Energy from waste


Is time running out on EfW’s potential?


With a long involvement in waste-related technologies and having recently stood down as the chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, Gaynor Hartnell looks at how energy from waste is faring.


Gaynor Hartnell Former chief executive Renewable Energy Association


I


HAVE always had an affinity for waste to energy technologies. It all started back in 1997, when I ran the Landfill Gas Association. In this article, I will recount the history of the treatment of waste to energy technologies in their


various guises, setting out where things went wrong, and the way I see thing going in future. Before I start, here’s a simple statistic. Back


in 2006 the REA and the Institution of Civil Engineers set out to see how much of the UK’s anticipated electricity needs in 2020 could be met by residual (i.e. post recycling) waste. The answer was 17%. Not all of that is


renewable of course, but most of it would be and the important point to note is that it could make a significant contribution. Looking back, I will start when I was


seeking to ensure that landfill gas (LFG) was not ejected from the renewables policy of the day - the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). The NFFO started in 1990 and was replaced by the Renewables Obligation (RO) in 2002. While the NFFO had not been ideal for


energy from waste (EfW) combustion it had worked like a dream for LFG. 100% of the third round of NFFO contracts had gone on to commission. This compared with less than 5% for some of the NFFO rounds for other technologies. EfW suffered because the timing of securing the fuel source did not correspond to the timing for NFFO rounds. Consequently some contracts were won by developers who did not win the waste contract, and vice versa. While LFG developers wanted the NFFO to


continue, the EfW developers were attracted to the New Labour government’s proposal of the RO. At the time, the biomass component of combustion was going to be eligible for renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) irrespective of the technology, and the buyout price was to be £20/MWh. That kind of RO proposal made sense from their perspective. Things went pear-shaped however


when EfW was ejected from the policy. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) justified this on the grounds that it would happen anyway because of gate fees, while the £20/MWh buy-out price could not be justified as it was not high enough to incentivise the development of onshore wind energy. The exclusion was extremely unhelpful. However, it wasn’t quite a complete exodus


from the RO for waste. LFG remained in the RO and if waste was converted by anaerobic digestion (AD) or gasification/pyrolysis, it also was included. It took a bit of lobbying on the Landfill Gas Association’s part to keep it in, and in the course of this the organisation changed its name to the Biogas Association.


The unbanded RO So began the era of the unbanded RO, which was supposed to be technology neutral but in reality was far from it. Nothing much happened by way of deployment on the waste to energy front for several years, pretty much until the onset of banding. The small remaining amount of


un-contracted LFG was hurriedly commissioned, before the ROCs dwindled to virtually nothing. Combustion with combined


10 September 5 2013


Newhaven energy recovery facility processes approximately 210,000 tonnes of waste per year and converts waste into over 16MWh of electrical energy


heat and power (CHP) was allowed to qualify for ROCs in 2006, but all that happened was that developers discovered they had no means of demonstrating to Ofgem what proportion of their feedstock comprised of biomass. I had been vocal on that issue for


several years before, but there wasn’t much satisfaction in saying “I told you so”. Instead I was pleased there was finally


some momentum to start the process of getting the Carbon 14 methodology accepted as C14 could provide the required evidence. And we are still at it. The first hurdle in the C14 story was that


Ofgem discovered it would have been acting illegally if it had allowed developers to use it. We lobbied successfully to get the offending


legislation changed. Then there was a period of time working out how to translate what the Carbon 14 methodology measured (the mass of carbon in the feedstock) into the information Ofgem needed (the energy value of the carbon in the feedstock). It is now ready for use. So to summarise how waste to energy


technologies have fared since 2002 from when the RO started, until now - with its end fast approaching: • gasification held its ground • EfW combustion remained somewhat irrelevant


• LFG rather faded from the picture as the resource and the rewards diminished.


So where will things go from here? With Contracts for Difference (CfDs) replacing ROCs and the prospect of having to compete to get a CfD, much is set to change. Initially administered prices will remain


in place. To date these have resulted in the ‘unsexy’ renewables (LFG and EfW


combustion) being overlooked, while gasification and pyrolysis - the exciting new technology - has kept its higher value status. This was not without sterling efforts on the


part of the REA’s G&P group. For clarification, my reference to the sex appeal of the former technologies, is made in relation to how I imagine DECC views them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. Such favouritismis always a risk with


administered pricing. I’ll say this, although I know it is not popular: it is far harder to overlook the benefits that the cheaper technologies have to offer if competition is involved. The other side of the same coin is that it is easier with administered pricing, for the government to ignore any technology that it does not regard as a ‘winner’. The competition will open up in stages


although clear information is sparse. Initially there will be auctions for CfDs just among renewables technologies, although which ones and how, we do not yet know. Eventually all low carbon power, including nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) will compete against each other.


Picking winners The expression ‘picking winners’ is used in the context of a government which thinks it knows which the winners are… and the inference is that government inevitably gets it wrong. It is used as a criticism to accuse a government of ‘picking winners’ and one that I find myself levelling at the coalition more than any administration I have ever worked with. The NFFO was accused of ‘picking


winners’, when in reality all it did was decide which technologies were eligible to compete for a contract. The banded RO, which is


www. r e c y c l i n gwa s t ewo r l d . c o . u k


really a form of administered pricing, is far guiltier of the accusation. LFG and combustion suffered under this regime and the Labour administration wasn’t interested. It had decided these technologies were losers. It was convenient spin, when ‘banding


up’ some technologies in 2009, to be able to point to some technologies which were to be ‘banded down’. LFG went from 1ROC/MWh to ½ ROC/MWh in 2009, then to 0.2ROCs/MWh this April. EfW went from 1 to 0.5ROCs and remains there; although it is still not worth the effort of claiming them.


The future My fear is that by the time our political leaders appreciate the benefits of waste to energy technologies, we will be exporting more and more of our potential feedstock overseas. Competition for CfDs will help them realise


this, but we don’t want to wait until that moment for two important reasons. Firstly, it is too distant and exports are


growing now and will be hard to get back once established. Secondly, competition of the form seen in the days of the NFFO is far from popular among renewables project developers and few industry leaders will be prepared to be seen advocating it. But on the other hand, the glass is half full.


Even with the greatest efforts on minimisation and recycling, there will always be waste. It is environmentally sound to recover energy from waste. It has one feature shared by no other source of renewable energy. It creates a problem, if it isn’t turned it into energy, which is not an issue with wasted wind or sunshine. All in all, it is an industry to be proud of. I am pleased to have had the privilege of working in the sector and I still have more to give. RWW


Recycling & WA S T E W O R L D


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24