This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RDF production plants: I Design and costs
Antonio C. Caputo, Paciﬁco M. Pelagagge *
Faculty of Engineering, University of L’Aquila, 67040 Monteluco, L’Aquila, Italy Received 21 June 2001; accepted 5 October 2001
Abstract Municipal solid waste (MSW) management calls for the integration of diﬀerent recovery, recycling and disposal technologies. Among these possible options, MSW may be treated in order to obtain a fuel to be sold to third party users or directly utilized to generate electricity provided it is of suﬃcient quality to be employed instead of traditional fuels. In this two-part paper the problem of producing refuse derived fuel (RDF) having a high heating value (LHV > 4000 kcal/kg) has been examined from a technical and economic viewpoint. In the ﬁrst part article a technical assessment of production plants is carried out. Diﬀerent production lines have been thus compared in terms of mass eﬃciency, heating value of produced RDF and treatment cost highlighting how the choice of process equipment aﬀects the system performances. As a result the process plant conﬁgurations enabling to meet the required product speciﬁcations are identiﬁed. The inﬂuence of mixing a high caloriﬁc waste such as scrap tires with the stream of household waste, in the limits allowed by current regulation, has been also analyzed and found to be a prerequisite to meet the prescribed heating value target. Economic feasibility and ﬁnancial risk of RDF production plants have been successively evaluated in the second part article over a capacity range of 25–200 t/h considering also integrated facilities including compost production and/or electricity generation. The analysis has been carried out with reference to the current Italian market scenario even if it has a general applicability and its relevance is wider geographically. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Refuse derived fuel production; Waste to energy plant; Economic analysis; Waste management; Waste treatment; Municipal solid waste; Material recovery facility
1. Introduction Urban solid waste management is a critical issue in most countries, requiring an integrated system approach to be faced in an eﬀective manner. In fact, a correct balance among the various
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0862-434-316; fax: +39-0862-434-303. E-mail address: email@example.com (P.M. Pelagagge).
1359-4311/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 4 3 1 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 0 - 4
This leads to high production costs which reduce the market appeal of the product. production of high caloriﬁc value RDF asks for complex production lines leading to a low mass eﬃciency.2]. an average 62. 4. Current regulations are setting high quality standards for RDF.7–9].6% of the total waste amount is landﬁlled. However. referring to European Union data [10. RDF presents several advantages as a fuel respect untreated MSW. In this framework one of the options advocated by waste management planners and government regulations is the recovery of material and energy from municipal solid waste (MSW) through production of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) [1.11].C. given the same inlet quantity of MSW.5% is composted and 11. the lower pollutant emissions and a reduced excess air requirement during combustion [3–5]. intended as the ratio of produced RDF mass to the inlet untreated waste mass [5. Caputo. handling. existing local and state regulations. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Nomenclature ACC AV BC D DE E ECS HS LHV M MS MSW OIR OR P PT RDF S SE T air classiﬁer with cyclone actual value ballistic classiﬁer dryer densiﬁer extruder eddy current separator hand sorting low heating value mill magnetic separator municipal solid waste other inorganic residue organic residue pelletizer preliminary trommel screen refuse derived fuel shredder simulation error trommel screen available recovery. but this may represent an added cost. 21.9% is incinerated. recycling and disposal technology options for waste treatment has to be found while respecting economic constraints.M. there are a greater number of separation steps and a lower mass of output RDF. and transportation.424 A. the ease of storage. With the higher desired LHV. However. so that it can be readily accepted as a substitute or auxiliary fuel in most combustion system with minor modiﬁcations . Scrap tires may also be mixed to MSW in order to reach the prescribed LHV value. . environmental issues and taking into account public acceptance. the homogeneity of physical–chemical composition.0% is recycled. The main beneﬁts are the higher heating value which also remains fairly constant. In Europe. P.
