ndedn, Elsevier.
43 | P a g e

Ryan, T 2010, The Australian fertiliser industry values and issues, viewed March 25 2014,
<http://www.fertilizer.org.au/files/pdf/publications/Australian%20Fertilizer%20Industry%20Value%20and%20Issues
%20August%202010.pdf>.
Safe Work Australia 2013, Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants, viewed March 20 2014,
<http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/772/Workplace-exposurestandards-airborne-contaminants.pdf>
Shabat, D, 2004, Closure of the City of Key West, Southernmost Waste to Energy
Shatil, AA 2006, Design Study of Boiler Furnaces, Power Technology and Engineering, vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 179-184.
Simone, C, Grande, C & Rodrigues, A 2006, Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Natural Gas by Vacuum Pressure,
Energy & Fuels, vol 40, pp 2648-2659
Sinnot, R.K, Coulson & Richardsons Chemical Engineering 2002, Volume 6 (Design), Pergamon Press, Oxford UK
Skrtic, L 2006, 'Hydrogen Sulfide, Oil and Gas, and People's Health', Energy and Resources Group, viewed 14 March
2014, < http://erg.berkeley.edu/people/Lana%20Skrtic%20-%20Masters%20Paper%20H2S%20and%20Health.pdf >
Stern, DI & Common, MS 1996, Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets
Curve and Sustainable Development, World Development, vol. 24, no.1, viewed 30 May 2014, pp.1151-1150.
Synergy 2014, The Important of Sustainable Energy, viewed 30 May 2014,
<http://generation.synergy.net.au/sustainable-energy/importance-sustainable-energy>
Synergy 2014, What is Sustainable Energy? viewed 30 May 2014, <http://generation.synergy.net.au/sustainableenergy/what-sustainable-energy/overview>
Toolboxes n.d., Hazards associated with plant steam services, viewed 13 March 2014,
<http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/demosites/series2/204v2/PROC204/PROC204-020301HazardsSteamServices.htm>
United Nations Economic and Social Affairs 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environmental and
Development, viewed 30 May 2014, < http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm>
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2010, United States Anaerobic Digester: Status Report, viewed 31
May 2014 <http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/digester_status_ report2010.pdf>
Verma, S, 2012, Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes, Department of Earth &
Environmental Engineering, Columbia University.
Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council 2009, Anaerobic Digestion Process, viewed 23 March 2014,
<http://www.wtert.eu/default.asp?Menue=13&ShowDok=12>
Wekgroepterlinden n.d., Biogas Problems, viewed 11 March 2014, http://werkgroepterlinden.be/Biogas.html
World Youth Alliance 2010, Statement on Sustainable Development, viewed 30 May 2014, <
http://www.wya.net/SustainableDevelopmentStatement.pdf>
Young GC,2010, Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable
Comparisons, Wiley, NJ, US.

44 | P a g e

Zahorsky, D 2014, The 5 Steps to Setting SMART Business Goals, viewed May 26 2014,
<http://sbinformation.about.com/od/businessmanagemen1/a/businessgoals.htm>.

45 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1: TABLE OF SAFETY/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH RISK PREVENTION/MINIMISATION ACTIONS

Health and Safety/
Environmental Issue
Municipal waste

Risks

Biogas

Steam

Waste stream/Solid
waste

Safety Levels/Indicators

Exposure to toxic components present in

waste leading to negative health impacts
Health impacts due to toxic components
present in waste

Exposure to employees and possible

fire/explosion if biogas is ignited
Emissions and leaks from plant causing
greenhouse gas to be released

Risk Prevention/Minimization

Methane
TLV- TWA =
-1000ppm (8 hours)
-50000-150000ppm
(potentially
explosive)
- 500 000ppm (asphyxiation)
(Air Gas Methane MSDS, 2013)
(Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural
Development, 2004)
LFLUFL = 5-17% (biogas by
volume)
(Industrial Health and Safety
Information, 2012)
Carbon Dioxide
TLV-TWA = 5000ppm (8hours)

LFL-UFL = N/A
IDLH = 40 000ppm
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)

