Brian J. Cummins, Cleveland City Council, Ward 14 January 13, 2012
Recent Reports/Procurements of Waste Technology
The last new MSW-processing WTE facility constructed in the U.S. commenced operations in 1996. Since that time,no new greenfield commercial plant has been implemented. In the past few years, however, interest in WTE andwaste conversion has begun to grow, again. This renewed interest in waste processing technologies is due to severalfactors: successful CAA retrofits, proven WTE track record, increasing cost of fossil fuels, growing interest inrenewable energy, concern of greenhouse gases, reversal of the Carbone Supreme Court Case, and the change inU.S. EPA’s hierarchy, which now includes WTE.Since 2004, several municipalities commissioned reports in order to evaluate new and emerging waste managementtechnologies and approaches. New York City, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, and King County, WAare among the municipalities that commissioned studies in waste conversion technology. In 2006, there were several procurements for WTE facilities. These include: St. Lucie County, FL; Frederick and Carroll Counties in MD;Harford County, FL; Hawaii County, HI; Pinellas County, FL; City of Tallahassee, FL; Broward County, FL; City of Sacramento, CA; Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FL; and Hillsborough and Lee Counties in FL.In the foregoing studies, reports and procurements, a total of 78 technology vendors were represented, evaluated,screened or selected in some way for consideration as waste processing solutions for the local entities. These 78vendors offered 14 different technologies. The most often-cited technology was mass-burn
Seven plants with this technology are currently operating in Japan, with at least two of them firing MSW. Thelargest of these plants in Kurashibi has a reported furnace size of 185 TPD, with three units of this size. Their largestfacility fires up to 555 (Metric) TPD of MSW.Another gasifier marketed for MSW is built by EnTech of Devon, England. They have constructed approximately20 of these facilities, which are in operation on MSW in Europe and Asia. Most of them are relatively small (lessthan 10 tons per day), with none designed for more than 70 tons per day throughput.Two Canadian firms have advanced gasification. Enerkem, headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, has an operating pilot gasification facility in Sherbrooke, Quebec, and is building a commercial facility in Westbury, Quebec whichwill be operational in 2009. Also, in 2008, Enerkem signed an agreement with Edmonton, Alberta to build a100,000 TPY facility, which has been permitted. These facilities produce ethanol from the gas using athermal/chemical process. The Plasco Energy Group, which hasa five-TPD research facility in Spain, has operated a100-TPD pilot plant in Ottawa, Ontario. Plasco has letters of intent from the City of Ottawa for a 400-TPDcommercial facility and CWMC in Red Deer, Alberta for a 200-TPD facility.
5.1 Recent Plans and Reports
In 2004, the City of New York commissioned a report to evaluate new and emerging waste management andrecycling technologies and approaches... As part of the process, the City collected information on capital cost fromthe suppliers. Based on 6 responses, the capital cost per installed ton for anaerobic digestion ranged from $74,000 to$82,000; for gasification, the range was $155,000 to $258,000; one pyrolysis response gave a capital cost of $321,000. These figures were for plants of widely varying sizes and were not standardized. The City has initiated afollow up study, the results of which should be publicly available toward the end of the summer 2009.