Waste to Energy Focus: Achieving R1 Status
Achieving R1 Status
Efficient Waste to Energy plants can now achieve ‘energy recovery’
status calculated using the ?R1-formula?. How many facilities across
Europe will reach this stage? Ahead of a deadline for member states to
introduce the R1-formula, supported by guidance, Dr Ella Stengler looks
at European efforts so far.
Efficient
target=”_blank”>waste to energy (WtE) plants can
be classified as energy recovery operations rather than waste disposal,
according to the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The ‘energy recovery’
status can be obtained in compliance with the ‘recovery’ definition in
the WFD, which came into force on 12 December 2008. As a result waste
could replace fossil fuels, which would have been otherwise used for
energy production.
With regard to “incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of
Municipal Solid Waste” a certain energy efficiency factor, calculated
using the now famous “R1-formula” has to be achieved. This poses no
problem for countries like Sweden and Denmark. They are much beyond the
threshold, and for Sweden it was never in question that their highly
efficient WtE plants were ‘energy recovery’ operations.
However, for the rest of Europe one has to calculate, and the devil -
as often is the case - is in the detail. Therefore, the European
Commission (DG Environment) was asked to draft a guidance, so that the
formula is applied in a harmonised way across Europe, in order to
guarantee a level playing field. This guidance should be adopted by the
end of 2010 as Member States have to implement the WFD by 12 December
2010.
Application of the R1
formula in the Member States
alt=”HVC Alkmarr plant”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.16000.Image.gif?direct=1”
hspace=”5”>
What have the Member States done in the meantime? Germany drafted a
guidance and proposed it to the
target=”_blank”>Commission as a basis for the
European guidance, without applying it nationally. France took the R1
formula as a basis (but not 1:1) for taxation: lower incineration tax
for energy efficient WtE plants if they also fulfil one of the
following conditions: either environmental certificate ISO 14001 or NOx
emission values below 80 mg/Nm3. The Netherlands went ahead,
calculating the formula the “Dutch way”, providing 62% of the existing
capacity of plants and lines with the “R1 status”, effective from 25th
March 2010. The remaining plants and lines hope to obtain R1 status
once the ‘R1 guidance’ has been finalised at the European level.
This happened in return for a moratorium on new capacity up to 2020.
This raises the question of why the industry did not want to wait until
the European guidance is adopted? Why such a hurry?
“R1 plants” may also import combustible waste more easily from other
countries. Operators near coastlines are looking to the UK, which is
busy working to reduce its high
target=”_blank”>landfill rates in order to meet
the targets set in the European Landfill Directive.
Impacts of energy
recovery status
The ‘energy recovery - R1 status’ gives operators the opportunity to
accept waste more easily from abroad as competent authorities may raise
objections to waste shipments, based on proximity and self-sufficiency
principles, only for disposal.
However, for shipments of mixed municipal waste (waste
target=”_blank”>collected from private households
(including where such collection also covers waste from other
producers) the same provisions as shipments of waste destined for
disposal may be applied, also with regard to recovery facilities,
according to Article 3(5) of the Waste Shipment Regulation.
This means that the competent authorities may raise objections to
shipments of mixed municipal waste, based on the proximity and
self-sufficiency principles, even if they are destined for a WtE plant
that is classified as ‘energy recovery’.In order to avoid abuse, i.e.
taking out just a piece of paper from
mixed municipal waste and claiming that now it is no-longer “mixed”
municipal waste with the consequence of enabling free shipment, the
legislator introduced recital 33 in the Waste Framework Directive. This
directive states that mixed municipal waste remains mixed municipal
waste even when it has been subject to a waste treatment operation that
has not substantially altered its properties.
Member States may limit incoming shipments of waste destined to
incinerators that are classified as recovery. This is only where it has
been established that such shipments would result in national waste
having to be disposed of, or waste having to be treated in a way that
is not consistent with their waste management plans.
This provision was introduced due to a demand from Denmark, fearing
that waste from abroad, particularly Germany, could occupy Danish WtE
plants, so that there would not be enough capacity left to treat Danish
waste. It is questionable whether this fear is realistic, though, as
taxation in Denmark is high. This reduces the attractiveness to ship
waste to Denmark, despite the exceedingly high energy efficiency of
Danish WtE plants.
Outgoing shipments of waste can be limited only on environmental
grounds, as set out in the Waste Shipments Regulation. Although waste
shipment is sometimes looked at critically, it can be beneficial for
the environment if the waste is shipped from a country where it would
be landfilled to an efficient state-of-the-art WtE plant in a
neighbouring country.
