Conversion of Waste to Energy

Conversion of bobble to vigourThis air division of the get across foc customs on scratch off to efficiency which is one of the nigh popular methods utilise to manage municipal solid wargon nigh the world. Through emaciate to force, tr change has h elderly up a useful material because we be able to convert it to awake. The flame of trash at a waste to talent facility wee ash, heat and flue accelerator pedal. From the ash, metals are recovered and reused. The flue waste is cleaned so it is sackd into the atmospheric state through the chimney. The heat educated is apply to commence electri urban effect that powers the appoint and nearby buildings. A waste to cypher blueprintt in the familiarity wait ons to change magnitude cycle rate which is beneficial for the urban center. There are much advantages to waste to energy than disadvantages, therefore it is essential that the metropolis utilizes waste to energy has a way of managing municipal solid waste .4.1.1. IntroductionThe management of municipal solid waste (MSW) in fresh York metropolis has changed over the one-time(prenominal) decade from ocean and street dumping, to unregulated incineration, to current and export landfilling pr playices (Sylvan, 2011). The NYC department of Sanitation, which is in charge of managing NYC waste collaborates with the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Sims Multi Recycling recovery Facility, and GreeNYC to manage the citys waste through recycling, waste step-down, and composting and fundamental waste recreation (Cohen et al., 2015). In 2006, to efficiently manage the citys waste, the city Council approved the Comprehensive strong Waste Management Plan (SWMP) which was created under the administrator of former city manager Bloomberg (Cohen et al., 2015). The purpose of this plan was to establish a dependable, economical, and sustainable dodging for managing the citys waste (Cohen et al., 2015). This plan was eventu in ally integrat ed into the sustainability planning under the PlaNYC, bare-assed York citys cosmopolitan sustainability plan in 2011 (Cohen et al., 2015). Under the new plan, in 2012, Former mayor Bloomberg announced that the city would solicit plans to build a waste to energy facility near or within invigorated York City (Rizzo et al., 2012). Waste to energy (WTE) technology is a sub class where trash is converted to heat/electrical energy. The most common waste to energy technology use around the world is mass veer, where trash is combusted to produce energy (Citizen compute Commission, 2012). However, the plan to build a WTE facility was eventually archived due to misconceptions surrounding WTE (Rizzo et al., 2012).4.1.1.1 scene on the ProblemIncinerators are not new to saucy York City. In the twentieth blow, there were thirty-two municipal and 17,000 apartment house traverse incinerator in the city (Walsh et al., 2001). In 1935, New York City was forced to plosive ocean dumping, wh ich was the waste tendency method for the city at that time, later a national lawsuit was filed by New Jersey coastal cities (Cohen et al., 2015). This led the city to commit on incinerators and landfill to dispose of its waste (Cohen et al., 2015). However, in 1952, citys officials reported that apartment house refuse incinerators were responsible for 30% of the citys var. taint (Walsh, 2002). The report on piece of cake pollution caused by incinerators in the 1950s led to the limits on incinerator usage traveling bagd on environsal grounds (Walsh, 2002). In 1970, after the Federal Clean Air act was enacted, the city was forced to shut down incinerators name that did not go the emissions guidelines (WastedNYC, 2015). The emission guidelines led to the closure of the citys four oldest municipal incinerators by 1971, and by mid- 1970s thousands of resident physicianial incinerators were closed down (Walsh, 2002). In 1989, City Council committee passes a bill to ban incin erators in the city in the adjoining four years (WastedNYC, 2015 Dunlap, 1989). This bill led to the decline of both(prenominal) residential and municipal incinerators, and by 1994 there were no more incinerator ingrafts in New York City (Walsh, 2002 Rizzo et al., 2012).4.1.1.2. Purpose of the PaperThe yearning of dribble and WTE are think because they both involve the electrocution of trash. However, WTE is not just virtually burning trash alone it is used to produce energy. The purpose of this paper is to issueline how WTE whole kit and caboodles work as well as the benefit the city stands to name if it builds its own WTE facility. The city currently sends approximately 10% of its MSW to WTE plants in Hempstead, abundant Island and Essex County, New Jersey (Cohen 2015, Citizen work out Commission, 2012). If the city were to build its owns plant, it would assuage silver from not spending on the transportation of waste and the use of early(a) states landfills or WTE facilities. WTE has the ability to improve New York Citys current waste disposal practices (Citizen work out Commission, 2012).4.1.2. