MODULE 8

Chemical Transformation
FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF MSWM

Primary collection

Secondary
collection
 Lecture 23
Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants (Case studies)
Pyrolysis and Gasification
 WHY INDIA’S FIRST WASTE INCINERATION PLANT FAILED ???
 In 1987, the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES) commissioned the TIMARPUR REFUSE
INCINERATION-CUM POWER GENERATION STATION at a capital cost of Rs. 20 crores which was
imported from Volund Miljotecknik Ltd. of Denmark.

 The plant was designed to incinerate 300 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day to generate 3.75 MW of
electricity.

 The plant was shut down after 21 days trial operation due to the poor quality of incoming waste.

 The calorific value of the supplied waste was in the range of 600-700 kcal/kg while it required waste with net
calorific value of 1462.5 kcal/kg.

 Attempts to supplement the combustion with diesel fuel also failed.

 The Ministry incurred an expenditure of Rs 1.25 crore on maintenance and insurance of the plant.

 The project was officially shut down in July 1990.

Narela-Bawana WtE plant, Delhi, India- A case study
 The North Delhi Municipal Corporation launched
waste-to-energy plant at Narela-Bawana, New Delhi,
India, in the year 2017.

 The project is using 2000 metric tonnes of waste

every day to generate 24 MW of energy.

 Spread over 100 acres of land, the Rs. 458 crore has
been developed on PPP model by Ramky Group, a
Hyderabad-based waste management company, in
collaboration with the North Corporation.

 As per the agreement, the electricity generated from

the plant will be sold by the concessionaire.
Narela-Bawana landfill site
 At the WTE plant, there are two boilers which run at
its full capacity to consume 600 tonnes of RDF.
 Cont…
 The facility comprises a scientifically engineered landfill,
• Delhi has two other WtE plants at Ghazipur
Narela-Bawana, first in Delhi.
and Okhla landfill sites.
 The solid waste is collected door-to-door from households in
• The Ghazipur plant uses about 2000 tonnes
Rohini and Civil Lines and transported to the landfill which
of garbage and produces 12 MW of energy.
goes to a MRF.
• The Okhla landfill WtE plant has a capacity
 The MRF reclaims metals and other recyclables with great value
to produce 16 MW capacity from 1200
and produces compost out of the organic waste.
tonnes of garbage.
 The waste is further segregated to obtain RDF which in burnt
above 1000 ºC to produce electricity.

 The fly-ash generated is < 20% of the feed which is carefully

dumped in the landfill.

 This plant alone handles about 20% of Delhi’s MSW.

Okhla WtE plant, Delhi, India- A case study
 The Okhla landfill WtE plant in South
Delhi, has a capacity to produce 16
MW capacity from 1200 tonnes of
garbage.

 The incineration plant was

commissioned in January 2012 and is
processing about 1,600 TPD of waste.

 The MSW after pre-processing is

being fed into the incineration plant
and is generating about 16 MW of
electricity.
Okhla WtE plant in Delhi
BUT...........
 The generating capacity of Okhla WtE plant had been increased from approved 16 MW to 20 MW.

 Total unsegregated waste handling at Okhla was increased to 2000 TPD against approved 1200-1525 TPD.

 A new stack constructed without informing the Ministry.

 Single boiler of 750 MT/day was comissioned but three boilers were installed (1500 MT/day)

 MSW was handled at only one location instead of two (other one in Timarpur) which resulted in larger
collection/transportation/segregation of MSW than that was permitted. So, higher RDF was processed with
higher emissions.

 Where waste with a calorific value of at least 1600 kcal/kg is required for efficient burning, the Okhla plant
had been burning wet waste along with other unsegregated waste (Wet waste has a lower calorific value of
about 1300 kcal/kg).

 Above all, the Okhla plant operated in the middle of a densely populated area.
 The Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) has allowed the
Okhla WtE plant to increase its power from 16 MW to 23 MW by
amending the environmental clearance the plant had received in the year
2007, without increasing the MSW intake and without installing any
additional equipment.

 No further expansion beyond 23 MW considering its proximity to

residential areas.

 Plant should run in automatic mode for stable operating conditions.

 All other emission parameters should be monitored online.

