FPA Environmental Summit

Energy Recovery

FPA Environmental Summit

Energy RecoveryA Viable Resource Management Option

Jon PyperSenior Leader, Plastics Business Public Policy

The Dow Chemical Company

February 11, 2010

1

Terminology Mattersgy

‘Waste’ Management          vs       Resource Management

Energy from ‘Waste’ (EFW)

‘Waste’ to Energy (WTE)     vs       Energy Recovery

‘Waste’ ‘Post‐consumer Packaging’“something rejected, worthless,  A previously used resource which

f l ” vs till h l. . .  of no value”                                              vs still has value 

2Packaging is not a waste

Packaging is a valuable resourceExtends shelf life

• Prevents food spoilage• Prevents food spoilage• So less people go hungryS hi l f tl• So we ship less frequently

• Consume less resources

G l i i• Generate less emissions

• Reduce impact of climate change

Protects against product theft and damage

Fosters a safer and healthier society

3

y

Trends and IssuesIncreased attacks on packaging

• Perceived as ‘excessive’ and a ‘waste’

• Limited recycling rates

Increased legislation• Climate Change bill (Renewable Energy Credits)• Climate Change bill (Renewable Energy Credits)

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), bans, taxes, de‐selection

Focus on climate change, energy and waste policies• Energy security and independence

• Reducing GHG’s

• Alternative energy sources (renewables)Alternative energy sources (renewables)

Drive for more diversion of ‘wastes’ from landfills• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle preferred options

4

• Role of Energy Recovery

U.S. Population 1960 2009

& MSW1960‐2009

320

MSW increasing 2X of population

270

320

Mill

ions

)

230

270

Tons

)

0 95 tons pp

170

220

ulat

ion

(M

190

Mill

ions

T0.95 tons pp

120

170

U.S

. Pop

u

110

150

MS

W (

“U.S. has 5% of world’s populationyet 40% of world’s waste”.

Source: ‘Green Sense’ Show Dec 5 2009

0.45 tons pp

701960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

U

70Source:  Green Sense  Show Dec. 5, 2009

5

Population MSWSource: U.S. EPA

U.S. Power Generation by FuelU.S. Energy Generation by Fuel SourceQ d illi BTU 80 ( 28%) 102 ( 21%) 123

22%0% 8% 14%90%

100%Quadrillion BTU:        80 (+28%) 102 (+21%) 123

22%19%

18%70%80%90%

Renewables

54% 48% 47%50%60% Nuclear

Coal

12%

47%

20%30%40% Natural Gas

Oil

12%1% 1%

12%23% 21%

0%10%20%

6

1% 1%0%1980 2007 2030

Source: US Dept of EnergyRenewables only growing fuel source

Business‐as‐Usual and Ecological Debt

2006 2050World Population1 : 6 7 Billion 9 2 BillionWorld Population1 : 6.7 Billion  9.2 BillionPlanet Earth Demand2 1.3 earths 2.3 earths 

For a sustainable future all resources need to be better managed via usingFor a sustainable future, all resources need to be better managed via using all 4 R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recovery) options.

Sources: 1 Data from United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. 2 Data/Chart from WWF - Living Planet Report 2008

U.S. MSW Generation, Recycling, Energy Recovery & L dfill 1960 2007& Landfill 1960-2007

100%

MSW Generation (Million Tons)88 121 152 205 239 250 254

MSW grown 3X last 47 yrs

57% 56% 54%70%80%90%

100%

94% 93% 89%69%

57% % %

%50%60%70%

29% 32% 33%15%

14% 13% 13%

2%20%30%40%

6% 7% 10% 16%29% 32% 33%%

0.30%0%

0%10%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007

8

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2007

Recycling (incl compost) Energy Recovery Discards to LandfillSource: US EPA

Packaging in the ‘Waste’ StreamPackaging in the  Waste  Stream

Packaging ‘Waste’(Milli f T )

Packaging ‘Waste’(% f T t l W t St )

Packaging Recycling(%)(Millions of Tons) (% of Total Waste Stream) (%)

