Newcastle University (SG) Chemical Engineering Assignment Submission & Feedback Sheet Student name: Wong Jie Wei

Shawn Gallatin Samuel Lee Mao Hua Jean Zhou Li Ting Ng Xiao Yuan Jasmine Tan Lian Fang Module Code: CME3113 Assignment title: Waste Management Strategy for Singapore (Potential Investors) Blackboard Paper ID: I certify that all material in this course which is not our own work has been identified. Student Signature: Student self-evaluation: (1) A strong point of our assignment: - Managed to cite actual case studies and related to Singapores context in monetary terms (2) An area which we believe may need improvement: - Analysis in terms of financial sustainability may not be sufficiently critical (3) We would particularly like your feedback/help with: List up to two specific areas: Whether the analysis were sufficiently critical and if the report was concise enough Date submitted : 28 Nov 12 Date returned: Student No: Year: 110526001 2012 110525026 110525004 110526539 110524856 110522298 Module Title: Sustainable Industries Submitted to: Ms Sharon Joyce Marked by:

Markers comments:

Overall mark:
70 100 60 69 50 59 40 49 0 - 39 1st Class 2-1 2-2 3rd Fail

CME 3113
Sustainable Industry
Potential Investor
(Cohort 1)

Team Members:
Wong Jie Wei Shawn Gallatin Samuel Lee Mao Hua Sim Jiaxuan Jean Zhou Liting Ng Xiao Yuan Jasmine Tan Lian Fang (110526001) (110525026) (110525004) (110525680) (110526539) (110524856) (110522298)

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Executive Summary
Five waste management strategies (Incineration, Pyrolysis & Gasification, Improved Recycling, Anaerobic Digestion and Composting) were analysed based on the investors point of view. Capital and operating costs of the mentioned waste management, including its profitability for a period of 10 years were concluded using cumulative cash flow diagrams. The results showed that both incineration and Thermoselect took 7 years to break even. However, incineration had a higher cumulative cash flow of SGD 1069.989M vis--vis Thermoselect which had a cumulative cash flow of SGD 692.37M at the end of 10 years. Therefore, incineration was chosen as it was the most economically sustainable waste management strategy which offered the highest returns on investment in the same period.

(1884 words inclusive of executive summary excluding tabulated texts and appendices)

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

List of Illustrations
Figure 1 Cash Flow Diagram for Thermoselect ............................................................ 4 Figure 2 Sensitivity Analysis of Syngas Production (Khoo H.H. et. al., 2006) ............ 4 Figure 3 Cash Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion ................................................. 5 Figure 4 Trend of Fertilizer Use in Singapore (TradingEconomics.com, 2012) ........... 6 Figure 5 Cash Flow Diagram for Composting ............................................................... 7 Figure 6 Cash Flow Diagram for Improved Recycling ................................................. 9 Figure 7 Relationship between commodity prices and profit (Fabian B & Mathias S., 2012) ............................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 8 Cash Flow Diagram for Incineration ............................................................. 11 Figure 9 Factors Affecting Treatment Cost and Subsequently Revenue (Decision Makers Guide To Municiple Solid Watse, 1999) ........................................................ 12 Figure 10 Prices of Ferrous Metals (Letsrecycle: Metal, 2012) .................................. 13

List of Tables Table 1 Comparison between Incineration and Thermoselect (Khoo H.H et. al., 2006) ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2 Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Mixed Waste (Cant, 2006) ................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3 Summary of Finances (Steve R.S et al, 2002) .................................................. 6 Table 4 Summary of finances obtained (Sembcorp Business at a glance) ................. 8 Table 5 Summary of Finances of TSIP ........................................................................ 10 Table 6 Prices of Ferrous Metal Recyclates in Year 2011 (Letsrecycle: Metal, 2012) ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 7 Summary of the Economic Analysis of All Technologies ............................. 14

ii

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Table of Contents
1. 2. 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 4. 5. 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 2 Market Survey ...................................................................................................... 3 Thermoselect ....................................................................................................... 3 Investment Analysis ...................................................................................... 3 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................... 4 Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................................................... 5 Investment Analysis ...................................................................................... 5 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................... 6 Composting ......................................................................................................... 6 Investment Analysis ...................................................................................... 6 Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................... 8 Improved Recycling ............................................................................................ 8 Investment Analysis ...................................................................................... 8 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 10 Incineration & Landfill ..................................................................................... 10 Investment Analysis .................................................................................... 10 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 14 References............................................................................................................ 15 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 18 Appendix B ....................................................................................................... 20 Appendix C ....................................................................................................... 22 Appendix D ....................................................................................................... 24 Appendix E ....................................................................................................... 26

iii

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

1.

