Pembina Cement Alternative Fuels Report 2005 Copy

8/12/2019 Pembina Cement Alternative Fuels Report 2005 Copy

1/89

Alternative Fuel Use in theCanadian Cement Industry

Compilation of reports prepared by the Pembina

Institute for the Cement Association of Canada

August 2005

Sustainable Energy Solutions


2/89

ii

Alternative Fuel Use by the Canadian Cement Industry:Executive Summary

The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) is following through on their commitment to

incorporate sustainable development principles into their practices. Currently the Cement Plants

in Western Canada utilize less alternative fuels compared to other countries. This is largelyconsidered by the CAC to be due to:

lower relative conventionalfuel costs, a lack of enabling policies, limited collection systems, and existing, lower cost landfill options.

As such, the CAC contracted the Pembina Institute to identify and evaluate alternative fuel

opportunities and policy options for cement operations in Western Canada. The analysis occurred

between January and July, 2005, and was divided into three parts:

i) A general overview of alternative fuel applications internationally, and a preliminaryevaluation of applicability towards western Canadian operations; and

ii) A further business analysis and characterization of the opportunity in western Canadafor selected alternative fuel types.

iii) A review of international policies that facilitate the use of alternative fuels in thecement industry.

The findings of this analysis are in three separate reports:

I. Alternative Fuel Applications in the Western Canadian Cement Industry Interim ReportII. Alternative Fuel Applications for Western Canadian Cement Operations Investigation of

Selected Fuel Sources

III. Alternative Fuel Use in the Cement Industry: A review and analysis of policy optionsThis executive summary provides an overview of the key outcomes of the analysis performed.

Full reports follow the executive summary.

I. Alternative Fuel Applications in the Western Canadian CementIndustry Interim Report

Research on international applications of alternative fuels in the cement industry identified the

following categories of potential fuel types:

Petroleum Waste Solvent Waste Drilling Waste Rubber Waste Plastic Waste

Municipal Waste Livestock Waste Wood Waste Other Waste

Twenty-nine individual fuels were identified within these categories. Their level of application,key potential benefits to application in Western Canada, and potential barriers to application in

Western Canada are described.

From these findings, Pembina posed key questions for CAC to consider with respect to where and

how to focus further analysis. These questions helped determine higher priority fuels for the CAC

and specific information required.


3/89

iii

II. Alternative Fuel Applications for Western Canadian CementOperations Investigation of Selected Fuel Sources

Based on discussions with the CAC, the following higher priority alternative fuels were

considered for further research and analysis on their associated issues and opportunities inwestern Canada:

i. Plasticsii.

Construction, Remodeling and Demolition waste (see 1.2 Landfill Vancouver forexample breakdown).

iii. Sawdust/woodchipsiv. Carpets/Textilesv. Meat & Bone Meal

Tires and coke were identified as fuels well known to the cement industry and therefore were not

included for further study.

Information on the quantity of fuel, quality, price, and any logistical implications was

collected for each of these fuels. The geographic areas considered were Vancouver, Calgary,

and Edmonton.Context for the municipal landfill(s) in each of these areas was also provided.

Cost-related information was not collected for Meat & Bone, as the cement industry already hadsufficient in-house information.

Potential life-cycle environmental and social risks and benefits were discussed for each of

the fuels. The report also briefly commented on the benefits of avoiding/displacing coal and

natural gas fuel.

Meat & Bone Meal

Highlights of input solicited from contacts at Alberta Environment and Alberta Agriculture on

Meat & Bone Meal application in the cement industry are1:

The provincial government has not entered into detailed discussion regarding provincialuse of alternative fuels, yet they are in the strategic phase. Using cement kilns to

dispose of MBM is under consideration.

Other alternative technologies that provide alternative economic end products are alsobeing considered to dispose of MBM.

AB Environment would have no issues with combusting MBM, however it is expectedthat an amendment to the regulatory approval for the plant would be submitted.

Ranking of Fuels

Individual fuels were ranked separately for the economic, environmental, and social performance

based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis. The ranking is provided in Table S1 below,

with the rationale provided in the full report.

Table S1. Fuel Triple-Bottom-Line Performance Ranking

Economic Environmental Social1. Meat and Bone Meal 1. Wood waste 1. Wood waste

2. Plastics 2. Meat and Bone Meal 2. CRD

3. Wood waste 3. CRD 3. Meat and Bone Meal

4. CRD 4/5. Both Tires & Plastics 4/5. Both Tires & Plastics

5. Carpet/

textile

1Mel Miller, Policy Secretariat, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; and Matt Haghighi and Joe Feehan, AlbertaEnvironment, Industrial Approvals.


4/89

iv

III. Alternative Fuel Use in the Cement Industry: A review andanalysis of policy options

The Pembina Institute conducted a review and evaluation of various policies related to the use of

alternative fuels by the cement industry in other countries. The purpose of the research was to

review policies related to the use of alternative fuels by the cement industry in specified regions

including the European Union, Norway, Germany, Austria and Japan, and to evaluate a number

of policies for applicability in western Canada.

The policy review revealed a number of key drivers and enablers for the cement industry to use

alternative fuels in their operations in these respective countries.

The most important drivers include:

Operational cost reduction- high cost of fossil fuels is making alternative energyoptions increasingly competitive resulting in savings for the cement industry.

Alleviating waste disposal pressures- landfill space is at a premium in many regions,and the diversion of waste for energy recovery is an increasingly important partial

solution to this problem.

The most important enablers of alternative fuel use were:

Implementing EU directives as a regulatory requirement of European countries-EU waste management policy provides the legal background to support the cement

industrys use of alternative fuels thereby driving policy change at the national level.

Climate Change legislation- recently introduced or pending climate change legislation(permit trading scheme) is driving the use of alternative fuels by the cement industry.

The policy review also identified the key types of policies related to the use of alternative fuel by

the cement industry in the relevant regions. Such policies relate either to:

i. Waste management issues, or

ii. Co-incineration (ie. using waste to produce energy) of alternative fuels.

The most common policies are regulationsthat, for example, place limits on waste going to

landfill, restrict certain waste from being landfilled (such as wood-derived waste in Germany), settargets for reductions in landfilled waste, or establish a waste hierarchy. A waste hierarchy

specifies an order of priority for managing waste, with waste avoidance taking first priority,

followed in order by reuse, recovery and finally, disposal.

Regulatory policies around using waste for energy purposes typically establish standards and

grant permits for the use of the alternative fuel. They also specify the types of wastes that

can be used for energy recovery and the conditions (such as emissions limits) under which

they can be employedin that respect. In some cases, permits are granted on a fuel-by-fuel basis

and in other cases, such as in Germany, it is now common to obtain a permit for positive lists of

fuels. Such lists specify a number of fuels that can be disposed of within cement kilns under the

same permit.2

The policy evaluation identified a number of policies that could be explicitly linked to the use of

alternative fuels by the cement industry and in this way, directly or indirectly, result in an

increase in the use of such fuels by this sector.

2S. Pasuki. Personal communication. May 4, 2005.


5/89

v

These policies include:

Extended producer responsibility Waste disposal charges Pilot projects Research and development Local air emissions cap and trade program (SO2and NOx)

An important ruling delivered by the European Court of Justice in 2003 stated that using waste as

a fuel in cement kilns is classified as recovery, while burning municipal waste in dedicated

incinerators, even with energy recovery, is to be classified as disposal.3This ruling placed

energy recovery from waste high within the waste management hierarchy and, in doing so,

recognized the potential economic and environmental benefits of using waste in this manner.

3Cembureau. Cement industry contributes to waste management.