1960 27.4 31.1 % 11%

1980 52.7 34.7% ‐‐

1990 64.5 31.4% ‐‐2.7X Flat 3.5X

2000 75.3 32.5% ‐‐

2003 74.8 31.7% 39%

Recycling of flexible packaging has its challenges

9Source: U. S. EPA

Recycling of flexible packaging has its challenges

Landfills are Not the AnswerWasting Valuable Energy

Visual Pollution

LandfillsHigh $ Costs‐ Tipping Fees‐ Shipping

Water table Contamination

Chemical InstabilityLimited Space

Methane Emissions

Number of Landfills in U.S. 1988-2007

79247379

7000

8000

9000

78% Reduction in 19 yrs       6326

58125386

4482

35583197 3091

2514 2314 2216 1967 1858 1767 1754 1754 17542000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000(‐ 6,170 landfills)

10

1767 1754 1754 1754

0

1000

2000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19’88  ’89  ’90 ’91  ’92  ’93  ’94  ’95 ’96  ’97 ’98  ’99  ’00  ’01 ’02   ’03 ’04 ’05  ’06 ‘07

Mechanical Recycling is Major Part of the l i h i i iSolution ‐ But has Limitations

TechnicalTechnical– Foodservice ware – Multi‐layer packaging– Difficult to show material codes

Unrealistic to expect mechanical recycling 

Difficult to show material codeson all materials

Costs

alone will meet the required diversion goals

Costs– Collection, Sorting, Cleaning

Lack of infrastructure– Inconsistent national approach

• Curbside vs Deposits vs Depots vs Retail stores

11

p p• Not compatible with collection and recycling needs of flexible packaging

– End markets are not being supported

Must Utilize All EOL Resource Mgt OptionsU.S. EPA’s Integrated Solid ‘Waste’ 

Management HierarchyEmerging TechnologiesE G ifi ti P l i

S lid R F l

Eg. Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasma Arc, Microwave

Solid Recovery FuelEg. Cement / Coal Plants

Combustion with Energy RecoveryEnergy 

Recovery

All options are needed to minimize disposal 

Combustion No Energy Recovery

in landfills.  Resource  conservation is key.

Source:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Energy Conversion TechnologiesThermal/Chemical

• Combustion / Mass Burn

‐ O2 free ‘burn’.‐ Produces syngas (CO + H2)‐ Used to create fuel andchemical feedstock‐ Small scale

‐Most common in U.S. ‐ Proven technology‐ Creates electricity fromsteam

• Combustion / Mass Burn• Acid Catalysis & Distillation• Gasification / Pyrolysis• Microwave Processes• Plasma Arc

‐ Proven  technology‐ Solid Recovery Fuel (SRF)• Plasma Arc

• Thermal Decomposition

Biological Processing

(SRF)

Biological

• Aerobic Composting• Anaerobic Digestion• Biodiesel

Processing

• Fiberboard & ConstructionCompositesR f D i d F l (RDF)

‐ Breaks down oforganics in the absence of oxygen. A ti

• Biodiesel• Bioethanol• Biological Pretreatment• Vermicomposting

• Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF)

13

‐ A compostingsystem with energyas bi‐product.

Energy Recovery Facilities

Modern Energy Recovery Facilities

Outdated Incineration Facility

14

Energy Recovery: Common MisconceptionsMYTH #1:  Emits massive amounts of GHGsFACT: ‐ One of the cleanest forms of energy generation available today

‐ Operates within strict emission standards (US EPA ‐Maximum Control Technology  (MACT) St d d E U i C di A 7 G id li )(MACT) Standards; European Union, Canadian ‐ A‐7 Guidelines)

‐ Cleaner than coal utilities 

MYTH #2: Reduces mechanical recycling ratesMYTH #2:  Reduces mechanical recycling rates FACT: ‐ Does not compete with recycling, rather complements it 

‐ Locations with E.R. experience recycling rate 4%‐5% > national average

MYTH #3:  Economically uncompetitiveFACT: ‐ Combustion: High capital costs but competitive pay‐backs (B.C. facility 8 years break‐even)

‐ Emerging Technologies: Lower upfront costs.

