1 / 45

Seminario ATReA “Strategie e tecnologie per la gestione integrata dei rifiuti”

Seminario ATReA “Strategie e tecnologie per la gestione integrata dei rifiuti” Palermo, January 28, 2009 Facoltà di Ingegneria – Palermo, Italy. Esperienze di gestione integrata dei rifiuti in Europa / Practice of integrated waste management in Europe Salvatore Nicosia.

denise
Download Presentation

Seminario ATReA “Strategie e tecnologie per la gestione integrata dei rifiuti”

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. Seminario ATReA “Strategie e tecnologie per la gestione integrata dei rifiuti” Palermo, January 28, 2009Facoltà di Ingegneria – Palermo, Italy Esperienze di gestione integrata dei rifiuti in Europa /Practiceofintegratedwaste management in EuropeSalvatore Nicosia DIIAA, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Idraulica ed Applicazioni Ambientali, Università di Palermo Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italia(nicosia@idra.unipa.it)

  2. Wastes generated in Italy (Y. 2004), as urban (= residential + commerce + services) and special (= services + industrial) (urban waste = 500 kg / capita x yr) 2

  3. Possible beneficial uses of urban waste components 3

  4. Some plain remarks to the table- 1 A- “Cold treatments”could not make up more than (35 + 33 +5) =73% recoveryif high quality, profitable products are pursued;83%if we are willing to permanently promote them by voluntary or rule-driven purchases B- Nothing in Sicily would actually preventabout 33%of waste (other than food waste!)from being already recycled. C- Since a) there are no WTE plants(= incinerators)in the region, hypothetically competing for heating value;and b) anyway 6 out of this 33% is non-combustible waste,namely glass and metals; then the reasons of omitted recycle must lay in the environment of enterprises, with all that it implies: • permitting and financing  transportation to&from, • raw matter (= sorted waste) quality marketing prices etc. 4

  5. Some plain remarks- 2 D- All the debate about incineration, therefore, could - and ought to – be restricted andconcentrated on • the 17 – 27 % municipal waste + • the non-recoverable special and low-hazard waste that can hardly (if at all) be processed into valuable products. • Some of such waste is generated far from our sight, at the Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) themselves. • Some other consists of daily use goods which many times make mankind’s life safer or cheaper or more comfortable and even more free. 5

  6. Materials Recovery and related Facilities (MRFs) themselves produce process waste- 1 Garbage, intruder in plastics + plastic film, staples, glue, bindings, at the papermills; + paperlabels, polystyrene, PVC etc at the plasticsrecoveryfacilities… Cardboard, PS foam, etc in ABS (www.biraghiplastic.com) 6

  7. Materials Recovery itself produces process waste- 2 Paper, ceramics, wires, glass+wood and plastics in Construction & Demolition Waste Palermo, 2007 7

  8. It is generally true that a smarter, innovative logistics could reduce disposable packages in favor of re-usable ones for white goods, bulky items, liquid detergents… versus 8

  9. … and that the currently enormous consumption of mineral water may partially be effect of fashion and advertising. No doubt, however, about bottled milk or packed pasta, rice etc. being hygienically safer. 9

  10. Indeed, giant front and rear car lights and any spare part today look like being purposely designed to generate quantities of waste at every accident. Undeniably however they are by far better visible and functional than their humble old counterparts. 10

  11. Reversing certain technical trends could yield significant savings in materials and energy… versus + … and more widespread civic amenity sites (“Centri Comunali di Raccolta” ) -oriented also to the free offer of used goods by their latest owners - could lead bicycles, toasters, chairs etc. on to repair and reuse instead of disposal. 11 11

  12. Yet there are non-recyclable daily use goods- 1

  13. Non-recyclable daily use goods- 2

  14. Non-recyclable daily use goods- 3       14

  15. Non-recyclable daily use goods- 4 15

  16. Why compulsorily expend energy to produce hardly marketable materials, whereas we can get energy from them? Solving at the same time the problem of disposing of health care waste, waxed paper, clothes, soiled cloths and gloves, paper-recycle pulp rejects, oily plastic cans, used oil-adsorbing pads and socks, etc… 16