6/89

vi

Table of Contents

Alternative Fuel Use by the Canadian Cement Industry: Executive Summaryii

Alternative Fuel Applications in the Western Canadian Cement Industry Interim

Report .8Table of Contents ..91.0Background 102.0Overview and Initial Assessment of International Applications 113.0Evaluation of Alternative Fuels for Western Canadian Applications .. 254.0Summary of Higher Priority Options 275.0Recommendations and Next Steps28Endnotes...29

Alternative Fuel Applications for Western Canadian Cement Operations: Investigation of

Selected Fuel Sources ...33

Table of Contents.34

1.0Introduction351.1Energy Requirements35

1.2Regional Landfill Context.362.0Economic Considerations...38

2.1High Priority Alternative Fuel Options.382.2Low Priority Fuel Options.412.3Meat & Bone Meal....44

3.0Life-cycle Environmental and Social Considerations....453.1Conventional Fuel Displacement......................49

4.0Ranking of Priority Fuels.......504.1a Overall Economic Ranking and General Rationale.....50

4.1b Key Economic Information per Location........51

4.2 Environmental Ranking and General Rationale52

4.3 Social Ranking and General Rationale..............52

4.4 Ranking Summary.........53

5.0Recommendations and Next Steps.........536.0Pathway to Successful Implementation.........547.0References..............55

Alternative Fuel Use in the Cement Industry- Policy Review...............................56

1. Introduction...........57

2. Policy Review...............59

2.1 European Union Policies .......59

2.1.1 Co-incineration and Pollution Prevention 60

2.1.2 Waste Management ....... 60

2.2 Norway...........67

2.2.1 Policy Overview........67

2.3 Germany ............69

2.3.1 Policy Overview .......69

2.4 Austria ...........732.4.1 Policy Overview ...........73

2.5 Japan ..................74

2.5.1 Policy Overview.....74


7/89

vii

2.6 Policy Review Summary 74

2.6.1 Policy Drivers .74

2.6.2 Policy Types ...75

3. Policy Evaluation ......77

3.1 Regulatory Policy Options . 78

3.2 Financial Incentives 80

3.3 Information Programs ..813.4 Demonstration Initiatives.. ...82

3.5 Market Based Regulatory Programs .833.6 Policy Evaluation Summary .83

4. Conclusions...85


8/89

Alternative Fuel Applications

in the Western CanadianCement Industry

Interim Report

January 28th, 2005

Matthew McCulloch, P.EngKrista Tremblett

Derek Neabel, E.I.T.


9/89

9

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.0BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................... 102.0OVERVIEW AND INITIALASSESSMENT OF INTERNATIONALAPPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 113.0EVALUATION OFALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR WESTERN CANADIANAPPLICATIONS........................................................... 254.0SUMMARY OF HIGHER PRIORITY OPTIONS....................................................................................................................... 285.0RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS............................................................................................................................29ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30


10/89

10

1.0 Background

The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) is following through on their commitment to incorporatesustainable development principles into their practices. As such, the CAC contracted the Pembina

Institute to identify and evaluate alternative fuel options for cement operations in Western Canada. Theanalysis is split into two parts:

i) A general overview of alternative fuel applications internationally, and a preliminary evaluationof applicability towards western Canadian operations; and

ii) A further business analysis and characterization of the opportunity in western Canada forselected alternative fuel types.

This is an interim report that summarizes outcomes of the first part.

The majority of research on application of alternative fuels indicated Europe and the United States asleaders in the cement industry.

a

In European Unions cement industry, approximately 12%, or 2.5 million tonnes of coal are substitutedannually for alternative fuels. 1

Generally the use of alternative fuels was found to be much greater in the European Union than in theUK, only having a seven per cent substation rate. Belgiums rate is as high as 50 per cent. It should benoted that before any new alternative fuel can be burned permanently in the UK it must be approved bythe Environment Agency after a period of trials and public consultations and all emissions are monitoredagainst set criteria.2The following provides some general statistics on alternative or waste derived fuel use in theinternational cement industry:

CEMEX Panamas cement plant runs on 15% alternative fuels3 In 2003, Holcium Ltd. consumed 12.9 million tonnes of alternative raw materials. The thermal

substitution rate in 2003 was 13.1 percent.4 Holcim Switzerlands five cement plants have thermal substitution rates of between 10 and 60%,

using wastes including solvents, waste oil, plastic and used tires.5 The Obourg plant of Holcim (Belgium) has been using alternative fuels and raw materials for over

ten years and now uses about one million tonnes per year.6 In 2002, Taheiyo Cement Corporations ten cement plants used 6.64 million tonnes of alternative

raw material and fuel.7 Alternative fuels comprise more than 7 percent of Italcementi Groups total energy consumption.8 In 2001, alternatives to coal represented 10% of kiln energy consumed by Castle Cement, the UK

arm of Heidelberg Cement Group.9 In 2002 the Australian cement industry replaced almost six percent of its thermal energy

consumption with alternative fuels.10

The following provides some background information on alternative fuels applied in other industries11:

aNote research was primarily internet based.


11/89

11

Power industry- Co-firing waste derived fuels in coal-fired and district heating plants is relativelycommon in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden. There are some planned initiatives inBelgium, Italy and the UK. Non-hazardous secondary fuels such as waste wood, straw, and driedsewage sludge are mainly used.

Pulp and Paper industry- Main types used are paper sludge, de-inking sludge and residues from wastepaper, bark, and wood residues and sawdust.

Brick kilns- Industrial wastes are co-incinerated in Austria and Germany.Iron production plants - Most wastes used in the iron industry are by-products of the process or wasterecycled in-house.

2.0 Overview and Initial Assessment of International Applications

The following tables (Table 1 series) provide an overview of different alternative fuel types that areapplied internationally, including discussion on the potential benefits and barriers to their application inwestern Canada. Some fuel-types are listed that do not have any international applications, howeverthey are considered as potentially viable alternatives.

The fuel type categories provided, with their respective table numbers, are:

Petroleum Waste (Table 1a) Solvent Waste (Table 1b) Drilling Waste (Table 1c) Rubber Waste (Table 1d) Plastic Waste (Table 1e) Municipal Waste (Table 1f) Livestock Waste (Table 1g) Wood Waste (Table 1h) Other Waste (Table 1i)


12/89

Table 1a. Petroleum Waste

Examples Level of applicationKey potential benefits toapplication in Western Canada

Key appl

CanaUsed oil(motor,hydraulic,etc)

Blue Circle Southen Cement atWaurn Ponds plant has usedwaste oil as an alternative fuel forten years.

12

Untreated used oils are used asalternative fuels in cement kilns in

Austria, Belgium, France,Germany, Spain, Sweden, and theUK.13

Oil collection in New Zealand isburned at Holcim (MilburnCement)

14

Typically 5% goes into cementkilns in the US

In 1997, 446,000 tonnes perannum of waste oils were used asalternative fuels in the cementindustry in the fifteen EU MemberStates. In 2003, the projectedquantity is more than 1,140,000tpa.15

Total consumption of Waste andRecycled Oil (2002) is 149,004tonnes at Taiheiyo CementCorporation16

Use in cement kilns when it is noteconomically viable to recycle or refine oil.

Can be recycled into a low-grade fuel for usein cement kiln.

17

Approximately 75% of used oil is collected inAB, BC, SK and MB. Most oil is sold asindustrial fuel at a cost of 15 to 22 cents/litre.

A small portion is re-refined for use as otherproducts.18

A total of 130 million litres are available forrecycling in AB, SK and MB. 96 million litresare collected for recycling.

19

Clth

Cuoi

Cu

Creosote Eastern Canadian cementindustry currently involved inproject using Bells old telephonepoles.

Manages a current waste source.

Usa No Ca


13/89

Pu Po No

Filters Safety-Kleen in Ohio sendsshredded automobile filters to

cement plant

22

Oilfield filters in Albertaincinerated23

Disposal of vehicle oil filters in landfillsthreaten ground water.

In western Canada oil filters are crushed toextract the oil and sent to steel recyclingfacilities for recycling. The oil contentpotentially helps with steel carbon content.24

A total of 9.4 million oil filters are recoveredin AB, SK and MB

25

Pova

avne Sm

Oil soakedrags

Application for use in ValleyPower, Drayton Valley, AB

Cemex Huichapan cement plant inCentral Mexico26

Information on quantities available

currently not publicaly available.b

Potentially addressing landfill and hazardouswaste issue.

Po Sm

Petroleum

coke

Husky currently markets some

coke to Canadian cement industry. Significant volumes available in

the oil sands only current (andnear future) suppliers are Suncorand Syncrude.

Husky Lloydminster upgradersupplies 800 tonnes coke/day tomarket.

Land footprint issues associated with coke

production in oil sands. Oil sands operators are actively seeking

coke markets.

Tr

pr

bSome quantity information may be available from the Alberta EUB, at a nominal cost.


14/89

Table 1b. Solvent Waste


Key appl

Paint relatedmaterials

Unknown level of application. Manages waste issue.

Pu Po

Glycol Waste Unknown level of application Use of a waste to displace coal etc. Reef

Ink Waste Unknown level of application Potentially addressing waste issue. Likely available at specific sources in

larger volumes (e.g. newspaperproduction facilities).