At high pressures and temperatures, poses

heat and high pressure hazards
Danger to employees if there are steam
leaks
Rupture in equipment
The three end-products that are typically
present when anaerobically digesting
municipal waste is solid residue, acidogenic

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)

Regular maintenance to equipment
Standardized health and safety procedures
Appropriate training in handling, operating around
municipal waste
Heating MSW feed waste to destroy pathogens
Material safety data sheet (MSDS) on-site and available
All risk prevention/minimization as mentioned in
municipal waste
During routine cleaning/repairing of biogas digesters,
ensure no open flames are present
Regular inspections around entire system for leaks
Sufficient ventilation around gas lines

All risk prevention/minimization as mentioned in

municipal waste

All risk prevention/minimization as mentioned in

municipal waste
Analysis of methanogenic digestate to ensure suitability

46 | P a g e

Flue gas

General noise/odour
from operational
processes

digestate and methanogenic digestate

(Jayarama 2011)
Methanogenic digestate is rich in nutrients
and can be utilized as fertilizer, but there can
be toxic elements and dangerous levels of it
depending on the composition of municipal
waste coming in
Unacceptable levels of H2S in flue gas
according to Department of Environment
and Resource Management (DERM)
standards
H2S is an irritant and asphyxiant to humans
(exposed mucous membranes and organs
with high oxygen demand at risk) (Skrtic
2006)

Operation of turbines and other units can

damage hearing of employees
Breathing in odour from municipal waste
and H2S present in biogas can be harmful
Persistent odours could potentially be a
social issue for neighbours living in close
proximity to the plant. Mitigation of these
odours is essential to continuous plant
operation

Hydrogen Sulphide
IDLH = 100ppm
LFL-UFL = 4.3-48% (by volume)
TLV-TWA = 10ppm
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)
Ammonia
IDLH = 300ppm
TLV-TWA = 25ppm (8hours)
LFL-UFL = 15-28% (by volume)
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)
TLV = 85dBA (8hours)
= 139dBA (0.11seconds)
Maximum Allowable = 140dB
(Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, 2014)

as fertilizer
Training for transport and handling of wastes

All risk prevention/minimization as mentioned in

municipal waste
Physical absorption to remove all traces of H2S
Proper and controlled release of flue gas, levels of H2S
checked

All risk prevention/minimization as mentioned in

municipal waste
Ensuring earplugs are worn and only taken off in safetested places around the plant

47 | P a g e

APPENDIX 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Table 16: Waste technology sustainability table (Chirico 2010)

Waste Technology

Futurity

Equity

Public
Participation

Environment

Economic

Total

Traditional Waste
Technologies
Landfill
Recycling
Composting
Incineration

1
2
3
1

1
2
3
1

1
3
3
1

1
2
3
1

3
3
3
2

7
12
15
7

2
2

3
3

2
2

3
3

2
2

12
12

12

Advanced Waste
Technologies
Landfill Gas-toEnergy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion

Table 17: Landfill Gas-to-Energy qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)

Technology

Landfill
Energy

Principle
Futurity

Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting

Equity

Impact on visual, odour, noise, traffic, Med

public health, property value, stigma by
nearby community

Gas-to- Public Participation

Sustainability
Low
Low
Low

Public support

Med

Environment

Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential

Med
Low
High

Economic

Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee

High
High
Medium
High

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

48 | P a g e

Table 18: Gasification and Pyrolysis qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)

Technology

Principle
Futurity

Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting

Equity

Impact on visual, odour, noise, High

traffic, public health, property value,
stigma by nearby community

Gasification/Pyrolysis Public Participation

Sustainability
High
Low
Low

Public support

Med

Environment

Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential

High
High
High

Economic

Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee

Low
Low
High
Low

Table 19: Plasma Arc Gasification qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)

Technology

Principle
Futurity

Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting

Equity

Impact on visual, odour, noise, traffic, High

public health, property value, stigma by
nearby community

Plasma
Arc Public Participation
Gasification
Environment

Economic

Sustainability
High
Med
Low

Public support

Med

Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential

High
High
High

Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee

Low
Low
High
Low

Table 20: Costs of waste management technologies (Chirico 2010)

