Memorandum submitted by Brightstar Environmental
As a recent entrant into the UK waste industry,
and as owner and operator of emerging technology, Brightstar Environmental
(Brightstar) is well placed to comment on the development of future
waste management policy in the UK.
This submission outlines the technology developed
by Brightstar known as Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility
(SWERFR) which provides a new solution to waste management. The
submission sets out how the SWERFR technology using advanced thermal
processing technology can assist in moving waste management up
the waste hierarchy, and also highlights the issues that need
to be overcome if this is to be achieved. In summary these issues
The increasing need to ensure flexibility
in waste management systems in the future.
That an integrated waste management
system has to be a mix of options and not just those obsessively
presented by certain groups.
Strong and positive decisions must
be made by politicians at local and national level on waste management
which are notoriously unpopular otherwise progress is likely to
Innovation must not be hampered by
over regulation and stringent definitions.
Clear definitions and statements
are needed by government and regulators to ensure that that new
technology such as advanced thermal processing is correctly understood
It is essential that government carry
out independent studies into waste disposal options, so that the
health impacts and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of all options
can be considered in a balanced way.
A more regional focus to waste management
is needed, which combines responsibilities to deliver a real integrated
approach and remove the barriers between Waste Collection and
Waste Disposal Authorities.
Procurement appears to counter against
emerging technology and Government must create the conditions,
which allows new entrants to enter the market and compete for
waste on a level playing field.
The problems of the planning system
must be tackled head on otherwise the industry's ability to deliver
the waste management targets is severely at risk.
Waste management regulation must
be consistent and flexible to ensure that new technology is encouraged.
Long term renewable energy support
is needed to make new qualifying waste management technologies
attractive for long term investment.
1.1 Brightstar Environmental (Brightstar)
is a subsidiary of Energy Developments Limited (EDL), an Australian
listed company, who are a global renewable energy generation company.
EDL has been operational in the UK for the past six years developing
projects under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO).
1.2 Brightstar is the owner and operator
of a new resource recovery technology known as Solid Waste and
Energy Recycling Facility (SWERFR). SWERFR incorporates an Advanced
Conversion Technology (ACT) as defined in the Renewables Obligation
based on pyrolysis and gasification. Its front end separation
process removes the recyclable components from the waste stream
prior to thermal treatment, which results in the conversion of
only the residual organic fraction or renewable biomass into energy.
1.3 Through EDL, Brightstar Environmental
holds 155MW of NFFO five MIW contracts and is seeking to develop
these and other projects in the UK. Brightstar's has already secured
Planning Permission for a SWERFR in Derby, where the company holds
a contract to process 50,000 tpa of MSW with Derby City Council.
Brightstar has also been selected with Brett Waste Management
to build a SWERF in Canterbury under contract with Kent County
Council for up to 100,000 tpa of MSW.
2. THE SWERFR
2.1 SWERFR is designed to maximise value
of resources in the waste stream resulting in high levels of recycling
and recovery. As currently designed SWERFR will divert approximately
80% of MSW from landfill and with ongoing development programmes
it is hoped to eventually increase this level towards 100%.
2.2 The process incorporates intensive front-end
separation of the incoming waste for the removal of recyclable
materials with only the residual non recyclable organic fraction
being converted into energy. Hence the technology can deal with
waste which has either been subject to a high degree of source
separation or waste which is completely unsorted.
2.3 The SWERFR technology has been developed
over a ten year period and passed through pilot and demonstration
scale testing. The first commercial plant, which has capacity
for processing 50,000 tonnes per annum, is currently in the final
stages of commissioning in Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia,
where Brightstar has a long term waste processing agreement with
the City Council. The plant will have an ultimate capacity of
over 150,000 tonnes of MSW.
2.4 A brief description of the SWERFR technology
is included as an annex to this submission.
3.1 Before addressing the issues of the
waste hierarchy and how SWERFR could assist in meeting these objectives,
we believe that the fundamental issue in developing a future waste
management strategy is the need for maximum flexibility. As is
argued later, following a path of kerbside recycling and composting
is unlikely to deliver all of the objectives on their own.