15]. Italian requirements for example specify the RDF characteristics as indicated in Table 1. as tire derived fuel (TDF) in cement kilns. Therefore. In the future. and evaluate how equipment choice and composition of input waste stream aﬀect plant performance. referring to 1998 data.4% is treated in compost or RDF producing plants.) Max ash content (% by wt. compliance with such strict limits will be diﬃcult also for RDF production plants built in the near past. including composting. availability problems could arise if large scale utilization were applied in a high percentage at most production plants. 9. considering that scrap tires in some countries may already have an established market in remanufacturing applications. As far as the current Italian situation is concerned. In particular.C. 80% of MSW is landﬁlled. P.9 0. 55% is landﬁlled and 17% is combusted . industrial furnaces and utility boilers. regulations specifying strict quality standards for RDF are being issued in most countries. scrap tires (LHV about 5000 kcal/kg) may be used up to a mass percentage of 50% in order to meet the minimum RDF low heating value of 3584 kcal/kg (15 000 kJ/kg).) Max volatile Pb content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max Cr content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max soluble Cu content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max Mn content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max Ni content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max As content (mg/kg––dry basis) Max Cd þ Hg content (mg/kg––dry basis) 3584 25 20 0. 6. In the USA.A.) Max S content (% by wt. However. as well in civil engineering application as a lightweight ﬁll material [14. in excess of 4000 kcal/kg. 28% of MSW is recycled. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 425 such percentages vary widely among countries: as an example the incinerated fraction may grow up to 53% in Denmark.6% is burned in incineration facilities (with or without waste-to-energy systems).6 200 100 300 400 40 9 7 .––dry basis) Max Cl content (% by wt. pulp and paper mills. referring to 1997 data . In this scenario the current regulations strongly advocate a reduction of landﬁlled mass resorting to separate waste collection (to reach 35% of generated MSW by 2003 in Italy) and thermal utilization of waste including RDF production in particular. they are already separated from MSW. A recent survey in fact indicated that only 4% of RDF samples taken from current plants in Italy would meet the new standards . In order to eﬀectively plan waste management activities it is therefore important to assess under which technical conditions an RDF plant may be able to produce a RDF that meets the prescribed quality standards and the economic feasibility to undertake such an investment. Nevertheless. however. the new regulation allows the mixing of MSW with plastics having a high caloriﬁc value. 58% in Luxembourg and 49% in France. Assessment of equipment cost for RDF production lines has been also presented on the Table 1 Required quality characteristics of RDF in Italy Minimum LHV (kcal/kg) Max moisture content (% by wt. Caputo. In this paper a technical analysis of MSW treatment plants is carried out in order to deﬁne the proper line conﬁguration suited to produce RDF having a high caloriﬁc value.M. Utilization of scrap tires has the added advantage that no pre-selection is necessary. while the remaining 4% is disposed by other technologies.
the MSW treatment line should start with a shredding or screening stage. magnetic separation or air classiﬁers. However. classiﬁcation. In fact the type. Line architecture An RDF production line consists of several ‘‘stations’’ arranged in series as a train and performing unit operations aimed at separating unwanted components and conditioning the combustible matter in order to obtain an RDF of predetermined characteristics. As a general rule. 2.8. if a line starts with a shredder it would suﬀer from frequent jams because of hard-to-shred components which had not been previously separated by screens. drying and densiﬁcation. This is accomplished through successive treatment stages of screening. some rules of thumbs may be deﬁned. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 basis of market data. shredding. To this end the eddy current/magnetic separation combination would be unsuitable.7. although the actual line composition will depend from speciﬁc site conditions [5. Therefore it is necessary to start the RDF line with a screen to avoid shredded glass or metal entering the composting process. However. RDF production lines characterization 2. To place more than twice the same equipment on a line is not advisable as the added cost would not be justiﬁed by the low eﬃciency increment. Such guidelines will be brieﬂy discussed here and successively adopted when deﬁning the actual lines investigated. number. hand sorting. Economic feasibility and ﬁnancial risk of RDF production plants will be evaluated in the second part of this paper on the basis of the Net Present Value index over a wide capacity range comparing either single RDF production plants and facilities also integrating compost production and/or electricity generation.M. Finally a hand sorting stage cannot operate on already shredded refuse. If a parallel composting line is employed. Screens are an exception as they perfect and supplement the action of shredders and mills and always need to be placed after such unit operations. Caputo. otherwise the following equipment would suﬀer from low eﬃciency. . precautions must be taken that the separated inorganic components from the RDF line (glass. The simultaneous presence of a shredder and a mill is not a redundancy as the mill improves the rough size reduction process carried out by the shredder. metals) do not pollute the compost. This would cause the entire line to go down. However. separation. It is also useless to repeat the same operation consecutively unless an intermediate size reduction is present. P. In any case a mill should be always preceded by a magnetic separation or air classiﬁcation to avoid excessive wear due to presence of metal scrap.426 A. The number of possible trains developed from a given number of unit operations (usually trains of four to six operations are adopted) becomes very large .1. size reduction.C. if the refuse has not been previously shredded the mill throughput is reduced and its energy consumption increased.16]. to discern the practicality and feasibility of diﬀerent trains. and position of process equipment along the production line heavily aﬀect the mass balance and the quality of the end product. Moreover the ﬁrst shredder should be installed following a hand sorting/ magnetic separation or eddy current/hand sorting system to preliminarily separate the glass.
