WASTE TO WEALTH

1

• WASTE TO WEALTH
• SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE
• sivapalan_at_nuclearmalaysia.gov.my

2
Introduction

• The need to understand waste
• Waste generation rates
• Waste management trends
• Effect on the Environment
• Waste to Wealth
• Conclusion

3
Global Perspective of Municipal Solid Waste
Generation Rates and The Respective Management
Costs
Units Low Income Middle Income High Income
Mixed Urban Waste Large City kg/cap/day 0.50 to 0.75 0.55 to 1.10 0.75 to 2.20
Mixed Urban Waste Medium City kg/cap/day 0.35 to 0.65 0.45 to 0.75 0.65 to 1.50
Residential Waste Only kg/cap/day 0.25 to 0.45 0.35 to 0.65 0.55 to 1.00
Average Income from GNP USD/cap/yr 370 2,400 22,000
Collection Cost USD/ton 10 to 30 30 to 70 70 to 120
Transfer Cost USD/ton 3 to 8 5 to 15 15 to 20
Open Dumping Cost USD/ton 0.5 to 2 1 to 3 5 to 10
Sanitary Landfill Cost USD/ton 3 to 10 8 to 15 20 to 50
Tidal Land Reclamation Cost USD/ton 3 to 15 10 to 40 30 to 100
Composting Cost USD/ton 5 to 20 10 to 40 20 to 60
Incineration Cost USD/ton 40 to 60 30 to 80 70 to 100
Total cost without Transfer USD/ton 13 to 40 38 to 85 90 to 170
Total cost with Transfer USD/ton 17 to 48 43 to 100 105 to 190
Cost as of Income 0.7 to 2.6 0.5 to 1.3 0.2 to 0.5
4
Socio-economic data, generation rates and major
waste components in some countries
City Country Socio-economic factors W T PD P/DW GNP POP Municipal Waste MW Major waste components ( by weight) Paper Plastic Food Metal Glass
High Income High Income High Income High Income High Income
New York Sydney Tokyo Paris Rome USA Australia Japan France Italy 1000 15 450 4.2 12 800 9.12 620 25 30 4.2 4 100 3.23 700 15 40 694 7.0 4 910 11.60 1250 10 4 000 2.5 18 400 2.18 580 14 700 4.9 7 000 2.88 720 690 400 590 460 35 10 22 13 9 38 0.1 13 11 18 38 11 23 4 7 30 1 30 4 4 18 4 50 3 4
Medium Income Medium Income Medium Income Medium Income Medium Income
Madrid Singapore Manila Taipei Kano Spain Singapore Philipines Taiwan Nigeria 410 14 290 4.2 5 000 3.19 440 29 26 472 3.9 4 000 2.44 64 27 983 5.0 807 1.63 220 22 1 250 4.2 - 2.50 70 30 200 4.5 2 000 1.00 390 - - - - 21 - 45 3 4 43 6 5 3 1 17 4 43 2 5 8 2 25 1 3 17 4 43 5 2
Low Income Low Income Low Income Low Income Low Income
Banglore Dacca Karachi Jakarta Rangoon India Bangldeh Pakistan Indonesia Burma 50 24 1 300 7.0 320 2.91 25 26 3 750 6.0 200 1.31 340 29 1 300 5.5 1 890 5.10 45 24 700 8.0 474 6.50 32 26 200 6.0 120 2.60 - - - - - 3 0.5 65 0.4 0.2 2 1 40 1 9 0.5 0.5 56 0.5 0.5 2 3 82 4 0.5 1 4 80 3 6
5
Composition of MSW generated in Kuala Lumpur
6
Solid Waste Management Problem in Malaysia

• MSW Generation 17,000 t/day (2003), 30,000 t/day
  (2020)
• Kuala Lumpur Generates 2,500 t/day
• 95 97 of MSW is Land filled Currently
• 112 Disposal Sites (2002)
• 43 Open Dump, only 6.3 Sanitary Landfill (SLF)
• 50 Remaining Lifespan lt 5 yrs

7
(No Transcript)
8

• SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
• Environmentally Sustainable
• Reduce the Environmental Impact
• Reduce Energy Consumption
• Reduce Pollution of Land, Air Water
• Reduce Loss of Amenity
• Economically Sustainable
• Balance between Cost versus Env. Impact
• BATNEEC, BPEO
• LEADING TO IWMS