There are other important drivers for the ‘R1 energy recovery status’
such as the waste hierarchy set in the WFD. Classifying WtE as a
disposal operation rather than ‘recovery’ would mean that it is placed
on the same level as landfilling. As in many countries landfilling is
the cheaper option, there would be no incentive to divert waste from
landfill. It would also help introduce a level playing field with the
co-incinerating industry (e.g. cement kilns). Importantly, from a
financial point of view, it is likely that banks would be more willing
to issue loans to investors building an “energy recovery plant”.
The R1 energy efficiency
formula
Incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of municipal solid
waste are considered to achieve the ‘energy recovery - R1 status’ if
their energy efficiency is equal to or above:
- 0.60 for installations in operation and permitted in
accordance with applicable Community legislation before 1 January 2009 - 0.65 for installations permitted after 31 December 2008,
using the R1* formula of the WFD, Annex II.
The formula takes into
account the annual energy which is produced by the plant (Ep) and puts
it into relation to the calorific value of the municipal waste (Ew).
The energy, which is introduced into the combustion process from
outside, e.g. fossil fuels (Ef) or electricity (Ei) is subtracted.
Ef means annual energy input to the system from fuels contributing to
the production of steam (GJ/year) while Ew means annual energy
contained in the treated waste calculated using the net calorific value
of the waste (GJ/year). The energy efficiency can be improved, e.g. by
reducing the input of fossil fuels. The R1* formula calculates the
energy efficiency for WtE incineration plants as follows:
alt=”waste to energy r1 formula”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.41129.Image.gif?direct=1”>
This formula shall be applied in accordance with the reference document
on Best Available Techniques for waste incineration.
It should be noted that, for thermodynamic reasons, Ef should be
deleted in the nominator of the equation as it is included twice - in
the nominator and the denominator.
Due to the equivalence factors for electricity (multiplication with
factor 2.6) and for commercially used heat (multiplication with factor
1.1) the R1 factor can be greater than 1.
Therefore, it is important to clarify in the introduction of the
guidance for the application of the R1 formula, that it is not a
physical or thermodynamic efficiency that is calculated by the R1
formula.
Guidance: how to
calculate the R1 formula
The Commission (DG Environment) created an expert working group,
consisting of representatives from the Commission and its Joint
Research Centre, Member States and stakeholders (industry and NGOs).
The aim was to draft a guidance for the application of the formula to
make sure it is calculated in a harmonised way across Europe. A
consultant (BiPRO) advised the Commission and drafted the different
versions of the guidance.
After three meetings of the Working Group the guidance was almost
finished and presented to the Member States in the Technical Adaptation
Committee (TAC).
One of the most important items discussed is the system boundary of the
calculation. The following was agreed by the Working Group (WG): “The
boiler/furnace, the flue gas cleaning system and the turbine (as long
as it is under the responsibility of the WtE operator) are in the
system boundaries. Pre-treatment and post-treatment of waste
(particularly bottom ash treatment) is not considered in the system
boundaries.”
Another major point of discussion was if it should be the gross energy
produced that counts as Ep (Energy produced) and if the energy used by
the WtE plant itself should be subtracted in Ei (Energy introduced)
from Ep in the nominator. This would diminish the R1 factor.
The WG’s conclusion was: “The energy used in the WtE plant shall not be
subtracted from Ep as this part of the energy produced from the waste
also replaces fossil fuels which would have been used otherwise.”
Another important aspect is if all waste input treated in “incineration
facilities dedicated to the processing of Municipal Solid Waste” shall
be regarded as recovered. This is because WtE plants normally also
accept other kind of waste besides Municipal Solid Waste.
The WG’s added that: “The calculation of the R1 formula is done of the
waste in the composition which is actually incinerated in a facility,
not only the part of the waste which is classified as municipal waste.”
Any other approach would mean subtracting the non municipal waste from
the total waste input Ew (Energy in the Waste) in the denominator, and
this would not be feasible in practice. The European guidance on the R1
formula will not be endorsed by the Member States in the TAC, and
therefore will not be legally binding.
However, as it will be adopted by the Commission’s DG Environment after
consultation with the other services, including the legal service of
the Commission, the Member States and experts, it is expected that
Member States will follow the guidance as a helpful tool for a
harmonised interpretation of the R1 formula. It is, after all, an
expert opinion, which will be taken into consideration by the courts.