3.2 Developing a long term waste management
service will no doubt require significant capital investment and
therefore long term contracts are usually needed for such investment
to proceed. But it is impossible to predict how the quality and
quantity of waste will vary over the next 10 to 20 years with
the uncertainty of waste growth and to what extent waste reduction
and recycling programmes will have an effect. This presents a
real dilemma in developing long term strategies and it is often
difficult to strike a balance, which safeguards not only the interests
of the service provider but also provides the flexibility to deliver
the required performance and service over the long term. It is
therefore fundamental to ensure that the options selected have
the flexibility to enable changes in waste quantity and composition
to be accommodated together with a change in market forces without
threatening the viability of the waste management service.
3.3 It is assumed that any long term fully
integrated service will require facilities to handle residual
waste if recovery levels are to be maximised such as energy generation
or biological stabilisation. One of the major criticisms in the
past of large scale facilities is the possible disincentive to
waste minimisation and recycling programmes which may result due
to the demand of the plant to achieve its installed processing
capacity to enable the project to be financially bankable.
3.4 The modular nature of SWERF provides
significant flexibility with the ability to deliver viable facilities
with a capacity from as little as 50,000 tonnes per annum increasing
in increments of 50,000 tonnes per annum. As such the plant is
easily expandable if processing demand increases and likewise
modules can be removed to reduce capacity if waste arisings fall
3.5 Brightstar's first UK project is in
Derby where planning consent has been received for a four module
plant with 200,000 tonnes of capacity per annum. There is no requirement
for the plant to be built to this capacity but the flexibility
exists is to do so if demand requires. It is likely that the plant
will be initially sized at 50,000 tonnes per annum until the long
term waste management needs of the area can be established together
with the success or otherwise of local recycling and waste minimisation
programmes. It is hoped to commence the construction of the Derby
plant later this year.
3.6 The following seeks to address the issues
of the waste hierarchy and how SWERF could assist meeting the
objectives and in delivery of an integrated waste management strategy.
4. WASTE MINIMISATION
4.1 It is likely that the promotion of waste
minimisation through community education will be a key factor
to stem the continued increase in waste production and encourage
the participation and use of bring and kerbside recycling facilities.
4.2 It is acknowledged that criticism has
been commonly aimed at the providers of "end of pipe"
solutions that their commercial interests are unlikely to be aligned
with the concept of waste minimisation.
4.3 Brightstar acknowledges that certain
materials will only command a recycling value if they are of a
high quality, which can only be achieved by separate collection.
Education will therefore be key to achieving recycling targets.
Brightstar's modular technology provides the flexibility to accommodate
recycling and waste reduction programmes and this has been demonstrated
with our first project in Wollongong with the City Council.
5.1 It is recognised that recycling is fundamental
in any future waste management strategy with the need to increase
recycling from the relatively low levels that currently exist.
Kerbside collection will no doubt play a major role in delivering
future recycling however there appears to be a dogmatic approach
in some areas of government and NGO's that kerbside is the only
way to recycle and any other route is bad. It is important not
to allow the ideological beliefs over ride common sense and pragmatism.
5.2 We agree that kerb side collection provides
high quality recyclables, but evidence to date suggests that:
the economic costs for kerb side
collection schemes are often significantly higher than current
participation rates are very sensitive
to demographical and geographical effects;
separate collection systems are not
necessarily the correct environmental approach; and
a significant cultural shift and
change in attitude are required.
5.3 Recycling is also market dependent and
evidence to date suggests that a number of schemes have failed
financially because of the insecurity of the markets for recyclates.
5.4 Whatever the scheme and education programme,
kerbside collection certainly in the short to medium term will
fall short of meeting the targets, and it is therefore crucial
to encourage technologies which provide downstream processing
to capture those materials which are missed and end up in the
residual waste stream.
5.5 However as mentioned there appears to
be a belief by some that any "end of pipe" solution
will have a detrimental effect on local recycling initiatives.
We believe that this is a naïve view and biased against the
pragmatic need for residual waste processing capacity. This view
is certainly not supported when looking at the example of other
European countries where high levels of recycling have been achieved
alongside large processing plants (often incineration). Integrated
waste management is about a mix of options that will achieve the
5.6 SWERFR is highly compatible with current
recycling programs by removing those materials from the waste
stream either because they are missed or because people fail to
participate. Even in communities that enthusiastically recycle,
large amounts of residual waste are normally sent to landfill
5.7 In Wollongong, Australia, Brightstar
is currently commissioning a SWERFR in conjunction with a separate
kerbside collection programme that incorporate separate bins for
the collection of dry recyclables and organic waste. Even though
this kerbside programme represents one of the most successful
in Australia, SWERFR( is still recovering substantial quantities
of recyclables from the residual bin from those households who
either do not wish to or are unable to participate. As an example,
the level of metal recovery through the SWERFR has increased by
nearly 300% on levels recovered through the dry recyclables collection.
