1 / 18

Dr Daniel Wright Dr Jim Scott Prof. Prasanta Dey Aston Business School

UK policy for supporting the development of solid waste management infrastructure and its application to India. Dr Daniel Wright Dr Jim Scott Prof. Prasanta Dey Aston Business School. Presentation Agenda. UK waste production and developments Enablers to the UK and EU SWM policy

stone-fischer
Télécharger la présentation

Dr Daniel Wright Dr Jim Scott Prof. Prasanta Dey Aston Business School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UK policy for supporting the development of solid waste management infrastructure and its application to India Dr Daniel Wright Dr Jim Scott Prof. Prasanta Dey Aston Business School

  2. Presentation Agenda • UK waste production and developments • Enablers to the UK and EU SWM policy • Waste Framework Directive • Landfill Directive • Landfill tax & effects • Energy Production incentives • MSW composition trends • SWM infrastructure case to India

  3. UK Waste Production and Developments • Estimates that 27.5 Mt of residual waste arising from LA MSW and C&I sources 2012/2013 • wider residual waste treatment capacity either operating or under construction approx18.2 Mt, resulting in a 9.3 Mt capacity gap • It all facilities in the planning stage are successfully commissioned = overcapacity of 12 Mt (if the waste remained static) Figure 1: Total UK waste generation by sector, 2004 to 2010 (DEFRA 2013) * Other includes healthcare wastes, batteries & accumulators, and wastes containing PCB

  4. UK Waste Production and Developments • The UK generated: • 518kg per person (2011) • which was then treated with: • landfilling (49%); • incineration (12%); • recycling (25%); • composting (14%) (Eurostat 2013) • We send approximately 330 ktpa to Tyseley’s incinerator • Struggle to know what is in the ‘black bag! 518kg MSW waste produced per person in 2011

  5. UK & EU Policy • 2008 Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) • Hierarchy of activities • The largest component of MSW is organic matter • Tick box exercise • Leaders such as germany: organic matter greater than 3% is not allowed to be landfilled Figure 2: Waste hierarchy

  6. UK & EU Policy • approximately doubled from 2004 to 2013 Figure 3: Quarterly non-domestic electricity price trends (DECC 2013)

  7. Technology incentives (ROC and FiT)

  8. Technology incentives (RHI)

  9. UK & EU Policy Figure 4: Standard landfill tax rate Figure 5: Landfilling capacity and disposal in the UK (EA 2013)

  10. UK & EU Policy • xxxx Table 1: Comparison of gate fees by technology from (WRAP 2013)

  11. MSW Composition – Comparative Assessment Drives the MRF economics

  12. MSW Composition – Comparative Assessment • Previous MSW composition similar to that currently in India – Future systems • MRF not currently viable in India Figure 6: Trends in household-collected waste composition 1935–1980 (percentage by weight) (Bridgwater, 1986)

  13. SWM Technology Support – AD case study • 3 scenarios for the capital and operating costs (100%, 90%, 80%) • System efficiency 36.5%, 84% annual load availability, • wholesale rate estimated at 4Rs/kWhel (MNRE 2013) • The investment term has been set at 10 years @ 15% Figure 7: Published AD facility costs The exchange rate of 101.45:1 INR to GBP is maintained throughout the model.

  14. SWM Technology Support – AD case study • Example: • 68 ktpa food waste • Feedstock cost = 0Rs • 4Rs Power (kWhel) + 10Rs GPC • Missing costs & cost of finance • SPB 5 years • Meets the financial target ‘hurdle rate’ Table 4: Example techno-economic case

  15. At 100% cost Viable AD scale (ktpa) SWM Technology Support – AD case study • What is the minimum size of food waste AD plant to meet this target? • Low to no gate fee + low to no GPC = very large systems • Higher rates = smaller systems At 80% cost Green production cert. (INR/kWhel) Feedstock price (INR/t) • * the surface shown displays the minimum size the AD scheme can be to meet the required threshold return over the investment term Figure 9: Viable AD sizes under different feedstock and green certificate rates

  16. SWM Technology Support – AD case study • Lets assume a going rate of -£1500 Rs/t • Low to no reliance on a Government run GPC system to meet the investment target Table 5: Green production certificate rates

  17. Concluding remarks • UK has benefited from clear and enforced policy (sticks and carrots) • Indian waste composition is similar to that of the UK in the past • MRFs do not seem economically viable as a solution currently • GPC and Gate fees improve the economics of food waste AD under the assumptions • Smaller systems (decentralised) require more support than larger systems • Increasing electricity rates help support SWM technology viability • We would like to get your contribution for ways to improve the Indian economic analysis

  18. Thank you for listeningContact:Dr. Dan Wright d.wright3@aston.ac.uk

More Related