  17. More recycling means less waste, but not at the same rate. Anyway, it does not - nor it could - mean “zero waste”. The Principle II stays there as a watchdog! The general schema is: Age of stock pieces = water energy Make up 40 pcs Input 100 pcs Output 100 pcs Waste 40 pcs COMMUNITY’S GOODS STOCK MRF Recycle 60 pcs Waste heat Waste water 17

  18. These facts and figures explain the trend (Y. 2008) for waste disposal in all advanced European Countries 18

  19. In spite of prescribed EU targets, waste amounts are still increasing; along with them, recycle increases steadily, and so - more moderately - does incineration 19

  20. Integrated waste management & disposal in Europe, 2002-06: an official map S. Nicosia su Risorse dai Rifiuti per "Emily in Italia", nov. '07 20

  21. Industrial recycle and composting in Europe, 2002-06: anofficialmap 21

  22. Forinstance, a leadingCountryin environmentalprotection - asDenmarkis -haslevelled down at 23% WTE disposal Probably, net of the amount of incineration scraps and ash exported abroad 22

  23. The fleet of incineration plants in Denmark (5.100.000 inhabitants in 43.000 km2) 23

  24. The WTE plants are being prescribed more and more stringent targets of efficiency. 24

  25. The Report by DTU - DenmarkTechnicalUniversityneedsinterpretation and some judgement - 1 • 1- Danish facility producers can cope with more stringent targets because incineration is a home – not an imported – technology, a Patent holder, and a profitable one too. • 2- Efficiencies in electric energy production appear low since in that climate heat production for district heating is privileged. • 3- Heat production for transfer to external users obviously is much less profitable in warmer climate regions • lesser utility of waste-to-energy plants in urban contexts • need to find industrial customers and industrial areas to site the plants themselves. () 25 25

  26. The Report by DTU: interpretation and judgement, 2 • 4- Although accurate, timely and consulting-ready, Reports by Danish Environmental Agency are fairly reserved on several crucial issues, such as: • Is maybe an aliquot of C&D waste included in the excellent 70% recycle declared therein? • The mere 6% waste sent to landfill declared is gross or net of the amount of incineration scraps and ash exported abroad? • Etc. 26 26

  27. 0.015 ng/m3 x 66 600 m3/d = 1 000 ng/d = 1 g/d  0,5 mg/yr About the composition of flue gas and mass flow of the main contaminants: the example of Lausanne (CH)

  28. Even if any harmful molecule fell and fixed itself on grassland without undergoing any degradation; and all grass were eaten by cows; and all molecules went into milk; though accumulated and concentrated, 1 mg or 1 g/yr remains 1 mg or 1 g/yr

  29. A good example of integrated waste management in Italy is “Regione Veneto” (18.400 km2 wide; 4.300.000 inhab.; mixed productive structure) • Impianti meccanici e biologici: 10 • Potenzialità complessiva: 773.700 t/anno • Rifiuto urbano trattato: 574.741t/anno • Impianti di incenerimento: 4 • Potenzialità complessiva: 960 t/giorno • P.C.I. medio del rifiuto: 1.700 - 3.500 kcal/kg • Rifiuti smaltiti: 248.196t/anno, dei quali •  Urbani: 204.851 •  Speciali: 35.723 •  Sanitari: 7.622 • Produzione di e.e. annua (netta): 49.368 MWh. 29

  30. Regione Veneto in figures- 1 Since Year 2002, Veneto is the Region with the higher rate of selected waste collection in Italy 30

  31. Regione Veneto in figures- 2 The output ofsortedcollectionofanactual 45% MSW • Il “grado di successo” della R.D. • p.es. della plastica e delle lattine

  32. A case study in Regione Veneto: the WTE plant at Fusina (started up in April, 1998) • Dati di progetto: • Portata ponderale di rifiuti alimentati 7,3 t/h ( 175 t/d) •  1 linea di combustione •  Potere calorifico (PCI) dei rifiuti 2.050 kcal/kg • Dati di esercizio: • Portata secca dell’emissione del camino: 43.000 m3/h • Temperatura: 116°C. 32