Vo

WasteSolvents andPaints(glue, ink and

paintmanufacturing,household andcommercialcleaningchemicals)

Castle Cement in the UK uses Cemfuelwhich is manufactured from a range ofwaste products including spentsolvents, paint and ink residues, spent

carbon absorbers and waste oils

28

Solvent based fuel (SBF) provides

approximately seven percent of thethermal energy requirements ofCement Australia's Fisherman'sLanding plant.

29

Italcementi Group - Italy30

Solvents are also used in coal-powered

plants and other industrial plants in theNetherlands.31

Cement plants in Japan are usingsludge from laundry and dry cleaning.

Kiln performance benefits from thestability and consistency of the fuel.

Heating value for solvent waste is 26GJ/tonne32

Availability - In the US, Safety-KleenCorp. reports serving over 400,000customers nationwide includingautomotive body shops, maintenancedepartments and repair shops through itsparts washer program. The dirty cleaningsolvents picked up regularly typically getrecycled with the clean solvent goingback into parts washer service andresidues sent for waste fuels use.33

Mcr

PrIta

licwafusuCa


15/89

Table 1c. Drilling waste


Key poapplica

Oil based drillingmud

One company in AB was

looking into generatingelectricity from drilling waste,but cost was triple that of otherfuels.35

Addresses waste issue.

Oil inv

drillinNewA

Low h Poten


16/89


17/89

Table 1e. Plastic Waste


Key appl

Industrial/CommercialPlasticWaste

Taiheiyo Cement Corporation- Total consumption (2002) 84,682tonnes

- Rate of consumption (2002) 3.8kg/tonne of cement50

Italcementi Group51 About 350,000 tonnes per annum of

waste plastics fromindustrial/commercial origin are usedin Austria, Belgium, Denmark, andGermany.

52

The Environment Agency grantedapproval for the permanent use of

Profuel at the Castle Cement works atKetton in December 2000. Profuel is asolid fuel manufactured from certainpaper, plastic and fibre wastes (e.g.the Committee saw offcuts fromdisposable diapers being used)53

The Retznei cement plant of LafargePerlmooser installed a system toextract chlorinated particulates fromwaste plastics.

54

Plastic from end of life vehicles areco-incinerated as secondary fuels incement kilns in Belgium and a powerplant in Denmark.55

Availability - most plastic in Calgary is not

recycled. Approximately 40 tonnes/month of a total

200 tonnes/month of plastic collected inEdmonton is recycled. The remainder isdiverted to a landfill. 56

Reduced landfill disposal of non-recyclableplastics such as rejects from industrialprocesses, food containers (e.g. yogurt,butter).

Reduction in groundwater contamination byheavy metals.

Reduced odor problems

Higher Heating value - 29-40 MJ/kg

57

Pu

recrec

Cotha

C Th

oth Co


18/89

Household(e.g., foodcontainers)

Unknown level of application. As above SoMShavPot

Se

Agricultural

twine,chemicalcontainers,packagingwaste

Unknown level of application. Polypropylene resin has a BTU value

higher than coal Twine is collected because it is a danger

to animals 3500 tonnes of twine is generated each

year in Alberta58

Tw

th


19/89

Table 1f. Municipal Waste

Examples Level of applicationKey potential benefits toapplication in WesternCanada

Key poteapplicat

Solid Waste

Refuse derivedfuel (RDF)

Taiheiyo Cement Corporation- Total consumption (2002) 4,143tonnes

- Rate of consumption (2002) 0.2kg/tonne of cement59

Cement kilns in Austria (ten kilns),Belgium (nine kilns), Denmark (onekiln), Finland (one kiln), France (23kilns), Germany (31 kilns), Italy (fivekilns), Luxemburg (one kiln),Portugal (one kiln), Spain (11 kilns),

Sweden (three kilns), UK (nine kilns,two planned facilities) andNetherlands (one kiln) use RDF fromindustrial wastes as an alternativefuel. 60

In 1997, 115,000 tonnes per annumof household RDF were used asalternative fuel in the cementindustry in the fifteen EuropeanUnion Member Statesc. For 2003, thequantity was projected at 132,000tpa.

61

Other industries in Europe utlilizingRDF as an alternative fuel includepower plants, paper mills, and districtheating plants.62

Mexico has authorized use ofdiapers as an alternative fuel.63

Availability - Kilns are often locatednear market population centers (e.g.,Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver) withlarge MSW quantities. For example,BFI in Calgary landfills 400,000tonnes of waste annually.

Addressing waste issue MSW isan issue for municipal governments.Edmonton co-composter?

Divert RDF from landfills Heating value - Household waste

(12-16MJ/kg); Commercial Waste(16-20 MJ/kg); Industrial waste (18-21 MJ/kg); Demolition waste (14-15MJ/kg)64

Heterogcement punsortedenvironmof mater

Processexist in W(e.g., chpackage

Inconsis Effects o

Environabout emdioxins,

Public pe

cThe fifteen European Union Member States include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, I

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.


20/89


21/89


22/89

approximately 5.5 million cattle inAlberta

83which could produce a total of

6.6 million tonnes of manure. Dried hog manure has a heating value of

14,511 kJ/kg84 Chicken manure has 1/3 the heating value

of coal85


23/89

Table 1h. Wood Waste


Key potapplicat

Waste wood Sawdust is mixed with organic

compounds to produce a moreconsistent alternative fuel for thecement industry in most Europeankilns.86

In 1997, 9,000 tpa of waste wood wereused as alternative fuels in the cementindustry in the fifteen EU MemberStates. In 2003, the quantity isexpected to be 12,000 tpa.87

Grande Prairie EcoPower Centre willuse wood waste to generate bothelectricity and steam for use in the

Canfor sawmill

88

1 million tonnes of Construction

Remodel Demolition waste accountsfor 25-30% of Alberta solid waste and28% is wood waste, approximately halfgoes to landfill89

The largest source of wood wastes isgenerated from the construction anddemolition industry. 90

Seven mills operate within 200 km ofCalgary and produce 185,137 tonnes ofwood residue of which 109,550 tonnesis available (not used already)91

Sixteen mills operate within 200 km of

Edmonton and produce 1,538,314tonnes of wood residue of which272,349 tonnes is available (not usedalready)

92

Biomass falls in the range 15-19GJ/tonne

Agricultural residues 15-17 GJ/tonne Most woody materials are 18-19

GJ/tonne

Low ca

15 perc Only kil

(e.g. pa Treated

concenchlorinesubstan

Low tip$10-$12recyclin

Paper sludge Used in cement kilns in Austria,Germany and the Netherlands. It isalso co-combusted in one power plantin the Netherlands and in brick kilns in

Austria and Germany as pore agents.95

Paper sof 8.5 M


24/89

Table 1i. Other Waste


Key potapplicat

WasteCarbon Dust

The utilization of waste carbon dustfrom the aluminum industry hasbeen a joint project of Blue CircleSouthern Cement and Portland

Aluminum. Plant trials weredesigned to evaluate the effect ofusing carbon dust on the cementmanufacturing process, the productand the environment. The projectreplaces 10 percent of the naturalgas requirements of the kiln.97

Economic - Lower costs associated withreduced use of natural gas Addressing waste issue Availability - one aluminum plant in Kitimat

BC and one plant in Strathcona, AB.

Plant ucarbon dconstrucinto the took threof $1.2 m

Tallowresidue

In 2001, Blue Circle SouthernCement's Waurn Ponds plant usedtallow residue - a by-product of oleoproduction which is used in food,lubricants, personal care productsand plastics - as an alternative fuel.99

Environmental benefits - for example, atthe Waurn Ponds plant, the tallow residueproject demonstrated a 5-7 percentreduction in nitrous oxide emissions. 100

Availab

Carpet cut-off and textilewaste

Belgium and Denmark.101 Castle Cement in UK102 Test studies in the US

BTU value of between 8,500-10,000 andburns cleaner than coal. Could replace upto 15% of the coal burned as fuel103

27,000 tonnes enter Alberta landfillsannually104

Most residential and commercial carpet island filled.

105

Carpet/procesthe bur

Carpetrecycliten yea

Agricultural

residue (e.g.,hulls)

Unknown level of application. However biofuel application is

proven.

Potentially addressing waste issue thisneeds to be determined however.

Good public acceptance.