Introduction

With a population density of approximately 5.3 million ("Statistics," 2012) and limited land area, it is imperative that Singapore has an efficient system for the collection and disposal of solid waste. Over the years, the output of solid waste in Singapore has increased from 4.6 million tons in 2000 to 6.8 million tons in 2011. (Tay, 2012) Statistical data showed that 59% of the total waste generated 2011 was being recycled. Out of the 41% that was disposed of, 38% goes to the Waste-toEnergy (WTE) plants where the waste will be incinerated and the energy recovered. The remaining 3% along with the unwanted residue from the incineration would be sent to the Semakau Landfill for landfilling. (Tay, 2012) At present, the frequency of Singapore building a new incineration plant is one every 5-7 years. (McCrea et al.)With that, the cost involved in dealing with the wastes in Singapore will be constantly increasing as the rate of waste generation increases with respect to the growing population. Hence, it is important that a new waste management strategy is developed in order to accommodate the growing volume of waste. This new strategy should not only be a long term solution to Singapores growing waste problems, it should also offer attractive returns; one that is worth investing in.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

2.
i. ii.

Methodology
The existing waste management strategies in Singapore were analyzed. Research was done on other forms of waste treatment. Research areas were, Incineration Pyrolysis & Gasification Improved Recycling Anaerobic Digestion Composting

iii.

Factors such as the capital and operating costs of the plant as well as the market value of any saleable products were gathered for the respective research areas.

iv.

With the data, an estimation of the profitability and feasibility of each waste treatment process was analysed.

v.

The profitability of each waste treatment process was projected for 10 years through the use of a cumulative cash flow diagram.

vi.

At the same time, wastes generation and recycling patterns were studied to determine whether it would be worthwhile to be investing in the waste management business.

vii.

From the cash flow diagrams, a comparison was done to decide which waste management process would give the best return on investments.

viii.

Finally, a simple risk analysis (sensitivity) of the investment was conducted to investigate the effects of various external undesirable factors on the revenue or operating conditions/costs.

In each of the technologies discussed, a brief description of the technology and some detailed financial data (if available) are attached in Appendices A-E while the general finance related materials are discussed in the report.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

3. 3.1

Market Survey Thermoselect

3.1.1 Investment Analysis

Presently, the main waste treatment is by incineration. Comparatively, countries such as Japan and Germany have ventured into Thermoselect, a plant which features cleaner emissions, higher efficiencies and greater investment returns. A study by the Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences was conducted to ascertain the economical viabilities of Thermoselect in Singapore. It was based on a plant in Europe which had the same capacity of the Waste to Energy Incinerator in Tuas South. Table 1 summarizes the cost and operating conditions related to that of the Tuas Incinerator and the proposed Thermoselect plant.
Table 1 Comparison between Incineration and Thermoselect (Khoo H.H et. al., 2006) Cost and Operating Conditions Capacity (tpd) Type of materials processed Main useful product Capital and construction costs in millions SGD Operating costs in SGD/ton Tipping fee in SGD/ton (Source: Cooper J, 2010) Disposal cost to landfill in SGD/ton Electricity Input (KWh/ton) Natural gas input (m3/ton) (Source: Smart Energy) Residues/Ash Waste Treatment Technology Incinerator 3000 Mixed MSW Electricity (550KWh/ton) 900 70 80 77 70 0.23 Up to 20% Thermoselect 3000 Mixed MSW Syngas (890kg/ton) 725 100 80 77 302 34.6 Up to 5%

From Table 1, it was shown that the Thermoselect plant was much cheaper to build as compared to the Incinerator. However, the operating cost was slightly higher comparatively than the incineration plant.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Cash Flow Diagram

Cummulative Cash Flow (M SGD)
800 600 400 200 0 -200 0 -400 -600 -800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year

Figure 1 Cash Flow Diagram for Thermoselect

From Fig. 1, it could be seen that it will take approximately 7 years to break even and that the cumulative cash flow at the end of 10 years would be SGD 692.4M.