Pyrolysis and Gasification
 PYROLYSIS
 Pyrolysis is thermal degradation (300-800°C) of organic
material in the absence of oxidizing agents such as oxygen,
steam and CO2
 Pyrolysis, unlike incineration, is an endothermic reaction
and heat must be applied to waste to distil volatile
components.
 Composition and energy contents of the pyrolysis products
are highly dependent of the waste input and may vary
significantly:
 Gas (H2, CH4, CO and CO2): 20–50% by weight of the
input.
 Liquid (tar, oil, water, organic acids, phenols, PAHs and
alcohols): 30–50% by weight.
A biomass pyrolyser in Mumbai, India
 Solid (char like material): 20–50% by weight.
 GASIFICATION
 Gasification is thermal and chemical conversion
(800-1500°C) of carbon based material into a
mainly gaseous output by partial oxidation with a
gasification agent typically air, steam or oxygen.

 Products of gasification are in general:

 Gas (similar to pyrolysis gas but higher CO2):

30–60% by weight of the input.

 Liquid (tar and oil): 10–20% by weight of the

input.

 Solid (ashes): 30–50% by weight of the input.

A small scale gasifier producing biochar
Source: Colantoni, Andrea & Longo, Leonardo & Evic, Nikola & Gallucci, Francesco & Delfanti,
Lavinia. (2015). Use of Hazelnut‟s Pruning to Produce Biochar by Gasifier Small Scale
Plant.. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research. 5. 6.
Gasification of MSW is accomplished in two chambers
 Primary chamber
 Operated below the stoichiometric air requirement.
 Waste is semi-pyrolyzed, releasing moisture and volatile
components.
 Heat is provided by the controlled combustion of fixed carbon
within the waste.
 Secondary chamber
 Operated under excess air conditions.
 Syngas that is driven off contains a high calorific value and can
act as a feedstock.
 Combustion air is then added to the syngas, making it highly
combustible and prone to self-ignition.
 Equipped with burner to maintain operating temperature at all
times.
TYPES OF REACTORS

i. Counter-current

ii. Co-current

iii. Fluidized bed

iv. Rotary kiln reactors

Schematic overview of major waste pyrolysis and gasification reactor types

COUNTER-CURRENT GASIFICATION

 Fixed bed reactors.

 Gasification agent flows in a counter-current manner.

 Cylinder shaped reactors mounted vertically and waste is fed from top of
the reactor and the solid outputs collected from the bottom.

 The gasification agent is supplied from the bottom and the off-gases are
collected at the top, the gases thereby flowing in an updraft manner.

 Advantages: Simple construction and a high thermal efficiency (since

upwards flow of gases through the reactor also heats the waste).

 Disadvantages: High tar production, potential carryover of dust with

the gas, slagging, and difficulties with controlling temperature zones
within the reactor.
CO-CURRENT GASIFICATION

 Similar to counter-current gasifiers.

 The gasification agent is introduced in the upper part of the bed.

 The gasification agent and the waste flow co-currently towards the
bottom of the gasifier.

 Advantages

 Increased breakdown of tars as the gasification agent passes through the

hot char in the high-temperature oxidation zone before leaving the gasifier.

 Low requirement for gas cleaning.

 Disadvantage

 Prone to clogging due to reactor geometry which makes them difficult to

scale-up.
 FLUIDIZED BED GASIFICATION

 The solids are in motion but retained within the reactor.

 A heat-conducting bed material is used to transfer heat to the waste.

 Advantages

 Better mixing and heat transfer resulting in more uniform bed

conditions and improved overall conversion efficiencies.

 It can be scaled up.

 Disadvantage

 Scale up studies should be conducted.

 ROTARY KILN GASIFICATION

 Slowly rotating and slightly inclined cylinders are used.

 The waste slowly moves down the cylinder.

 The gasification agent is introduced at the bottom end of the

cylinder.

 Waste retention time is longer than in the case of fluidized bed

gasifiers, but shorter than in the counter-current or co-current
gasifiers.
INTEGRATED PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION

Two-stage thermoselect process of pyrolysis and gasification

BENEFITS OF PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO INCINERATION
 The possibility and flexibility to recover chemical energy in the waste as hydrogen and/or other chemical feedstocks
rather than converting this energy into hot flue gases.