Availacollect

Landfill Gas Clover Bar Landfill produces landfillgas (LFG) for electricity productionin Alberta

In 2001 24% of landfill gas was capturedin Canada107

Conversion of landfill methane to CO2willdirectly reduce greenhouse gas

Proximwill req


25/89

3.0 Evaluation of Alternative Fuels for Western CanadianApplications

Table 2 below provides a preliminary evaluation of the identified alternative fuels against pre-selectedcriteria. The evaluation is based upon the information collected and provided in Section 2.0. The criteriaselected are explained here:

Long-term Availability an adequate supply of the fuel source is available for the long-term (e.g. 10years or more).

High Heating Value a heating value range of 6 15 MJ/kg, or higher.

Public Acceptance Pembina assessment on whether the fuel source would be readily accepted by thegeneral public.

Cost-Effectiveness no apparent significant costs, such as transportation or collection costs. Processingcosts are to be considered in the next stage of this study.

No Regulatory Approval Barriers general Pembina assessment of whether regulatory hurdles may existor not.

Has Positive Environmental & Social Impact Pembina assessment of whether the alternative would beenvironmentally beneficial overall, considering traditional fuel displacement and existing uses of thealternative fuel/waste.

No Impact on Cement Quality consideration of whether the alternative fuel composition may impact thequality of the cement.

No Existing Alternative Applications consideration of whether the alternative fuel already has existingapplications (e.g. recycled, used as fuel elsewhere).

Table 2 also provides a relative indication of the weighting of the criteria, where a high must be met anda medium is important, and a low is nice to have.

A green cellindicates that the fuel meets the criteria, a yellow cellindicates some uncertainty,and a red cellindicates that the criteria are likely not met.

The final column indicates whether the fuel should be considered for further analysis, where greenindicates that it should, yellow indicates uncertainty, and red indicates that it should not be exploredfurther.


26/89

Table 2. Alternative Fuel Preliminary Evaluation


27/89


28/89

4.0 Summary of Higher Priority Options

Table 3 lists the options that most warrant further investigation in order to characterize the potentialbusiness opportunity.

Table 3. Higher Priority Alternative Fuel OptionsAlternative Fuel Type Comments on further research requirements.Petroleum Waste

Petroleum Coke Direct discussions between the cement industry and Syncrude,Suncor, and Husky may be more effective.

Solvent Based Waste

Paint related materials Further research on volumes and locations required, as well as qualityassurance and environmental impacts.

Commercial Ink Likely limited research required on quantity and availability (in non-confidential). Need determination on whether it is considered ahazardous waste is required. Further analysis on environmentalimpacts required.

Solvents Need to determine whether it is classified as a hazardous waste.Further research on volumes and locations required, as well as qualityassurance and environmental impacts.

Rubber Waste

Tires Readily available information on quantity assumed. Processingrequirements may need to be considered. Further analysis onenvironmental impacts required.

Plastic Waste

Industrial and Commercial Further information on quantities available and locations required.Information on quality and processing requirements also required, aswell as air emission information.

Household As industrial/commercial.Livestock Waste

Meat & Bone Meal Detailed information on locations and volumes required. Likely readilyavailable. Further consideration of quality (i.e. moisture content)required.

Wood Waste

Commercial Sawdust andWoodchips

Further research required on locations and volumes, as well ascollection requirements.

Lumber Mill Waste Detailed research on locations and quantities are readily available.Construction/Remodel/Demolition Information required on quantity, locations and collection requirements.Other

Carpet/Textile Further information on quantity, quality, and locations required. Furtheranalysis on environmental impacts also required.

Other fuels that may warrant further analysis, but are considered questionable at this point in time based

on cost effectiveness (or availability) are: Used oil (existing market, high cost of oil) Used oil rags and filters (small market) Oil-based drilling mud (availability, and heating value). Agriculture residue (collection, decentralized nature). Carbon dust (kiln retrofitting requirements).


29/89

5.0 Recommendations and Next Steps

For the second phase of this initiative, the CAC should consider how to best use Pembinas researchskills in the time required. Questions to consider are:

1. Are there certain fuels of higher interest and priority for the CAC? This could be based on any

one of the criteria above; depending on the weighting of specific criteria that CAC might apply (forexample, those with less potential for public acceptance may have a lower priority).

2. Is Pembinas time best applied towards characterizing the business opportunity, such asidentifying the location of fuel source, the quality, and the quantity available of selected fuels? Or,should Pembina apply their time toward considering the specific potential environmental/socialattributes and issues associated with combustion of selected fuels during kiln operations atcement plants?

3. If certain substances are considered a hazardous waste, what is the likelihood it could ever beapproved as a fuel for the cement industry?

4. What information would best be collected directly by the CAC on certain fuel sources, such aspetroleum coke or potentially certain oilfield/hazardous wastes (i.e. client confidential information,

or where Pembinas time may not be as value added).

5. Do the CAC, and their membership, already have information on specific alternative fuels thatcould be shared, as to not duplicate efforts?

6. What is the intent of the final report resulting from this specific project? For internal decisionmaking purposes or for external promotion purposes? If both, where does the balance lie? Whatare the CACs next steps after this project?

The answer to these questions will help to inform the appropriate focus of the second part of this project.

Pembinas recommended approach will depend on the answer to these questions, and will also emergebased on discussions with the CAC around the results of this report.


30/89

Endnotes

1Department of Trade and Industry. 2001. Co-Utilization of Coal and Municipal Waste.http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/cct/pub/ps309.pdf.2The United Kingdom Parliament. House of Commons Environmental Audit Appendices to the

Minutes of Evidence. Appendix 2 - Memorandum from the British Cement Association.http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvaud/99/99a03.htm.3CEMEX - Panama. January 22, 2005. http://www.cemex.com/gl/gl_pa.asp4Holcim Ltd. January 22, 2005.http://www.holcim.com/CORP/EN/oid/46240/module/gnm50/jsp/templates/editorial/editorial.html.5Holcim Ltd. Holcim Switzerland - Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials (AFR). January 22, 2005.http://www.holcim.com/CORP/EN/oid/46173/module/gnm50/jsp/templates/editorial/editorial.html6Batelle. 2002. Case Study: Supporting the Case for using Waste as Fuel.http://www.wbcsd.ch/web/projects/cement/tf2/70.pdf.7Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. 2003 Environment Report. http://www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/english/envrpt2003/pdf/allenv2003.pdf.8Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.

http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf9Castle Cement. 2001. Environmental Review.10Cement Industry Federation. 2003. Cement Industry Environment Report.11WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.12Cement Industry Federation. Managing Our Resources Use of Alternative Fuels At Blue CircleSouthern Cement.13WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.14Environment Canterbury www.ecan.govt.nz15WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.16

Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. 2003 Environment Report. http://www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/english/envrpt2003/pdf/allenv2003.pdf.17http://corporate.lubrizol.com/PressRoom/MediaCoverage/pdflibrary/Recycling_Today_article.pdf18Phone conversation with Dennis Hambleton, Alberta Used Oil Management Association (AUOMA), ph780-414-151019http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/html/why5.htm20Phone conversation with Dennis Hambleton, Alberta Used Oil Management Association (AUOMA), ph780-414-151021Email from Darrel Lawes, Hazco22http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/recyc/oiltrans.html23http://www.cqs.com/wheel.htm24Phone conversation with Dennis Hambleton, Alberta Used Oil Management Association (AUOMA), ph

780-414-151025http://www.usedoilrecycling.com/html/why5.htm26http://www.texascenter.org/publications/kiln.htm27Email from Darrel Lawes, Hazco28UK environment agency http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/930787?lang=_e&region=&projectstatus=&theme=&subject=&searchfor=&topic=&area=&month=29Cement Industry Federation. 2003. Cement Industry Environment Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf30Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.


