Preliminary report


Regarding the possibility of utilizing a bridge renewable energy technology system in a gasification based thermal treatment of sewage sludge in Israel

February 2010

By: Daniel Avital 972-54-7584695


Table of content 1. Executive summary a. Global and national trends b. Legal issues c. Sludge drying d. Sludge gasification from waste management prospective e. Emissions reduction opportunities f. Conclusions and recommendations 2. Preface 3. Sludge gasification from waste management prospective a. Waste treatment rather than power production b. BOO\BOT\BAT related implications c. Risk management 4. Current global and national trends in wastewater sludge management a. Sludge treatment in Israel b. Shafdan 5. Permits and legislation a. Waste to Energy, system requirements : EU directive 2000/76 b. The Almog committee 6. CDM- Clean Development Mechanism, DNA- Designated National Authority a. CDM-clean development mechanism b. DNA- Designated National Authority c. Approval Process for a CDM Project 7. General advantages of sludge gasification 8. General disadvantages of sludge gasification in 9. Sludge Drying a. Possible collaboration with sludge drying companies b. Sludge drying equipment companies, and technologies i. Komline-Sanderson, paddle dryer ii. Andritz, drum drier iii. STC, belt drier iv. Huber LTD. Solar Drying 10. Prior research and experiments in gasification of sewage sludge a. Bureau of Sewerage, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2005 b. Tokyo Gas and Takuma Co., Ltd. (“Takuma”), 2007 c. Max West d. Gasification In India e. Sludge Gasification In India 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 20 20 20 23 25 26


Appendices a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Energetic compression and conversion factors ( 28 Technologies and experiences: Sewage sludge as a fuel 29 Sludge thermo treatment process and implemented examples 31 EU regulations: Potential Health, Safety and Environmental aspects of gasification plants 35 EU regulations: DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC 37 Retreived water quality acording to The Inbar Committee 58 Relevant consultancy; contact list 59 References 62


1. Executive summary:
Sewage sludge qualifies as a non hazardous organic waste that, if not properly treated may cause severe ecological damage. Hence governments are interested in waste management so that waste be used rather than disposed of. Agricultural usage of the sludge is generally viewed as the favored treatment option, and thermal treatment as an alternative. In order to use the sludge for agricultural uses it has to be previously biologically stabilized by means of a costly, time and energy consuming aerobic and/or anaerobic digestions process. During this process the sludge emits a large quantity of greenhouse gases which can be harvested as a fuel source. Most controversy surrounding thermal treatment has to do with classic incineration: a process that is often associated with air pollution and irresponsible energy waste, generally characterized in NIMBY (not in my back yard) public and municipal approach. Today most new thermal treatment systems are designed to offer retrievable energy as well as low emissions (WTE: waste to energy). Gasification is considered as a superior alternative to incineration, yet until recently it was considered very expensive and complicated to operate and maintain. Lately This situation seem to have altered: Technological advancements and production improvements allow for simple and affordable clean gasification solution, for biomass energy production. Currently there is at least one active company that deals with sludge gasification in North America: Max West. a. Global and national trends Lately the issue of thermal treatment is on the rise due to certain unique characteristics that offer, in combination with agricultural, uses a complete solution. In the EU, North America, Japan and many other areas thermal treatments are very common. Favorable views base their support on GHG emissions reduction and prevention of potential earth and groundwater pollution. Another important issue is the consequent reduction of fusil fuels. On the other hand in Israel, there is no thermal treatment activity. There was one attempt during 20062008 to build a large incineration plant for Israel’s largest treatment facility (currently dumping its sludge in the sea), however that attempt was forsaken due to public NIMBY antagonism. Currently the designated Israeli authority does not see a high priority in sewage sludge treatment (according to Dr. Ilan Zadikov, Chief projects officer, Ministry of Environment). b. Legal issues Waste to Energy issues are addressed in the EU directive 76/2000 and the Almog committee findings.


c. Sludge drying Sludge drying requires more energy than produced by the gasification unit (about 200% residual heat or 130% overall produced energy). Paddle dryers seem to offer good results in terms of: Emissions, deployment area, ease of use, energetic consumption and reliability. d. Sludge gasification from waste management prospective Referring to waste management, disposing of the sludge is far more important than the electricity produced. The process is not expected to be an autarkical profitable business unit. What is expected is that in the overall context of the sludge treatment process, it will offer a better solution for the generated waste-sludge in terms of sustainability and costs, i.e. reduce sludge dryer operating costs. e. Emissions reduction opportunities Sludge thermal treatment prevents massive GHG emissions. Hence sludge gasification initiatives could receive additional financial support in the form of REC (renewable energy credits). Given that Israel is a non-annex I country, it is possible to receive foreign investments utilizing the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). f. Conclusion and recommendations My general impression is that gasification technology application for sewage sludge treatment is expected to become increasingly the more popular treatment method in the coming few years. Incineration based energy retrieving operations are common, and generally it could be stated that gasification processes offer superior results in terms of energy retrieval, lower air pollution and cleaner residue. However due to complicated sludge pre-treatment, sludge high ash content (resulting in reactor clogging) and the conservative nature of the market: Current sludge gasification with a system that is not custom designed for sludge gasification seems to be of low feasibility. Furthermore, manufacturing of a custom sludge dryer (such as an adapted paddle dryer), may be advisable for future sludge treatment initiatives. A simple and affordable complete turnkey solution for treating sewage sludge in a safe and GHG friendly manner could be a very interesting product. This is relevant especially for undeveloped countries where GHG and humanitarian funding is ample, where rapid urbanization and poor infrastructure are common. However it does not seem to be an immediate possibility, due to technical complications. Regarding deployment of a sludge gasifying system in Israel; such an option seems to be of low probability. Current entry possibilities in Israel will be addressed in a following report.