Type of Waste Mgt

Average Capital Cost ($Millions)

Average Annual Operating Cost

($Millions)

Landfill gas-to-energy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion

$5
$65
$90
$78

$0.6
$7.1
$6.6
$7.9

49 | P a g e

Table 21: Indicators for waste management technologies (Chirico 2010)

Type of Waste Mgt

Renewable
Energy
(MW)

Average and Emissions

Space
Required
(Acres)

# of facilities

3.0
4.0
4.3

Average
Disposal
Capacity
(Thousand
tons/year)
500
350
200

Landfill gas-to-energy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion

172
8
5

Low
Low
Low

485
110
3

4.0

225

Low

70

Calculations:
Power produced

222 854.4 MWh/yr

Fresh feed water

128 351.5 kg water/yr

Carbon dioxide
emitted
Selling price of
electricity
Municipal waste

153 554 tCO2-e/yr

$43.1/MWh
854 400tMSW/yr

$
= 222 854.4
43.1

= $9 605 024.64
= $9 600 000
=
=

222 854.4

854 400

= 3.833

= 3.8

128 351.5

222 854.4

50 | P a g e

= 0.576

153 554 2
=

222 854.4
2
= 0.69

APPENDIX 3: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION CALCULATIONS

Parameter
MSW Feed
MSW
Composition

Biogas
Composition

Value

Units

780925

tonnes year

Paper & Cardboard (30.28%

composition, 33.50% moisture content)
Green & Food Waste incl. timber
(41.81% composition, 62% moisture)
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) (27.91%
composition)
52% CH4 & 48% CO2

Cp MSW

0.8-10

-1

wt%

wt%
-3 o -1

MJ m

-3

tm

Description/Reference
(Dept. of Heritage & Environment
2012)
Brisbane City Council Waste
(Khouzam1995)

Also contain 2-10% N2 and trace

H2S and NH3 but neglected
(Verma 2002)
Use mean value
(J L. Hanson et al. 2000)

51 | P a g e

TD

45

MSW size

< 40
6:1

wt%

Biogas Yield

50-150

m (tMSW)

Digester pH
Biogas Pressure

5.5-8.5

atm

20

days

Steam Values
C:N
Digester Solids
Content

102 C, 1bar

20-30

wt%

Carbon/Nitrogen ratio

35%

wt%

OLR
TMSW
PMSW
Hsteam

12

kgVSS m d

Selected design. Could set between

35-45% for high solids digestion.
(Verma 2002)
Organic Loading Rate.

25

mm

Assumption, if there is no storage

of gas prior to gas conditioning.
Retention time.
(Verma 2002)
From compression.

-1

Assumption

atm

2682 (102 C & 1atm)

o
188 (45 C & 1atm)
1.21

Filter
Composition
Solids
Composition

Feed Flowrate: Solid Return

Flowrate
(Verma 2002)
1atm & 25C reference
(Verma 2002)

-1

-3

MWbiogas

Digester operating temperature

Verma 2002)

Assumption

-1

From steam tables.

-3

Density of air

-1

Calculated using the composition

of biogas
For filter press
(Sinnot, R.K 2002)

kJ kg

kg m

23

g mol

70% Solids
30% Water

wt%

99%

99% efficiency for filter press

(Sinnot, R.K 2002)

In reference to the component numbering on the Process Flow Diagram

1 =

780925t
1y
1d
1h
1min

y
365d 24h 60min 60sec

= 24.76

= 25

4 =

24.76
(31.28 + 41.81)%

Component

Composition
(wt%)

Paper & Cardboard

Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Component

Composition
(wt%)

30.28%(100-33.50)% =
20.14%
41.81%(100-62)% = 15.89%
100-27.91-15.89-20.14 =
36.07%
0.00%
27.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

52 | P a g e


= 17.85

= 25

Paper & Cardboard

Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

20.14%*24.76/17.85
=27.93%
15.89%*24.76/17.85 =
22.04%
100-27.93-22.04 = 50.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