3.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 2 Sensitivity Analysis of Syngas Production (Khoo H.H. et. al., 2006)

From Fig. 2, it can be seen that low production rates of syngas would increase break even time required for recovery of capital cost. However, higher production of syngas may not reduce the break even time required as the operating costs increases with production rates.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

3.2

Anaerobic Digestion

3.2.1 Investment Analysis

Municipal solid waste can be treated using a process known as anaerobic digestion. From this process, biogas is produced, which is then combusted and used to drive gas engines to produce electricity. The electricity was then sold to the grid. Additional income from the tipping fee was also considered when calculating the overall revenue of the plant.
Table 2 Estimated Costs of Anaerobic Digestion Facilities to Process Mixed Waste (Cant, 2006)

Costs Involved Capital Cost Annual Operating Costs (including offsite curing and residue disposal) Annual Electricity revenue Annual Tipping Fee Revenue

SGD 1,5372,000 1,488,400

1,215,000 1,600,000

Using the estimated costs from Table 2, a cash flow diagram was generated to analyze the profitability if this waste treatment process.

Cash Flow Digram

0 Cumulative Cash Flow (M SGD) -2 0 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 Year 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 3 Cash Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion

From Fig. 3, it was observed that the estimated time taken for the project to break even would be slightly more than 12 years. This was due to the high capital and operating costs of the facility. This meant that the project would not be profitable due 5

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

to a low return on investment. Hence, the use of anaerobic digestion as a waste treatment process would not be attractive for investors.

3.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Given the increasing waste generation trend, it is not expected that the production rates and revenues would be affected.

3.3

Composting

3.3.1 Investment Analysis

While current practices in Singapore are limited to household scale, the neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines already have plants which capitalize on the value of the composts.

Figure 4 Trend of Fertilizer Use in Singapore (TradingEconomics.com, 2012)

From Fig. 4, it could be noted that the trend of fertilizer use increasing and thus presents a potential market to be surveyed for feasibility. Table 2 summarizes the finances associated with the investment into vermicomposting.
Table 3 Summary of Finances (Steve R.S et al, 2002)

Direct costs of operating the processing system Expenses incurred at Waste Research Centre (WRC) Land Rental Waste application and handling equipment Screening/harvesting equipment Utilities Workshop rental Labour Depreciation of beds

Cost per Block $200 $200 $980 $200 $600 $810 $1200

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor
($4190)

Potential Income (per Block) WRC Income Compost sales (estimated 20 m3/yr) Earthworm sales (estimated 50 kg/yr) Direct Processing Cost (per Block) Details Direct processing costs Total income Net costs Tonnes processed/year Gate fee required to break even Estimated Overhead Cost (per Block) Details Staff costs Marketing/administration Premises/facilities Tonnes processed/year Gate fee required to break even

Worst case $600 $500 ($1100) Worst case $4190 $1100 $3190 52 $62

Best case $2400 $1000 ($3400) Best case $4190 $3400 $790 52 $16

Cost per Block $960 $300 $300 52 $30

Cash Flow Diagram

39000 Cummulative Cash Flow (SGD) 34000 29000 24000 19000 14000 9000 4000 -1000 -6000 0 2 4 Year 6 8 10

Figure 5 Cash Flow Diagram for Composting

Fig. 5 was constructed from Table 3 to illustrate the cumulative cash flow. The plant was constructed under slightly in a year and that with an operating cost of $3340 per annum (due to the fixed capacity of the plant). From the CFD, it would take approximately 2.2 years to break even and at the end of 10 years, the cumulative cash flow would be SGD 32,340.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

3.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The costs of fertilizers in Singapore are relatively constant and are usually affected by demands and transportation costs. This would then affect production cost and subsequently the selling price of the product. As waste generation is on the rise coupled with the increase in composting trends, it is not expected that the plant feed rate would reduce and hence production efficiencies would not be affected. However, as the market for the composts is small in Singapore, majority of the products would have to be shipped to the neighbouring countries and by doing so would then increase the gate fee & reduce the profit margin. With all the addition of all the discussed components, the final selling price would be insufficiently competitive even though the cost price and general benefits of composting are cheaper and better than the inorganic fertilizers used alone.