This means that some stations are used in multiple parallel trains and that there is a practical capacity limit to a single line so that higher capacity plants have to be constructed by placing several lines in parallel. Caputo.M. The RFTFs utilized in this work are shown are in Table 2. probably due to the fact that some constructive peculiarities exist in the equipment adopted in this very simply structured line. First the exact composition of MSW is diﬃcult to forecast and is likely to change over time.e. are the fractions of each component in the secondary waste stream. machine dimensions are standardized and a correct match among diﬀerent unit operations is diﬃcult to achieve. 2. Therefore if the input to the system is the vector U. the direct production cost has been estimated using the hourly equipment amortization . where I is the identity matrix. process equipment is often derived from other industrial sectors (i. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 427 Correct design of a RDF production plant is a delicate task due to a number of factors. 2. However. .C. design stage errors often lead to reduced throughput and a ﬁnal product of lower quality than expected with heavy economic penalties.e. heating value and ash content and is of straightforward application on a spreadsheet. Process design In order to compare performances of diﬀerent RDF production lines a computer model has been developed to carry out mass balances according to the recovery factor transform function (RFTF) matrix method developed by Diaz et al. resulting in reliability problems. The entries in the RFTF matrix R must be determined analytically or empirically from ﬁeld data. losing beneﬁts from economy of scale. i.3.A. The model has been validated by simulating mass balances for several existing RDF producing facilities in Italy and comparing results with actual plant data. in the material stream that is separated by the process unit. Mass balances have been carried out considering the MSW composition indicated in Table 3 . whose elements specify the quantities of each of the waste components contained in the processed stream. except the single case of the Macomer Plant. According to Diaz the RFTF for a process unit is a diagonal matrix whose elements specify the fraction of each of the waste components that remain in the primary material stream after unit processing occurs. Furthermore. The mass eﬃciency error is in the 1–3% range while the low heating value estimation error is lower than 2%.2. then the quantities of the waste components in the output stream and the separated stream are respectively represented by the elements of vectors X and Y where X ¼ RU and Y ¼ R0 U ¼ ðI À RÞU. obtaining satisfying results even with RDF lines having very diﬀerent structures as shown in Table 4. Finally. Cost data Besides the low heating value of produced RDF and the line mass eﬃciency. P. If R is the RFTF then the elements in the complementary matrix R0 ¼ I À R. In order to compare diﬀerent lines from this perspective. This approach may be applied to either refuse components on a dry weight basis and component moisture content (free water) lending itself to also calculate useful bulk properties such as moisture content. mineral industry) and may not be optimized for MSW. In MSW sorting plants each process units performs a binary separation process on the incoming stream generating a main output stream and a secondary stream of separated material. another important evaluation parameter is the treatment cost.