7 = 24.76 17.85
= 6.91

= 25

2 =

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.8 + 10

3 1 3 (45 25) 17.85

2

(2682 188)

53 | P a g e

= 0.77

= 102

Paper & Cardboard

Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

5 = 17.85 + 0.77
= 18.62

= 45

20 =

Component

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Composition
(wt%)

27.93%*17.85/18.62 =
26.77%
22.04%*17.85/18.62 =
21.12%
50.03%*17.85/18.62=52.10%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

6
17.85
1
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
65.00%

54 | P a g e


= 111.75

= 45

Digestate Solids Content

Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

6 = 111.75 + 18.62
= 130.37

= 45

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

9 = 150

17.85
1.21 3 3

10

35.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Composition
(wt%)

26.77%*18.62/130.37
=3.82%
21.12%*18.62/130.37
=3.02%
100-30-3.02-3.82 = 63.16%
35%*111.75/130.37
=30.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

55 | P a g e

= 3.25

= 45

8 = 130.37 3.25
= 127.13

= 45

21 = 130.37 111.75

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Component
Paper & Cardboard

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
48.00%
52.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
65.00%
35.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%

56 | P a g e


= 15.38

= 45

10 = 3.25

= 45

Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)

Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

0.00%
65.00%
35.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
48.00%
52.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

25

22 = 15.38 7.61
= 7.77

57 | P a g e

Component

Composition
(wt%)

Paper & Cardboard

Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

0.00%
0.00%
100-0.69 =99.31%
35%*15.38*(100-99)%/7.77
=0.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

= 25 ( )

23 = 99% 35% 15.38/70%

= 7.61

Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia

Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
30.00%
70.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

The compositions and flowrates are then summarised on the PFD.

58 | P a g e

A number of key assumptions were made to perform these calculations including:

Steady-state operation.
Neglect N2 & H2S in biogas product.
Biogas behaves as an ideal gas as it is at moderate temperature and low pressure.
Capacity factor of 1 the plant operates all year.
Perfect separation of organic and inorganic streams in trommel/shredder
Flare is not operated ideally so excluded from mass balances
Neglect losses/gains from valves and pumps
All streams are at atmospheric pressure
Assumptions and parameters listed in Table 1 are applicable

These assumptions come with inherent limitations which reduce the accuracy of the calculations:

Calculations do not consider the impact of start-up and shutdown in terms of yield and operating conditions.
Maintenance procedures are also not considered despite the fact that these will result in shutdowns and will
reduce throughput. This is offset by the fact that during shutdown, waste will accumulate at the plant, so
throughput can be ramped up in the short term after restarting the plant.
Yield and composition may have been overestimated for these calculations if the MSW is not as high quality
as is anticipated. Alternatively, if the MSW is of a higher quality than anticipated, the yield and quality may
be greater.
N2 in the biogas will act as an inert downstream in the power generation process, absorbing heat and
reducing efficiency, meaning that these calculations result in an overestimate of the true power production
potential of the plant.

59 | P a g e

APPENDIX 4: ABSORBER ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS

A number of key assumptions were made to perform these calculations including:

Steady state operation.

The absorber calculations were equilibrium based rather than rate based.
The Peng-Robinson equation of state provides a high level of accuracy for this process.
Capacity factor of 1 the plant operates all year.

The following limitations apply to these results:

Calculations do not consider the impact of start-up and shutdown in terms of power generation and
operating conditions. They do not consider the fact that it takes time to start-up and shutdown these units.
If the exit streams from the absorber do not reach equilibrium values, the separation rate of CO2 from the
biogas may be reduced and there may be additional CO2 and/or less CH4 going through the power
generation system, which would reduce the efficiency of the turbine and hence reduce the total power
generated by the plant.
The Peng-Robinson property method was used which resulted in up to 6% error in the results (AspenTech
2010).