As a result the City Council is considering how to fully integrate
its kerbside programme with SWERRF to maximise the recovery of
materials and quality recyclates and minimise cost and environmental
burden. Here as should be the case in all areas, an integrated
strategy is being developed using the options availableit's
about using a mix of options, not one.
5.8 Finally the issue of markets for recyclables
is crucial to the success of any scheme. As mentioned above the
viability of kerbside collection is highly market dependent on
the ability to sell the materials collected. The SWERFR process
provides inherent flexibility to take account of these market
fluctuations. SWERFR maximises the recovery of materials for recycling
including glass, metals and plastics. Where traditional recycling
routes are not available for materials, such as plastics and non-recyclable
residual organics, its energy value would be utilised by conversion
to electricity with a guaranteed end market. In addition SWERFR
can provide additional flexibility where contaminated or rejected
materials from a MRF can be passed through the SWERF to recover
remaining resources and further increase the overall recycling
5.9 However whilst the above flexibility
should be seen as a sensible approach to recycling, it is unfortunately
seen as a threat to those obsessively pushing kerbside collection.
These groups continue to skew what should be a sensible and objective
debatethat is that all the options that need to be considered
to provide the most economically as well as environmentally sustainable
5.10 Whilst composting will without doubt
play a fundamental part in recycling, success to date has been
limited due to the markets available and the inconsistency of
material that can be produced on a long term basis. Added to that
the fears of BSE and Foot and Mouth disease has led to more stringent
regulation on the methods by which waste derived compost can be
produced and used. As a result, it is becoming apparent that low
cost windrow composting will not be an environmentally viable
solution and more intensive, and more expensive technologies are
likely to be required. Even so, the issues of market demand and
penetration will still be a major factor of success.
5.11 The potential environmental and commercial
problems in the production of waste derived compost has lead Brightstar
to develop alternative products from the organic fraction of waste.
Brightstar is developing these products as a major step forward
in the value adding process with production being "market
driven", not "waste driven".
5.12 Brightstar proposes to take a portion
of the sterilised autoclaved pulp produced during the SWERFR front
end process for manufacture of various products, ranging from
soil improvers to fertiliser, rather than energy production. This
process may also use some of the residues from the plant. Again
like recycling, being integrated within the SWERFR process provides
flexibility in allowing the plant's outputs to varied to overcome
market fluctuations and avoid the need to stockpile product.
5.13 However as with recycling, composting
and organic waste treatment there is a necessity to ensure that
"composting" in its traditional sense is not seen as
the only solution. There has to be more flexibility in how these
targets are achieved, and care must be taken not to stifle innovative
processing methods by dogmatic views and by over regulation and
5.14 To summarise, our belief is that simply
adopting kerbside separation and a reliance on composting will
not deliver recycling targets on their own. Recycling markets
must be stimulated and more flexible resource recovery systems
encouraged and implemented that cater for market fluctuations.
Too often recycling programmes have failed due to the collapse
of a particular market. Whilst steps are being taken through the
likes of Wrap to help overcome this, there is a risk that as more
material is produced then an over supply may either cause some
schemes to collapse or significantly increase costs as material
has to be sent father afield for reprocessing. Germany is a good
example of this, where high levels of recycling have been achieved
but at a significant cost.
6. THERMAL PROCESSING/ENERGY
6.1 To some "thermal treatment"
just means "incineration", and with it goes the emotive
arguments put forward by the opponents, of unacceptable emissions
and impacts on health. These are in the main philosophically driven
and based on the experience of old incinerators closed down several
years ago, rather than the new breed of plants which have seen
a dramatic improvement in standards. However this does not help
the opponent's cause and allow us to move into an objective debate
of the options available. As a result incineration has become
a political "hot potato" which in some parts will not
be tolerated at any cost.
6.2 All waste disposal methods have health
impacts. There have been a significant number of reports commissioned
by industry or environmental groups to examine health risks of
various waste disposal options. Unfortunately many of these reports
lack relevant data or are conducted with pre-determined objectives.
In addition, very little work has been done on the real health
impact of all waste management options.
6.3 It is essential that government commit
funding to independent studies into waste disposal options, so
that health impacts of all options can be considered in a balanced
way. In addition, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) must play a greater
role for regulators and decision makers, but to date the information
available is inadequate. The "Wisard" LCA software tool
developed by the Environment Agency still appears to lack the
necessary information of all the options available and as such
appears to carry little influence.