7 1.045 0.8 1.62 OIR 1.009 0.8 1.0 5.7 0.37 Glass 1.98 0.02 OR 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.428 A.7 0.0 0.0135 0.7 0.02 0.7 0.41 Al 1.0 0.014 0.0 0. .0 1.6 0.135 0.98 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.98 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.41 0.98 0.018 0.1 0.25 0.2 0.95 0.3 1.3 1.98 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 14.98 0.25 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.98 0.72 0.0 0.6 0.009 0.0 0.45 0.0 0.882 0.09 0.882 0.0 0.0 1.0 0. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Table 2 Recovery factor transfer function matrix components Equipment Shredder Hammermill Trommel screen (ﬁne) Preliminary screen (coarse Trommel or Pretrommel) Air classiﬁer Shredded refuse Unshredded refuse Ballistic classiﬁer Magnetic separator Eddy current separator Hand sorting Dryer Densiﬁer.3 1.69 0.6 0.98 1. it is a valid judgement criterion as it is directly linked to the line conﬁguration.882 0. Pelletizer Fraction Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Fe 1.25 0.0 0.8 1.204 Moisture (kg/kg MSW) 0.9 0.8 0.0 1.0 1. Extruder.8 1.95 0.0135 0.M.0 0.85 0. Equipment cost and performances are summarized in Table 5 based on manufacturers data (only costs of equipment utilized in the subsequent analysis are shown). P.8 1.98 0.0 Dry refuse (kg/kg MSW) 0.02 0.85 0.6 0.0 1.0108 0.9 0.98 0.C.11 Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture Refuse Moisture 0.98 0.37 0.5 51.98 0.0 27.98 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.306 Ash (kg/kg MSW) 0.004 0.98 0.98 0.0 0.36 0.0 0.9 0.09 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.98 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.63 0.1 0.0 1. Amortized costs are evaluated according to a 10 years line life.0015 0.1 0.0204 LHV (kcal/kg) 0 0 0 2100 6300 0 1500 cost plus energy expenses.9 1.2 1.0 0.005 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.6 0.18 0.9 1.001 0.6 0.98 0.25 0.0 0. While this cost is not the whole production cost.882 0.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.69 Plastics 1.8 0.3 1.001 0.0 Table 3 Assumed composition of MSW Component Iron Aluminium Glass Paper Plastic OIR OR % 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.3 1.126 0.8 0.045 0.1 0.62 0.0063 0.216 0.98 0.3 1.11 0.15 0.63 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 1.054 0.01 Paper 1.004 0.4 0.95 0.9 0. Caputo.1 0.5 1.01 0.95 0.0 0.
45 2.73 0.00 1.12 0.23 11.62 0. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Table 4 Reference plants and computation results Plant Structure a b c d e f g h S–T–MS–M–MS– ACC–T–E PT–HS–MS–S–T– MS–M–T S–T–MS–M–MS–T M–PT–ACC–M–D–P M–MS–T–BC T–MS–ACC–T–MS– ACC M–MS–PT–MS M–T–M–ACC–P Mass eﬃciency AV (%)/SE (%) 36.09 0.43 14.93 103.6 4.62 3.9 27. Electricity cost has been assumed 0.83 49.11 154.96 1.5 24.3 35.58 41.65 1.C.45 129. SE: simulation error.27 0.73 0. e: Macomer (Nuoro). .60 154.16 0. Operating cost for the hand sorting station is based on labor cost assuming two operators per shift.75 6. AV: actual value.30 2.97 36.58 7.5 3150/1.2 3. Table 5 Line equipment cost data Equipment Densiﬁer Air classiﬁer Dryer Belt conveyor Hammer mill Capacity (t/h) 6 5 6 2 4 6 4 5 10 15 5 10 15 6 10 15 25 15 25 Power (kW) 5 12 140 6 200 250 300 50 2.15 41.46 18.1 7.7 Ash AV (%)/SE (%) 6.0/2.0/2.48 0.3/1.98 1.96 3.0/3. g: SAO (Orvieto). f: RECLAS (Frosinone).5 69.9 4000/1.81 3. b: CIRSU (Giulianova).0/3.93 206.4 Legend: a: AREA (Ravenna).A.93 Amortization (Euro/h) 4.57 56. P.08 21. Caputo.31 3.2 429 LHV AV (kcal/kg RDF)/SE (%) 2900/1.3 43.29 154.31 309.49 129.8/5.0723 Euro/ kWh.3/3.36 3.87 15.0/6.45 0.35 2. d: Consorzio Smaltimento Riﬁuti Bassa Friulana (Udine). h: SIEM (Pieve di Coriano).87 14. c: Consorzio Alessandrino (Castelciriolo).7 3000/1.81 108.11 144.14 0.55 Operating cost (Euro/h) 3.34 4000/2.6 25 50 50 55 20 30 Cost (kEuro) 206.17 Pelletizer Eddy current separator Magnetic separator Hand sorting Shredder Trommel screen operating six days a week on two 7-h daily shifts.87 10.2 2.0 Moisture AV (%)/SE (%) 12.62 3.55 2.96 3.83 0.48 2.1 4010/1.17 0.62 0.25 6.69 3.5 4354/0.34 0.5/4.16 0.27 0.0/1.0/3.2 2.M.55 4.1 2100/8.0 55.95 7.16 23.