60 | P a g e

APPENDIX 5: POWER GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS

The net power produced by the process is 31.8 MW. This satisfies the boundary condition of achieving 25MW of
power. The key flows in this subsystem are firstly the flow of exhaust flue gases (33) at a flow rate of 111.6 t/hr,
temperature of 99OC, pressure of 1 bar and composition of 79.9 mol% N2, 2.0 mol% of O2, 10.3 mol% of CO2 and 19.3
mol% H2O. Secondly the flow rate of water cycling through the steam cycle is 61.4 t/hr. Thirdly, the flow rate of
water to the EcoPark (42) is 630 t/hr at a temperature of 79OC and pressure of 1 bar.
A number of key assumptions were made to perform these calculations including:

Steady state operation.

A minimum temperature approach of 30K applied to each gas heat exchanger and 20K for each liquid-liquid
heat exchanger to represent the fact that it is difficult to achieve thermal equilibrium between exit streams
from heat exchangers.
The temperature and pressure of the inlet to the steam turbine is 610OC and 220 bar and it operates at an
isentropic efficiency of 0.92 based on values from a case study by GE Power Systems (n.d.).
The isentropic efficiency of the compressors and gas turbine is 0.8 based on values from literature (GE Power
Systems n.d.).
The Peng-Robinson equation of state provides a high level of accuracy for this process.
Capacity factor of 1 the plant operates all year.

The following limitations apply to these results:

Calculations do not consider the impact of start-up

Shutdown in terms of power generation and operating conditions. They do not consider the fact that it
takes time to start-up and shutdown these units.
If this temperature approach is much higher than the actual temperature approach of the heat exchanger
(which will depend upon the design and size of the unit) more heat will be able to be transferred between
the streams which will improve efficiency and increase power generation. Conversely, if this temperature
approach is too low and unachievable, there will be less heat transfer between streams in reality, reducing
power generation.
ASPEN Plus is not capable of performing supercritical steam calculations when heat exchangers are used,
meaning that subcritical (220 bar) steam had to be used in the simulation despite the fact that supercritical
power plants are more efficient.
The Peng-Robinson property method was used which resulted in up to 6% error in the results (AspenTech
2010).
If the specified isentropic efficiencies are inaccurate, the power produced by the plant may be vastly
different in reality compared to the calculated value.

61 | P a g e

APPENDIX 6: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS

The first method used was scaling based on historic cost data (Tower & Sinnott 2007):

1

2 = 1 2 --- (1)

Where C2 is estimated cost of the equipment

C1 is the historical cost of equipment ($)
S2 is the expected capacity of the estimated equipment
S1 is the capacity of the historical equipment data
n is a factor which depends on the type of equipment, which is averaged across the entire chemical industry as 0.6
(Towler & Sinnott 2007). This is known as the six-tenths rule.
A similar method is used sourced from known as Williams law (Viguri Fuente n.d. ):

0

= 0 --- (2)
Where C is the actual cost
C0 is the base cost from value tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending the type of equipment.
S is the estimated capacity from the mass and balance values
S0 is the base capacity from tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the type of equipment.
is a factor from tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.), depending on the type of equipment.
Another version of Williams law was used for Pressure Vessels and tray stacks (Viguri Fuente n.d.):

0

= 0 --- (3)

Where C0 is the base cost from value tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.)on the type of equipment.
L is the estimated length (for horizontal tanks) and the height (for vertical tanks)
D is the estimated diameter of the vessel
a is a factor given in the tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the orientation of the vessel
b is the factor given in the tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the orientation of the vessel.
Another correlation was used from (Towler & Sinnott 2007) pp. 319:

Where:

= + --- (4)

Ce is the correlated cost of the equipment

a is a factor given in table 6.6 on pp. 319 of (Towler & Sinnott 2007)
b is a factor given in table 6.6 on pp. 319 of (Towler & Sinnott 2007)
62 | P a g e

S is the capacity size given in the table 6.6 on pp. 319 (Towler & Sinnott 2007)
n is a factor given in table 6.6 on pp. 319 of (Towler & Sinnott 2007)

Additional unit calculations:

For Heat exchangers, capacity for correlations was based on the area required for adequate heat transfer. This was
calculated using:
=

( )

--- (5)

Where:
A is area required for heat transfer (m2)
Q is heat transfer required (Watts)
U heat transfer coefficient (Watts/m2K)
Tlm is the log mean temperature differences between the cold stream and hot streams (K).