MYTH #4:  Low public acceptance ‐ N.I.M.B.Y.FACT: ‐ Canadian study shows 83 % public support E.R. technologies (~ 24% increase last 4 yrs)

10 of 15 ‘Most Livable Cities in the World’ have Energy Recovery facilities

15

‐ 10 of 15  Most Livable Cities in the World  have Energy Recovery facilities(Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver, Dusseldorf, Munich, Frankfurt, Bern, Toronto, Helsinki)   

Sources:  Canadian EFW Coalition, 2009 / Mercer’s ‘Quality of Living Survey’, 2009 / The Economists ‘World’s Most Livable Cities’, 2009 

Energy Recovery Facilities GloballyEnergy Recovery Facilities Globally

# Facilities MSW Processed % Total Annually MSWAnnually MSW

N.A.U.S.A. 89

dCanada 5 94 30 million tonnes 13%

Europe              390  60 million tonnes 40%

Asia 301 70 million tonnes 75%Asia 301 70 million tonnes 75%

Total: 785 160 million tonnes 29%

Japan accounts for 83%

16Source: Energy Recovery Council, Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council, Columbia University, US EPA, Canadian Plastics Industry Council

Energy Recovery ‐ USA

89 facilities operating in 29 States‐ Down 12% since 2000

‐ 75% use mass burn technology

‐ > 6,000 workers

Dispose of 94,721 tons of material per day‐ Generates 2,700 MW of electricity (2.3 Million households)Generates 2,700 MW of electricity (2.3 Million households)‐ Saves about 30 Million barrels of oil per year

According to US DOE, prevents the annual release of;g , p ;‐ 40 million tons of GHG as CO2 equivalents‐ 25,000 tons of nitrogen oxides‐ 2.6 million tons of volatile organic compounds

17Source: Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council / Joseph Trieshler, Covanta Energy, NAWTEC 2009

Energy Recovery Can Play a Major Role in ‘Waste’    Diversion

Mech. Recycling* (All Mtls)  Avg. 17%

Diversion

Ann al ‘Waste’ Energy Recovery (Plastics)  Avg. 67%Mech. Recycling (Plastics)  Avg. 24%

Energy Recovery (All Mtls) Avg. 57%

Austria

Belgium

Annual ‘Waste’ per capita (Tons)

0.70

0 52Belgium

Denmark

France

0.52

0.79

0.62

Germany

Netherlands

Switzerland

0.68

--

0.66

Canada

Switzerland

U.S.A.

--

0.95

1.14

18Sources:  European Environmental Agency /  Plastics Europe / U.S. EPA / CPIA / Covanta Energy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

* USA & Cda includes composting

60Material Energy Values

48 4550

kg)

2630

40

(MJ/

Average MSW = 12 MJ/kg)

26

15 1720

30

Valu

e

15

10

20

ergy

V

-20

Heating Oil Plastics (PE) Coal Wood Paper Metal

Ene

MetalPaperWoodCoalPlastics (PE)Heating Oil

19-10

Heating Oil Plastics (PE) Coal Wood Paper Metal

Yet we tend to mine coal and bury plastics Source: CPIA

MetalPaperWoodCoalPlastics (PE)Heating Oil

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and the EnvironmentMSW contains thousands of chemicals, including di i ti l t tt t l i i

Environment

dioxins, particulate matter, metals, microorganisms

All ‘ aste’ management options in ol e the destr ctionAll ‘waste’ management options involve the destruction of some chemicals and the creation of others– None of these chemicals are unique to waste managementq g

Hazard vs Risk (exposure)

Need to manage MSW effectively to minimize risks to 

20

human health and environmentSource: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of Surrey

Energy Recovery and Air EmissionsEnergy Recovery and Air Emissions

“Modern energy recovery facilities meet or exceed the most stringent environmental standards in the world and use the most advanced emission control equipment available”.

– Scrubbers to control acid gasses

– Fabric filters to control particulatesFabric filters to control particulates

– Selective Non‐Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to control nitrogen oxides

– Carbon Injection to control mercury emissions and dioxins

21Source:  Canadian EFW Coalition (John Foden)

Dioxins

All combustion generates dioxins

Dioxins are hazardous – cancer, nervous systems, reproduction

Dioxins are persistent in the environment and come f i ffrom a variety of sources– Only 1% of dioxins in U.S. come from Energy Recovery

Main source of exposure is not via air emission but through diet (fish)

22

through diet (fish)Source: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of Surrey

Distribution of Dioxin Sources in the U.S.1987‐2004

Energy Recovery accounts for only 1% of total dioxin emissions in U S

Energy Recovery99% reduction 

Source: WTE Research & Tech Council, Columbia University

emissions in U.S. 99% reduction

Dioxin Emission Levels

628700

98/y

r)

500

600

-HW

O9

Energy Recovery facilities emit;

300

400

TEQ

df

gy y ;* 3 X less dioxin levels than diesel trucks* 5 X less than coal‐fired utilities* 52 X less than backyard burning