However. square mesh screen and densiﬁed to about 300 kg/m3 . Caputo. with a particle size such that 95% by weight passes through a 2-in. However. cubettes. For each considered line the table shows its conﬁguration. then a mix of MSW added with tires and chlorine-free plastics in a percentage rising from 10% to 50% (the maximum limit allowed by Italian regulation) are evaluated. from hammer mills. RDF types and production lines analysis Seven diﬀerent RDF types have been classiﬁed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) : RDF-1 is MSW used as a fuel without oversize bulky waste. square mesh screen (also known as ‘‘Fluﬀ RDF’’). as an example in Great Britain three RDF categories are mainly used. owing to their rugged construction required for the heavy size reduction task they perform. (also known as ‘‘densiﬁed RDF’’ or d-RDF). which is also advisable due to hygiene and safety considerations. RDF-3 is shredded fuel derived from MSW and processed for removal of metal. (also known as ‘‘coarse RDF’’ or c-RDF). P. and coarse RDF. glass and other entrained inorganics. Fluﬀ and dust RDF production In case of ﬂuﬀ RDF production the simulation results are shown in Table 6. and to the dryer due to the fuel consumption. slugs. dust. Whenever possible the human operator should be avoided.e. diﬀerent classiﬁcation schemes may exist in the various countries. 3.1. briquettes etc. As far as the hammer mill is concerned an eﬀort should be carried out to improve its eﬃciency in order to reduce its cost as much as possible. In line #2 the basic line is modiﬁed by substituting the preliminary screening with . this latter being an undensiﬁed ﬂock RDF roughly corresponding to dust RDF. due to labor cost.e. RDF-4 is the combustible waste fraction processed into a powdered form. the eﬀect of input stream composition has been analyzed: at ﬁrst lines treating only MSW are considered. Line #1 is a basic line starting with a preliminary screening station.430 A. RDF-6 is liquid RDF while RDF-6 is gaseous RDF. In this work the search for the preferred line architecture has been carried out considering only reference scenarios characterized by the production of ﬂuﬀ. the speciﬁc RDF production cost. RDF-2 is MSW processed to coarse particle size with or without ferrous metals. d-RDF and f-RDF.M. 3. the list of successive unit operations performed. RDF-5 is the combustible waste fraction densiﬁed to in excess of 600 kg/m3 into the form of pellets. and its performances described in terms of line mass eﬃciency (i.e. i.C. densiﬁed. 95% by weight passing through a 10-mesh screen (also known as ‘‘dust RDF’’ or p-RDF). and produced RDF properties including the moisture and ash content. but this is often dependent from the degree of separation of input MSW stream. Moreover an economic balance may be sought between operator presence and a more complex and costly line having higher eﬃciency separation units. it shows poor performances as the target LHV value of 4000 kcal/kg is not reached even if the mass eﬃciency is lower than 20%. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Observation of Table 5 shows that the major impact comes from hand sorting. A subcategory of RDF-2 is the crumb RDF subject to separation such that 95% by weight passes through a 6-in. Furthermore. The analysis was mainly aimed at identifying the conditions needed to obtain a high quality RDF (LHV > 4000 kcal/kg). c-RDF. i. the ratio of produced RDF mass to inlet waste mass).
64 16.7 7.4 62.9 53.13 6.93 16.7 24.5 5.37 13.9 6.0 5.18 9.6 31.8 Moisture (%) 8.9 43.4 6.5 20.3 5.8 6.83 6.C.26 15.12 6.19 20.7 24.47 7.0 9. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Table 6 Performance of ﬂuﬀ RDF production lines at varying input waste mix Line # Line conﬁguration MSW input Eﬃciency fraction (%) (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 80 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 18.50 15.4 7.12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 7 8 9 15 10 11 2 10 11 2 10 2 10 2 10 a PT–HS–MS–S–T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–MS– M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–MS– M–T–MS T–HS–MS–S–T–ECS– M–T T–HS–ECS–S–T–ECS– M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–S–T– M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–MS–S– T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–ECS– S–T–M–T S–T–MS–M–T S–T–MS–S–T–M–T S–T–MS–S–T–MS–M– T S–T–ECS–S–T–MS–M– T S–T–ECS–S–T–ECS– M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–S–T– M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–MS–S– T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–ECS– S–T–M–T T–HS–ECS–S–T–ECS– S–T–M–T S–T–MS–M–T S–T–MS–S–T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–Ta S–T–MS–M–T S–T–MS–S–T–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–Ta S–T–MS–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–Ta S–T–MS–M–T T–HS–MS–S–T–M–Ta S–T–MS–M–T Line suitable to feed a parallel compost producing plant.4 7.0 6.9 6.18 15.5 38.3 5.9 28.M.97 13.78 21.2 27.1 5.8 7.06 5.0 20.5 7.7 5.59 12.9 20.45 12.9 24.9 5.6 27.15 5.4 Ash (%) 6.82 8.28 6.07 15.32 15.3 5.48 12.8 49.3 23.1 8.8 24.3 59.76 9.6 37.1 9.76 9.28 6.26 10.9 6.2 6.8 27.23 8.5 7.0 9. .0 9.60 15.7 7.0 6. P.2 5.5 56.8 38.1 6.05 9.4 7.56 15.9 6.42 6.1 5.6 6.7 23.65 6.8 431 LHV Production (kcal/kg RDF) cost (Euro/t RDF) 3478 3388 3403 3406 3434 3438 3546 3559 3590 3152 3409 3424 3488 3494 3792 3961 3977 3999 4001 3544 3804 4050 3846 4083 4230 4060 4310 4225 4499 4355 16.9 10.85 9.3 31.3 30.9 5. Caputo.1 24.15 20.4 7.1 7.6 6.17 11.3 6.8 6.19 10.68 10.47 6.A.22 5.4 5.6 7.9 5.67 6.6 45.3 24.1 23.54 9.35 5.