2. Preface
According to s. lynch (IEA report,99), “Over recent years European legislation has impacted significantly on the waste management strategies of companies responsible for the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge. Many Water Service Companies are looking to make use of the sludge rather than simply seeking the most acceptable disposal route. The main reuse opportunities that are being investigated in the UK are incineration or thermal drying and more recently gasification, although agricultural use is still preferred by some Companies.” Since these words were written, ten years have passed, and the thermal treatment of wastewater sludge is a rapidly growing and developing industry worldwide. Thermal processing of sewage waste offers many practical and ecological advantages, dramatically amplified by energy retrieving systems and integration of advanced thermal processes such as gasification and pyrolysis. Nevertheless, gasification of sewage sludge has yet to become a common technological solution. It is considered by many as more expensive, complicated and less ecological than land spreading. In this report I shall try to convey a concise snapshot of current trends and possible opportunities and threats in the field of thermal sludge treatment. In addition the report will include a more careful observation over current sludge management situation in Israel. It is important to state that this is but a preliminary report, still lacking validation of certain assumptions, consulting with relevant experts, authorities and more importantly lacking the hard data needed in order to start calculating the estimated capital and operating costs along with expected revenue generation module.


3. Sludge gasification from waste management prospective:
While dealing with municipal waste, sewage sludge or other, one has to keep in mind the somewhat different perspective and needs that guide the waste management. a. Waste treatment rather than power production. The waste to energy concept strives for autarkic profitability on basis of electricity production and sale: When utilizing agro-waste, this goal is reachable, while with sewage sludge it seems to be currently unreachable. The justification and appeal of waste to energy programs can be found in the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. Minimizing waste volume and mass. Reducing GHG emissions: eligible for REC\ “carbon credits”. Coherent with current waste treatment legislation. Low risk: not having to depend on other companies or oil prices for sludge disposal. Enables management to anticipate future costs; allowing long term financial planning. Potentially allows both capex and opex costs reduction.

Since land filling and sea dumping were deemed “foul play” in both national and international policies, the quest for low cost solution was launched. Generally the main revenue source of the gasification systems is based on the fees that are charged from the water companies for treating the sludge; i.e. gasification plants do not pay for the sludge that they use as fuel- they get paid for taking it.

b. BOO\BOT\BAT related implications In many situations (and a general practice in Israel), many of the treatment plants are run by companies that get a X years lease for running the plant (in Israel it is usually 20 years). While designing the service contract all costs are taken into consideration, sludge treatment costs amount to as high as 50% of the “all in” costs, pending on regulations, sludge composition and technologies. Theoretically, sludge gasification offers a significant costs reduction in comparison with traditional sludge treatment to “A class sludge”; eligible for agricultural usage (as shown in the next chapter). Taking this in consideration one can understand that the improvement in sludge management costs will reflect directly on the profitability of the treatment plant operator; because all sludge management costs were already calculated in the originally service contract. Hence a remarkable achievement for the operator is obtained, an achievement that not only “sounds good” in terms of sustainability and ecological responsibility, but also “looks good” in the operator’s quarterly reports.


c. Risk management. There are various possible risks when a company is forced to outsource for sludge disposal. Because of the sensitivity and possible risks involved with handling potentially dangerous materials such as sewage sludge (pathogens, chemicals, metals…). There is always a possibility of new regulations (such as the constantly increasing land-filling fees), problems within the compost facilities (such as intense rain) or increase in petrol prices that can raise sludge disposal costs significantly while the plant management has very little ability to predict or manage such uncertainties. Furthermore, problems within the treatment plant such as problematic sludge composition, digester’s capacity maxing out or malfunctioning, all of these scenarios might render the sludge prohibited for agricultural usage. Theoretically, gasification is a safe and reliable in-house solution that allows disposal of the sludge with little regard to its problematic organic composition and with very mild dependency levels on fusil fuels and complicated logistics.
Expected UK sludge disposal, 2005

UK sludge disposal, 2000

UK sludge disposal, 1998


4. Current global and national trends in wastewater sludge management.
The EU has initiated the change in the eco-oriented perception of waste management and the rest of the western world has followed its tune. The new guideline is simple; land-filling and sea disposal should be reduced to a minimum and if possible avoided entirely.