31/89

31WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.32Environmental Benefits of Using Alternative Fuels in Cement Production A Life Cycle Approach,Cembureau, Brussels33http://www.wbcsd.ch/web/projects/cement/tf2/HWF-CKS.pdf34WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.35Phone conversation, Brad Chapman, Hazco, 403-297-045136Phone conversation with MI-SWACO, Dave Van Bellan, Technical manager of Swaco and wastemanagement. Calgary office 290-530037Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. 2003 Environment Report. http://www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/english/envrpt2003/pdf/allenv2003.pdf.38Cement Industry Federation. Managing Our Resources Use of Alternative Fuels At Blue CircleSouthern Cement.39CEMEX. January 22, 2005. http://www.cemex.com/gl/gl_sp.asp.40Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf.41Castle Cement. 2001. Environmental Review.42 Castle Cement Alternative Fuels. January 22, 2005. http://www.castlecement.co.uk.43Cauldron Work brochure. http://www.lafargecement.co.uk/pdfs/cauldon.pdf.44Holcim Ltd. January 22, 2005.http://www.holcim.com/CORP/EN/oid/46240/module/gnm50/jsp/templates/editorial/editorial.html.45MWH New Zealand Ltd. 2003. Development of a Regional Waste Recovery/Processing Sector. Reportprepared for Wellington City Council, Ministry for the Environment & Ministry of Economic Development.46Gray, T. 2004. Tire Derived Fuel: Environmental Characteristics and Performance. Presentation at theSecond Heartlands Regional Waste Tire Conference.47Kaantee U., Zevonhoven R., Backman R. and Hupa M. Cement manufacturing using alternative fuelsand the advantages of process modelling. Proc. of R'2002 Recovery Recycling Re-integration, Geneva(Switzerland) February 12-15, 2002.48Letter from Dr.S.Schawartz to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 1998.

http://www.portaec.net/local/tireburning/dr_Schwartz.html.49Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club on behalf of the West Valley Citizenos Air Watch comments onResolution 97-425 To Authorize Tire-Derived Fuel Use in Cement Kilns and Utility Boilers for EnergyRecovery Submitted October 22, 1997 to the California Integrated Waste Management BoardSacramento, California. Comments prepared by Neil J. Carman, Ph.D., Clean Air Program Director forthe Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.50Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. 2003 Environment Report. http://www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/english/envrpt2003/pdf/allenv2003.pdf.51Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf.52WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.53The United Kingdom Parliament. House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EightReport. www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/385/38507.htm.54Lafarge. Case Studies Retzei using plastic as an alternative fuel. www.lafarge.com/lafarge_en/htm/retzei_using_plastic_alternative.html.55WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.56Harold Richardson, District Manager and Vice President of BFI Alberta. Personal communications.57WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.58baler-twine-study.pdf


32/89

59Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. 2003 Environment Report. http://www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/english/envrpt2003/pdf/allenv2003.pdf.60WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.61WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.62WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.63http://www.texascenter.org/publications/kiln.htm.64WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.65WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.66WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.67WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.68Lafarge Cement United Kingdom. January 22, 2005. http://www.cement.bluecircle.co.uk/alt_psp.htm.69Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf.70ibid.71WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.72ibid.73WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.74Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf.75WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.76Italcementi Group. 2003 Sustainable Development Report.http://www.italcementigroup.com/newsite/files/report/2003_Sustainable_Development_Report_full.pdf77Lafarge. January 22, 2005. www.lafarge.com/lafarge_en/htm/malle_energy_recovery_from_meat.html.78Trial burning of substitute fuel at Lafarge Cement UK Ltd., Aberthaw. Posted December 13, 2004.http://www.grc.cf.ac.uk/lrn/news/shownews.php?showcat=&page=1&item=743&month=&year=2004.79Taiheiyo Cement Corporation. n.d. Ecofacturing Taiheiyo Cements New Approach to ResourceRecycling. www.taiheiyo-cement.co.jp/ english/envrpt2002/pdf/p01_p05.pdf.80CBR Cement. 2003 Environmental report.http://www.heidelbergcement.com/html/e/uploads/a302/CBR-environmental_report_2003.pdf.81WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.82CBR Cement. 2003 Environmental report.http://www.heidelbergcement.com/html/e/uploads/a302/CBR-environmental_report_2003.pdf.83http://www.growingalberta.com/features/default.asp?id=9384http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/03/ucr-hbcu/Jensen.pdf85http://www.lpes.org/Lessons/Lesson11/11_1_Diet_Management_Intro.pdf86WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.87WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.88http://www.canhydro.com/plantsabout_biomass.html


33/89

89http://www.energy-base.org/sef_bonn/pub/forum_presentations/IVF_suchy.pdf90http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/waste/aow/waste/construction.html91http://www.albertaforestproducts.ca/htdocs/lib/woodresidue/wood.htm92http://www.albertaforestproducts.ca/htdocs/lib/woodresidue/wood.htm93WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.94WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.95WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.96WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.97Cement Industry Federation. Managing Our Resources Use of Alternative Fuels At Blue CircleSouthern Cement.98Cement Industry Federation. Managing Our Resources Use of Alternative Fuels At Blue CircleSouthern Cement.99Cement Industry Federation. 2003. Cement Industry Environment Report.100Cement Industry Federation. 2003. Cement Industry Environment Report.101 WRc, IFEU, ECOTEC, and Eunomia. 2003. European Commission Directorate GeneralEnvironment. Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspectives. Final Report.102http://www.fmb.org.uk/publications/masterbuilder/february01/4.asp103http://www.carpetrecovery.org/news/031209_Carpet-as-a-Fuel.asp104http://www.northerncare.org/errow/minutes-jun1002.pdf105http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/epr/products/carpet.html106http://www.moea.state.mn.us/carpet/outcomes/010612workgroup-wte.pdf107http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/publications/offset_dp/bg/landfill.asp


34/89

Alternative Fuel Applications

for Western Canadian Cement

Operations:

Investigation of Selected Fuel

Sources

Final Report

March 9th, 2005

Prepared by:Athal Christie

Matt McCulloch, Pembina Institute

Contact Matt McCulloch, (403) 269-3344 x114, [email protected]


35/8934

Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................................... 34

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 35

1.1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 351.2 REGIONAL LANDFILL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................. 36

2.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 382.1HIGH PRIORITYALTERNATIVE FUEL OPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 382.2.LOW PRIORITY FUEL OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 412.3MEAT &BONE MEAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 44

3.0 LIFE-CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 45

3.1CONVENTIONAL FUEL DISPLACEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 49

4.0 RANKING OF PRIORITY FUELS .................................................................................................................................... 50

4.1A OVERALL ECONOMIC RANKING AND GENERAL RATIONALE........................................................................................... 504.1B KEY ECONOMIC INFORMATION PER LOCATION............................................................................................................... 514.2ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING AND GENERAL RATIONALE ................................................................................................... 524.3SOCIAL RANKING AND GENERAL RATIONALE ................................................................................................................... 52

4.4RANKING SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 53

THE ULTIMATE RANKING OF OPTIONS WILL DEPEND ON THE WEIGHTING PLACED ON THE GENERALECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND CONTEXT OF THE SPECIFICASSOCIATED RISKS WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE FUEL TYPE. .................................................................................. 53

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................. 53

6.0 PATHWAY TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 54

7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................... 55


36/8935

1.0 Introduction

The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) is following through on their commitment to incorporatesustainable development principles into their practices. As such, the CAC contracted the PembinaInstitute to identify and evaluate the alternative fuel options for cement operations in Western Canada.The analysis is split into two parts:

i. A general overview of alternative fuel applications internationally, and a preliminary evaluation ofapplicability towards western Canadian operations; and

ii. A further business analysis and characterization of the opportunity in Western Canada forselected alternative fuel types.

This is an interim report that summarizes outcomes of the second part, focusing on the regions ofEdmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver.

Based on the results of the initial report, the CAC participants identified the top priority alternative fuels tobe considered for further investigation. This was based on identified evaluation criteria and ultimately thefuels potential for implementation in Western Canada. For these fuels, further information on theeconomic aspects, as well as environmental and social considerations, was collected. The selected fuelswere divided into higher priority and lower priority categories, with higher priority requiring more specificeconomic based information.

The higher priority alternative fuels considered in this report are:i. Plasticsii. Construction, Remodelling and Demolition waste (see 1.2 Landfill Vancouver for example

breakdown).iii. Sawdust/woodchipsiv. Carpets/Textilesv. Meat & Bone Meal

Cost-related information was not collected for Meat & Bone Meal as the cement industry has sufficient in-house information currently available. However, appropriate contacts from Alberta Environment and

Alberta Agriculture were contacted to provide their input and perspective on the regulatory environment

for using Meat & Bone Meal as a fuel in the cement industry. This is provided in Section 2.3.