3.4

Improved Recycling

3.4.1 Investment Analysis

Case studies of recycling firms were studied for its economic feasibility. However a financial report for a recycling-only firm could not be obtained. This was because most companies in Singapore incorporate collection and waste treatment. As such, companies such as Sembwaste were used as the basis. Table 3 summarizes the finances of Sembwaste in Year 2011.
Table 4 Summary of finances obtained (Sembcorp Business at a glance) Year 2011 Total waste recycled (tonnes/year) Revenue (SGD in million) Profit (SGD in million) Capital Cost (SGD in million) Break even (years) Sembwaste 150,000 370.3 42 328.3 8.7

Based on Table 4, a 10-year cash flow diagram (Fig. 6) was computed to illustrate the cumulative cash flow. The following assumptions were made in the computation;

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Increment of 1% in recycling rate. (According to NEAs waste report of average increment of 1% throughout 10 years.) (Zerowastesg Singapore Waste Statistics, 2011)

Not all waste collected are recycled.

Cumulative Cash Flow (M SGD)

Cash Flow Diagram

100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 Year 0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 6 Cash Flow Diagram for Improved Recycling

The waste statistics from National Environment Agency showed that the recycling rate in year 2011 was 59% with the total waste recycled at 4,038,800 tonnes. From the financial report of Sembwaste, it was noted that they only had a share of 2.2% (150,000 tonnes) of the 59% of waste recycled in Singapore. This low percentage proved that the potential for revenue is high; furthermore it is expected that the recycling rates are to be increased. From Fig. 6, it could be seen that it took 8.7 years to break even with a cumulative cash flow of SGD 65.2M at the end of 10 years.

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 7 Relationship between commodity prices and profit (Fabian B & Mathias S., 2012)

From Fig. 7, it could be seen that the increase in amount of waste recycled could affect the income. Similarly, the commodity price also affects the income as seen from the gradients of the lines in Fig. 7 (commodity price being the gradient of the lines). Hence, with the increasing trend in the commodity prices coupled with the increase in waste generation, it is not expected that business would be affected by a reduction in waste processing rate.

3.5

Incineration & Landfill

3.5.1 Investment Analysis

The total waste generated in Singapore was 6.8 million tonnes in 2011 with a projected increment of approximately 5.37% per year due to population growth and increasing effluence. (Solid Waste management, 2012) Table 5 summarizes the approximated finances for the processing of 2.3 million tonnes of waste per annum.
Table 5 Summary of Finances of TSIP

Spending Avenue - Capital Cost - Waste Generated to TSIP - Operation Cost - Landfill fee

Rate S$890M NA S$70/ton S$77/ton

Generation/Production NA 2.3Mil ton/yr NA 0.066Mil ton/Yr

Cost per Annum NA NA -S$161M -$5.13M

10

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Revenues - Electricity sold - Ferrous Metal sold - Tipping Fee Net Profit less Capital

S$0.27/kWh S$270 S$80/tonne

64MW 0.39Mil tonne/yr 2.3Mil tonne/yr

S$151.4M S$105.3M S$184M S$440.7M

Cash Flow Diagram

Cummulative Cash Flow (M SGD)
1360 1110 860 610 360 110 -140 0 -390 -640 -890

10

Year

Figure 8 Cash Flow Diagram for Incineration

From Fig. 8, it will take approximately 6.8 years to break even with a cumulative cash flow of S$ 1070M at the end of 10 years. From the Table 5, it was observed that the tipping fee contributed to the biggest portion of the revenue. The tipping fee was calculated based on weight of the waste and would hence increase as the waste generation increases. Recovered ferrous metal could be sold to local steel mills. The resale of ferrous metal only contributes to 24% of the whole revenue generated. The total recovered metals was 0.39 million tonnes in year 2011. (Solid Waste management, 2012) The average price for ferrous metal of S$270/tonne was derived from Table 6. Recently a potential market in the bottom ash produced from incineration was found for use in concrete. As the bottom ash is very porous, concrete made from bottom ash is lighter than those made from natural gravel which helps in lowering the transportation cost. For this reason, more construction businesses have switched to bottom ash for use in concrete. This reduced the cost of land filling the bottom ash by

11

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

15-20% which was estimated to be $22/tonne from the current $25/tonne. (Heiner Zwahr)
Table 6 Prices of Ferrous Metal Recyclates in Year 2011 (Letsrecycle: Metal, 2012)

3.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The energy recovered from the incineration of wastes is also reliant on the calorific value of the waste. Figure 9 shows how the calorific value and working capacity would affect production cost and subsequently revenue.