 Potentially better overall energy efficiency.

 Less trouble with corrosion.

 Less need for flue gas cleaning: smaller volumes of flue gas with a better quality.

 Potentially better options for CO2 capture.

 Potentially lower emissions of dioxins.

 Improved qualities of solid residues, particular for high-temperature processes.

 Gasification units operating with a low fuel load, potentially facilitating small plants producing less than 1 MW.

 Potentially lower costs.

MAIN DRAWBACKS OF THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY FOR PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION
 Relatively homogeneous fuels are needed.
 Slagging, tar production and contaminants in the produced gas are common.
 Existing technologies only demonstrated in small scale and/or only applicable to specific fuel types.
 Overall energy conversion efficiencies of existing installations have been unable to compete with modern waste
incinerators.

PROCESS PARAMETERS
 A long range of parameters may influence the pyrolysis and gasification processes-
 Reactor design
 Waste composition
 Waste pretreatment
 Process temperatures
 Heating
 Residence times
 Pressure
TECHNOLOGY
 Long range of pyrolysis and gasification technologies exists.

 From a waste point of view two main aspects differentiate the technologies:

 Energy recovery: focus on generating a syngas suitable for utilization in a gas motor, gas turbine to produce
electricity or combustion in a boiler to generate heat.

 Material recovery: focus on producing a stable solid residue for use in construction works or using the
syngas as chemical feedstock.

 Material recovery often occurs on the expense of energy recovery.

CATEGORIES OF REACTOR
 One-stage process

 Either pyrolysis or gasification.

 Typically used on more homogeneous feedstocks

 Two- stage process

 Used for complicated feedstocks such as mixed municipal solid waste.

 The pyrolysis processes typically take place in the first reactor while the gasification processes occur in the
second reactor after introduction of a gasification agent.

 The pyrolysis/gasification process may also be combined with combustion, either in a separate combustion
chamber or integrated in the last part of a second stage.
CHALLENGES OF UTILIZING PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

 High calorific value waste, which may otherwise be processed in more

sustainable processes, is required as feedstock.

 Organics can be converted into compost in a much more cost-effective and

environmentally safe against using them for these processes.

 Requires specific feedstock quality, which has a direct impact on the efficiency
and commercial viability of the product.

 Pre-treatment of waste is a must.

 Specific size and consistency of solid waste should be achieved before MSW can
be used as feed.
Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India- A case study of WtE plant (Gasification)

 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd (KPTL) set up a Biomass plant at Padampur in the Ganganagar
district of Rajasthan in the year 2003.

 This plant uses agricultural waste and crop residues (biomass) as inputs and generates 7.8 MW of
power.

 The project achieved Gold Standard Certification in the year 2012.

 Gold Standard is the only premium quality standard for carbon emission reduction projects with added
sustainable development benefits and guaranteed environmental integrity.

 The Gold Standard label distinguishes projects and emissions under the Clean Development Mechanism,
joint implementation, and voluntary offset markets.
Source: https://kalpatarupower.com/biomass-plants/
 Pune, India- A case study of WtE plant (Gasification)

 Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) takes care of 50% of the city’s waste in alliance with Concord Blue
Technology Private Ltd.

 25-year contract was set to implement the patented ‘gasification-reformer tower.’

 The 10 MW plant processes 650 TPD.

 The tipping fee for the tech solution providers = Rs. 300 per tonne.

 The cost of the plant was 14-15 crore/ MW with the generated cost of electricity coming to Rs. 13/ kWh.

 This is offset by actual price paid by the electricity board, the tipping fee involved and other incentives.

Source: 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual, 2016

2. https://ankurscientific.com/blog/2018/11/25/what-is-the-cost-
of-waste-to-energy-projects-in-india/
 FEATURES OF A WELL IMPLEMENTED WtE PLANT

 Reduces volume of the waste with minimal or no waste sent to landfills.

 Generates energy through gas / power, and fertilizer ensuring waste is utilized thoroughly.

 Usable solution in small towns along with large urban centers.

 Decentralized processing with minimal transportation and absolutely no hassles.

 Emissions should be aligned with defined environment norms.

 Economical implementation.

 Financially viable.
Thank you