6.4 Despite ideological opposition to thermal
processing by some groups, advanced thermal conversion technologies
are being seen by local authorities and others as being an acceptable
alternative to traditional thermal technology due to its efficiency,
size and perceived environmental benefit. SWERFR includes the
use of advanced thermal processing based on pyrolysis and gasification
and has significant advantage over traditional combustion technology.
Front end resource recovery maximises
recycling and enables the removal of hazardous materials with
the non recyclable organic fraction only being thermally reformed
into a clean synthetic fuel, ie waste is not burnt;
The direct firing of syngas in high
efficiency spark ignition engines to generate electricitythis
provides significantly higher efficiency and electrical output
than heat recovery through conventional combustion plant;
The energy generated is eligible
for renewable obligation certificates
The modular configuration allows
for smaller community-sized facilities, and flexibility to increase
or decrease plant capacity; and,
Modular advanced thermal processing
and power generation provides for insignificant visual impact.
6.5 These benefits are one reason why Brightstar
was selected for projects in Derby and Kent. However whilst the
environmental benefits of SWERFR are extremely attractive to some,
the environmental groups continue to be extremely unhelpful and
opposed to such technology. Whether this is due to their philosophical
dislike to "end of pipe" solutions or their obsession
with thermal processing, they continue to scaremonger by arguing
that SWERFR is an incinerator and therefore play on the public's
emotions of a large building with a large chimney, burning waste
to produce unacceptable emissions and associated health impacts.
6.6 This not surprisingly results in the
generation of significant opposition by a poorly informed community
who distrust the claims of the developer in favour of environmental
and community backed opposition groups. The opponent's arguments
that SWERFR is an "incineration" process are unfortunately
not helped by a lack of clarification from government and regulators.
6.7 Advanced thermal conversion is totally
different to incineration in its traditional sense. Waste is not
burned and this results in a number of benefits as listed above.
Hence the public's perception of incineration when applied to
advanced thermal processing is totally unjust. Unless government
or regulators provide a strong lead on this to provide independent
clarity on the differences in technologies, then the advantages
of new thermal processing will be lost and the technology could
go the same way as incineration and be discriminated against.
This is a REAL threat.
Comment: as a single company submission we will
be discounted to an extent anywayI would leave it inat
least it will be on record
6.8 All waste disposal options produce emissions
which are released into the environment in some way even when
waste is simply buried, or turned into compost. It is the need
for sound independent information that is crucial to enable people
to make their own objective assessment of the options available.
6.9 In our view SWERFR provides a means
of dealing with waste with a low impact on the environment. Rather
than have to rely on complex Air Pollution Control (APC) systems
to remove or reduce emissions SWERFR can achieve current environmental
limits with simple gas clean up technology without generating
APC residues. That is not to say that SWERFR does not produce
any emissions such as dioxins. Dioxins do occur in the engine
exhaust but at levels that are significantly below the new EU
emission limits. Dioxins are produced by many industrial processes
but again the lack of independent objective assessment of this
issue further hinder rational discussion in non-technical circles.
7.1 Landfill continues to be part of the
waste hierarchy and will continue to provide the long term backup
for any waste processing facility. Whilst SWERFR is already diverting
significant levels of waste away from landfill, residues of up
to 20% of the incoming waste will for the immediate term need
to be disposed to landfillthe residues from SWERFR are
not classed as hazardous and can therefore be taken to non hazardous
7.2 Brightstar's objective is to minimise
the levels of residue requiring landfill and several development
programmes are in place to develop new products and markets using
this material. The long term objective is to divert close to 100%
of the waste SWERFR receives for processing. However even when
this level is achieved landfill may still be required to handle
waste which SWERFR is unable to process and to provide a back
up facility should SWERFR be out of operation due to planned or
Other issues that need to be addressed
in order to encourage innovative solutions to help move up the
8.1 A structure with continuity is required
to effectively manage waste in the UK. Unfortunately the current
system with multi tiered authorities does not create the correct
regime for integrated waste management, where the responsibilities
and budgets for waste collection and recycling usually sit with
a different authority from that which has responsibility for disposal.
It is even more illogical that both tiers have targets to achieve
for recycling whilst they may not necessarily work in tandem.