Figure 9 Factors Affecting Treatment Cost and Subsequently Revenue (Decision Makers Guide To Municiple Solid Watse, 1999 )

12

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

From Fig. 10, it was observed that revenue would not be affected significantly despite the decline in the prices of ferrous metals due to the increase in waste generation per year.

Figure 10 Prices of Ferrous Metals (Letsrecycle: Metal, 2012)

13

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

4.

Conclusion

Amongst the explored technologies available for proposal in the survey, a Table 7 was constructed to aid in decision making process for the final selection of the technology for investment.
Table 7 Summary of the Economic Analysis of All Technologies Technology Thermoselect Indicators Breakeven period Cumulative Cash @ 10 year Risk (Sensitivity) Breakeven period Anaerobic Digestion Cumulative Cash @ 10 year Risk (Sensitivity) Breakeven period Composting Cumulative Cash @ 10 year Risk (Sensitivity) Breakeven period Improved Recycling Cumulative Cash @ 10 year Risk (Sensitivity) Breakeven period Incineration Cumulative Cash @ 10 year Risk (Sensitivity) Performance 7 years SGD 692.37M High 12 - 13 years SGD -3.433M Low 2 years SGD 25,135 Medium 9 years SGD 65.178M Low 7 years SGD 1069.989M Low

It is clear from Table 7 that Thermoselect, Composting and Incineration were promising technologies which would be profitable with a reasonable period to breakeven. Both Thermoselect and Incineration broke even at the 7th year mark and were low in investment risk. However, at the 10th year of investment, it could be seen that Incineration had the highest cumulative cash flow which meant higher return on investment. Furthermore, the Thermoselect technology was assessed to be high in risk compared to Incineration, with only low risk. Therefore, Incineration was chosen for the ideal waste management technology for Singapore business as usual from an investors point of view for an economically sustainable investment.

14

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

5.

References
Benefits-of-Recycling: Recycling Prices. What is the Cost of Recycling? Available at: http://www.benefits-of-recycling.com/recyclingprices/ (Accessed: 30/09/12) Business Week: Veolia environment-adr (VE:Singapore). Available at: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?tic ker=VE:SP (Accessed: 1/11/12) Cant, M. (2006, April). Municipal solidwaste (MSW) options: Integrating organics management and residual treatment/disposal. Cooper, J (2010) Singapores Tuas Incinerator Officially Opened. Available at: http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/special-reports/singapores-tuasincinerator-officially-opened. (Accessed 10/11/12) Eco-Business: Recycling in Singapore: 10 years on Chute, we got it wrong. Available at: http://www.eco-business.com/news/recycling-singapore-10years-chute-we-got-it-wrong/ (Accessed: 1/11/12) Fabian B. & Mathias S. (2012) Economic Feasibility of e-Waste Treatment in Tanzania, pg25, Swiss Federal Institute for Material Science and Technology (EMPA), Switzerland. Heiner Zwahr: Ash Recycling: Just A Dream? Available at http://gcsusa.com/pdf%20files/Ash%20Recycling%20%20Just%20a%20Drea m.pdf (Accessed 14/11/12) Khoo H.H, R. Tan B.H, Salim S. & Wu Y.M (2006) Life cycle evaluation and economic considerations of the pyrolysis-gasification of municipal solid waste in Singapore, pg 46, Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences, Singapore. Letsrecycle: Metal. Available at: http://www.etsrecycle.com/prices/metals (Accessed 14/11/12)

15

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Mewr: Solid Management . Available at: http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/contents.aspx?ContId=680 (Accessed 12/11/12)

NEA: Envision. Available at: http://www.nea.gov.sg/cms/sei/Envision_11Jan_Issue1.pdf (Accessed: 10/10/12) NEA: Waste Minimisation & Recycling. Available at http://app2.nea.gov.sg/topics_wasteminimisation.aspx (Accessed: 9/10/12) Sembcorp: Business at A Glance. Available at: http://www.sembcorp.com/en/investor-relations-businesses-glance.aspx (Accessed: 21/11/12) Sembcorp: Solid Waste Management. Available at: http://www.sembcorp.com/en/global-presence.aspx?type=waste (Accessed: 21/11/12) Singapore Power: Tariff Rates. Available at http://www.singaporepower.com.sg/irj/portal?NavigationTarget=navurl://41c8 e6a3faf48bb168af2c222faa8ee4&windowId=WID1353506908214 (Accessed: 22/11/12)

