FROM WASTE TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Decades of hands on experience

2011
 ALTERNATIVE FUEL RECIPE BOOK

1. Source available alternative fuel

2. Investigate pyro-process influence

3. Check for
CDM-acceptance

4.Fuel
treatement

2009
 PRIMARY & ALTERNATIVE FUEL
LHV [MJ/kg] (net)
Pure polyethylene 46
Typical Data Light oil 42
Heavy oil 40
Pure polystyrene 40
Pure rubber (without inert material) 36
Anthracite 34 High grade
Waste oils, various refinery wastes 30 to 40
Petcoke 33
Waste tires (with steel and inert material) 28 to 32
Bituminous coal (low ash) 29
Bituminous (high ash) 24
Acid sludge, acid tar (from oil refining) 16 to 22
Lignite (10% moisture) 16 to 21
Pot liners (from aluminium smelter) 20
PVC 19
Palm nut shells (10% moisture) 19 Medium grade
Pressed olive cake 18
Dried peat (10% moisture) 18
Fuller earth (from oil refining) 13 to 18
Dried wood, bark, saw dust (10% moisture) 16
Rice husks (10% moisture) 16
Shredder wastes 15
RDF (from domestic refuse, 10% moisture) 15
Cardboard, paper (air dry) 15 Low grade
Dried sewage sludge (10% moisture) 10
Domestic refuse (30% moisture) 8.5
Pure iron (heat of oxidation!, occurs e.g. in waste tires) 7.5

2009
 AGRICULTURAL WASTE
Residue product, energy value and moisture content
Typical Data Biomass item Ratio of Product Waste Residue
product: moisture LHV moisture
waste status status
Course grains 1.0:1.3 20% air dry 13.9 20% air dry
Oats 1.0:1.3 20% air dry 13.9 20% air dry
Maize 1.0:1.4 20% air dry 13.0 20% air dry
Sorghum 1.0:1.4 20% air dry 13.0 20% air dry
Wheat 1.0:1.3 20% air dry 13.9 20% air dry
Barley 1.0:2.3 20% air dry 17.0 Dry weight
Rice 1.0:1.4 20% air dry 11.7 20% air dry
Sugar cane 1.0:1.6 48% moisture 7.7 50% moisture
Pulses total 1.0:1.9 20% air dry 12.8 20% air dry
Dry beans 1.0:1.2 20% air dry 12.8 20% air dry
Cassava 1.0:0.4 Harvest 13.1 20% air dry
Potatoes 1.0:0.4 50% moisture 5.5 60% moisture
Sweet potatoes 1.0:0.4 Harvest 5.5 Harvest
Fruits 1.0:2.0 Harvest 13.1 20% air dry
Vegetables 1.0:0.4 Fresh weight 13.0 20% air dry
Fibre crops 1.0:0.2 20% air dry 15.9 20% air dry
Seed cotton 1.0:2.1 Dry weight 25.0 Dry weight
Sunflower 1.0:2.1 Dry weight 25.0 Dry weight
Soybeans 1.0:2.1 20% air dry 16.0 20% air dry
Groundnuts 1.0:2.1 20% air dry 16.0 20% air dry
Tea 1.0:1.2 20% air dry 13.0 20% air dry

2009
 GUIDELINES FOR ALTERNATIVE
FUEL
Min. LHV for Kiln Fuel
LHV for total kiln fuel: > 20900 kJ/kg fuel => max. substitution rate kiln burner
Substitution Rate Calciner
Max. 90 % of energy input in calciner section; 10 % primary fuel for control
Homogeneity Factor
%fuel substitution x (%LHV variation + %mass variation) < 120
Particle size
Main burner: < 20 mm
Other burner: < 80 mm; 2-dimensional
< 50 mm; 3-dimensional
Oxygen Excess
RDF, fluff, rice straw: + 1% to 2%
Tires, tire chunks: + 2%
Petcoke: + 2% to 3%

2009
 COMPARISON OF GAS VOLUMES

Guideline only
Typical Preheater Exhaust Gas Volumes
at 2% false air; 800 Kcal/kgcli