A secondary list of alternative fuels was created for further consideration, but not to the same depth.These fuel sources are considered to have some potential, however further cursory information is to gainan increased understanding of this potential. These lower priority alternative fuels considered for thisinvestigation are listed here, along with the reasoning to not collect information in as much detail:

i. Petroleum Coke (PetCoke) cost information best gathered by cement companies.ii. Paints & Solvents quantities available are likely low.iii. Non-recycled tire waste quantities available are likely low.iv. Carbon Dust not considered having high potential, but there is a need to confirm.v. Electronic Waste some potential may exist, however more cursory information required.

When considering costs of alternative fuels, it is important to note that processing costs will likely also beincurred.

1.1 Energy Requirements

Based on information provided by participating CAC members, a viable alternative fuel must supply aminimum of 10% of the existing energy requirements. To estimate this requirement, this report considersthe average energy consumption for the western based CAC plants, based on 24 GJ/tonne coal. Theplants considered are:


37/8936

Lafarges Richmond, Exshaw, and Kelowna plants, and LeHighs Edmonton and Delta plants.

The average energy consumption for each of these plants is 2 million GJ/year.

Using the 10% energy requirement from alternative fuels, an average minimum requirement of 0.2million GJ/year derived from alternative fuels would be necessary. This value (and values specific toeach plant) will need to be considered when evaluating the potential of any fuel source.

1.2 Regional Landfill Context

Landfill sites can be a potential significant source of waste fuel, with significant land impact benefitsassociated with diverting waste for energy use. By looking at the breakdown of waste going into thelandfills, a rough estimate to the amount of potential waste fuel, by type, can be made. Considering theremaining capacity of a landfill may also provide an indicator to the potential demand for alternativewaste disposal methods. Much of this information is provided below, based on the information currentlyavailable.

Calgary

There was very little detailed information available on Calgary landfills, both through publicly availableinformation and personal contact. Calgary currently recycles 20% of its residential waste and landfills80%. 1Although Calgary does not have a widespread curbside recycling program, a pilot initiative isunderway.

Typical residence's waste includes: 27% paper, 24% yard waste, 20% food waste, 9% plastic (21,000tonnes), 3% metal, 2% glass, 2% household hazardous waste and 12 % other.33% of the total waste stream is residential waste.

Landfilled in 20032: 235,000 tonnes residential waste390,000 tonnes Industrial, Commercial, Institutional waste123,000 tonnes dry rubble (CRD)

Current Tipping Fee: $42/tonne32

Estimated remaining capacity: Calgary Landfill (operated by BFI) has a projected operating life until2008.3

However, the City already has allocated landfill property sufficient for the next 40 years.1

EdmontonEdmonton has a relatively progressive waste management system, recycling up to 60% of its residentialwaste.

Typical household waste composition (2001): 17% paper, 29% yard waste, 23% food waste, 7% plastic,3% metal, 2% glass, 1% hazardous waste 9% other organics and 9% textile and other waste. Totalresidential waste collected in 2003 was 207,000 tonnes.4

Clover Bar Landfill processes ~100,000 tonnes of waste per year- 16,000 tonnes commercial waste,68,000 tonnes household waste (2003).

Tipping Fee: $42/tonne32

Estimated remaining capacity: expected to close in 2013.5


38/8937

West Edmonton Landfill receives ~275,000 tonnes per year. 70% of waste received at this site classifiedas special waste requiring treatment or specific disposal. Only ~10% construction waste and it is notseparated from other waste.

Tipping Fee: $40/tonne (MSW) and $25/tonne CRD 32

Estimated remaining capacity: Approximate 8 year life remaining.6

Edmontons strong recycling program is likely due, in part, to the limited lifespan of its landfills.

VancouverComposition of residential and ICI (industrial, commercial, institutional) in the Greater VancouverRegional District is (GVRD):

Paper 24% (267,000 tonnes), plastics 11% (122,000), organics 44% (478,000), metal 5% (54,000), glass2% (19,000), inorganics (drywall, masonry, rock) 6%.7

An approximate breakdown of Vancouvers demolition (CRD) waste reaching landfill: Wood 46% (26%unpainted, 6% painted, 12% composite, 2% pallets), roofing 12%, rubble/soil 10%, concrete 8%, plastic

7%, land clearing 5%, metals 2.5%, flooring 2% (carpet 0.9%, underlay 0.3%), textiles 1%

8

No total masswas provided.

Based on this breakdown of CRD, approximately 70% of CRD material has relatively high energycontent. It can be assumed that demolition waste from the residential sector, in general, would have aneven higher portion of material with a (relatively) high energy content considering the associated volumeof wood. Note that the information provided here comes from a GVRD report that will be released inseveral months.

Current Tipping Fee: $64 to $73 /tonne

Estimated remaining capacity: Remaining site life is approximately 35 years.9


39/8938

2.0 Economic Considerations

2.1 High Priority Alternative Fuel OptionsThe following tables (Table 1 series) provide an overview of the economic considerations associated withthe higher priority alternative fuel options. Most of the data collected here was from internet sources orphone calls with representatives from industry and government. Some fields were not completed, eitherdue to lack of data, or because the information was redundant.

Table 1a. High Priority Fuels - Edmonton

Fuel QuantityQuality

PriceLogistical

Implications

14,000 tonnes permonth land filled = 0.42million GJ/year.

All types, mixed withresidential waste

Landfilled plasticcurrently not sorted.

Plastics(30-40GJ/tonne)

Precision Plastics Inc.supply processedrecycled plastic.

Awaiting information onquantities available.

#2 HDPE Cleanprocessed pellets10

$60/tonnecurrentmarketprice11

Cost prohibitive,however collectionsystems in place10

Sawdust/woodchips(18-19 GJ/t)

16 mills operate within200km of Edmonton,combined 270,000tonnes (4.86 million GJ)of wood residueunused.12

Varies dependingon wood type,weather, and type ofprocessing.Typically, high(43%) moisturecontent.14

Marketprice is $3-16 pertonnedependingon supplyandquality.14

Varying quality,distance fromEdmonton. Closestmill is 120km.

200,000+ tonnesreaching landfill(3.6 million GJ/yearavailable)6

Mixed specialwaste at WestEdmonton Landfill,not separated. Only

10% wood.6

See landfilltipping fee.

Constructionwaste(14-15GJ/tonne)

Visco Demolition is oneoperation that isattempting to be green.They separate theircombustible waste(approximately 1000tonne stockpile capacity)and incinerate what theydo not landfill.15Smallquantity.

Any material that iseasily separatedfrom remainingwaste and is readilycombustible, mostlywood.

$10-$12per tonnetipping feetoprocessors.33

$3 to $10per tonneprice forprocessed

wood.33

No market exists forCRD handlers tocollect, separate andprocess material in

adequate quantities.

Supply fluctuatesseasonally, but couldbe stockpiles ifadequate facilitiesexisted.

Material sorting islabour intensive.

Carpet/textilewaste8500-10000btu/lb(20-23GJ/t)

Total quantity unknown.All material is currentlylandfilled.10,13

Newer carpet is100% recyclable,older carpet variesin quality, material,moisture content.10,13

NotApplicable.

Difficult to handle andprocess. No systemcurrently in place tocollect or separatecarpet waste. Mixedin with CRD material.10,13


40/8939

Table 1b. High Priority Fuels - Calgary

Fuel Quantity QualityPrice Logistical

Implications

21,000 tonnes per monthland filled = 0.42 millionGJ/year.

All types, mixedwith residentialwaste

NotApplicable.

Would require sortingof residential waste

Plastics(30-40GJ/tonne)

Merlin plastic will sellmixed plastics. 400-500tonnes (0.144 MJ/year)per month available.28

All plastic types,unsorted.28

#2 HDPE Cleanprocessed pellets10

Merlin -$50/tonne28

$60/tonnecurrentmarketprice11

Costprohibitive.Price,varying quality andcomposition, someplastics may not besuitable, or legal toincinerate.

Sawdust/woodchips(18-19 GJ/t)

40,000 tonnes (up to0.72 million GJ per year)within 60km of Exshaw.Lafarge has previouslylooked into this source.12

130,000+ tonnes (up to2.34 million GJ per year)within 130km ofExshaw12

Varies dependingon wood type,weather, and typeof processing.Typically, high(43%) moisturecontent.13

Market priceis $3-16 pertonnedependingon supplyandquality.14

Inconsistent qualityand quantity.Distance betweenfuel source and plantmay be prohibitive.Lafarge hasconsidered thissource in the past.13

~75,000 tonnes/yr (1.05million GJ/yr) availablefrom Ecco Wastesystems16

~25,000 tonnes(0.45 million GJ) isrecycled aslandscapingproducts; theremainder iscontaminated orrequires extratreatment orhandling.16

$60/tonnefor yardmulch16

Constructionwaste(14-15GJ/tonne)

All-Waste systems iscurrently the largestfacility in Calgary thatseparates and recycles90% of the CRD materialthey collect. Last yearthey handled ~1,000tonnes (0.014 million GJ)of material and theyestimate they areoperating at 20%capacity.17

High quality, 1chip, low moisturematerial suitable forpulp and paper use.17

$85/tonne17

No market exists forCRD handlers tocollect, separate andprocess material inadequate quantities.