There is no doubt that a WtE plant without the R1 status is still
allowed to operate. One should not confuse the classification of a
waste treatment operation according to the WFD with the operation
permit, which has to be in line with the Waste Incineration Directive
and the IPPC Directive (now merged in the new Industrial Emissions
Directive).
A WtE plant that does not achieve the ‘R1’ is still a plant that treats
waste in an environmentally sound way, achieving low emissions as
required by the Waste Incineration Directive. It can always be
operational as ‘D10’ - disposal of waste (Annex I WFD) - although with
market disadvantages. In the future, however, it can be expected that
new plants are being built in such a way that they will achieve ‘R1’
status. And it is the environment that will benefit.
How many WtE plants
achieve the ‘energy recovery’ status in Europe?
In its second Energy Efficiency Report 2009 CEWEP assessed the energy
efficiency of 231 WtE plants from 16 European countries (15 EU +
Switzerland). The investigated plants account for a combined capacity
of 45.5 million tonnes of municipal waste, representing more than 70%
of the total amount of municipal waste incinerated in Europe.
alt=”Bild Spittelau waste to energy”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.62643.Image.gif?direct=1”
hspace=”5”>Out of 231 plants, 169 WtE plants are
classified as ‘energy recovery’ as they achieved an R1 factor >
0.60. The Energy Efficiency on average was 0.75, which seems to be
high. However, one must bear in mind that it is likely that only the
most efficient WtE plants in Europe (e.g. from Sweden and Denmark)
participated in this survey, and those who did not could potentially be
less efficient plants.
Taking the reference year 2006, the total amount of WtE plants in
Europe (EU27+Switzerland +Norway) was 420. From this number 252 WtE
plants in Europe are below the R1 factor 0.60 or did not participate.
In other words - so far only 40% of plants are proven to reach R1.
The investigation shows strong correlations between the values of R1
and the type of energy recovery, the size of the plant and the
geographical location respectively.
Correcting the climate?
There is a request from Southern European countries to apply a climate
correction factor. A proposal from Portugal was delivered to the
Commission proposing to add a certain factor (based on heating degree
days, reported by EUROSTAT) to the R1 result. It is not clear yet if
the Commission and the majority of the Member States see the need to
take climatic conditions into account. This is still under discussion.
Legally it would be possible according to Art. 38(1) WFD which states
that: “Local climatic conditions may be taken into account, such as the
severity of the cold and the need for heating insofar as they influence
the amounts of energy that can technically be used or produced in the
form of electricity, heating, cooling or processing steam”.
Such a “climate correction factor” would have to be adopted in
regulatory procedure with scrutiny (better known as ‘comitology’). This
process is quicker than an ordinary legislationp process, but it is
more formalised than the development of a guidance. There is also
another important issue: the target is to maximise energy recovery and
the utilisation of waste heat, in order to substitute fossil fuels
consumption. In Southern countries there is an absence of customers for
heat. It is often claimed that they should produce cooling rather than
heating, but in this case infrastructure for the supply is also
necessary and often not available.
Cooling sounds promising, but still needs some time to be developed.
However, there are some successful cooling projects from WtE plants,
for example in Madrid and Brescia.
alt=”Bild Spittelau”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.68175.Image.gif?direct=1”
hspace=”5”>Although Vienna is not in Southern Europe it is
worth mentioning the success of the Spittelau WtE plant, which supplies
heat and cooling to a nearby hospital, thus achieving high efficiency.
However, not all WtE plants have a hospital nearby that they can
supply. The energy recovery status provides incentives for future
investments in WtE plants located close to energy customers.
For existing plants it will be necessary to seek potential customers
and attract them to move next to the WtE plant. Industrial users which
could be supplied with steam from WtE would be ideal. Innovative ideas
will certainly come up in the near future.
Outlook
“Even if it seems rather obvious, it has to be said time and time again
that to virtually eliminate wastes and produce energy in its place is a
win-win situation”, said Giles Chichester, MEP (UK), at the CEWEP
congress 1st July 2010 in Antwerp.
Producing more and more energy from the waste that remains after waste
prevention and
target=”_blank”>recycling is the challenge that
WtE operators face.
The R1 formula provides incentives to do so and the guidance makes sure
that the R1 formula is applied in a harmonised way, guaranteeing a
level playing field.