In order to cope with the current guidelines, the waste management programs have developed in three main courses: Intensive sludge treatment facilities: The primary sludge (extracted solids, solidified to about 5% solids-95% water) pass through a “digesting” system that by means of moderate heating, oxygen enrichment and\or oxygen prevention, create ideal conditions for the procreation of certain bacteria that in turn breaks down the organic matter within the primary sludge; transforming it into a biologically stable and pathogen restricted mud-like mixture. In the process much of the water that is trapped in the organic matter is released as well as methane gas that sometimes is used for minimizing the external energy consumption of the system. Later the wastewater goes through various other purifying stages while the sludge is mechanically dried and solidified by aggregating certain drainage improving polymers, and the utilization of mechanical dewatering techniques such as: Belt press, centrifuges and press solidifiers. After the dewatering the sludge contains roughly around 20% solids. From this point the sludge is either: Land spread, dried, hipped for composting, delivered to thermal treatment or mixed with furnace ash to form Nviro (fertilizer enriching substance). A second form of sludge management is Waste to Energy; either by pyrolysis, gasification or classic combustion. Here we can find either primary or secondary (digested) sludge, while primary sludge has a


significantly higher calorific value (about 18 MJ/kg in apose to 12 MJ/kg). Primary sludge, in its dry form has certain chemical resemblance to brown coal.

(s.lynch. 1999) Generally, gasification and pyrolysis is considered to be an expensive solution, but as technology and production capabilities advance, it seems increasingly more feasible. There are various ways to thermally utilize the sludge; either for producing biogas, fuel-cells, improve cement factories energy consumption, use as an additive fuel with traditional coal (in existing power plants), or directly in order to produce heat and electricity. Traditional incineration facilities that make use of classic combustion technologies for minimizing sludge volume and mass, make little or no use of the released energy, though very common, are regarded as obsolete. These operations are categorized as a poor solution as land filling and sea dumping. The third, less preferred technique for sludge disposal is land filling and sea dumping. European guidelines demand to cease utilizing these techniques in the long run. Most of the developing countries agree with this approach. Today waste management flow charts do not end with “to disposal”, treating the sludge is not an option; it is a legislated requirement.

a. Sludge treatment in Israel Currently, about half of the sludge produced in Israel is being dumped to the sea. The sludge originates from the “Gush Dan” area- the center of Israel, from a plant called “Shafdan”. The sea dumping operation is expected to cease in 2010-2011, yet it is more than likely that it will be postponed. Treated sludge in Israel is mainly processed for agricultural use. The rest, only 10% of the produced sludge (not regarding Shafdan) is dumped in land-filling facilities, consisting of contaminated sludge, or sludge from small and remote treatment plants.


The agricultural sludge reuse consists mainly from composting operations as well as NVIRO fertilizer production (in much smaller scale, 2200 tons in total). The digested sludge is hauled to the composting facilities, treated, and from there either shipped to nearby agricultural farmlands or used to enrich the poor Negev-desert soil. Composting facilities: a. Dlila, center of Israel: The largest operating facility, handling a little over 116000 tons of sludge per year (23,000 tons dry matter, data from 2008). The site is also authorized to handle livestock manure and agro-waste. b. Compost Or, Jordan Valley: treating over 87000 tons/year (around 18000 dry). The site is also authorized to handle livestock manure and agro-waste. c. Bar Idan, mid-south: treating over 75000tons/year (around 15000 dry). d. Compost Ran, Haifa: contingency facility, currently processing agro-waste. e. There are several other smaller facilities, not relevant for thermal treatment.

b. Shafdan An interesting process that is taking place at the moment is the shifting of the Shafdan, Israel’s largest treatment plant (responsible for almost half of the produced sludge) from sea dumping to inland treatment. All of the Shafdan sludge will have to be shipped for a considerable distance, for it is rather far away from agricultural areas. Moreover, doubling the amount of produced sluddge-compost in a term of about two years is prone to destabilize the market, nor can the existing facilities handle the extra sludge. It is somewhat of a mystery how the market is going to react and how would sludge disposal prices change due to the “submersion”. When it was decided that the Shafdan will have to switch to inland treatment, it was agreed to look for an incineration based solution (2006) but due to ecological opposition that initiative was revoked. Green organizations as well as the general public are now more open to thermal treatment: currently there are several biogas systems functioning in different treatment plants; using the excess methane gas that is omitted in the digestion process. It seems that now there is room for a new attempt to introduce thermal treatment in Israel, as long as the offered technology will be a clean and ecologically better solution.


5. Permits and legislation
Generally, the requirements of the relevant Israeli law are derived from the EU directives. That said, there are a few local additions that have to be addressed. a. Waste to Energy, system requirements : EU directive 2000/76 The technical data regarding thermal treatment of waste by co-producing plants (waste to energy) could be found in: DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, of 4 December 2000, on the incineration of waste (appendix e)