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Process4.1.2.1. How Incineration Works depict 4.1.1 Schematic Diagram of the MSW incineration process ( run et al., 2010).The incineration process of MSW is separated into three primary(prenominal) parts combustion, energy recovery and air pollution control (Lam et al., 2010). The stretch out in the implement (upper left, Fig.4.1.1) is used to feed solid waste into the furnace of the machine continually for combustion (Lam et al., 2010). The combustion of the waste in the furnace is enhanced by following the three Ts guideline, which are temperature, turbulence and time (Lam et al., 2010). High temperature increases burnout of the waste, era increasing turbulence reveals more waste surface and similarly increases burnout. (Lam et al., 2010). A longer resident time for the flue gas and waste also increases burno ut (Lam et al., 2010). The temperature for incineration should be at least 850 oC with a residence time of 2 minutes (Lam et al., 2010). Air supply must be sufficient during the process to ensure complete combustion of waste and to inhibit the formation of ascorbic acid monoxide and dioxins (Lam et al., 2010).For the energy recovery process of the system, heat is generated from the waste and it is used to produce steam in the boiler (Lam et al., 2010). The steam is then used to drives the turbine to generate electricity (Lam et al., 2010).Air pollution was a major problem for old incinerators in the 20th ascorbic acid. However, advance(a) incinerators are equipped with advanced pollution control systems which are designed to strike down pollution and ensure that the system is in compliance with environmental standards (Lam et al., 2010). To neutralize acidic gases such as hydrogen chloride and sulfur oxides, fine atomized slurry or lime powder is nebulizer into the hot exhaust gas using a dry/ rigid scrubber (Lam et al., 2010). alike in the system, an activated carbon column is used to adsorb the heavy metals and organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the exhaust gas (Lam et al., 2010). The bag filter install in the system acts to filter and remove dust particles and fine particulates from the combustion (Lam et al., 2016).4.1.2.2. The carrefour of Incineration of WasteAfter the combustion of the waste three products are produced, the products are flue gas, heat and ash (Lam et al., 2016).4.1.2.2.1. Flue gasThe flue gas produced from the combustion contains air pollutant (Zaman, 2010) (See table 4.1.3). Therefore, before the flue gas is release through the chimney, the filtering system makes sure the gas is clean to be released into the atmosphere (Zaman, 2010).4.1.2.2.2. HeatThe heat produced is used to generate electricity. The facilities use the electricity generated to engage the plant and sell the excess energy (Chambers, 2016 Citizen reckon Commission, 2012). At most facilities, for any net net long long ton of waste combusted, 550 to 650 Kilowatt/hour (KWh) of electricity is generated for exchange (Citizen budget Commission, 2012). This is the way that WTE facilities are able to earn more income for the plant (Citizen work out Commission, 2012).4.1.2.2.3. ashThere are two types of ash produced from the combustion, keister ash (BA) and fly ash (FA) (Lam et al., 2016). The ash is 90 part little than the original volume of the waste combusted (Citizen cipher Commission, 2012). From the ash, WTE facilities are able to aspirate recyclable ferrous and non-ferrous metals (Chambers, 2016 Citizen cipher Commission, 2012). Then the ashes are landfilled (Chambers, 2016). Before the ashes are landfilled, the facilities test the ashes to make sure that the ashes are not hazardous to the environment (Chambers, 2016). However, in some Asian and European countries that uses WTE, the ashes are not landfilled only if rather utilized for other purposes such as cement and cover production, road pavement, glass ceramics and ceramic production, adsorbent for dyes and agriculture (Lam et al., 2010 Prez-Villarejo et al., 2012). act of MSW ashesTypeApplicationComposition %CountryBAAggregate in coverup to 50%FranceBAAggregate in concretereplace up to 15% of cementSloveniaBARoad baseSpainBAAdsorbent for dyesIndiaBAconcreteItalyMixed Ash cement clinker brickup to 50%PortugalMixed AshCement clinker44% lacquerMixed AshCement clinker15%TaiwanMixed AshAggregate in concreteSpainFAConcrete50%FranceFAEco cement50%JapanFACeramic tile chinaFAGlass ceramicKoreaFABlended cementup to 45%UK put over 4.1.1 The uses of MSW Ash in different countries. The BA represents Bottom Ash, the FA represents Fly Ash and the Mixed Ash represents the mixture of both BA and FA (Modified after Lam et al., 2010).Table 4.1.2 Research projects on MSW ash as road bodily structure ma terials in the U.S. BA represents Bottom Ash and combined ash represents both Bottom Ash and Fly Ash (Modified after An et al., 2014).WTE facilities in the unify States(U.S.) such as Covanta have been lobbying to recycle the ash quite of landfilling it, but these attempts have been unsuccessful so far (Chambers, 2016). The facilities have been lobbying for both federal official and state edict that would allow the usage of ash in the plain (Chambers, 2016). Several studies conducted in the U.S. has proved that ash discharge buoy be used in the U.S. as part of road pull (An et al., 2014) (see table 4.1.2). disdain the research showing that ash is usable in the U.S. no regulation has been passed to allow the usage of ash (An et al., 2014). Recycling of ash would be benefactive role because it would help eliminate landfills. Therefore, it is essential that these facilities continue to lobby for the recycling of ash.4.1.3. Misconception more or less Waste to EnergyOpposition to waste to energy plant in the city is rooted in two misconceptions (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). One