In the first report that intervenes by 12th December 2014, the
Commission shall review the implementation of the Waste Framework
Directive, including the energy efficiency provisions, and will present
a proposal for revision if appropriate (Art. 37(4) WFD). This gives WtE
operators and Member States some time to gain experience with the
application of the R1 formula.
The energy efficiency criteria for the recovery status for WtE plants
could be just a starting point for EU waste legislation in order to
create quality standards for waste recovery.
Dr Ella Stengler is managing director of the Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP).
e-mail: ella.stengler@cewep.eu
account the annual energy which is produced by the plant (Ep) and puts
it into relation to the calorific value of the municipal waste (Ew).
The energy, which is introduced into the combustion process from
outside, e.g. fossil fuels (Ef) or electricity (Ei) is subtracted.
Ef means annual energy input to the system from fuels contributing to
the production of steam (GJ/year) while Ew means annual energy
contained in the treated waste calculated using the net calorific value
of the waste (GJ/year). The energy efficiency can be improved, e.g. by
reducing the input of fossil fuels. The R1* formula calculates the
energy efficiency for WtE incineration plants as follows:
alt=”waste to energy r1 formula”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.41129.Image.gif?direct=1”>
This formula shall be applied in accordance with the reference document
on Best Available Techniques for waste incineration.
It should be noted that, for thermodynamic reasons, Ef should be
deleted in the nominator of the equation as it is included twice - in
the nominator and the denominator.
Due to the equivalence factors for electricity (multiplication with
factor 2.6) and for commercially used heat (multiplication with factor
1.1) the R1 factor can be greater than 1.
Therefore, it is important to clarify in the introduction of the
guidance for the application of the R1 formula, that it is not a
physical or thermodynamic efficiency that is calculated by the R1
formula.
Guidance: how to
calculate the R1 formula
The Commission (DG Environment) created an expert working group,
consisting of representatives from the Commission and its Joint
Research Centre, Member States and stakeholders (industry and NGOs).
The aim was to draft a guidance for the application of the formula to
make sure it is calculated in a harmonised way across Europe. A
consultant (BiPRO) advised the Commission and drafted the different
versions of the guidance.
After three meetings of the Working Group the guidance was almost
finished and presented to the Member States in the Technical Adaptation
Committee (TAC).
One of the most important items discussed is the system boundary of the
calculation. The following was agreed by the Working Group (WG): “The
boiler/furnace, the flue gas cleaning system and the turbine (as long
as it is under the responsibility of the WtE operator) are in the
system boundaries. Pre-treatment and post-treatment of waste
(particularly bottom ash treatment) is not considered in the system
boundaries.”
Another major point of discussion was if it should be the gross energy
produced that counts as Ep (Energy produced) and if the energy used by
the WtE plant itself should be subtracted in Ei (Energy introduced)
from Ep in the nominator. This would diminish the R1 factor.
The WG’s conclusion was: “The energy used in the WtE plant shall not be
subtracted from Ep as this part of the energy produced from the waste
also replaces fossil fuels which would have been used otherwise.”
Another important aspect is if all waste input treated in “incineration
facilities dedicated to the processing of Municipal Solid Waste” shall
be regarded as recovered. This is because WtE plants normally also
accept other kind of waste besides Municipal Solid Waste.
The WG’s added that: “The calculation of the R1 formula is done of the
waste in the composition which is actually incinerated in a facility,
not only the part of the waste which is classified as municipal waste.”
Any other approach would mean subtracting the non municipal waste from
the total waste input Ew (Energy in the Waste) in the denominator, and
this would not be feasible in practice. The European guidance on the R1
formula will not be endorsed by the Member States in the TAC, and
therefore will not be legally binding.
However, as it will be adopted by the Commission’s DG Environment after
consultation with the other services, including the legal service of
the Commission, the Member States and experts, it is expected that
Member States will follow the guidance as a helpful tool for a
harmonised interpretation of the R1 formula. It is, after all, an
expert opinion, which will be taken into consideration by the courts.
There is no doubt that a WtE plant without the R1 status is still
allowed to operate. One should not confuse the classification of a
waste treatment operation according to the WFD with the operation
permit, which has to be in line with the Waste Incineration Directive
and the IPPC Directive (now merged in the new Industrial Emissions
Directive).
A WtE plant that does not achieve the ‘R1’ is still a plant that treats
waste in an environmentally sound way, achieving low emissions as
required by the Waste Incineration Directive. It can always be
operational as ‘D10’ - disposal of waste (Annex I WFD) - although with
market disadvantages. In the future, however, it can be expected that
new plants are being built in such a way that they will achieve ‘R1’
status. And it is the environment that will benefit.