b. The Almog committee The Almog committee’s mandate was to analyze and evaluate 110 different potentially harmful airborne substances. The results of their study were used in order to build basic guidelines addressing air pollution issues in Israel. Their task was to identify the substances, state their potential medical effect, level of toxicity, define a maximal accepted concentration for each substance, and set basic framework towards a clear legislative approach towards air quality legislation. The committee weighs the threat level and the accepted airborne concentration of the different substances on basis of two main criteria: Long term accepted concentrations and short term accepted concentrations. The definition of the duration may vary in light of the substance’s toxicity. Accepted values where based on the probability of inducing a severe, life threatening illnesses during a a lifetime (70 years) of exposure. That much said, lesser effects such as general discomfort and “common”-lesser illnesses were also addressed. The most significant difference between the Almog committee and different environmental criteria is the following: Almog committee does not address particular pollution sources. Rather, it defines collective acceptable pollution levels in any given populated area in the country. This is a major difference that renders certain industrial areas of the country as impossible for additional industrial activities because the existing pollution levels are already maxed out. Qualification process: The qualifying plant is required to calculate whether a breach in the accepted pollution values will be induced by the additional pollution his pollution contribution: The additional pollution, discharged by the plant along with existing pollution, cross referenced with meteorological characteristics of the area. The data is calculated using a Gaussian I-model for expected pollutant disperse in order to verify that the committee protocol is not breached in any given location in the vicinity of the applying plant. There are specializing engineering consultation firms that can assist with the application process.


6. CDM- Clean Development Mechanism, DNA- Designated National Authority (as stated by
the Israeli Ministry of Environment) a. CDM- Clean Development Mechanism The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of two project-based flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. Its dual goals are to promote sustainable development in developing countries, and to allow industrialized countries (Annex I countries) to earn emissions credits from their investments in emission-reducing projects in developing countries (non-Annex I countries). Israel is not an Annex I country. Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol identifies three specific goals for the CDM: to assist in the achievement of sustainable development, to contribute to the attainment of the environmental goals of the Framework Convention, and to assist Annex I parties to comply with their emissions reduction commitments. Article 12 also stipulates that emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified on the basis of: voluntary participation approved by each party involved; real, measurable, and longterm benefits; and reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity. In addition, it specifies that developing countries are to benefit from CDM projects resulting in "certified emission reductions" (CERs) and that industrialized countries may use CERs to comply with their quantified emissions reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Because many abatement opportunities are less expensive in developing countries, this increases the economic efficiency of achieving initial greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

b. DNA- Designated National Authority

Israel, which is classified as a non-Annex I country under the Climate Change Convention, ratified the Kyoto Protocol in February 2004 and soon afterward created a Designated National Authority (DNA), thus paving the way for implementing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in Israel. The Israeli DNA is under the ministerial responsibility of the Ministry of Environmental Protection. It includes representatives of numerous government and public bodies including the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, Ministry of National Infrastructures, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture, Manufacturers Association of Israel, Israel Electric Corporation and the environmental NGO Zalul.` The main function of the DNA is to determine whether the proposed CDM project complies with sustainable development criteria. For this purpose, the Israel DNA has formulated sustainable development indicators, which will be used in the assessment process of the Project Design Document.


c. Approval Process for a CDM Project Project applicants requesting an approval letter may contact the DNA in two different tracks:

Voluntary Track: Applicants may submit a Project Idea Note (PIN) prior to submitting the Project Design Document (PDD), according to the detailed format attached (appendix). The DNA, after reviewing the PIN may endorse the further development of the CDM project on the basis of its contribution towards meeting Israel's sustainable development goals. This enables the initiator to obtain a preliminary opinion on whether the project complies with the prerequisite criteria. If so, the DNA will provide the applicant with a Letter of Endorsement or a Letter of No Objection. However, these letters constitute an approval in principle only and in no way obligate the DNA to provide a formal approval to the project. The formal approval letter will be provided only after the PDD has been reviewed. Regular Track: Applicants submit a Project Design Document (PDD) for consideration to the DNA. The PDD is assessed according to the criteria and scoring system detailed above. Estimated approval time is 10 weeks.

For further information regarding the DNA, members, possible contact people and consultancy see appendix.


7. General advantages of sludge gasification.
a. Gasification is capable of treating primary as well of secondary sludge, i.e. both digested and non digested sludge (preferred). The digesting process is time consuming (the treatment facility’s bottle neck), energy consuming, very expensive to purchase and operate as well as susceptible to the composition of the primary sludge (presence of toxins will impair the bacteria reproduction). b. Reducing GHG emissions, adequate for CDM/REC or other emissions based financing\ grants. c. Gasification process can treat sludge that is not adequate for agricultural usage. d. Offers to convert the waste to a renewable energy source. e. Reduces dependency on fossil fuel (highly relevant to Israel), minimizes sludge disposal\reuse costs due to variance in petrol prices. f. Allows treatment of large amounts of sludge for potentially lower costs. g. Allows adding additional agro-waste to the combustive mix. h. Dramatically reduces the waste size and mass (by about 90%-95%). i. Simplifying logistic efforts, haulage- lower costs and less imposing on the roads system. j. Reducing ecological damage in the form of petrol combustion. k. Offers an insurance policy for abnormal situations such as: rainy winters that can meddle with the composting process or any other event that can prevent the composting facilities from accepting the sludge. l. Can treat problematic FOG waste (fat, oil and greas). m. An alternative to lands spreading: Some experts and certain movement see land spreading as an extremely dangerous long term pollution source1. n. Highly modular procedure, the required time and investment for adjusting the drying systems and the gasification reactors (adding additional\improving existing ones) is dramatically shorter and cheaper (capex) than preparing adequate intensive system + composting facility.

Andritz Co.