Smart Energy: Current Price. Available at: http://www.smartenergy.sg/SMART_Energy/Welcome.html (Accessed on: 15 Nov 2012) Steve R.S & Jim F (2001) Vermicomposting Financial Evaluation and Market Protential, pg 68-71, Urban Mines Pte Ltd Trading Economics Fertilizer Use in Singapore. Available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/fertilizer-consumption-metrictons-wb-data.html (Accessed: 10/11/12)

Worlds Bank: Decision Makers Guide To Municiple Solid Watse Available at: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/urbanenvironment/resources/references/pdf s/DecisionMakers.pdf (Accessed 14/11/12)

World-Wire: Recession Proof Cleantech Investing: The Recycling Industry. Available at: http://world-wire.com/news/0804010002.html (Accessed: 9/10/12)

16

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Yamada S., Shimizu M., Miyoshi F. (2004) Thermoselect Waste Gasification and Reformcing Process, JFE Technical Report Zerowastesg: Singapore Waste Statistics 2011. Available at: http://www.zerowastesg.com/2012/03/27/singapore-waste-statistics-2011/ (Accessed: 9/10/12)

17

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

6. 6.1

Appendices Appendix A

Incineration
Introduction Incineration is a thermal disposal technique that combusts waste with excess of oxygen. There are currently 3 incineration plants in Singapore. The Tuas South Waste to Energy Incineration plant would be discussed in this report. The plant has six refuse cells with a capacity of 3000 tonnes per day. Steam is generated from each boiler with a capacity of 105 tonnes/hr at a pressure of 35barg and temperature of 370C. The diesel requirement for cold start-up of the plant is 5000L/boiler. Cold start-ups are only performed if the plant requires to be shut down for maintenance otherwise the refuse are capable of sustaining the combustion itself. The plant is rated at 80MW using a 10.5kV generator. 20% of the electricity produced is used by the plant while the remaining 80% is sold. Incineration can achieve up to 90% and 75% reduction in volume and weight respectively. Digital control systems in the central control room are used to monitor and control the processes to ensure optimum efficiency and reliability. Capital Cost refers to the amount of capital required to build the plant which in this case is approximately S$890M. The construction of the incineration plant took four years. Operating cost includes the maintenance cost and the labour cost. An estimated operating cost would be S$70/tonne of waste received. Landfilling contributes to a fraction of the operating cost as the company is responsible for the disposal of waste that cannot be incinerated. A cost of S$77-S$80 (Cooper J, 2010) would be incurred by the company for every tonne of waste that is sent for landfill. Energy can be recovered from hot water, low grade steam or super-heated steam. Price of electricity is $0.27 per kWh in Singapore. Electricity generated by the plant is dependent on the amount of waste generated.

18

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Process The most important process to obtain electricity in the incineration plant is the heat generated by the combusting the refuse. The heat from combustion is used to generate steam in boilers. Electricity is generated by two steam turbines that are driven by the steam. Used steam from the two turbines is condensed by air condenser fans. This condensate would then be recycled back into the boiler.
Figure A1 Process Flow of TSIP

19

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

6.2

Appendix B

Thermoselect Introduction
Figure A2 Process Flow of Thermoselect (Yamada S. et. al., 2004)

Figure A2 shows the typical flow of Thermoselect process. Wastes are compressed dried and pyrolyze by indirect heating in a degassing channel. The products are then charged into high temperature reactor, where it is melted under controlled amount of oxygen and pyrolyzed carbon to form gas. The gas is treated with gas reforming / refining / quenching processes before being recovered as clean synthesized fuel gas or syngas. Process Features The features are as follows: Low emissions of dioxins and no generation of fly ash Increase in use of recyclates The waste input is being processed into synthetic gas metals recovered, i.e. granulated slag, metal hydroxides and mixed salts. Most substances are used effectively as resources and results in minimum waste disposal. Gas Products The key components of syngas are H2 and CO, which can be used as fuel and also as chemical feedstock. Syngas is applicable to a wide range of power generation technologies such as the gas turbine combined cycle. Syngas can be sold 20

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

Process Economy The process uses the energy contained in waste to perform melting and remove the need for treatment processes for dioxins and fly ash with heavy metal impurity. Due to the efficiency, total cost is lower than conventional methods employed such as incineration first followed by ash melting. As the process also minimizes the need for landfill, tipping fees are generally reduced.

