to read the full report - Ecolateral by Peter Jones

More documents

Recommendations

Info

168 Evaluation of Opportunities for Converting Indigenous UK Wastes to Wastes and Energy AEA/ED45551/Issue 1 will be produced which, depending on the properties of the input material, can be expected to contain approximately 40% carbon dioxide and 60% methane. The biogas can be upgraded, cleaned, compressed and ultimately converted into a transport fuel. MSW Food Waste Biodegradation Composting Anaerobic Digestion Landfill With landfill gas Compost Digestate Biogas Cleaning and Compression Figure 23 Disposal options for food waste Transport Gas While disposal to landfill is the current most likely route, composting is likely to become the norm in the near future. Therefore the utilisation of waste food has been explored predominately with the reference system set as in vessel compositing: 1. The GHG savings an AD disposal route would generate, with the biogas produced used for: a. heat and electricity generation, b. electricity generation, c. the biogas used for vehicle transport, with additional cleaning and compression stages. In addition a comparison reference system of disposal to landfill has been run: 2. The GHG savings an AD disposal route would generate, with landfill disposal used as the reference system with the biogas produced used for: a. electricity generation.
Evaluation of Opportunities for Converting Indigenous UK Wastes to Wastes and Energy AEA/ED45551/Issue 1 Table 85 Comparing AD disposal of food waste against in vessel composting End Use 1a GHG savings kg CO2eq / tonne biomass • Centralised AD for CHP using 90,000 tonnes food waste per annum. 104 • 1.7MWe and 4MWth exported. • 75% efficiency at 55% load. 1b • Centralised AD for electricity using 90,000 tonnes food waste per annum. • 2.8MWe exported • 25% efficiency at 70% load 1c • Centralised AD for biomethane production from 90,000 tonnes of food waste per annum, to be used for vehicle transport. • 28,000MWth per annum biomethane produced. The centralised AD systems generating energy, one generating CHP, the other only electricity, can be considered as economically feasible where gate fees can be charged. The conversion of the biogas into a transport gas is not commercial currently in the UK. The benefits of composting food waste or anaerobically digesting it are broadly similar. The additional significant benefit of AD systems is the use of the biogas to displace fossil fuel use. Although there is some variation between the above scenarios, all three represent significant GHG savings versus the composting of the waste. The CHP scenario assumes 100% utilisation of the heat produced, a utilisation level that may be challenging to meet, and correspondingly the real-world GHG savings are more likely to be comparable with those for electricity generation or transport fuel generation. Table 86 Comparing AD disposal of food waste against landfill disposal, with landfill gas recovery End Use GHG savings* (Kg CO2eq / T) 2a • Centralised AD for electricity using 90,000 tonnes food waste per annum. 219 • 10MWe exported • 25% efficiency at 70% load Significant GHG emissions still occur through using AD, such as methane leakage from the system and N2O generation from the spreading and incorporation of the digestate into soil. However, even taking such effects into account, it can be concluded that using AD to dispose of food waste, with electricity generation from the biogas, large GHG savings are generated, versus disposal to land fill. Where use of AD disposal routes is compared to in-vessel composting, significant GHG savings are also achieved, whether the biogas is used for CHP, electricity generation or as a transport fuel. The most 78 71 169
Page 1 and 2:
Evaluation of Opportunities for Con
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: Evaluation of Opportunities for Con
Page 167: Evaluation of Opportunities for Con
Page 189: South East 327 - - 55% of MSW by 20
Page 192 and 193: Appendix 3 MBT Methods Specific in
Page 194 and 195: Figure 27 Orchid Environmental proc
show all

to read the full report - Ecolateral by Peter Jones

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?