As can be seen in the following video: The video focuses on the sludge situation in India (9:30) and in far greater detail in Canada(14:30 onwards). Newfoundland bay: 14:30. Affects on salmon: 18:30..Anti land spreading: 23:30. Anti land spreading experts in sweeden:31:50.


8. General disadvantages of sludge gasification.
a. High capex costs due to sludge drying requirements. A Komline- Sanderson paddle dryer, capable of drying sufficient sludge for a 1 mWh system (1.7 dry sludge per hour), costs about 7 million US, estimated all in price. b. Preliminary research shows that the system will not generate sufficient energy in order to dry the sludge (1.7 mWh short with the K-S system and 1.2 mWh with a STC system). This will generate a problematic increase in Opex costs. c. Due to high ash content (around 47%-50%) of the digested sludge, reactor clogging is a frequent problem. d. NIMBY: May raise serious public discontent, green movements opposition due to association of the process with pollution inducing, classic incineration. e. Has to cope with strict municipal and governmental regulations and periodic inspections. f. May cause some turmoil due to alteration in the equilibrium in which the industry is operating: reducing trucking needs, reducing composting operations will raise discontent within the industry: Contradicting existing binding service contracts in addition. g. The gasification process has yet to prove itself on a large scale operation. Reliability issues are bound to come up, especially because the competing technology (composting and land spreading) is as simple, safe, reliable and well known as can be. h. Composting and agricultural reuse is perceived as more ecological. The public does not tend to regard methane emissions, land based shipment and invested energy in the purification process as pollution inducing factors. i. May contradict existing long term contracts for sludge disposal. j. Sensitive to electricity prices reductions. k. In case of major change in the motor fuel market, the claim of ecological damage prevention by the reduced trucking will be weaken. For example; if biogas or ethanol is introduced in large scale in Israel. l. If opex costs do not include the digesting process but just haulage costs, then agricultural use is more economic.

Image credit: MWRA


9. Sludge Drying
Drying the sludge is the main challenge in the way of sludge thermal treatment. As far as the waste management is concerned, dried, pelletesized sludge is a high-end solution on its own, not requiring any further treatment, as it is usable either as a bio-fuel or as a fertilizer. Moreover, there are existing thermal treatment systems such as the Max West gasifier or the Andritz Echo Dry whose main intrest is to lower drying operating costs. Another issue that should be taken into consideration is that many other industrial facilities have organic sludge residue: Industries such as timber, paper and food processing are only a few examples. So a “sludge-to-energy” solution will be relevant to many others beside the wastewater treatment plants. Though further manufacturer sourcing is necessary, the possibility of custom designed and manufactured Bridge RET sludge dryer could be explored as a future complementary product.

a. Possible collaboration with sludge drying companies. Taking in consideration that sludge treatment is by no means the core business of Bridge Renewable Energy Technologies; it may seem as a possible course of action to collaborate with a sludge drying specialists in order to explore the sludge-to-energy market. In order to clarify this assumption it could be stated that:    Bridge can offer moderate priced, modular, simple to operate and maintain gasifying system that offers a lot of excess heat (congregation system). The sludge drying companies offer sludge drying solutions. The clients (waste management) wishes to dispose of the sludge in a safe, sustainable and economic manner.

That said, in the conducted research some troubling issues arose:     The sludge drying equipment is far more expensive than the gasifier. The dryer consume more energy then that produced by the gasifier using sludge. System compatibility gaps result in significant energy loses. Being that different companies are guided by different strategies, finding a drying partner that will not compromise the Bridge guidelines may not be an easy task.



b. Sludge drying equipment companies and technologies: Komline-Sanderson, paddle dryer:

Simple, sturdy, low energy intake, low emissions and reliable: This dryer uses a closed circuit heated air supply resulting in very little emissions. The K-S system can use residual heat in the form of either hot steam (>200c) or thermal fluid. Off gas can be routed to the combustion chamber for better energetic performance. This is an indirect heat system. It consumes about 4.8 MW for drying out 6.3 tons of water, needed for a 1 MW Bridge system. Taking in consideration energy losses in the heat exchanger and a minimum of 1-1.3 MW of additional energy are needed in order to dry out the sludge. Estimated cost of dryer (two units): 4,000,000$, all in price (scrubbers, conveyers, installation…):7,000,000$. ii. Andritz, drum dryer:

The Andritz dryers are very popular yet draw some criticism: They require very large area to deploy, they have higher energy consumption, emissions and less reliable due to faster moving parts and higher temperatures. Another issue with drum dryers is that they have a slight explosion risk. The biggest problem with drum dryers, from Bridge RET perspective is found in their inability to use the system residual heat. System heat requirement is for very hot gas such as a burner off gas. iii. STC S.A. (Spain), Low heat belt dryer:

STC technology is based on a unique low temperature process that allows for an energy efficient process. Furthermore, low heat drying preserves all of the sludge energetic value and minimizes emissions. Unfortunately, though producing an interesting product, STC is a small manufacturer that can not handle orders of more than two systems a


year, and requires extended period of time to complete orders. iv. Huber Technology LTD, Solar Sludge Drying: http://