Gas
Volume
[Nm3/kgcli]
Coal app. 1,50 base
Heavy oil app. 1,60 + 6,6 %
Natural gas app. 1,70 + 13,3 %
RDF 10% moisture app. 1,65 + 10,0 %

2009
 FUEL DATA COMPARISON

Oxygen Excess
RDF, fluff, rice straw: + 1% to 2%
Tires, tire chunks: + 2%
Petcoke: + 2% to 3%

2009
 FUEL FEEDING POINTS

Temperature Zones and Oxygen

Main burner: > 1800°C at 20 % O2
TAD 4 CC-burner: < 1200°C at 20 % O2
CALCINER Kiln inlet chamber: < 1200°C at 2,5 % O2
Calciner burner: < 900°C at 8,0 % O2

COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
TAD 3 TAD 2
Particle size
TAD 1 Main burner: < 20 mm
MIXING
Calciner Burner CHAMBER
Other burner: < 80 mm
2-dimensional
Quench
< 50 mm
3-dimensional

Tire Feed Bypass

Main Burner

2009
 OPTIMIZED CALCINER SECTION

Gas Residence Time

In-line Off-line Fuel

calciner calciner
> 3,0 sec. > 2,5 sec. oil, lignite
> 3,5 sec. > 3,0 sec. gas,
bituminous
coal
> 4,5 sec. > 4,0 sec. petcoke,
anthracite
> 5,0 sec. > 4,5 sec. alternative
fuel

2009
 Factors Influencing Performance

• Moisture
increased moisture content of fuel reduces energy value and increases 
appr. 80% operation gas volume
efficiency
• Fluctuating Feed
for Due to fluctuating heat value or feed quantity inefficient combustion 
(CO‐increases) or excess Oxygen is required
1,0 GJ primary fuel

1,2 GJ alternative fuel

• Cold Air Ingress
Pneumatic transport air or leakage air requires additional energy for 
may be required if not heating up
optimised
• Circulating Phenomena
Causes unstable operating conditions and may cause a lossin energy if 
bypass has to be installed

2009
 Energy and Production Disadvantages

Reduction of clinker Increase of heat

production consumption

moisture [t/t H2O] 2,00 [MJ/kg H2O] 2,10

false air [t/kNm³ air] 0,23 [MJ/Nm³ air] 1,00

oxygen [% t/%O2] 5,50 [% MJ/%O2] 1,60

2009
 PROCESS & CDF SIMULATION

guidelines are sufficient for a preliminary

investigation but

- Process simulation
- CDF modelling

will be required in most applications for

final process guarantees

2009
 Chloride Bypass Operation

operating point
operation with increased
without bypass alternative fuel

original
operation

operation with
bypass

2009
 CHLORIDE LIMITS
Kiln Cl extraction method Maximum Remarks
system relevant
Cl input
[g Cl/t cli]

Recommended Multi stage discarding filter dust

300-400
thereafter installation
preheater during direct operation of gas bypass system
Chlorine Limits thereafter installation
discarding intermediate
LEPOL 600 of turbo-pass (bypass
grade dust
system)

Long discarding max. kiln unusual, needs

5000
wet/dry dust (unlimited CKD) extra CKD outlet

Kiln Short term [hours] Long term Impact on HCl emission

system consequences consequences

none;(without bypass)
Suspension corrision,
preheater blockages Limited with bypass which
Results when preheater /
precalciner
=> production loss
refractory
damage
can be regulated with lime
hydrate addition
exceeding Limits high pressure drop in
LEPOL nodule bed=> prod. corrision medium
loss

Long wet / ring formation / material HCl emission and risk of

long dry kiln blockage dioxin / furan formation

2009
 Quality Consideration

Alternative Fuel Parameter Recommendation or Comment

Solvents Cl If Cl is high, Cl balance including all inputs to kiln should be made: 300 g Cl/t
clinker is manageable for short kilns, 400 g Cl/t clinker is manageable for Lepol and
long kilns; above these levels, a by-pass might be required.