For the Flash drum, capacity for correlations required finding the volume of the vessel. This is done by the following
equations from (Viguri Fuente n.d.):

2 --- (6)

1/3
--

D=

(7)

L = 4D --- (8)

Sizing a packed column requires the estimation of the shell mass and column thickness, following equations from
Towler & Sinnott 2007:

= 20.2
--- (9)

Where
tw is the shell thickness (m)
Pi is the design pressure (10% above design pressure) (N/m2)
Di is the design diameter (m)
S is maximal allowable stress of the column wall (N/mm2)
E is Welded Join efficiency

Where
Dc is the column diameter (m)
Lc is column length (m)
is the density of the material (kg/m3)

= --- (10)

63 | P a g e

CPI accounts for inflation by providing a ratio that current prices can be adjusted with, according to the following
equation:

--- (11)

The NPV is calculated with the following equation from Towler & Sinnott 2007:

Where:
n is the plant life year, year n
CFn = cash flow in year n
t = project life (years)
i = interest rate (4.65%)

= =
=1

(1+)

--- (12)

64 | P a g e

Unit
Anaerobic
(R-101)

Digester

Biogas/PC
exchanger
(E101/E102)

heat

Cost (AUD,
2014)
$207,569,00
0

$54,000

Method of Calculation

Equation 1 was used to calculate the estimated

cost of this unit. This was based on values from
Valorga Amiens Plant (William 2000) which had
an estimate capital cost of 29.8 million for
77,000 tonnes per annum.
Area was calculated using equation 5, using a Q
value obtained from the Aspen model, and
approximate U value used from (Green & Perry
2
2007). U = 500 W/m K for natural gas and
water. Equation 4 is then used to find the
correlated cost.
Equation 4 was used in order to cost this unit,
using the duty required to scale the cost.

Biogas Compressor
(C-101)

$1,077,000

Packed Column
(V-101)

$284,000

Equation 4 was used to model this unit. The

capacity for packed columns is shell mass,
meaning that equations 9 and 10 are required.

Flash Drum
(U-102)

$7,500

Air Compressor
(C-201)

$3,509,000

Equation 2 from Viguri Fuente was used to

model this system. Volume and length and
diameter were calculated using equations
6,7&8. was approximated to 5 mins (RedBag). The density of liquid is the density of
3
propylene carbonate. L1189 kg/m from
WolframAlpha 2014.
Equation 4 was used in order to cost this unit,
using the duty required to scale the cost.

Pump
(D-201)

$6,000

Equation 4 was used in order to cost the pump,

using the flow of liquid in Litres/s.

Heat Exchanger
(E-202)

$45 000

Equation 4 was used, using equation 5 to

calculate area.

Water Preheater
(E-201)

$52,000

Equation 4 was used for costing, and equation

5 was used to calculate the area. U was
assumed from Green & Perry 2007 to be 2500
2
W/m K from source Towler & Sinnott 2007

References

Assumptions

Hands
Factor
N/A

William 2000, correlation data

obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

Modelled heat transfer using natural gas and water,

since Propylene Carbonate solvent is difficult to find
physical data for. It is The shell and tube configuration
was assumed.

3.5

All correlation data was

obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.
All correlation data was
obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

Required duty obtained from Aspen model.

2.5

The packed tower height and diameter were estimated

at D= 1m and H = 5m. Ellipsoid head assumed in equation
9 and 10. Welding joint efficiency was assumed to be 1.
Material properties for Carbon Steel was used for shell
mass calculations.
Assumed that the density of propylene carbonate is
constant over temperature and pressure range of the
vessel.

Required duty obtained from Aspen model.

2.5

Assumed a centrifugal pump. Flow obtained from mass

and energy balances.

Valorga Amiens Plant (William

2000)

Red-Bag, WolframAlpha 2014.

All correlation data was

obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.
All correlation data was
obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.
All correlation data was
obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.
All correlation data was
obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

SUSTAINABILITY WASTE CONSULTANCY // MUNICIPAL WASTE TO ENERGY REPORT

U was calculated by Aspen at 850 W/m K. Q was also

obtained from Aspen.
Modelled as a shell and tube heat exchanger.
Heat transfer between steam and water.
Modelled as a shell and tube heat exchanger. Q
calculated by the Aspen model.