Several companies are active in the solar sludge drying technology. Generally it could be stated that solar drying is an interesting technology but it is relevant only for small quantities of continuous sludge drying. According to eng. Dirk Winter from Huber Technology LTD: Solar drying is relevant for small scale facilities; larger facilities invest in a paddle, drum or a belt dryer. Solar drying capability varies from 800 kg of water evaporation per squared meter per year in Germany to about double that amount in warmer countries. Systems are comprised of a 10mX100m green house, ventilation system and a sludge turning unit. The main benefit of the system is found in the fact that apart from the capital cost, operating cost is extremely low. The main disadvantages are in the massive deployment area necessary and low drying capacity. These systems are probably not relevant for thermal sludge treatment: a 1MW Bridge RET Compact Series unit, consuming about 1.7 tons/hour, thus needs to evaporate 6.3 tons of water per hour (20% solids to 90% solids). Using a solar drying system one would need a 31,500 m^2 green house (8000 hours a year).


10. Prior research and experiments in gasification of
sewage sludge. a. Bureau of Sewerage, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2005: An experimental facility with a treatment capacity of 15t/d (based on dehydrated sludge) and 200 kWh was erected and operated for a test time of 3,400 hours starting from September 2005. The demonstration tests were conducted with a treatment volume of 1,750 ton of sewage sludge. The technology used by the Japanese team is a custom designed closed circulation fluidized bed gasifier. The power was generated using a gas engine generator using a biogas-city gas mix (roughly 50% mix). Residual heat was used for the dehydration of the sludge by means of closed circulated heated gas and dehydration towers. From the data gathered from the experiment benefits of a full scale system were calculated (100 t/d, 3 mega Watt output using a city gas-bio gas mixture). Based on the described technology; a reduction of 19% in energy consumption and 55% in GHG emissions (17,000t-CO2/year) will be achieved. The main reason for the high GHG reduction is due to the suppression of N2O formation, a substance that has a global warming coefficient 310 times that of CO2. The described benefits are compared to an ordinary incineration system, in comparison to high temperature incineration systems this figure will be reduced to 25%. In relevance to sludge treatment processes that do not include a thermal phase, it is GHG emissions reduction will be far more dramatic. b. Tokyo Gas and Takuma Co., Ltd. (“Takuma”), 2007: In this 15 ton/day, 200-260kW facility, the viability and reliability of the system were verified. Tested for 2,000 hours of continuous operation over a 90-day period; from the end of September to the end of December 2007. The pilot system has proven its suitability for installation in existing sewage treatment plants, opening the way for commercial operation. A similar technology was used for this system as the one mentioned in the Tokyo Bureau of Sewage pilot plant. Here we find a rather mature product, subsequent to long research and development conducted by the Takuma co. In 2004-2005, a co-development between Takuma co. and NEDO has lead to another pilot test. The plant was of the same specifications as the one described above. This was a smaller scale (450 tons in total) investigative research aimed towards learning the operational characteristics of the system. Using a pilot-scale testing plant, they have been developing a gasification system that utilizes the energy contained in the sewage sludge without disturbing its treatment process. It was adopted as a codevelopment project with NEDO for the fiscal year 2004, and a demonstration plant was built in that period with 15 ton/day (80% moisture basis), using a gas engine generator with the power generating capacity of 200-260kW. The demonstration test of gasification went underway in the fiscal year 2005 during which their efforts were concentrated in studying the operational characteristics of all equipment. The gasification test involved the total of 450 tons. They achieved the carbon conversion ratio and the cold gas efficiency of roughly 90% and 60%, respectively, while the lower heat value of the gas was approximately 4-5MJ/m'3'N at the furnace outlet. Power generation test was also conducted using the gas engine, resulting in the high generation efficiency of better than 32% of the heat input to the gas


engine. This article reports on the outline of the demonstration plant and the test results obtained during the fiscal year 2005.



c. Max West An American-Canadian company that sees itself as a “first to market” sludge gasifying company though their main interest is with assorted agro-waste. The company overcomes the problematic sludge drying issue simply by presenting their sludge gasification service as a sludge drying costs optimizer. Utilizing the dried sludge as fuel Max West is able to reduce fuel costs. In order to optimize their potential, they mix the sludge with drier agro waste (reducing drying costs) and high energy waste such as plastic, fats, oils and grease. In the Sanford treatment plant for example, the gasification plant is expected to save the treatment plant 9,000,000 USD over a period of 20 years in gas prices. The company offers comfortable financing for their projects, operating on BOO, BOT, BAT basis. The company is controlled by: MaxEnCapital, LLC, Houston, Texas and utilizes the technology of Westwood Energy Systems, Inc., Kamloops, British Columbia. As a strategic investor they have LEAF (Leaf Clean Energy Company ("Leaf") [LSE: LEAF.L], an AIM listed company incorporated for the purpose of investing in clean energy companies and projects in North America). In a conversation with Komline-Sanderson, Mr. Kary Kovecks, revealed that they are the only company, to the best of his knowledge, that show profitability in the sludge gasification field in the USA. That said, he added that they have serious reactor clogging problems that forces them to conduct monthly shutdowns.



d. gasification in India: In the 2001 regional seminar on commercialization of biomass technology, Dr. J. R. Meshram, the director of India’s ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, offered a very supportive view regarding gasification systems integration: “India is perhaps one of the few countries in the world to have drawn up a comprehensive strategy and action plan and set specific medium term goals for renewable energy based capacity addition in the energy sector of the country.” The Indian government was active in alternative energy production since 1982 and had a designated ministry since 1992. The government has invested considerable resources and had set an ambitious goal for 2012 (publication from 2001). Further detail is available in attached file.