21

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

6.3

Appendix C

Improved Recycling Introduction In the late 1990s, Singapore introduced measures such as recycling in order to cope with the increasing waste generation and depleting land space for landfilling. Recycling is the process of re-using solid waste materials and re-manufacturing it so that it could be used again. This conserves landfill space and prevents wasting of useful materials. The wastes are collected and distributed to the sorting centers for processing. The process will vary with different waste materials. Waste statistics from NEA showed that current recycling method can recycle 13 types of wastes as shown in Table A1. [NEA: Waste Statistics]:
Table A1 Types of Waste Recycled

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Waste Type Construction Debris Used Slag Ferrous Metal Non-ferrous Metals Scrap Tyres Wood/Timber Paper/Cardboard Horticultural Waste Glass Textile/Leather Plastics Food waste Others (stones, ceramics & rubber)

Events such as Annual Recycling Week were held to encourage and educate citizens understand the 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) scheme and thereby raise awareness on the importance of waste minimization and recycling. There were also schemes like SPA (Singapore Packaging Agreement) which allowed companies to collaborate with the government to reduce packaging waste over a 5-year period. Presently, the only investors in Singapore are statutory boards such as the Singapore Environment Council and National Environment Agency. While more schemes are

22

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

being introduced to encourage recycling, there are currently no incentive or obligations for the citizens to recycle.

23

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

6.4

Appendix D

Anaerobic Digestion Introduction Anaerobic Digestion is a process that converts biomass into beneficial products using microorganism in the absence of air. Nearly all biomass can be converted using Anaerobic Digestion; some examples are food waste, manure and crop residues. However woody biomass cannot be processed using this method, as the microorganism is not capable of breaking down lignin in wood. The process starts with placing biomass in a sealed tank and allows the microorganism to digest the matters. Some of the major products of the process are Biogas and Digestates. Biogas can be used as a fuel substitute and can be combust to produce both heat and electricity. Typically the mixture is comprised of 60% methane and 40% carbon dioxide and some contaminant gases, but the exact composition depends on the type of feedstock used. Digestates are extremely rich in nutrient and thus it can be used as commercial fertilisers. Some of the benefit of using digestates as fertiliser is that it provides moisture retention and prevents soil erosion. Since there are no anaerobic digestion case studies in Singapore, thus in this report the reference would be based on a Germany waste treatment plant. In this report, the case study on anaerobic digestion was based on a plant in Germany. Biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion plant as well as landfill gases from a nearby landfill is being converted to energy. The biogas and landfill gases are combusted and the hot flue gas is used to drive gas engines which will in turn convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy. The electrical output of the plant is an estimated 1400kW. (Mergias, Malamis & Loizidou, 2007) From the information gathered from the case study, the plant is designed to generate kWh/year based on the combustion of the gases. During operation, the

24

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

plant consumes

kWh/year, giving it a net electricity production of

kWh/year. (Mergias, Malamis & Loizidou, 2007)

25

School of Chemical Engineering & Advanced Materials

Potential Investor

6.5

Appendix E

Composting Introduction Composting is the natural breakdown (aerobic) of organic material or waste (paper, cardboard, food & horticulture) into useful composts which are then used as fertilizers. While there are many types of composting, they are often combined so that it increases the type of wastes which can be composted. As Anaerobic Digestion is similar in concept as with Anaerobic Composting and that it has been discussed in the previous section, it will not be discussed further in this section. Of interest, Vermicomposting have increasingly been employed as the method for composting due to its ability to entirely eliminate the need for landfill. Vermicomposting is the use of worms (black soldier fly larvae or red wrigglers) to feed on the waste to produce composts which are used as either fertilizers or animal feed. The process begins with the conditioning and mechanical sorting and sizing of the waste so that the composting period can be shortened. The feedstock (waste) would then be fed through a continuous mechanical bed (in blocks, which aerates and moisturizes it at specific intervals to ensure a conducive environment for the worms to work & reproduce. This process takes approximately 1.5 to 2 months before the compost is ready for use. Figure A1 summarizes the process using integrated cow farm & vermicomposting plant (Thomas H., 2008)
Figure A1 Summary of Process Flow

26