220 likes | 333 Views
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CARBON FINANCE Carbon Finance Unit Training Session Charles Peterson and Ahmed Mostafa March 29, 2007. Methane avoidance projects: Composting. Maximum amount of credits per ton of waste (100% compared to max. 50% for landfills)
E N D
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CARBON FINANCE Carbon Finance Unit Training SessionCharles Peterson and Ahmed MostafaMarch 29, 2007
Methane avoidance projects: Composting • Maximum amount of credits per ton of waste (100% compared to max. 50% for landfills) • No additional investment needed
Composting process • Composting is decomposition of waste under aerobic conditions (waste stabilized/digested in 2-3 months, compared to several yrs in sanitary landfills - anaerobic) • The baseline is waste that would have been left to decay in the landfill and release methane to the atmosphere • Composting is prevention of methane generation and not methane recovery • Methane avoidance in composting process is nearly 100% compared to 30-50% in capturing and flaring • By-product is CO2, moisture, high temperature and valuable soil conditioner (compost) that can be used for horticulture / agriculture.
Composting projectsChallenges Technical • Biological process that needs technical expertise/know how • Well designed composting plants suitable for local conditions, waste characteristics and climate • Siting of composting plants (should be on same premises of final disposal site) – affects costs • More expensive compared to waste dumping/landfilling (but lower investment, useful product, no environmental/health issues, etc.) • Creating market for compost • Consistent product quality is key to success (compost from MSW could be contaminated with heavy metals – depends on collection/transportation methods) • Market demand may not be adequate to cover costs (gradually establishing market – quality control)
Composting projectsChallenges (Cont.) Financial • Compost market & price (recent EC standards restricts use of compost from MSW for edible plants) • Tipping fees • Sale of recyclables & market / price
Composting projectsChallenges (cont.) Institutional • Ownership of facility (operator, municipality?) BOO, DBO, etc types of contracts or construction by Municipalities, and operated by private sector through concession contracts with following: - PS paid tipping fees with minimum tons/day, - Specifying minimum treatment percentage (as high as 60%) in contract, thus increasing lifetime of final disposal facilities (instead of 15-20 yrs, could be doubled and minimal precautions for leachate, LFG, resources pollution, i.e. significantly lower investment costs)
Eligibility of Composting operations Technical: a- Municipal solid waste: • Require upstream sorting facility (represents at least 70% of capital and O&M costs) • At least 60% organic content in mixed MSW • Type of technology / process (windrow, aerated static pile, In-vessel) • Process (capital and O&M cost) vs land requirement • Windrow technology most cost effective, but requires space, high monitoring/quality control. b- Sludge / Market / Food waste: • No sorting process required (low capital and O&M costs) • Windrow technology among the best (space area, operator skills, etc) • Beware of chemical contaminants (source of sludge – industrial pollution) Financial • Selected Technology • Existence of compost market • Tipping fees paid for treatment • Recyclables (in case of MSW)
Important issues to be discussed with project developer Technical • Type of technology / process (affects capital, O&M costs) • Type of waste (MSW, sludge, manure, agri / organic residuals) • Capacity (depends primarily on type of waste - no less than 500 t/d MSW, 400 t/d market/food waste for acceptable ER levels) • Process monitoring (ensuring aerobic conditions) • Quality control measures on final product (need to ensure consistent quality for final product) Financial • Existence of compost market (if not, what's the sponsor’s strategy?) – MSW compost ranges ($5 – $35), agri / organic compost ($50 upwards) • Tipping fees paid for treatment or not? • Recyclables (in case of MSW)
Landfilling verses Composting of different types of wastes (500 t/d) a: 65% organic content (requires sorting, composting and screening processes) b: 100% organic content (market / food waste)
Successful Case Studies • Option 1: DBO, BOOT, etc types of contracts • PS designs, constructs and operates for 10-15 yrs treatment/disposal facilities • PS paid tipping fees (per tonnage) with minimum tonnage per day on monthly basis + compost revenues + portion of CF revenues • Municipality responsible for monitoring and supervision of PS operation • Facilities handed to municipality after concession period • Option 2: Design and construction by Municipality • Concession contract to PS for operation (10-15 yrs) • Same cost recovery as above • Municipality responsible for monitoring and supervision of PS operation
Overview of CFU Portfolio Composting projects • Santiago, Chile • Kabul, Afghanistan • Porto Novo, Benin • Karnataka, India • Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara, Uzbekistan • Kampala, Uganda • Cairo, Egypt • Jeddah, Saudi Arabia • Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Charles Peterson cpeterson@worldbank.org Ahmed Mostafa, amostafa1@worldbank.org