India has a special interest in biomass gasification based power production, and even has a designated national program (NBGP). The Indian government aids both in financing, lower interest rates, various incentives and more.


Sludge Gasification experiments in India: An interesting initiative is found in Sri Hapsari Budisulistiorini article regarding downdraft throated gasifiers. In the article, a very basic small and affordable gasifier (85 kg/h under 23000$) is mentioned as a system that is both simple, affordable and lucrative (heating 50 homes) business opportunity. Naturally the technology is very primitive and highly inefficient. The system also has as a problematic GHG emission, but nevertheless it is interesting. Addressing the sludge drying problem: In order to lower drying costs, using drying beds was suggested. Basic solar power reduces product humidity by factor of about: 60%. The article points out the actual need for solving the sludge treatment problem in rural India. Moreover, the focus is on establishing a system that will be cost-affective and lucrative enough, so that with proper financing, private entrepreneurs could leverage the operation. The main problems raised in this article regarding sludge gasification: a. b. c. d. e. Pretreatment (drying and palletisizing) the sludge. High ash content. High capital investment for rural India. Lack of skilled personal which may result in damaging the equipment. Sewage sludge is not regarded as a recognized biomass fuel by the NBGP (written in 2006).




1. Energetic compression and conversion factors (


2. Technologies and experiences: Sewage sludge as a fuel Leino Reinola Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia, 2008

In process combining sludge gasification and methanol synthesis sewage sludge can also be transformed into a chemical and a methanol. The rational efficiency of this process is higher than that of thermal sludge treatment.


Approaches in Thermal Treatment of Sludge


3. Sludge thermo treatment process and implemented examples



Predicting the heating value of sewage sludge in Thailand from proximate and ultimate analyses2


For sludge characterized by ash content of up to 50%



EU based: Potential Health, Safety and Environmental aspects of gasification plants























Further legal information attached in the attachments folder: The original PDF file. An explenatory booklet. Alon committee findings: the relevant information is found in the tables at the end of the file (tables are mostly in english).


6. Retreived water qulity acording to The Inbar Committee, oblegating cretiria: Water salinity

'Column B streams 1.4 dS/m

Column A ' *irregation


parameter conductivity

70 100 mg/L 1.5 20 mg/L 10 25 mg/L 1.0 5 400 250 mg/L 2 200 150 mg/L 200 10 3 0.5< mg/L < 8.5 6.5 -7.0 1 0.05 1 > 0.5 2 5 0.4 mg/L 0.1 0.1 mg/L 0.0005 0.002 mg/L 0.05 0.1 mg/L 0.05 0.2 mg/L 0.02 mg/L 0.008 0.1 mg/L 0.005 0.01 mg/L 2 2.0 2 L /gm 2.0 20.0 L /gm 2.0 5 L /gm 10.0 L /gm 1.0 L /gm 1.0 L /gm 50.0 L /gm 5.2 L /gm 1.0 500.0

mg/L mg/L Units per 100 cc 8.5 mg/L mg/L mg/L mmol/L) ( SAR

COD 4 HN-N N general P general **Chloride Fluoride sodium E. Coli Oxigen PH Mineral Oil Clorine Anionic detergent

**Boron arsenic Mercury Chrome Nickel selenium Led ‫ ם‬Cadmium L/gm cniZ L/gm norI r eppoC esenagnaM L/gm m unimulA m unidibloM m uidanaV m uilyreB t laboC m uihtiL edinayC snoitaredisnoc latnemnorivne dna htlaeh ot euD* •


7. Relevant consultancy contact list

Company Name



Email\Web Site

Legal and General consultancy
CDM projects and license acquisition. EcoFinance Adv. Lior Shmueli Tel: +972-3-7554490 Former legal consultant Fax: +972-3-7554491 for the ministry of environment and current coordinator for the DNA (CMD designated national authority) Top civil and commercial law firm. One of the leading commercial law firms in Tel: 972-3-7770111 Israel. Fax: 972-3-7770101 Proficient in the fields of: Energy, infrastructure, etc m http://www.ecologicalfinanc

EBN Erdinast, Ben Nathan & Co. Advocates

CDM: Clean Development consultancy
Elysium- carbon trade investments & Project Develpoment Elysium trade & carbon Baseline investments Ltd Setting/Emission Reduction Forcasts Mr. Ofer Ben Dov Phone: 9579399 Fax: 9578385 Tel: +972-3-5616224 EcoTraders LTD. Project Develpoment Brokerage Baseline Setting/Emission Reduction Forcasts Fax: +972-3-5616225 Cell: +972-52-3805549 :


Ms. Adi Dishon

60 Tel: Madei Taas LTD. Mr. Eli Metz Project Develpoment Financial Brokerage Baseline Setting/Emission Reduction Forcasts +972-9-7669903 Fax: +072-9-7669904