Supply fluctuatesseasonally, but couldbe stockpiles ifadequate facilitiesexisted.

Material sorting islabour intensive.

Potential futuresources based onquantity.

Carpet/textilewaste(20-23GJ/tonne)

Total quantity unknown.All material is currentlylandfilled.10,13

Newer carpet is100% recyclable,older carpet variesin quality, material,moisture content.10,13

NotApplicable.

Difficult to handle andprocess. No systemcurrently in place tocollect or separatecarpet waste. Mixedin with CRD material.10,13


41/8940

Table 1c. High Priority Fuels - Vancouver


Implications

10,000 tonnes plastic(CRD derived) (0.3million GJ) landfilled.~120,000 tonnes (ICIand residential) (3.6million GJ)7,8

~50% film, 3% #1,7% #2, 6% #6, othermixed plastics15,000 tonnes8

NotApplicable.

Would requiresorting of CRDwaste.

Plastics(30-40GJ/t)

1,779 tonnes(residential).18,671 tonnes (ICI)(does not include14,300 tonnes collectedthrough BC beveragecontainer stewardshipprogram.)

#1,2,4,5.

Wastech one of thelarger wood wasteprocessors, currentlyprocess ~400 tonnesper month (0.085 millGJ/yr). Currently sent tomarket. Lafarge hasconsidered this sourcein the past.18

Hog fuel $4/tonne 18 Available market isrelatively small in theVancouver area.

Sawdust/woodchips(18-19GJ/t)

Carneys WasteSystems in Squamishhas a 100 tonne permonth capacity (max0.02 mill GJ/yr). Recycleand process wood andconstruction waste.19

Hog fuel $100/tonnetransportedto lowermainland19

60km from lowermainland- hightransportation costs.Small, inconsistentsupply.

65,000 (wood portion)tonnes landfilled. 8

Variable quality. NotApplicable.

Lafarge hasconsidered thissource in the past. 18

Constructionwaste(14-15GJ/t)

49,168 tonneswoodwaste from CRDcollected in 2000.

Moisture contentquestionable.

NotAvailable.

More informationrequired oncollection points.

Carpet/textilewaste(20-23GJ/t)

0.9% of CRD waste iscarpet8. Quantitiesvariable.

Mixed materials notseparated fromother waste.8

NotApplicable.

Quantity, quality andlack of sorting fromother wastematerials. Currentlythere is No carpetcollecting orrecycling done inCanada. All carpetwaste is landfilled.8,13


42/8941

2.2. Low Priority Fuel Options

Table 2a. Low Priority Fuels - Edmonton


Implications

Petroleum

Coke

Life cycle environmental and social issue commentary provided in Table 3.

236,000 litres of paint4Paints &Solvents(26 GJ/t)

108,000 litres(flammables) ofsolvent collected bythe municipality4

Waiting for feedback from salesdepartment of fuel/solventrecycler/reseller.

Currently all paints,solvents, oils andfuels that are notrecycled arerequired to beincinerated at theSwan Hillsincinerator.20,21

10,000 tonnes peryear from RubberTech, other sources

available22

Shredded rubber ~$175 pertonne22

Price restrictiveNon-recycledTire DerivedFuel (TDF)

(36GJ/tonne) 3,000,000 tiresdiscarded per year.23

Tires are not approved for incineration in Alberta under therecycling program. Agricultural and off-road tires are exemptfrom the program but no collection system is in place.20

Carbon Dust Strathcona Alcan plant would not return calls.ScrapElectronics

Projected 11,000tonnes of plastic e-waste generated in2005 in Alberta.24

Estimated 43 kt of e-plastic generated in

AB between 1997 and2004.24

E-waste collection is anew initiative in

Alberta, collectingonly a fraction of thee-waste available. E-plastic contains flame-retardants which

make it hazardous tohandle and likely nota high quality fuel.24

Notavailable.

Centralized sourcesfor collection,however separationof plastic may berequired.


43/8942

Table 2b. Low Priority Fuels Calgary


Implications

PetroleumCoke

Life cycle environmental and social issue commentary provided in Table 3.

Paint &Solvents(~26 GJ/t)

New Alta is the main collector of used paints and solvents.Currently all paints, solvents, oils and fuels that are not recycled are required to beincinerated or disposed as hazardous waste at designated facilities.20,21

Awaiting further information from New Alta.Non-recycledTire DerivedFuel (TDF)

3,000,000 tiresdiscarded per year.23

Tires are not approved for incineration in Alberta under therecycling program. Agricultural and off-road tires are exemptfrom the program but no collection system is in place.20

Carbon Dust No source nearCalgary.

Nearest source is Edmonton. Note that local aluminium plant(Alcan) would not return calls.

ScrapElectronics

Estimated 11,000tonnes of plastic e-scrap in 2005 in

Alberta.24

313 tonnes of e-wastegenerated in Calgaryin 2004 (23% of thisstream, by mass, isplastic)24

E-waste collection is anew initiative in

Alberta, collecting onlya fraction of the e-waste available. E-plastic contains flame-retardants which makeit hazardous to handleand likely not a highquality fuel.24

Notavailable.

Centralized sourcesfor collection,however separationof plastic may berequired.


44/8943

Table 2c. Low Priority Fuels - Vancouver

Fuel Quantity Quality Price Logistical Implications

PetroleumCoke

Life cycle commentary only see Table 3.

Paint andSolvents(~26GJ/t)

CleanHarbours Inc.collects~500,000 litresper month18 million litrespaint since1994.(40 millionlitres unusedoil collectedeach year.)275,000equivalent litrecontainers offlammableliquids since1997.

Varioussolvents andchemicals,some quantityis suitable forcement kilns.

Not Available. Most material is sent to Quebec orthe U.S. for incineration. Whenthere is inadequate incineratorcapacity, material is used incement kilns in Missouri.Incineration of such material iscurrently prohibited in BC

Non-recycledTireDerivedFuel (TDF)

EstimatedAnnualGeneration ofScrap Tires inB.C. for2004/05:

Passenger LiteTire: 2.796million tireequivalents.

Mud Tire/FarmTire: 1.136million tireequivalents.

31,600 tonnestotal, or1.14 million GJper year inB.C.29(assumemajority isrecycled)

Assumedprocessed forkiln suitability.Domestic andinternationalprecedenceindicatesacceptablequality.

ProcessedTDF1 tiresat a rate of upto $127 pertonne; and

Whole TiresTDF2 at arate of $98per tonne.29

Collection systems are currently inplace, however this would beprimarily for re-cycled tires. Non-recycled tire waste likely morecostly to collect.

Tilbury Cement uses tirescurrently in spite of negativepublic opinion.30

CarbonDust

No sources near Vancouver.

ElectronicWaste

Electronic equipment is re-used or recycled. Plastics are separated and recycled asraw material. Materials considered more valuable as recycled product than fuel.25,26,27


45/8944

2.3 Meat & Bone Meal

Information on Meat & Bone Meal (MBM) was gathered through personal communication withappropriate provincial government individuals.

The following information was provided by Mel Miller, Policy Secretariat, Alberta Agriculture, Food andRural Development (Feb 7 2005):

The government has not entered into detailed discussion regarding provincial use of alternativefuels, yet they are in the strategic phase. Using cement kilns to dispose of MBM, however, isunder consideration.

The government is looking at the short, medium and long-term options of disposing MBM.Disposing of MBM in cement kilns has to be considered from a short, medium and long termperspective (This method of disposal has been used in Europe for two decades).

Other alternative technologies that provide alternative economic end products are also beingconsidered to dispose of MBM. These include thermal hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion.

The primary reason for using cement kilns as a disposal method, from an environmentalcontamination point of view, is that this system is guaranteed to destroy prions completely.

