Making Silk Purses from Sows Ears: Converting Waste Into Energy and Biofuels, Pt 1 and 2

by Tim Sklar (Biofuels Digest) Part 1 ... It seems that many of the companies providing new biofuels technologies do not fully understanding the competitive environment that they must navigate. As a consequence they fail to develop strategies that will allow the company to successfully compete, as they try to have their technology widely used in a number of projects.
Finding a Solution If biofuels are to become a meaningful part of the clean energy spectrum any time soon, it is important for those active in biofuels project development to better understand why successful commercial-scale development of biofuels projects has lagged, and to be willing to make changes in their project development strategies that are needed. In order to better assure widespread commercialization of promising technology it makes sense for providers of the technology and project developers agree on a plausible plan before they commence commercial-scale development. This is the focus of this article.
...
In this article, a “Case Study” is used to illustrate how to apply “critical analysis”“ and perform “strategic thinking” to increase the prospects for successful roll-out of promising technologies and processes that have developed. The illustrations presented have been developed primarily through re-examining claims made by Sierra Energy in an article that appeared in Biofuels Digest on February 6, 2014. This article was titled ”Pathfinder: Sierra Energy heads for a world beyond garbage, traditional power, fuel”. READ MORE
Part 2
A Critical Analysis of Sierra Energy’s Claims
Re: Claim 1 on Sizing
Sierra Energy announced that a 250 tpd FastOx gasifier can readily be produced implying that this is the size that they plan to market to the hundreds of smaller communities that are unable to support larger WTV plants. ... Sierra Energy needs to look at the realities of how waste is managed today and adapt what it is trying to do to what is current practice.
For example, the way MSW is waste collected today is primarily through waste management contractors or publicly owned waste collection authorities, using fleets of packer trucks These trucks have 7 ton payloads and must make short trips to unload and reload to be economically viable. This means that round trips of more than 35 miles are more than likely to be uneconomic.
Another reality is that although the number of landfills is declining, the ones that are being operated have more capacity and are designed to operate more efficiently and in a more environmentally compliant manner. ...
Even if WTV plants can be built to process 250 tpd of MSW and compete with efficiencies of WTHVP plants with twice that capacity, it may not be enough, if the savings offered by using transfer stations to consolidated loads to more distant larger facilities are factored in.
...
Re: Claim 4 on Landfills
...
As a point of fact, that in addition to collecting solid wastes (MSW), landfills also collect moisture laden materials and hard to dispose of wastes, some of which is non-combustible and some, non-recyclable. For the most part, these wastes still end up in landfills and would in all likelihood, have to be removed from the mixed waste streams that FastOxTM gasifiers use.
And adding capacity to existing landfills by recovering wastes from them and sending them to WTE & HVP plants using FastOxTM gasifiers instead, or diverting landfill waste streams to such facilities to avoid having to landfill capacity, are false choices.
...
Excess capacity in landfills is also being caused by a decrease in the average amount of trash per person being generated to ~2.5 lbs, which has offset modest increases in population in the US.
It should be noted that MSW being combusted seems to have hit a plateau, as use of incinerators has declined due to environmental constraint.
...
The bottom line of all of this discussion on landfill capacity is that future needs for landfill capacity ought to be ascertained in discussions with representatives of these three companies, Waste Management, Allied Waste and Republic Services, before using the “added capacity” argument as a selling point for WTV plants.
Re: Claim 5 on Economic Advantages to WMA’s of the WTV option
...
Ways must be found for sharing WTV plant revenue with waste providers. The amounts to be shared must be high enough to cover their cost of diverting their wastes streams and curtailing operations at existing disposal facilities, as well as added costs incurred for preparation, storage, handling and transport of such wastes to specific WTE & HVP plants. And this revenue sharing must also cover the recovery of capital investments made in transfer stations, equipment and infrastructure that will be needed.
...
Renewable Hydrogen
...
They believe that the cost of manufacturing their smaller gasifiers can be reduced by to 1/3, if manufactured in large numbers. They then would be able to install gasifiers at existing waste transfer stations along with equipment to refill fuel cells. This strategy implies that renewable hydrogen produced at each transfer station will not have to be distributed to thousands of gas stations at great cost, and these gas stations would not have to install hydrogen storage tanks or “pumps”. Sierra Energy contends that in a state like California with its many transfer stations, it would only pose a modest inconvenience to owners of fuel cell vehicles. Unfortunately, such a strategy could work only if the many pieces, such as cheap gasifiers, affordable fuel cell vehicles, widespread investment in transfer station modifications, and driver acceptance, come together at roughly the same time.
...
These strategies are presented below in the order in which they ought to be undertaken.
1. The project developer and technology providers must agree on what economy of scale is appropriate for the type of plant that will be needed and what amount of waste is required to support operations of the scale that is preferred.
2. If the strategy is to produce electric power using wastes, will there be a captive end user with a limited need. If not, should the sizing be done to produce power at the lowest possible cost, so the project can survive on pessimistic projections of feed in tariffs that can be expected or should sizing be determined on most likely estimates.
3. If the strategy is to produce a high value product, such as methanol, olefin intermediates or ethanol, sizing will have to take into account the added capital cost and operating cost of having this capability as well as the market outlook for the products to be produced.
4. Once sizing is agreed to, then a determination of how much waste is needed and how much could be obtained directly from waste providers who operate in the same general area.
5. Waste collection estimates made would have to include waste obtainable from collection firms and municipal waste authorities, wastes that can be diverted or reclaimed from landfill owners and operators, as well as wasted that could be obtained from timberland harvesters, from known sources of construction and demolition wastes and from industrial waste generators.
6. Discussions with a cross-section of potential waste providers will be needed in order to ascertain the amount that can be obtained on an ongoing basis in the same general area.
7. Estimates will then have to be made as to the tipping fee revenues that can be expected and the added costs that may have to be incurred in order to deliver the wastes to a plant strategically located in the same area. A preliminary search for plant sites that meet potential requirements will be needed and a prioritized list of sites developed.
8. An initial consensus must then be reached among the project developers, and other parties-in-interest as to the project’s sizing, the waste stream requirements, the plant location and the product slate to be offered. Parties-in-interest would include project sponsors and potential JV partners, technology providers, and government authorities.
9. Off-taker commitments will then need to be obtained. READ MORE