Environmental Services Ms. Liora Goren Mr. Yaron Arnon

Project Develpoment Financial Brokerage Baseline Setting/Emission Reduction Forcasts and Monitoring Protocols Project Develpoment Financial Brokerage Baseline Setting/Emission Reduction Forcasts and Monitoring Protocols

Cell: +972-54-5321621 Tel: +972-2-5610716 Fax: +972-2--5663165 Tel: +1 770.631.4202 Fax +1 770.234.4144 Cell +404.862.2990 Tel:+972- 3-9024004 (Extension 227)

Carbonx LTD. Mr. Asaf Mendelovich'

Mundusaer John W. Baker, CEO

Technology Implementation, Project Development, Financial Brokerage Baseline, Setting/Emissions, Reduction Forecast, Monitoring Protocols

Aviv Management And Information Systems LTD.

Project Development Setting up baselines, emission reduction Fax: +972-3-9031380 forecasts and monitoring protocols Cell: +972-52-5743279 Project Development Fax: +972-4-8260671 Financing Brokerage Setting up baselines, Cell: +972- 54-7701884 emission reduction +972-54-6407643 forecasts and monitoring

UBI Limited / CAMCO INTERNATIONAL Mr. Tommy Mozes, Mr Noam Pardess

61 Strategic Environmental Consulting : Assif-Strategies Ltd. Policy development Performance measuring & reporting Stakeholder dialog (internal & external) Environmental Analysis Tools (Tech/Investment Assessments, Life Cycle, Eco-Design, Green Building) Integrated Carbon Services: Corporate strategy & inventory Product footprint & labeling Carbon offset development (CDM, JI, VER)

Email: Tel.: +972 (9) 9579399 Fax: Website

+972 (9) 9578385 http://www.

Technical consultancy
DHV MED Management: Y. Yinon 1 Gad Manela st. Local branch of DHV: P.O. Box 8058 New Industry Zone The DHV Group is a global Netanya 42504 provider of consultancy and engineering Phone:

+972 98 85 23 12

Company Services
   

Project control and quality Tel: assurance (QA) +972-9-8361000 Strategic consulting Fax: Economic consulting Tender preparation and accompanying +972-9-8857667 E-mail: Tel: +972-2-6541311 Fax: +972-2-6541322

Pareto Engineering LTD. Fields of Expertise  Water and sewage economy
   

Transportation Land and real estate Energy Environment

(national scale projects)


8. References:

D. T. Furness, BSc, MSc*, L. A Hoggett, BSc, MSc (Member)* and S. J. Judd, BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem. Thermochemical Treatment of Sewage Sludge. J CIWEM, 2000, 14, February P. Stolarek and S. Ledakowicz. Thermal Processing Of Sewage Sludge By Drying, Pyrolysis, Gasification And Combustion. Faculty of Process & Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Lodz, ul. Wolczanska 213, 93-005 Lodz, Poland. (E-mail:

Puchong Thipkhunthoda, Vissanu Meeyoob, Pramoch Rangsunvigita, Boonyarach Kitiyanana, Kitipat Siemanonda, Thirasak Rirksomboon. Predicting the heating value of sewage sludges in Thailand from proximate and ultimate analyses. aThe Petroleum and Petrochemical College, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand bCenter for Advanced Materials and Environmental Research, 51 Cheum Sampan Rd. Nong Chock, Mahanakorn University of Technology, Bangkok 10530, Thailand Leino Reinola. Tallinn University of Technology Technologies and experiences for using sewage sludge as a fuel. 5th International Symposium Topical Problems in the Field of Electrical and Power Engineering”,Doctoral School of Energy and Geotechnology Kuressaare, Estonia, January 14 – 19, 2008 S. Lynch, Project Manager, Northumbrian Water Ltd. A Strategy for Minimisation of Liquid and Gaseous Emissions from the LR Gasification of Dried Sewage Sludge. Paper for the IEA. 21 October 1999. World Bank, Washington DC .

D J White - Independent Energy Consultant, Gasification - The Gateway to a Cleaner Future, September 1998 Guideline for Safe and Eco-friendly Biomass Gasification. Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE) November 2009. Presentation: Climate Change in Israel Programs of Activities under the CDM. Dr. Yossi Inbar Vice Director General Ministry of Environmental Protection. ISRAEL. 2008. Presentation: Options to Create Green Energy from Wastewater Biosolids. Sept 14, 2009 Dave Forgie, Ph.D, P.Eng. Konrad Fichtner, P.Eng. (AECOM). Lee Lundberg, PE. (Veolia Water) Sri Hapsari Budisulistiorini. SEWAGE SLUDGE GASIFICATION CASE STUDY IN RURAL INDIA. 2003. ANNEX IV – VOLUME II. Asian Regional Research Program in Energy, Environment and Climate (Phase III) Biomass Energy in Asia: Assessment and Strategy Formulation FINAL REPORT 2006


ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. Regional Seminar on Commercialization of Biomass Technology.4-8 June 2001Guangzhou, China. Dr. J. R. Meshram Director Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, India. 2001. DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (video)