8.2 It is our view that the whole organisation
and responsibility of waste management needs review. A more regional
focus appears to be a more logical solution, which combines responsibilities
to deliver a real integrated approach to waste management to allow
the optimisation of the collection of resources and remove the
barriers between Waste Collection and Waste Disposal Authorities.
9. LOCAL AUTHORITY
9.1 In order to be viable, large capital
projects such as waste management facilities need secure waste
management contracts generally awarded by local authorities. In
awarding contracts local authorities will generally seek a risk
free position and are therefore likely to source robust technology
which has generally been proven in the UK, and is able to guarantee
9.2 This is one of the key underlying difficulties
as a new entrant into the waste market. Local authorities find
it difficult to contract their Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) for
innovative or emerging technologies due to the perceived underlying
technology risks. Their responsibility is to secure the disposal
or treatment of waste on a continual basis, and as such can be
unwilling to take up technology without a proven track record
even though they may have no direct financial risk.
9.3 To counteract the above, it is common
for local authorities to require significant guarantees and warrantees
on performance. Such conditions are often unaccommodating of new
technologies, and for smaller companies these are generally impossible
to provide. Having invested heavily to develop new technology,
such further onerous requirements will be seen as disincentives
to developers, and thus discourage future investment in emerging
9.4 If Government intends to attract new
technology into the UK, then they must create the conditions,
which allows new entrants to enter the market and compete for
waste on a level playing field. Emerging technologies will not
be commercialised in an environment where local authorities wish
to obtain a risk-free position. The most likely outcome in this
scenario is the entrenchment of the status quo that we
are trying to supersede. The Private Finance Initiative just reinforces
9.5 To help overcome these difficulties
there is a necessity for more technology demonstration projects.
To date government incentives have lacked the flexibility to accommodate
new processes like ACT, which has led local authorities to favour
established disposal methods like incineration.
10.1 This remains one of the fundamental
hurdles to be overcome by developers of all waste management solutions.
Planning permission is becoming an increasingly problematic, controversial
and highly political area, where numerous applications experience
significant and unreasonable delays and often failure. Without
doubt developers will be less inclined to submit proposals unless
there is a good chance of success. In reality this means fewer
applications resulting in fewer projects.
10.2 This area of waste management appears
to be one of the most contentious, brought about primarily through
opposition to landfill and incineration, which now seems to extend
to cover all proposals which involve waste. If the Government
is serious about achieving a waste strategy and national waste
targets, then it must become more proactive in the decision making
process. The issue of central determination over local control
must be tackled head on otherwise the planning system will gradually
swamp and cripple the industry.
11. WASTE MANAGEMENT
11.1 A further major concern lies with the
permitting or licensing of new facilities. This is particularly
relevant with ACT projects which rely on waste for its fuel supply
and as such are permitted by the Environment Agency under the
new Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control (IPPC) licensing
11.2 It appears that this in an area where
there is a real lack of continuity across government departments.
Whilst there is an apparent wish by government to see the encouragement
of new technology, there appears to be a lack of flexibility in
the interpretation and enforcement of national and European legislation.
This is at odds with most other EU states where a more flexible
and accommodating licensing regime is implemented to encourage
new technology. This is becoming a serious barrier to progress.
11.3 Advanced thermal processing technology
such as SWERFR is regulated under the EU Waste Incineration Directive
(WID). It is our view that WID was specifically developed to apply
to incineration technologythat is the combustion of solid
waste, and as such is not appropriate for all thermal technologies.
11.4 SWERFR uses pyrolysis and gasification
to produce a clean synthetic fuel (syngas) suitable for direct
use in spark ignition engines to generate electricity. The use
of spark ignition engines results in far greater energy efficiency
than through a conventional steam cycle, which has been adopted
method of energy generation for traditional combustion technology.
11.5 In reality, it is acknowledged that
WID was written to cover "incineration" or primarily
the combustion of waste or gas, not the generation of electricity
directly in an engine. However as currently determined, the legislation
sets out the case that the prime mover (in our case a spark ignition
engine) is in fact the "incineration" plant. As such
WID is entirely inappropriate to this technology.
11.6 Our prime mover selection has been
based on the ability to gain far greater energy efficiency, however
WID does not allow for this. It is our view that the legislation
needs to be clarified to allow flexibility using Best Available
Technology to determine the performance of the technology, and
as such specifically consider the environmental advantages or
otherwise of each case.
