WASTE TO WEALTH SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE sivapalan nuclearmalaysia gov my

WASTE TO WEALTH SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE sivapalan@nuclearmalaysia. gov. my

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

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 % 0. 7 to 2. 6 0. 5 to 1. 3 0. 2 to 0. 5 Cost as % of Income

Socio-economic data, generation rates and major waste components in some countries City Country Socio-economic factors W T PD P/DW GNP POP USA Australia Japan France Italy 1000 15 450 4. 2 620 25 30 4. 2 700 15 40 694 7. 0 1250 10 4 000 2. 5 580 14 700 4. 9 12 800 4 100 4 910 18 400 7 000 Spain Singapore Philipines Taiwan Nigeria 410 440 64 220 70 14 290 29 26 472 27 983 22 1 250 30 200 5 000 3. 19 4 000 2. 44 807 1. 63 2. 50 2 000 1. 00 India Bangldeh Pakistan Indonesia Burma 50 25 340 45 32 24 1 300 7. 0 26 3 750 6. 0 29 1 300 5. 5 24 700 8. 0 26 200 6. 0 Municipal Waste MW Major waste components (% by weight) Paper Plastic Food Metal Glass High Income New York Sydney Tokyo Paris Rome 9. 12 3. 23 11. 60 2. 18 2. 88 720 690 400 590 460 35 38 38 30 18 10 0. 1 11 1 4 22 13 23 30 50 13 11 4 4 3 9 18 7 4 4 390 - 21 43 17 8 17 6 4 2 4 45 5 43 25 43 3 3 2 1 5 4 1 5 3 2 - 3 2 0. 5 2 1 0. 5 3 4 0. 4 1 0. 5 4 3 0. 2 9 0. 5 6 Medium Income Madrid Singapore Manila Taipei Kano 4. 2 3. 9 5. 0 4. 2 4. 5 Low Income Banglore Dacca Karachi Jakarta Rangoon 320 200 1 890 474 120 2. 91 1. 31 5. 10 6. 50 2. 60 65 40 56 82 80

Composition of MSW generated in Kuala Lumpur

Solid Waste Management Problem in Malaysia l MSW Generation 17, 000 t/day (2003), 30, 000 t/day (2020) l Kuala Lumpur Generates 2, 500 t/day l 95 – 97% of MSW is Land filled Currently l 112 Disposal Sites (2002) l 43% Open Dump, only 6. 3% Sanitary Landfill (SLF) l 50% Remaining Lifespan < 5 yrs

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

ROLE of INTERGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(IWMS) Energy Raw Material Energy Recovery I. W. M Material Recovery Landfill

Amount of waste collected and the management methods Country Data latest year available Municipal waste collected (1000 tonnes) Population served by municipal waste collection (%) Municipal waste collected per capita served (kg) Municipal waste landfilled (%) Municipal waste incinerated (%) Municipal waste recycled/ composted (kg) 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 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

Cont’ 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 … … … Algeria 2003 8 500 . . . 99. 9 . . . 0. 1 Benin 2002 986 23. 0 654 0. 0 . . . Egypt 2000 15 000 . . . . Madagascar 2002 151 100. 0 … 100. 0 Mauritius 2003 351 95. 0 303 100. 0 . . . 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 Singapore 2002 4 402 . . . 3. 7 55. 0 41. 3 Thailand 2000 13 972 . . 0. 8 14. 3 Australia 1999 13 200 . . . 95. 0 0. 0 7. 3 New Zealand 1999 1 541 . . . 84. 7 . . . 15. 3 Africa Asia Oceania

Waste Management/Thermal Treatment Trends Gasification Pyrolysis Mass Burn Sanitary Landfill Dumping Environmentally the best Economically the best Hydrogen

Global New Approach 4. RDF Burn /GAM Electricity ? MW Export Ash MSW MRF/ RDF Plant Organics Digestate 1. Reduction 2. Recycle Materials SLF 3. A. D/ Electricity Composting ? MW Export Compost

Selection is not simple, depends on: l l l l 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

Greenhouse gas emissions of different waste management systems + CO 2 equivalents per annum - Landfill + Gas recovery + Power Production Landfill Mix waste combustion plant + power production Energy SRF production cogasification in coal boiler Recycling SRF and paper fibre recovery + cogasification in coal boiler Total

GHG emissions from the MSW incineration and landfill (Germany) Emission in 2002 [million t CO 2 eq] Total Emissions Landfill MSW Incineration Carbon dioxide CO 2 863. 5 - 6. 45 Methane CH 4 74. 5 13. 7 - Nitrous oxide N 2 O 49. 5 - 0. 03 HFCS 8. 2 - - PFCS 0. 7 - - SF 6 4. 1 - - Total 1000. 5 13. 7 6. 49

Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production 1 tonne MSW Coal MSW Incineration 600 k. Whe Coal Combustion 600 k. Whe equivalent 1 tonne MSW 1100 kg CO 2 (220 kg fossil and 880 kg biogenic) Landfill With out gas utilization 592 kg CO 2 1610 kg CO 2 Net reduction in CO 2 = 220 -592 -1610 = -1982 kg

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

Source of Dioxin In Japan, more than 80% dioxin comes from incineration l In the USA, about 38% comes from incineration l 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. l I. e depends on the industrialization and the use of many old incinerators l

Dioxin Level in Environment Malaysia Air (pg/Nm 3) 0. 1 - 0. 17 Germany 0. 1 Japan Std 0. 6 (MINT, 2003) MSW (pg/g) (Sakai, 2000) 2 -5 1 -10 1000 (MINT, 2003) Soil (pg/g) (Vehlow, 2000) (Sakai, 2000) 11 -25 20 -100 NA (MINT, 2003) (Vehlow, 2000)

Pathways for processing of municipal solid waste

Cost comparison between land filling and incineration

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 k. W. hr 960 MW. hr 639 k. W. hr MSW Incineration WTE - 25 % 1500 kcal/kg 436 k. W. hr 655 MW. hr 436 k. W. hr MSW Incineration WTE - 25 % 800 kcal/kg 233 k. W. hr 350 MW. hr 233 k. Whr RDF Incineration MSW to RDF - 30%, WTE - 25% 3500 kcal/kg 1017 k. W. hr 458 MW. hr 305 k. W. hr MSW Anaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy – 25% 5000 kcal/m 3 218 k. W. hr 196 MW. hr 131 k. W. hr MSW Anaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy with steam recovery 80% 5000 kcal/m 3 697 k. W. hr 627 MW. hr 418 k. W. hr MSW Anaerobic Digestion and Fuel Cell MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy by Fuel Cell – 50% 241. 83 k. J /mol H 585 k. W. hr 526 MW. hr 351 k. W. hr

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

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

Thank You THANK YOU AND HELP PRESERVE THIS