of the misconceptions is that a waste to energy plant would displace recycling programs in the city (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). This has been proven to be false based on places that use waste to energy as part of their waste management program (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). High reliance on WTE is in fact fit with high recycling rate (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). For example, in Austria where WTE facilities are used, 70 portion of its MSW is either recycled or composed while the remaining 30 percent is sent to WTE plants (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Meanwhile, in the U.S., studies have shown that states that do not rely heavily on WTE to manage their waste have a recycling rate below 20 percent while states that rely heavily on WTE has recycling rates above 20 percent. (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). For example, Connecticut, which is one of the tri neing states in reliance on WTE, sends 63 percent of its waste to WTE plants and recycle d 26 percent of its waste (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). As of 2015, the recycling rate for the city was 16%, which is lower than the recycling rate for Connecticut (Szendro, 2015). This demonstrates that having a WTE plant in the city would not displace recycling but rather help us recycle better.The other misconception about WTE is that it causes air pollution which would affect the wellness of the resident that would who live around the plant (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). In the 20th century there was a problem with incineration due to the fact that it causes air pollution. However, modern incinerators are equipped with systems that reduce the amount of pollutants released from the plant (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Also tight rule and regulations have led to the reduction of pollutant from WTE plants (Chambers, 2016). Under the federal Clean Air Act, WTE facilities must abide by the Maximum doable Control Technology (MACT) rules, which apply to eight different air pollutants (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Every five years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updates the MACT, which result in the update of pollution control in WTE facilities to meet the new EPA limits (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). In 2012, the New York Department of Environmental preservation (DEC) examined eight air pollutants at the states municipal waste combustion plants and raise that most pollutant had declined by 30 to 60 percent from 1996 to 2010 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012).*Toxic equivalent (sum of depicted object amounts multiplied by toxicity equivalency).Table 4.1.3. Emission from US WTE facilities Pre- versus grade MACT (Modified after EPA, 2016).Table 4.1.4. Average emission of 87 US WTE facilities (Lumber et al., 2006 as citied in Psomopoulos et al., 2009).WTE facilities in the US emit pollutants that are below that of the EPA old-hat (Chambers, 201 6, Psomopoulos et al., 2009) (see table 4.1.4). Numerous studies have shown that modern combustion plants pose no significant health risks (Citizen Budget commission., 2012). For example, a study in Germany, strand near new WTE facilities the dioxin levels are only 1 to 2 percent of the level considered harmful to human health (Citizen Budget Commission., 2012). Another example, in Montgomery County WTE facility a health risk assessment found that even in the worst case scenario a nearby sodbuster has a one in three million chance of increase health risk from exposure to the facility(Budget Citizen Commission., 2012). This shows that WTE plants have no effect on human health and the idea that WTE plants in the city would affect the health of New Yorkers is false.4.1.4. Benefit of Waste to Energy4.1.4.1. Energy production and reduction in Greenhouse gasesAt WTE plants, combustion of 1 metric ton of MSW generates approximately 600 kWh of electricity thus preventing the mining of 0.2 5 ton of U.S. coal or importing one barrel of oil for electricity (Psomopolous et al., 2009). This lead to the slip of energy produced at local facilities (Citizen Budget Commission., 2013). For example, the EPA calculated that for a ton of wasted combusted in the Middle Atlantic region prevent about 0.56 metric heaps of emission from local utilities (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). The EPA also estimated that for every ton of waste combusted, 0.04 tons of carbon dioxide from metal recovery is salvage (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). WTE is the only alternative to landfilling of non-recyclable wastes, where the decomposing waste releases methane into the atmosphere (Psomopoulos et al., 2009). Which means that the city practice of hauling waste to other states landfill is increasing the citys carbon footprint. Disposing of the citys garbage to local WTE would decrease the citys carbon foot print (Citizen Budget Commission., 2012).4.1.4.2. commencement of Renewable EnergyFigur e 4.1.2. Sources of U.S. electricity generation in 2015 (Modified after EIA, 2016).The combustible materials in MSW consist of 82% biomass (paper, food, yard wastes etc.), and 18% fossil oil chemical wastes (Psomopolous et al., 2009). Therefore, MSW is considered a renewable source of energy and it is included by the