Avoid the emissions of the past by doing things differently
Green House Gas Abatement
There are many reasons why energy conversion plants (ECP) are good for the environment. These include:
- Methane production is avoided from anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal waste which would be landfilled. Also, composted manures form less methane compared to manure which is allowed to accumulate.
- Avoids using natural gas to produce nitrates whilst also recycling macro nutrient like potassium, phosphates and other micronutrients
- No extra natural gas used to heat treat compost to destroy pathogens
- Avoids using coal and diesel to produce electrical power, with emissions reduction as well as power cost saving for islands and off-grid communities
- Carbon is sequestered as activated carbon used in the production of fertiliser, reducing CO2 emissions.
- Being a small local waste solution thus minimizing feedstock transport and line losses associated with power transmission miles. This minimizing the importation and transportation of fossil fuels and maximizes the delivery of the generated power
- Biomass feedstock, grown locally to the Energy Conversion Plant, ECP, reduces trucking distances aids NPK nutrient recycling
An example the accumulative benefit:
This is the analysis for a 350 tpd plant, feed on 175 tpd of locally grown biomass and 175 tpd of locally sourced refuse derived fuel made from municipal waste. Such a plant would produce 16.5 MWe gross and 13.5 MWe for export with the coproduction of 150 tpd of slow-release organic fertiliser to be built in the province of Bukidnon, on the island of Mindanao, Philippines.
| Benefit | Net Change in CO2 equ. emissions | units |
|---|---|---|
| Methane production avoided | 387.1 | ktpa |
| Avoiding NG to make nitrates | 23.5 | ktpa |
| killing pathogens with waste heat | 10 | ktpa |
| avoiding coal and diesel power | nil * | ktpa |
| Carbon sequestering | 34.2 | ktpa |
| Accumulative benefit | 454.8 ** | ktpa |
* Due to the high amount of hydro and geothermal power on the island of Mindanao this is negligible benefit. However, if the same plant was built in NSW, Australia this benefit would be over 22 ktpa due to the high coal use in the NSW's power production.
** This is about the same as 69,000 homes in NSW, Australia if they were all supplied by renewable energy. (24 kW.h average per home and a carbon intensity of the grid being 750 kg/MWe.h). If the grid was cleaner, say 500 kg/MWe, then the benefit would be 103,000 homes powered fully renewable energy.
Also, two ECPs, like the above example could produce 21 tpd of hydrogen. The power would only be 17.5 MWe gross even though the feedstock has doubled, as much of the energy is lost as the hydrogen chemical feedstock. When the hydrogen used to make urea, this avoids 52.4 ktpa of CO2 emissions compared to using natural gas to make urea.