West Coast Rendering has been in discussions with the cement industry about using MBM as an

alternative fuel.

From Alberta Environment, two Industrial Approvals Engineers (Matt Haghighi and Joe Feehan) werecontacted to provide their opinions and perspectives on using MBM as a fuel in cement kilns. Bothindividuals provided the following inputs:

AB Environment has no specific policy related to the use of MBM as an alternative fuel. AB Environment would have no issues with combusting MBM, however it is expected that an

amendment to the regulatory approval for the plant would be submitted. The amendment wouldneed to address things such as how the material will be transported, stored, handled etc. as wellas the emissions levels (NOx, SOx, particulates, CO2). The proponent would have to adequately

demonstrate this. From the public's perspective, the issue will be whether the prions are sufficiently destroyed. MBM is a reasonable option that should be considered. There is no awareness that the Policy Secretariat of AB Agriculture was discussing MBM disposal

options (cement kilns being one). This was found to be encouraging and thought the twodepartments should engage in more formal communication.

AB Environment has a neutral fuel policy, meaning a cement plant can burn anything as long asthey do a proper assessment of the emissions associated with burning a particular fuel.

Thus, there is no active policy development on the use of MBM as an alternative fuel. However somediscussions are occurring and the outlook is generally positive. The CAC and its members shouldsupport internal advocates in the provincial government to help advance discussion around this

opportunity. As well, the CAC may want to consider holding a workshop with government, industry, andpotentially representatives of the public/communities, to better understand the issues and barriers toimplementation.


46/89

3.0 Life-cycle Environmental and Social Consideration

Table 3 below provides qualitative information on environmental benefits of risks of the selected fuels, and sthe potential social implications of these fuels. An attempt to address the likely general significance of the pimplications is also provided. This is referred to as the likelihood of these implications being a low, moderatelocal, regional, provincial and/or national communities. However, caution must be used as this is only for gulevel of importance can never actually be known until consultation and engagement. The significance of the not commented on, as it is relative to the context of the particular impact.1

Table 3a. Life-cycle Environmental and Social Considerations of Selected Fuels Higher Prio

Fuel Life-cycle PotentialEnvironmental Benefits

Life-cycle Potential EnvironmentalRisks

Plastics Reduced use of landfill space,and addressing an existingwaste management issue(particularly in Calgary).

Ensuring segregation of chlorinatedplastics.

Ensuring air emissions fromcombustion of plastics are wellwithin provincial and federalregulations.

W

oi

r

oi

W

i

a

1For example, acid deposition from transportation activities may be far more significant in the Wood Buffalo air shed (A

than between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, due to the existing high levels in that area.


47/89

Table 3a. Life-cycle Environmental and Social Considerations of Selected Fuels Higher Prio



M&B Meal Addresses current disposalissues.

Generally CO2neutral. Assumed complete

destruction of prions.

Potential odour issues would needto be addressed.

a

a

r

wf

ai

C/R/D(inc asph)

Avoids a significant amount oflandfill material. Extends lifeof landfill.

Generally CO2neutral(biomass component only).

Transportation related emissionsand incidents. Air emissions and/or solid waste

issues associated with any non-biomass (e.g. steel nails, asphaltshingles).

Need to confirm no significantnitrogen related emissions.

o

(

of

Woodwaste As CRD. As CRD (without non-biomassrelated issues).

A


48/89

Table 3b. Life-cycle Environmental and Social Considerations of Selected Fuels Lower Prior



PetCoke Reduction of land footprint,leading to increased marginalspace for wildlife andvegetation. Increased

importance in caribou habitatand wetland areas.

Air emissions and traffic relatedincidences associated withtransportation (long distance).Risks greatly reduced with use of

rail. High carbon content GHGemissions relative to conventionalfuels would be to be assessed.

Level of other air emissions(sulphur, heavy metals) would needto be confirmed.

Ash (and associated contents) is apotential waste management issue.

Potential for some existing inputraw material to be avoided.

as

a

a

a

Non-recycledTDF

Reduction in landfilling of non-recycled tire waste. Contributing to the extension

of the life of existing landfills. Reduced land footprint from

associated stockpiling.

Level and type of air emissionswould need to be confirmed. Potential transportation related

issues incidence of accidents, airemissions.

Potential to divert from existingrecycled tire streams (in spite ofintention to not do this).

a

s

d

r


49/89

Table 3b. Life-cycle Environmental and Social Considerations of Selected Fuels Lower Prior



Paints andSolvents

Reduction in landfilling of non-recycled waste. Contributingto the extension of the life of

existing landfills. Reduction in potential forground or watercontamination at existingwaste management site (andassociated on-goingenvironmental liability).

Potentially offsettingincineration activities andassociated impacts.

Potential for hazardous airemissions (acid gases, metals,carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,

dioxins).

31

Potential for hazardous solid waste. Potential for liquid spills during

transportation. (Note: it is assumed that no

paints/solvents are used togenerate electricity in westernCanada, and therefore this wouldnot be offset).

(Note: CEMBUREAU reportindicates the use of both paints andsolvents in kilns results in life-cycleenvironmental benefits overincineration. Paints provideincreased benefits over solvents).

e

t

i

i

Carbon Dust Avoiding landfill. Air emissions and solid wasteconcerns.

Transportation related issues.

ga

ElectronicWaste

As per Plastic. As per Plastic. Air emission and ash issues

associated with the use of flameretardant materials.

A

af

e

sf


50/89

3.1 Conventional Fuel Displacement

The two fuels that would be partially displaced as a result of using alternative fuel are coal and naturalgas. The general environmental benefits accrued as a result of this displacement are:

Reduced upstream land impacts/footprint associated with exploration, extraction, andtransportation activities.

Reduced impacts associated with transportation of these fuels:o Combustion-related air emissions and traffic related incidents with truck transportation of

coal.o Combustion-related air emissions with rail transportation of coal.o Fugitive emissions association with natural gas transportation.

Reduced air emissions associated with the combustion of the fuel in the cement processingoperations.

o Greenhouse gases.o Particulate matter (coal related).o Acid deposition precursors.


51/89

50

4.0 Ranking of Priority Fuels

The following tables rank the fuels based on economics, environmental, and social considerations. Nooverall ranking is provided, as this will be based on the weighting of criteria by the decision makers (i.e.the CAC, or individual cement companies). As well, further information may be required before moredefinite ranking can be established.

4.1a Overall Economic Ranking and General Rationale

Table 4.1a provides a ranking based on economic information.

Table 4.1a Overall Economic Ranking and General Rationale

Fuel Rank Rationale

1. Meat andBone

Material already has a collection system in place. The material is currently consideredwaste. Therefore costs assumed are low for beef related Meat & Bone Meal, as no (orfew) markets currently exist. Potential for regulatory barriers to be reduced or removed.Transportation and processing costs need to be considered. Lower energy content.

2. Plastics

High energy content. Level of plastic recycled will depend on existing market conditions;however there is generally a high market value. Collection facilities currently exist inEdmonton and Calgary, however volumes are likely higher in Edmonton. Calgary mayhave increase public support given the limited amount of municipal plastics recycling.

Adequate quantities available for plant needs. Highest return based on energy input.Market price in Edmonton is $60/tonne; however this is in part due to processing. Lowercosts would be attained through accessing pre-processed plastics (i.e. entering theprocess plant). Regulatory barriers would likely exist, given public resistance.

3. Woodwaste

Material already has a collection system in place. The material cost is on the order of$3-$15 per tonne plus transportation cost, however energy content is lower. Supply andquality may vary seasonally but this could be offset by multiple sources and stockpilingin dry conditions. Limited to no regulatory barriers. Quality issues (i.e. moisture

contents) need to be addressed (possibly through pre-treatment, e.g. air dry).

4. CRD

Large quantities of fuel potential exist, however limited clean, sorted sources since mostmaterial is mixed with other wastes having low to no energy content. Those facilities thatdo sort CRD waste will charge for sorted material accordingly. Further processing costson top of separating costs. Highest potential with residential demolition companies,given high percentage of wood. Financial incentives would be required for anyseparation. Limited regulatory barriers. Up to $100/tonne with separation (based onSquamish waste facility information.)

5. Carpet/textile

Limited quantity. Demolition and waste management companies indicate there arehandling difficulties with this material so it is rarely sorted, however incentives could beput in place. Varying quality with older carpets. Processing requ

Documents

Pembina Cement Alternative Fuels Report 2005 Copy