  33. Emissioni dell’impianto di Fusina secondo Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente - Veneto, (mg/m3) - 1 (*) calcolata da noi 33

  34. Emissioni dell’impianto di Fusina secondo ARPAV - 2 (°) calcolata da noi 34

  35. I fumi da incenerimento: bilancio di massa in 1 giorno dell’impianto di Fusina (ricostruito dall’autore sui dati di esercizio) • V(fumi ste.) = 524.000 m3; prob. 1.050.000 reale • M(fumi ste.) = 184.060 kg CO2 + 62.700 kg H2O +440.600 kg N2 = 687.400 kg • Rifiuti 175.000 kg (1.170 m3) con pci = 2.050 kcal/kg • Energia chimica associata (PCI) = 417 MWh termici 850 °C • Energia • Elettrica netta 84 MWh • Termica netta (vapore) 126 MWh •  Efficienza el. 20%; Efficienza totale 50% Scorie 25.000 kg (60 m3) • V(aria) = 446.200 m3 stechiometrico; • probabile 900.000 reale (=2x) • M(aria ste.) = 133.860 kg O2 + 440.600 kg N2 = 574.500 kg

  36. How many and how large are WTE plants in current operation in Europe? As absolute number: Out of which about 100 newly built or retrofitted, 2001-05 Sicily: 900 – 1300 t/d 36

  37. WTE plants in current operation in Europe, as percent number: Sicily: 900 – 1300 t/d 37

  38. WTE plants in current operation in Europe, as capacity of treatment (t/d): That is, about 0,4 kg/capita x day 60% 38 38

  39. Some concluding reflections, consciously rhetorical • Do we really think that incineration with energy recovery of – say – 25% of waste produced; • either just sorted and coarse, or in the form of RDF; • provided that it is characterized by good LHV against perspectives of awkward recycle; is a crucial issue in the Planet’s conservation? • Should this issueinduce scientists to endorse any experimentation (undoubtedly welcome!) as a viable, reasonable, immediately realizable solution in any technical - economical context and time? • Is it wisefor environmentalist associations foster before a bewildered public opinion any movement against incineration, pyrolysis or gasification, just inasmuch they areall thermal processes? 39

  40. To end withaneven more rhetoricalplea • The commitment of scientists, technicians and citizens ought to be for • lower waste production rates everywhere; responsible behavior by anyone • regular operation of treatment plants • police surveillance on waste collection, hauling, labelling, selection/mixing etc. • accurate, verifiable analytical controls of emission at the source • rational tracking forward and backward of the pollutants of strongest concern, such as nano-particles, mercury, dioxins, PAH… • against • irrationality. Nothing more. 40

  41. Thank you for your attention. Debate is open… MAYBE, BUT THEY DON’T DO IT BY THEMSELVES…

  42. NOTA: composizione dei “fumi”

  43. Il “sistema integrato” Sicilia, 3: flussi complessivi secondo il Piano Commissariale del 2002 718.540 / 2.487.600 = 28% originale (2002)

  44. Dati recenti sulle poli-cloro-dibenzo-diossine nell’ambiente:sedimenti in un lago dell’Inghilterra nord-occidentale Concentration profile of PCDD in a dated sediment core from Esthwaite Water, Cumbria. (Nicholas J. L. Green, Joanne L. Jones, Kevin C. Jones- Environ. Sci. Technol., 2001) 44

  45. Le societa’ tecnologiche realizzano tre forme di recupero delle risorse dai rifiuti • Due somigliano a quelle della Natura: • Recupero o riciclo di materia (nuove cellule vive) • Recupero di energia a temperatura ambiente (energia chimica della materia energia delle cellule vive) • La terza forma è quasi esclusiva dell’uomo, che la realizza in ambienti controllati: • Recupero di energia (“potere calorifico”) per combustione ad alta temperatura  minore uso di combustibili fossili • In Natura la combustione si realizza solo come evento disastroso = gli incendi dei boschi, delle savane ecc… senza recupero di energia per nessun ecosistema o bioma. 45

More Related