U.S. Department of Energy in the biomass fuel category of renewable energy source (Psomopolous et al., 2009). In 2015, renewable energy generated 13% of the energy produced in the U.S. (EIA, 2016). The electricity produced by WTE facilities in the U.S. is 3% of the renewable energy generated in 2015, which is less than the amount of electricity generated by other renewable energy sources such as wind (35% of renewable energy generated), and solar (5% of renewable energy generated) (EIA, 2016) (see Figure 4.1.2). However, compare to wind and solar energy, the electricity generated by waste is consistent because the availability of these resources is stable, while the am ount of electricity generated by the wind and solar energy depend on daily and seasonal worker weather, and this make the sources unreliable. (EIA, 2016). This shows that even though waste is not generating a grapple of energy, it is a stable energy resource.4.1.4.3. RecyclingHaving a WTE plant in the city would increase the citys recycling rate. WTE plant in the city would burn only non-recyclable material, which means that New Yorkers have the responsibility of sorting out their garbage before it is ca-can to the WTE plant (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012).4.1.4.4. Free amenitiesThe people who live near the WTE plant capability be entitle to free amenities. For example, the Toshima Incinerator plant in Tokyo has a swimming family and an affordable fitness center located within the plant (Harden, 2008). These amenities are accessible to the people who live in community where the plant is located (Harden, 2008). Another example, is the Hiroshima Naka Citys Incinerator plant in J apan, which is also known as the museum of garbage (Harden, 2008). The end of one of Hiroshimas main boulevards, overlooks the citys harbor, but the building has only blocked residents access to the water(Bernstein,2004). Therefore, the architect of the building decided to continue the boulevard, in form of a raised, glass-enclosed paseo (Bernstein, 2004). Beginning where the pavement ends, a 400-foot walkway slips was put through the building, ending in a new waterfront park. Residents can walk through the slip to get access to the waterfront park (Bernstein, 2004). The gorgeous architecture of the plant has made it a tourist attraction center in Hiroshima (Bernstein, 2004). This proves that WTE plants can be multifunctional. If the city decides to build its own WTE plants it can make it attractive to the community by including free amenities.4.1.5. Economic analysisIn 2012, the average price of displace our waste to distant landfill was $95 per ton and it was estimated that t he price would increase to $140 per ton in 2016 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Meanwhile move our waste to WTE facilities in Newark, New Jersey, and Hempstead, Long Island monetary value the city $66 and $77 per ton, respectively (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). The prices for sending our waste to distant landfill and WTE facilities is expected to increase in the coming years (Citizen Budget Commission, 2016). In comparison, the projected tipping fees of new plants are much lower than sending our waste out of the city (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). The New York City mugwump Budget Office (IBO) estimated that the tipping fee at a new WTE plant that process 900,000 tons of waste per year would cost about $108 per ton in 2019, which is cheaper than the $140 per ton in 2016 for landfill (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Therefore, it would be beneficiary for the city to build its own plants.A full detail on economic analysis regarding WTE can be found in section 4.4 of this report.4.1.6. RecommendationThe use of a WTE plant located in the city or near the city offers both economic and environmental benefits compared to sending our waste out of the City (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Different factors are obscure in estimating the economic benefits from the use of citys own WTE facility (citizen Budget Commission, 2012). The call factors for the estimation are the future price of transporting waste to landfills, and the time it would take to plan, design and construct a plant (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Therefore, the cost of WTE would be compared to the amount the City would be paying to export its waste in 2022 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). It is estimated that in 2022 the City would be paying $170 per ton to export to landfill (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012).It would cost the City $750 million to finance a 3,000-ton per day WTE plant and capital funding, cost of operations and net of electricity sales for the plant would be approx imate $109 million in 2022 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2016). It is assumed that the plant would be able to process 985, 500 tons of waste annually at a cost of $111 per ton if it operates all year round with 90 percent availability, (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). This would save the City $59 for every ton sent to the new plant instead of being transported to landfill (Citizen Budget Commission,2016). Using this estimate, taxpayers would save approximately $119 million if the city diverts two million tons from landfill to WTE plant in 2022 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). This