12.1 Like many in the waste and renewable
energy sectors, Brightstar warmly welcomed the inclusion of ACT
in the Renewables Obligation (RO), which should greatly assist
the encouragement of ACT projects. However there is still a lack
of long term security for the sale of energy from ACT. Whilst
we understand that the Government has no plans to reduce the scale
of the RO, without further guarantees of how long support under
the RO will be available, investor confidence in ACT projects
12.2 It is worth noting that incineration
had the benefit of the support process under NFFO which ran for
several years providing secure contracts for 15 years. Until such
time as ACT can be considered to have achieved the same status,
it should remain eligible for support under the RO, and using
the example of incineration under NFFO, 15 to 20 years should
be the minimum term for support.
Bright star Environmental
6 January 2003
Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility
SWERF is made up of three technology componentswaste
pre-treatment and separation, advanced thermal conversion and
electricity generation. A fourth componentthe production
of organic products is currently being developed.
Waste arriving at the plant is unloaded into
the waste storage building via a chute. The building is enclosed
to ensure no escape of dust or litter, and is kept under slight
negative pressure to prevent odour release to the external environment.
Within the waste storage building the material is visually inspected
and unsuitable wastes are removed.
From the waste storage building, waste is fed
into the front end sorting process where the incoming material
is first sterilised in a rotating steam autoclave at temperatures
between 130° and 150°. The resulting pulp is then separated
into a number of resource streams, using separation techniques
comprising of a series of trommels, screens, and magnets. Ferrous
metals and aluminium are recovered for recycling. Depending on
the markets for plastics, these are either recovered for recycling
or are size reduced and added to the pulp stream for conversion
At this stage the organic pulp, which contains
all biomass material, and film plastics, also contains small pieces
of glass and sand/dirt. The organic pulp is treated in a wet separation
process to remove the glass, sand and grit prior to being mechanically
dewatered. The material is then dried using pressurised superheated
steam generated by utilising waste heat from the engine exhausts,
to produce a dense, stable organic pulp suitable for medium to
long term storage in silos. The glass sand and grit fraction,
and other inorganic materials are sorted and processed for reuse.
Odorous process emissions are collected in an
extraction system and destroyed in the engine combustion process.
The organic pulp is fed to the Advanced Thermal
Conversion (ATC) plant which reforms the solid material into synthetic
gas (syngas) for use in the engines.
Brightstar's ATC technology is a gasification
process which uses indirect heat in the absence of oxygen to convert
solid materials containing carbon into a syngas mixture of predominantly
methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. This syngas
can be utilised in high efficiency spark ignition engines to generate
electricity for sale to the local electrical grid.
A lock hopper and macerator arrangement is used
on each gasifier to introduce dried organic pulp into the gasification
loop. A compressor circulates clean syngas to the lockhopper discharge
where the organic material is entrained and conveyed into the
The gasifier module comprises a series of high
temperature nickel alloy pipe coils which transport the material
through a range of temperature. The external energy for this heating
process is provided by burners which utilise processed syngas
During the process the waste material is converted
into gaseous matter and char (ash and unreformed carbon). The
hot gases are partially cooled in the coils by preheating the
incoming materials before exiting the gasifier. The hot syngas
from the gasifier module is cooled and cleaned, and delivered
to the power plant for the generation of electricity using modular
spark ignition engines. The char residue is removed to landfill.
Waste water which is produced during the process
and in cleaning the syngas prior to power generation is processed
through an on site water treatment plant to be utilized in plant
From results at the Wollongong SWERFR in Australia,
the resource streams recovered from 200 tonnes of 40% moisture
household waste are provided below. This is on the basis of local
waste composition in Australia, but it is not expected that this
would be significantly different to typical waste composition
found in the UK:
100 bone dry tonnes of energy-rich
organic pulp comprising putrescible food waste, paper and cardboard
plastic film, green and garden waste which becomes the feedstock
for gasifiers or potentially bio-fertiliser production;
two tonnes mixed semi-rigid plastic
containers comprising mainly PET;
six tonnes +/- 15% of aluminium and
ferrous metals (to be recycled via a separate recycling contract);
16 tonnes +/- 15% of co-mingled glass
cullet and dirt removed from the pulp stream (to be recycled via
a separate recycling contract).
25 tonnes of gasifier solid residue
comprising mineral ash and elemental carbon ie the non-reformed
part of the 100 tonnes of organic feedstock;
15 tonnes of miscellaneous oversize/unsuitable
wastes as residue
140 MWh +/- 10% of electricity.