N/A

3.5
3.5

65 | P a g e

Combustion
Chamber
(R-201)
HRSG
(R-201)

Condenser
(E-203)

$219, 000

Gas turbine/Steam
Turbine
(C-202/C203)

$14, 444,
000

B4 Ecopark water
heater (E-204)

$29, 000

Land Cost (10% of

Fixed Capital)
Contingency (10% of
Fixed Capital)
Working
Capital
(15%
of
Fixed
Capital)
Start-Up
Expenses
(6% of Fixed Capital)
Indirect
Expenses
(3% of Fixed Capital)
Grid
Connection
costs
Total Capital Cost

$29, 000,
000
$29, 000,
000
$44, 264,
000

table 12.1 pp. 797.

Cost is included in Gas/Steam turbine pricing,
as the capital was designed for a whole
combined cycle.
Equation 4 was used for costing, then using
equation 5 to estimate the area of the heat
2
transfer. U = 2000 W/m K was assumed for a
steam/gas exchange from Towler & Sinnott
2007 table 12.1 pp. 797.
Equation 4 was used for costing, then using
equation 5 to estimate the area of the heat
2
transfer. U = 1000 W/m K was assumed for a
water/steam heat exchange from Towler &
Sinnott 2007 table 12.1 pp. 797.
No equation was used for this section, but
instead a $750/kW capital cost value from
Table 2 of Naughten 2000 was used.

Equation 4 is used for this unit. Equation 5 is

also used to calculate the area required. U was
2
estimated to be 1500 W/m K for a water-water
transfer.

All correlation data was

obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

Heat transfer between steam and water.

Modelled as a shell and tube heat exchanger. Q
calculated by the Aspen model.

N/A

All correlation data was

obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

Condenser was modelled as a shell and tube heat

exchanger. More accurate sizing and unit design should
be carried out in the next project phase. Q was obtained
from Aspen Plus.

3.5

The steam and gas turbines

were priced as a single unit, as
literature for combined cycle
systems are readily available.
Naughten 2000 was used to
obtain capital cost.
All correlation data was
obtained from Towler & Sinnott
2007.

The capital cost does not include the interest paid during
construction, as interest will be calculated separately
during analysis. Hands factor was not applied, assuming
that associated costs have been included in the $/kW
value.

N/A

Heat exchanger was modelled as a standard shell and

tube heat exchanger, which will need review in the next
project stage.

3.5

Towler & Sinnott 2007

Towler & Sinnott 2007
Towler & Sinnott 2007

$17, 705,
000
$8, 852, 000

Towler & Sinnott 2007

$116, 000

AEMO 2012

Towler & Sinnott 2007

$359,
549, 000

66 | P a g e

Operating Expenses
Raw materials
PC
By-products
Purged PC
Utilities
Water
Electricity
Other
Labour

$ (AUD, 2014) per annum

Method of Calculation

References

7,971,600 Cost of replacing purged propylene carbonate (PC)

Aspen Model

1,712,071 Cost of disposing of waste PC ($0.31/kg)

Couper 2003

264,019 Cost of replacing high quality process water purged.

0 All electricity required for units is provided by the plant.

Towler & Sinnott 2007

Towler & Sinnott 20071,
Couper 2003

Operating Supplies
Supervision
Payroll Charges
Maintenance

357,000 Assuming that there are 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week. Each plant
operator works 5 shifts a week, therefore an average of 4.2
operators are required. Assuming the average salary is ($85,000).
17,850 5% Total operating cost
71,400 20% of Labour
107,100 30% of Labour
17,705,960 6% of Fixed Capital Cost

Plant indirect expenses

Total Operating Cost

8,852,980 3% of Fixed Capital Cost

37,059,981

Towler & Sinnott 2007

Towler & Sinnott 2007

Towler & Sinnott 2007
Towler & Sinnott 2007
Towler & Sinnott 2007

67 | P a g e