How many WtE plants
achieve the ‘energy recovery’ status in Europe?
In its second Energy Efficiency Report 2009 CEWEP assessed the energy
efficiency of 231 WtE plants from 16 European countries (15 EU +
Switzerland). The investigated plants account for a combined capacity
of 45.5 million tonnes of municipal waste, representing more than 70%
of the total amount of municipal waste incinerated in Europe.
alt=”Bild Spittelau waste to energy”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.62643.Image.gif?direct=1”
hspace=”5”>Out of 231 plants, 169 WtE plants are
classified as ‘energy recovery’ as they achieved an R1 factor >
0.60. The Energy Efficiency on average was 0.75, which seems to be
high. However, one must bear in mind that it is likely that only the
most efficient WtE plants in Europe (e.g. from Sweden and Denmark)
participated in this survey, and those who did not could potentially be
less efficient plants.
Taking the reference year 2006, the total amount of WtE plants in
Europe (EU27+Switzerland +Norway) was 420. From this number 252 WtE
plants in Europe are below the R1 factor 0.60 or did not participate.
In other words - so far only 40% of plants are proven to reach R1.
The investigation shows strong correlations between the values of R1
and the type of energy recovery, the size of the plant and the
geographical location respectively.
Correcting the climate?
There is a request from Southern European countries to apply a climate
correction factor. A proposal from Portugal was delivered to the
Commission proposing to add a certain factor (based on heating degree
days, reported by EUROSTAT) to the R1 result. It is not clear yet if
the Commission and the majority of the Member States see the need to
take climatic conditions into account. This is still under discussion.
Legally it would be possible according to Art. 38(1) WFD which states
that: “Local climatic conditions may be taken into account, such as the
severity of the cold and the need for heating insofar as they influence
the amounts of energy that can technically be used or produced in the
form of electricity, heating, cooling or processing steam”.
Such a “climate correction factor” would have to be adopted in
regulatory procedure with scrutiny (better known as ‘comitology’). This
process is quicker than an ordinary legislationp process, but it is
more formalised than the development of a guidance. There is also
another important issue: the target is to maximise energy recovery and
the utilisation of waste heat, in order to substitute fossil fuels
consumption. In Southern countries there is an absence of customers for
heat. It is often claimed that they should produce cooling rather than
heating, but in this case infrastructure for the supply is also
necessary and often not available.
Cooling sounds promising, but still needs some time to be developed.
However, there are some successful cooling projects from WtE plants,
for example in Madrid and Brescia.
alt=”Bild Spittelau”
src=”http://www.waste-management-world.com/etc/medialib/new-lib/wmw/online-articles/2010/11.Par.68175.Image.gif?direct=1”
hspace=”5”>Although Vienna is not in Southern Europe it is
worth mentioning the success of the Spittelau WtE plant, which supplies
heat and cooling to a nearby hospital, thus achieving high efficiency.
However, not all WtE plants have a hospital nearby that they can
supply. The energy recovery status provides incentives for future
investments in WtE plants located close to energy customers.
For existing plants it will be necessary to seek potential customers
and attract them to move next to the WtE plant. Industrial users which
could be supplied with steam from WtE would be ideal. Innovative ideas
will certainly come up in the near future.
Outlook
“Even if it seems rather obvious, it has to be said time and time again
that to virtually eliminate wastes and produce energy in its place is a
win-win situation”, said Giles Chichester, MEP (UK), at the CEWEP
congress 1st July 2010 in Antwerp.
Producing more and more energy from the waste that remains after waste
prevention and
target=”_blank”>recycling is the challenge that
WtE operators face.
The R1 formula provides incentives to do so and the guidance makes sure
that the R1 formula is applied in a harmonised way, guaranteeing a
level playing field.
In the first report that intervenes by 12th December 2014, the
Commission shall review the implementation of the Waste Framework
Directive, including the energy efficiency provisions, and will present
a proposal for revision if appropriate (Art. 37(4) WFD). This gives WtE
operators and Member States some time to gain experience with the
application of the R1 formula.
The energy efficiency criteria for the recovery status for WtE plants
could be just a starting point for EU waste legislation in order to
create quality standards for waste recovery.
Dr Ella Stengler is managing director of the Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP).
e-mail: ella.stengler@cewep.eu
You can return to the main Market News page, or press the Back button on your browser.