200

300

ns (g

T

60 36 120

100

mis

sio

24

Backyard Barrel Burning Coal-fired Utilities Diesel Trucks Municipal Solid WasteIncinceration/EFW

Em Backyard Burning Coal-fired Utilities Diesel Trucks MSW/Energy Recovery

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Maintaining Perspective – Dioxin Exposure

1. The 15 minutes London Millennium fireworks display produced emissions equivalent to 120 years from a single Energy Recovery facility

2.   BBQ for 2 hours results in higher dioxin exposure than residing beside an

energy recovery facility for 10 years

25

Source: Professor James Bridges, Chair of European Unions Science Committee, University of SurreyAPSWG briefing on Energy from Waste; UK Environment Agency 2000Magnus Schonning, Embassy of Sweden; Carl Lilliehöök, Waste & Recycling, Tekniska Verken AB, Linköping Sweden

Air Emissions from Top Ten Energy Recovery   Plants at WTERT Awards

Average WTE EU Standard US EPA Standard(mg/Nm3) (mg/Nm3) (mg/Nm3)

Particulates (PM) 10 11

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 10 29

<<

3.1

8.5

Sulphur Oxides (SOx) 50 63

Nirogen Oxides (NOx)            200 264

<<

3

112

Mercury (Hg) 0.05 0.06

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 50 45

<<

0.01

24

Total Organic Carbon  10 n/a

Dioxins 0 10 0 14

<<

24

1.02

0 02

26

Dioxins 0.10 0.14

Source:  Gershman, Brinkner & Bratton, Inc.,  Waste to Energy Research & Technology, Columbia UniversityAll well within EU and U.S. Standards

<0.02

Coal vs Energy RecoveryCoal Energy Recovery

Air Emissions

Dioxin² 60 12CO2³ 2 249 837Dioxin²

CO2³CO2                          2,249 837SO2³ 13 1.3NOx³ 6 5

CO2³

SO2³

NOx³

Mercury 41 2

Calorific Value¹ 26 45 (Plastics)

Mercury4

Calorific Value¹ 26  45 (Plastics)  

Current Source of Energy       48%                                < 1%

27

Units:      ¹ MJ/Kg          ² g TEQdf‐HW098/Yr         ³ Comparative units used              Tonnes/Yr

Source:  WTE Research and Technology Council, Columbia University, New York   

4

Energy Recovery & Renewable Energy

The US EPA recognizes energy recovery as “a clean, reliable, renewable source of energy” having  “less environmental impact than almost anygy g p yother source of electricity”

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines renewable energy“as an energy source that is regenerative or virtually inexhaustible” 

24 States + District of Columbia define Energy Recovery as Renewable energy

U.S. Government Agencies & RegulationsAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill), Energy Policy Act (2005), FederalAmerican Recovery & Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill), Energy Policy Act (2005), Federal Power  Act, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulations, The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (944 Mayors), President Obama’s Executive Order Re: Energy Performance (Oct. 2009), US EPA, US DOE

28

Proposed ‘Climate Change’ bill?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Plasticsd f if i

ＭＲ：Mechanical Recycling

End‐of‐Life Options ‐ Japan 

FR3： Feedstock Recovery (Gasification)

ER1 C b i i h E80

100

LF )

ER1： Combustion with EnergyRecovery

ER2： Cement Kiln (SRF)

LF L dfill

60 MR

act (

Hig

her

LF： Landfill

“Energy recovery (ER1,ER2, 20

40 ER1

ER2

onm

enta

l Im

pa

FR3 gy y ( , ,FR3) is more eco‐efficient than Mechanical Recycling (MR) & Landfill (LF)”

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Envi

ro

Source: Plastics Waste Management Institute Japan, 2005

Economics (Higher Costs )

Energy Recovery & Recycling – U.S.A.

Option #7‐Mechanical Recycling (30%) & Energy Recovery (70%)‐ Lower GHG emissions and Net Energy consumption vs other options.  ‐ But higher costsBut higher costs 

30Source: Battelle – Flexible Packaging Sustainability Assessment; “Moving from Solid Waste Disposal to Materials Management in the United States” Susan A. Thorneloe*, Keith A. Weitz**, and Jenna Jambeck*

Net Energy Consumption (billion BTU’s)

Green House Gas Emissions (million tons of carbon equivalent) Net Annualized Cost by Scenario

Energy Recovery & Recycling ‐ Europe

100

1 : 15% Recycling / 85% E.R.2 :      25% Recycling / 75% E.R.3 : 35% Recycling / 65% E.R.