Used oils
Other
hydrocarbons
Tyres Fe2O3 At high substitution rates, the iron in the steel wires can affect the clinker Fe2O3
Content requiring some correction in the raw mix chemistry. If the Fe2O3
Content in the clinker changes, this can affect the color

Solid shredded Cl If Cl is high, Cl balance including all inputs to kiln should be made: 300 g Cl/t
waste clinker is manageable for short kilns, 400 g Cl/t clinker is manageable for Lepol and
long kilns; above these levels, a by-pass might be required.
Ash If ash % is high, raw mix adjustment might be required at high substitution rates

Animal Meal P2O5 (<0,5% Recommended < 0,5% in P2O5 clinker

in clinker)
Other biomass Ash If ash % is high, raw mix adjustment might be required at high substitution rates
Sewage sludge P2O5 Recommended < 0,5% in P2O5 clinker
Ash If ash % is high, raw mix adjustment might be required at high substitution rates

2009
 Harmful Components
COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS
AND THEIR BEHAVIOUR IN THE PYROPROCESS

Elements involved Components/ Carriers Transfer Details

Chrome, Zinc, Lead, Clinker mineral elements, Mainly transfer into the clinker
Nickel, Arsenic, etc., Low volatile metals
Sulfur from the fuel Sulfur component of fuel

Mercury, Carbon, Sulfur Non burnt organics, Mainly transfer into the preheater
in raw meal Volatile metals (if no filter exhaust gas
used),
Products of combustion

Thallium, Mercury, (Semi) volatile heavy metals Possible build up of cycles: Transfer
Cadmium into preheater exhaust dust content,
picked up at filter or recirculated via
raw meal. Mixing filter dust to cement
mill can bleed cycle.

Chlorine, Sodium, Halogene, alkalis, residuals Build up of internal cycles: Absorption

Potassium, conveyed with clinker by raw meal in upper part of cooler,
recuperation in the hot kiln area. By-
pass system can bleed elements for
external disposal.

2009
 CDM‐Project Guidelines

CDM Potential or RDF Usage:

- Emission reduction of CO2 by reduction of conventional fuel
coal: appr. 99,0 [tCO2/MJfuel]
oil: appr. 80,0 [tCO2/MJfuel]
gas: appr. 56,0 [tCO2/MJfuel]

- Emission reduction of CH4 by avoidance of landfilling

Advantages:
- Additional independent income stream
- Secure long term price for fuel
- Replace up to 80% of conventional primary fuel
- Production cost reduction

2009
 CDM-Project Guidelines

Disadvantages:
- Secure long term availability of alternative fuel source
- engagement in non-core business (waste collection , composting..)
- from alternative fuel supplier at specific quality standards
- Complex and long procedure for CDM application
- Complex annual monitoring and reporting procedure
- Financial management with emission rights in new markets

Technical Challenge:
- Alternative fuel preparation
- Alternative fuel storage, transport and dosing at the cement plant
- Plant operation to be adapted
- raw meal mixture considering ash content of fuel
- increased excess oxygen requirements
- Cement plant modification due to
- high chloride input
- longer retention time required in calciner
- increased combustion gas volume
2009
 CDM‐ Project Guidelines

application validation verification

Start registration process in due time;

- Do not start with investments before having assurance of validation

Strategically plan the project;

- Motivation of CDM project (do not specify financial benefits)
- Consider all realistic alternative fuel sources
- Do not propose changes to existing UN methodologies

For all your CDM requirements always use a well established consultant;
- Beware of false prophets

It is a lengthy process but it is possible!