13. at the expense of a lower eﬃciency and a higher cost. 14).C. but at the expense of a signiﬁcant cost increment. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 a trommel screen leading to a higher mass eﬃciency. a shredder is utilized as the ﬁrst process step. Also the addition of a third MS is useless (line #4). To sum up.M. The impossibility of placing a hand sorting station greatly reduces costs but also causes an increased content of inerts leading to a higher mass eﬃciency but a low LHV which cannot be improved by simply adding magnetic or ECSs. Caputo. 1. A further shredding stage is then added in line #11 obtaining a LHV increase followed by the obvious decrease of mass eﬃciency. In line #3 a further MS is added to line #2. there is a reduction of mass eﬃciency and an increased cost due to the insertion of a new station with only a negligible increment of LHV. When an input waste mix containing 10% of scrap tires is assumed instead the performances are greatly improved in terms of heating value showing the beneﬁt of adding scrap tires or similar high LHV plastics even when a type #2 line is utilized. P. The further addition of a MS in line #8 does not improve performances. although still insuﬃcient to reach the required value of 4000 kcal/kg. To further improve performances a new shredding stage is introduced (corresponding to line #7) as the addition of further magnetic or electrostatic separators has been proven to be scarcely eﬀective. Performances are only slightly improved by adding magnetic and/or ECSs (lines #12. In line #9 the second MS is substituted with an ECS obtaining a LHV greater than the target value. . It may be concluded that utilization of sole MSW to produce RDF meeting the target value of 4000 kcal/ kg proves to be nearly impossible even when a complex separation line is adopted with numerous process steps. In following lines. A net increase in LHV is observed. A performance improvement may be attempted by adding a new shredding station as shown in line #7. A signiﬁcant increase of LHV is Fig.432 A. 1 and 2 for lines treating 100% MSW. In line #5 and #6 the second one and both MS of line #3 are respectively substituted with an ECS. However. but this change proves to be uneﬀective. starting with line #10. nearly 25% and reduced RDF cost even if the LHV is slightly decreased due to the increased presence of poor heating value components in the RDF. variation of RDF production cost and line mass eﬃciency versus the RDF low heating value are shown in Figs. Treatment cost vs heating value when processing pure MSW.
however. even the addition of only 10% of high energy value refuse as tires enabled one to reach the target LHV of 4000 kcal/kg at a lower cost (around 15. 2. Increasing the tire content to 20% enables a type #2 line to achieve greater than 4000 kcal/kg LHV. Further improvements are achieved by adding magnetic or electrostatic separators (line #8. .A. 3. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 433 Fig. Summing up. Caputo. which requires the addition of another Fig. 3 and 4.M. Mass eﬃciency vs heating value when processing pure MSW.493 Euro/kg) compared to pure MSW fed lines as shown in Figs. observed even if mass eﬃciency reduces while costs inevitably grow. Passing to lines starting with a shredder (line #10) signiﬁcantly worsens performances and also the addition of a further shredding stage (line #11) does not help reach the target LHV.C. 9. this does not happen for a type #10 line. P. 15) which produces RDF meeting the target LHV. Treatment cost vs heating value when processing 90% MSW and 10% scrap tires.