80LF

r

)

Excludes collection costs

3 :      35% Recycling / 65% E.R.4:       50% Recycling / 50% E.R.

LF： 100% Landfill40

60

mpa

ct (H

ighe

r

“Increasing recycling rates increases costs but has no 

201 2

viro

nmen

tal I

m

3 4

improved environmental impact than lower rates”

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

( C )

Env

Source: Plastics Europe “Assessing the Eco‐efficiency of Plastics Packaging Waste Recovery” 2000

Economics (Higher Costs )

Recycling AND Energy Recovery 

Mechanical Recycling is important but will not solve ‘ ’ d ‘ ’ i i‘waste’ and ‘energy’ issues on its own

Energ Reco erEnergy Recovery …– Safe and technically provenCompatible with recycling– Compatible with recycling

– Environmentally sustainable• Generates clean renewable energyGenerates clean renewable energy• Reduces GHG emissions (vs coal & landfilling)

– Promotes energy independence

32

– ‘Green’ jobs

What Now?  Let’s Work Together . . .To advance;

– acceptance and use of energy recovery as a recognized part of resource management hierarchyg y

– perception of flexible packaging as;• captured energy• a valuable resource even after its original use

t ib t t ti l l ti• a contributor to a national energy solution– education & communication with key stakeholders and decision‐

makers• Case Studies, consistent messaging, joint advocacy

– change• Drive change ourselves before change is forced upon us

– Mandated discriminatory legislation & regulations

33

How Can We Drive Change?1. Create ‘Model Legislation’ 

• Based on successes from other countriesk i d dfill i i• EU Packaging, Waste and Landfill Directives

• Germany ‘Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal” Act

• Support U.S. EPA’s Solid Waste Management Hierarchy

• Common national infrastructure

• Role of packaging as part of national energy solution

• Recognize E R as a renewable and sustainable energy source withRecognize E.R. as a renewable and sustainable energy source with climate change benefits

• Tax credits / incentives – existing & emerging E. R. technologies

T d b l dfill• Taxes and bans on landfills

2. Promote ‘100% Recycling’ of all packaging

34

y g p g g= Mechanical Recycling + Composting + Energy Recovery

Why ‘100% Recycling’¹? 

Makes it easy for consumers– Eliminates confusion

– No sorting at homeNo sorting at home

– Able to participate more easily

Increases collection and reduces packaging going to landfills

Captures energy value of hard to mechanically recycle packaging– Eg. Flexible packaging

I i f k i f ‘ t ’ t thi f lImproves image of packaging from ‘wastes’ to something of value

Provides a sustainable energy source & reduces need for foreign oil

35¹ 100% Recycling of Packaging = mechanical recycling + composting + energy recovery

‘100% Recycling’ Approach

High Energy

Large Volume Mono Materials

Mechanical Recycle

High Energy Content

Low Volume and Mi d M t i l

Energy Recovery

Used PackagingFood and Lawn Waste

Mixed Materials

Compost

Recovery Chemicals Fuels

1.2.

Low Energy Content

Compost Facilities

Landfill:Non-compostable

Materials

36

3.

Marketing the Concept:  Plastics P k iPackaging

Value Multiplier: > 15

Plastics Packaging

~ 80%

Oil TransportationValue Multiplier: 1Coal

Natural GasHeating & Cooling

Power

PE retains most of its original energy content ‐ so let’s not waste itPE retains most of its original energy content  so let s not waste it  

Stop burying oil ‐ instead extend the life of this valuable resource!

37Sources: American Chemistry Council; U.S. Energy Information Administration; Canadian Plastics Industry Association.

Let’s Seize the Opportunitypp y• Packaging helps ‘people, planet, and profit’I d t d t• Industry needs to;‐ communicate the benefits of sustainable packaging and positive role of Energy Recoverypositive role of Energy Recovery

‐ educate key stakeholders and decision‐makers

‐ change perceptionsg p p

• Pursue ‘Model Legislation’ & ‘100% recycling’ goals• Coordination and collaboration

38

Th k YThank You

http://www.AmericanChemistry.com/plastics/

http://wwwCPIA ca/epic/http://www.CPIA.ca/epic/

Jon PyperSenior Leader, Plastics Business Public Policy

The Dow Chemical Companyp y

February 11, 2010

39