9
ROLE of INTERGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(IWMS)
Energy Recovery
Energy
I.W.M
Landfill
Raw Material
Material Recovery
10
Amount of waste collected and the management
methods
Country Data latestyear available Municipal wastecollected (1000 tonnes) Population served bymunicipal wastecollection () Municipal wastecollected percapita served (kg) Municipal wastelandfilled () Municipal wasteincinerated () Municipal wasterecycled/composted (kg)
Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe Europe
Sweden 2001 3 930 ... ... 22.4 38.2 38.7
United Kingdom 2001 34 851 ... ... 79.9 7.3 12.3
Bulgaria 2002 3 199 81.1 495 99.7 ... ...
Czech Republic 2002 2 845 100.0 278 70.3 14.0 ...
Denmark 2002 3 587 100.0 670 8.3 58.3 34.6
North Central America North Central America North Central America North Central America North Central America North Central America North Central America North Central America
Belize 2000 62 48.6 532 100.0 ... ...
Canada 2000 10 870 ... ... ... ... 32.2
Costa Rica 2000 71 ... ... ... ... ...
Mexico 2002 32 174 86.0 367 97.6 0.0 2.4
United States 2001 207 957 100.0 722 55.7 14.7 29.7
11
Cont
South America South America South America South America South America South America South America South America
Bolivia 2002 662 ... ... ... ... ...
Chile 2002 5 558 ... ... 41.0 ... ...
Colombia 1998 7 430 ... ... ... ... ...
Peru 2001 1 444 100.0 64.6 ... ...
Uruguay 2000 910
Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa
Algeria 2003 8 500 ... ... 99.9 ... 0.1
Benin 2002 986 23.0 654 0.0 0.0 ...
Egypt 2000 15 000 ... ... ... ... ...
Madagascar 2002 151 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Mauritius 2003 351 95.0 303 100.0 ... ...
Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia
China, Hong Kong SAR 2002 5 399 100.0 773 63.7 ... 36.3
Japan 2000 52 362 100.0 412 5.9 77.0 15.0
Cyprus 2002 500 ... 709 90.0 0.0 0.0
Singapore 2002 4 402 ... ... 3.7 55.0 41.3
Thailand 2000 13 972 ... ... ... 0.8 14.3
Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania Oceania
Australia 1999 13 200 ... ... 95.0 0.0 7.3
New Zealand 1999 1 541 ... ... 84.7 ... 15.3
12
Waste Management/Thermal Treatment Trends
Economically the best
Environmentally the best
Hydrogen
Gasification Pyrolysis
Mass Burn
Sanitary Landfill
Dumping
13
Global New Approach
Electricity ? MW Export
4.RDF Burn /GAM
Ash
Organics
MSW
MRF/ RDF Plant
SLF
Digestate
1.Reduction
3.A.D/ Composting
Electricity
2. Recycle Materials
? MW Export
Compost
14
Selection is not simple, depends on

• Waste Size, Composition and Need for
  Re-Processing
• Choice of Recycling Options-Energy, Chemicals,
  Slag
• Regulation
• Local Conditions
• Flexibility with Regards to Waste Stream
• Technology Maturity and Track Record
• Economics Issues
• Public Acceptance

15
Greenhouse gas emissions of different waste
management systems
16
GHG emissions from the MSW incineration and
landfill (Germany)
Emission in 2002 million t CO2eq Total Emissions Landfill MSW Incineration
Carbon dioxide CO2 863.5 - 6.45
Methane CH4 74.5 13.7 -
Nitrous oxide N2O 49.5 - 0.03
HFCS 8.2 - -
PFCS 0.7 - -
SF6 4.1 - -
Total 1000.5 13.7 6.49
17
Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production
18
What is Dioxin

• A Common Name for a Group of Chemicals called
  Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD),
  furans(PCDF) and certain PCBs
• As its name suggests, it forms from a chemical
  combination of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and
  Chlorine
• Pure dioxins are colorless solids or crystals

19
Source of Dioxin

• In Japan, more than 80 dioxin comes from
  incineration
• In the USA, about 38 comes from incineration
• In the Ireland, only 0.32 comes from
  incinerators whereas the biggest sources are from
  accidental fires and illegal domestic waste
  combustion (58). Note Ireland produces about
  38 g TEQ/yr compared to other European countries
  ranging from 50 1123 g-TEQ/yr.
• I.e depends on the industrialization and the use
  of many old incinerators

20
Dioxin Level in Environment
Malaysia Germany Japan Std
Air (pg/Nm3) 0.1- 0.17 (MINT,2003) 0.1 (Vehlow,2000) 0.6 (Sakai, 2000)
Soil (pg/g) 2-5 (MINT, 2003) 1-10 (Vehlow, 2000) 1000 (Sakai, 2000)
MSW (pg/g) 11-25 (MINT, 2003) 20-100 (Vehlow, 2000) NA
21
Pathways for processing of municipal solid waste
22
Cost comparison between land filling and
incineration
23
Amount of Energy Recoverable from MSW by Various
Treatment Technologies 15
Material Treatment Technology Conversion Efficiency Calorific Value of Fuel Energy Recoverable / ton of Fuel Total Energy Recovered (based on 1500 tons/day Energy Recoverable (Normalized to per ton of MSW Input)
MSW Incineration WTE - 25 2200 kcal/kg 639 kW.hr 960 MW.hr 639 kW.hr
MSW Incineration WTE - 25 1500 kcal/kg 436 kW.hr 655 MW.hr 436 kW.hr
MSW Incineration WTE - 25 800 kcal/kg 233 kW.hr 350 MW.hr 233 kWhr
RDF Incineration MSW to RDF - 30, WTE - 25 3500 kcal/kg 1017 kW.hr 458 MW.hr 305 kW.hr
MSW Anaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester 60, Biogas to energy 25 5000 kcal/m3 218 kW.hr 196 MW.hr 131 kW.hr
MSW Anaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester 60, Biogas to energy with steam recovery 80 5000 kcal/m3 697 kW.hr 627 MW.hr 418 kW.hr
MSW Anaerobic Digestion and Fuel Cell MSW to Digester 60, Biogas to energy by Fuel Cell 50 241.83 kJ /mol H 585 kW.hr 526 MW.hr 351 kW.hr
24
Conclusion

• Waste generated and managed in a proper manner
  could be advantageous to the environment
• The environment has already suffered enough from
  the actins of its inhabitants
• Education and realization is necessary to ensure
  sustainability
• The Challenges is how and what action should be
  taken?

25
Matters to ponder!

• Most of current technology is focused on treating
  waste that has already been generated
• What about reducing the need to manufacture less
  for less consumption?
• Ensuring manufacturing processes are 110
  efficient and do not produce waste at all.
• How to contain the huge appetite for modern
  lifestyle?
• Ensuring zero waste production by the general
  population?

26
Thank You
THANK YOU AND HELP PRESERVE THIS