would lead to a reduction in the cost for disposing MSW in the City from $526 million to $408 million, a 23 percent drop in 2022 (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). The funary attack of two million tons of waste from landfills to WTE would not only save the city money but also reduce greenhouse gas emission (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). Greenhouse gas emission due to this diversion is expected to d ecrease by 35 percent, which is equivalent to the reduction of carbon dioxide from 679,000 to 439,000 metric tons (Citizen Budget Commission, 2012).A Full detail on recommendations for the city regarding WTE can be found in section 4.4. of this report4.1.7. ConclusionThe use of WTE facilities has proven to be one of the best ways of managing MSW. WTE helps lower greenhouse gases and provides energy and material recovery. WTE also help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, which leads to the reduction of greenhouse gas. WTE would also help increase the recycling rate of the city. Building WTE plant within NYC might be a problem due to the misconceptions surrounding WTE facilities. When people assure WTE, they think back to the old incinerators that were used in the 20th century in NYC. Therefore, it is essential for New York City to develop programs that would educate New Yorkers about the benefit of having WTE in the city and the differences between modern incinerat ors and the incinerators from 20th century. WTE has more benefits for the city than any effect it might have on the environment.ReferencesAn, J., Kim, J., Golestani, B., Tasneem, K. M., Al Muhit, B. A., Nam, B. H., Behzadan, A. H. (2014). Evaluating the use of waste-to-energy bottom ash as road construction materials. University of Central Florida Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering. Accessed December 8, 2016 http//www.fdot.gov/research/completed_proj/summary_smo/fdot-bdk78-977-20-rpt.pdfBernstein, F.A. (2004). Beauty in Garbage Naka Incinerator Plant by Yoshio Taniguchi. Arch News Now. Accessed November 26. 2016 http//www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature152.htmChambers, T (2016). Interviewed by me. Facility manager of Covanta Huntington LP. Kings Park, NY.Citizens Budget Commission (2012). Taxes In, Garbage Out The pick up for Better Solid Waste Disposal Policies in New York City. Citizens Budget Commission New York. Accessed October 6, 2016 http//www .cbcny.org/sites/default/files/REPORT_SolidWaste_053312012.pdfCohen, C., Martinez, H., and Schroder, A. (2015). Waste Management Practices in New York City, Hong Kong and Beijing. Columbia University. Accessed October 5, 2016 http//www.columbia.edu/sc32/documents/ALEP%20Waste%20Managent%20FINAL.pdfDunlap, D.W. (1989). Panel Votes Bill to Ban Incinerators. New York Times. Accessed November 28, 2016 http//www.nytimes.com/1989/05/23/nyregion/panel-votes-bill-to-ban-incinerators.htmlEIA (2016). Energy in Brief How much U.S. electricity is generated from renewable energy. Energy cultivation Administration. Accessed December 6, 2016 https//www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/renewable_electricity.cfmEPA (2016). Energy Recovery from Waste Air Emissions from MSW burning at the stake Facilities. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed December 8, 2016 https//archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/airem.htmlHarden, B. (2008). Japan Stanches Stench of Mass Incinerators. Washing ton Post. Accessed November 28, 2016 http//www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111702968.htmlLam, C. H., Ip, A. W., Barford, J. P., and McKay, G. (2010). Use of incineration MSW ash a review. Sustainability, 2(7), 1943-1968.Prez-Villarejo, L., Eliche-Quesada, D., Iglesias-Godino, F. J., Martnez-Garca, C., Corpas-Iglesias, F. A. (2012). Recycling of ash from biomass incinerator in clay matrix to produce ceramic bricks. Journal of environmental management, 95, S349-S354.Psomopoulos, C. S., Bourka, A., Themelis, N. J. (2009). Waste-to-energy A review of the status and benefits in USA. Waste management, 29(5), 1718-1724.Rizzo, C., Plum, M.K. (2012). Waste-to -Energy Facilities in New York City Challenges and Opportunities. Accessed October 2, 2016 http//www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=370Sylvan, D. (2011). Municipal Solid Waste in New York City An Economic and Environmental Analysis of Disposal Options. New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (N YLCVEF). Accessed October 6, 2016 http//nylcvef.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solid-Waste-Background-Paper.pdfSzendro, B. (2015). New York City Makes Small Improvement in Recycling Rate Despite improvements, Department of Sanitation falls swindle of its goal. New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV). Accessed November 15, 2016 http//nylcv.org/news/new-york-city-makes-small-improvement-in-recycling-ratesWalsh, D. C., Chillrud, S. N., Simpson, H. J., Bopp, R. F. (2001). Refuse incinerator particulate emissions and combustion residues for New York City during the 20th century. Environmental science technology, 35(12), 2441-2447Walsh, D. C. (2002). Peer Reviewed The phylogeny of Refuse Incineration. Environmental science technology, 36(15), 316A-322A.WastedNYC (2015). History of Incineration in New York City. WastedNYC. Accessed November 28, 2016 https//wastednyc.wordpress.com/local-incineration/incinerators-in-inwood/