The same considerations hold for lines producing dust RDF. 4. the only diﬀerence with ﬂuﬀ RDF producing lines is in the ﬁnal size reduction operation where hammer mills are substituted by knife shredders having similar cost. when the tire percentage reaches 50% of input ﬂow. shredder stage (line #11) in order to meet LHV speciﬁcation. Pelletizers produce a high density RDF (about 700 kg/m3 ) which may be unsuitable for some kinds of combustors like ﬂuidized beds. P. In Table 6 the lines utilizing 20% or more of scrap tires and producing an RDF having a low heating value in excess of 4000 kcal/kg are highlighted also showing the lines suited to feed a parallel compost producing facility. This operation does not change line eﬃciency or RDF low heating value but modiﬁes the RDF density. this input mix enables a simple type #10 line. This percent of tires allows the production of high quality RDF with a small and low cost line. although feasible.2. A further drying process step has not been included. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Fig. Caputo. starting with a shredder. In fact. and installed power. Starting from the ﬂuﬀ RDF producing lines of Table 6 meeting the 4000 kcal/kg target value a densiﬁer/pelletization station has been added computing the resulting production cost as shown in Table 7. as the moisture content is already low and . Furthermore. 3.C. Densiﬁed RDF production In order to ease storage and transportation the ﬂuﬀ RDF may be densiﬁed using conditioning equipment like a densiﬁer.2 Euro/t RDF. capacity. Finally. This trend is conﬁrmed when tires content increases to 40% of waste input mix needed to exceed the 50% mass eﬃciency threshold and 4300 kcal/kg LHV value. Further increasing the tires content to 30% improves the performances of a type #2 line with signiﬁcant increase in mass eﬃciency and lowered cost. to meet the target LHV at very low cost and high mass eﬃciency. Mass eﬃciency vs heating value when processing 90% MSW and 10% scrap tires. the maximum amount allowed by law.434 A. a cuber or a pelletizer. the mass eﬃciency exceeds 60% with production cost as low as 6.M. while simple densiﬁers produce a lower density fuel (300–400 kg/m3 ).
8 Moisture (%) 7.6 45.57 11.89 8.5 7.25 Moisture (%) 22.M.52 1.42 6.75 7.8 6.65 12.8 49. Cubers and extruders have a similar capacity and costs as pelletizers.5 68.77 20.1 5.6 7.04 6.9 7.66 46.4 62.93 8.80 0.28 1. Therefore the production line will be made up of a shredder followed by a screen with the optional presence of a MS.92 Ash (%) 12.A.83 6.C.42 9.16 1.47 53.04 6.53 63. the LHV is suﬃciently high.4 73.38 12.75 0. 3. therefore no further distinction has been made among such process units.3 59. Caputo.98 0. Coarse RDF production Coarse RDF is refuse shredded to a size of 10–15 cm from which ferrous components may or may not be separated.5 56.4 LHV (kcal/kg RDF) 4050 4083 4230 4060 4310 4225 4499 4355 Production cost (Euro/t RDF) Densiﬁed 2 11 2 10 2 10 2 10 a 435 Pelletized 13.8 8. In this case a variable amount of tires in the input stream is considered and the results are shown in Table 8.33 71.9 14.20 8. Table 8 Performance of coarse RDF production lines at varying input waste mix Line # 16 17 16 16 16 16 16 17 Line structure S–T S–T–MS S–T S–T S–T S–T S–T S–T–MS MSW input fraction (%) 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 50 Eﬃciency (%) 48.06 17.81 LHV (kcal/kg RDF) 2418 2476 2815 3146 3425 3664 3870 3902 Production cost (Euro/t RDF) 1.9 53.99 12.88 9.75 10.33 5.71 11.05 11.3.75 7.73 22.07 0.21 9.13 6.65 Line suitable to feed a parallel compost producing plant.92 11. P. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 Table 7 Performance of densiﬁed RDF production lines at varying input waste mix Line # Line conﬁguration T–HS–MS–S– T–M–T–DE/Pa S–T–MS–S–T– M–T–DE/P T–HS–MS–S– T–M–T–DE/Pa S–T–MS–M–T– DE/P T–HS–MS–S– T–M–T–DE/Pa S–T–MS–M–T– DE/P T–HS–MS–S– T–M–T–DE/Pa S–T–MS–M–T– DE/P MSW input fraction (%) 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 Eﬃciency (%) 38.2 6.9 5.85 15.59 58.84 .42 9.9 38.
L.G. CA. 1999. Processing. ERM.  European Environmental Agency. Walters. FL. Boley. Savage.C.  F.  A. 1991 International Joint Power Generation Conference.  European Commission. Conclusions In this work an extensive technical analysis of RDF production plants has been carried out to investigate the feasibility of producing a high caloriﬁc value product as advocated by current regulations. Rohrbach.R. While the addition of the MS reduces the mass eﬃciency.M. E. Goodman.A. Bruxelles. 1995. October 6–10.C. Journal of Hazardous Materials 58 (1–3) (1998) 33–45. FL. Boca Raton.436 A. CA. Resources Recovery from Municipal Solid Wastes.E. 25–36. 1991 International Joint Power Generation Conference. Caputo. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 In both cases the treatment of a pure MSW stream and mixing with scrap tires up to the allowed limit does not reach a suﬃcient RDF heating value.75 Euro/t. Overview of RDF Processing Systems. CRC Press. Energy and Fuels 7 (2) (1993) 273–278. . References  C. pp. FL. San Diego. Design Features.J. 1991. G.B. Waste Management and Resource Recovery. Even if mass eﬃciency may grow to in excess of 70% and the production cost may be as low as about 0.R. 1991 International Joint Power Generation Conference. 1982. P. 1–8. 1991. Technology. Refuse Derived Fuels. pp.  S. CA. W. San Diego. Chang. pp.M.. Refuse Derived Fuel Quality Requirements for Firing in Utility. CRC Press.  O. USA. Industrial or Dedicated Boilers. Manser.G. Waste Management and Research 17 (3) (1999) 231–241. Practical Handbook of Processing and Recycling Municipal Waste.H. Golueke. According to the desired type of RDF to be produced the inﬂuence of diﬀerent choices of process equipment and line architectures have been examined by evaluating the line mass eﬃciency and the heating value of produced RDF in order to deﬁne the most suitable plants able to meet the required RDF quality levels at minimum cost. CRC Press. Gupta. Furthermore.C. Saxena. 1996. 4. the necessity of mixing a variable amount of scrap tires to the inlet MSW stream has been recognized as a fundamental prerequisite in order to obtain the required RDF heating value. October 6–10. DG XI. USA. Therefore it will not be considered in the subsequent economic analysis carried out in the second part of this article. Riebling. Comparison of environmental impacts from solid waste treatment and disposal facilities. Rao. Chang. 1997. Tsiliyannis.K. which is also a prerequisite for eﬀective utilization of this fuel in actual industrial furnaces or utility boilers. San Diego. N. Boca Raton. October 6–10. Statistiche sui riﬁuti––terza fase. and Future Trends. the poor LHV prevents the development of a signiﬁcant market share for this kind of RDF.M. 49–59. N. Copenhagen. Keeling.K.  A. 1991. Chen.  G. there is only a minor increase of LHV.O. L’ambiente in Europa: seconda valutazione. Diaz.L. D.S. Ohlsson. Boca Raton. Quality and Combustion Experiences. Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW incineration. Rhyner et al. Current Status. C. W.  C.  Y. Fluidized-bed incineration of refuse-derived fuel pellets. A. B.
Municipal Solid Waste Generation.S. April 2000. 1996. June 20–24. Scrap tire use/disposal study. P. Combustibile Derivato dai Riﬁuti: Le Nuove Norme Tecniche (DM 5 febbraio 1998) Riguardanti la sua Produzione ed Utilizzazione.  M. Optimization of MSW Separation System. Palmer. Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998. MO. 1998.  J. 2001.A. The use of scrap tires as a supplemental fuel. 1999. June 24–28. Pelagagge / Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 423–437 437  U.R. Tenti. NJ. 445–450.  M.M. Proceedings of the 1996 17th Biennial Waste Processing Conference. Gould. USA. Environmental Protection Agency. March 31–April 3. Riﬁuti Solidi-RS 13 (1999) 225–241 (in Italian). Caputo.  Scrap Tire Management Council. USA. Pre-processing technologies to prepare solid waste for composting.C. Proceedings of Air and Waste Management Association Conference. Orlando. Atlantic City. Blumenthal.  C. St Louis. . Maldifassi. R. pp. EPA 530-F-0-024. Proceedings of AWMA Annual Meeting and Exhibition.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.