2009
 ALTERNATIVE FUEL VARIATION

loose RDF as available from

waste dumps

plastic pre-packed in bales as

available from waste collection
enterprises

2009
 REFURBISHING OF OLD DUMP SITES

Recycled Material New Waste from

Garbage Collection
Separation
Center

Alternative Fuel
Old Waste
to plant
From Dump

Returned Waste
Waste Gas < 30% - 60% Exploitation of 
Power Generation Old Dump  Old Dump 

New sealed Dump
Slurry    Pump

Sedimentation Tank

2009
 SPOT ANALYSIS

Typical Compositions of Domestic Waste

Step 4 Step 5
further further Thermal
processing separation
fraction calorific
depending depending on
on requirements
value: 17-21
Water ~31% requirement MJ/kg
Organics ~9%
Waste material

Textiles ~7%
Example

Wood ~8%
Plastics ~7 %
Composite materials ~6 %
Paper ~ 6 %
Metal ~7% Problematic
Glass and inert materials ~7% materials
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 ~1%
pre- drying, separation of
crushing hygienisation, impurities
max. separation of fine
150mm fraction
~20 min. 150°C

2009
 MODULAR WASTE PREPARATION

Domestic or
Industrial
Solid Waste
optional
Hot air
(Clinker
cooler)

Sorting A TEC - Shredding

Storage
hand-operated MTP < 300 mm
Untreated
material Contaminated
Calciner section gas A TEC rotary
& combustion combustion
chamber chamber

Shredding Shredding
Storage Storage
< 15 mm < 50 mm
Material < Material <
50mm 300mm

Main
Storage burner

Material <
15mm

2009
 PRE-SORTING OF RDF

simple sorting conveyor

drying and screening drum with

sorting conveyor

2009
 FLOWDIAGRAM OF ATEC SHREDDER LINE

Preparation Plant for Landfill Mining

RDF product energy: 16 – 18 (20)MJ

RDF-Composition
¾ plastic
¾ textiles, leather
¾ paper
ATEC
¾ wood
crusher -shredder

By-product
¾ metal from megnatic seperator
¾ crushed stones, bricks etc.
¾ crushed hard material
¾ crushed glass

2009
 RDF EXTRUTION ‐ COMPACTION

Compaction
from 200 kg/m³ to appr. 500 kg/m³

significant cost reduction for

transport and storage

2009
 FLOWSHEET ROTARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER

COMBUSTION DRUM and

POWER GENERATION

2009
 PLANT STUDY

2009
 KEY POINTS ROTARY COMUSTION CHAMBER

Rotary kilns are well known and plant personal is familiar with operation.

The retention time of the AF could be easy adjusted with the kiln speed.

The combustion of the AF is done in hot tertiary air with 21% O2.

Rotation of the kiln is responsible for mixing of AF with the combustion air.

The temperature is adjusted by amount of AF and meal from upperstage

cyclone.

Calcined meal and ashes leaving the kiln via meal pipe into the cement kiln.

The average power consumption is less than 15kW.

The system could shut off (for maintenance) by minimum influencing the
clinker kiln (only adjusting other fuel).

The system can be used for lumpy sized fuels.

2009
 Post Combustion Chamber

cost effective solution for improved

calciner gas conditioning

2009
 PCC TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM

2009
 PCC TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT

2009
 PCC PROJECT REALISATION

2009
 CALCINER FUEL FEED SYSTEM

Feed Cute and Burner

special feed system for feed of alternative fuel incl. primary fuel supporting flame

¾hot spot combustion at 1200°C

¾ flame temperature control via tertiary air

¾ laternative fuel in flame centre

¾ incorporated safty device

2009
 COMBINED FEED CHUTE AND BURNER

2009
 FUEL COST REDUCTION
Model Plant

Primary Fuel heavy bunker oil Primary Fuel excl. Substitution

Fuel Cost 66,00[ €/t ] Quantity 155.000[t/y.prim.fuel]

LHV 32.000[kJ/kg.fuel] Cost 10.230.000[ €/y ]

Alternative Fuel RDF Primary Fuel after Substitution

Fuel Preparation Cost 20,00[ €/t ] Quantity 93.000[t/y.prim.fuel]

LHV 14.000[kJ/kg.fuel] Cost 6.138.000[ €/y ]

Organic Content 40%

Alternative Fuel

Plant capacity 5.000[tpd.clinker] Quantity 141.714[t/y.prim.fuel]

Spec. Heat Consumption 3.100[kJ/kg.clinker] Cost 2.834.286[ €/y ]

Substitution Rate 40%

Plant Operation 320[ d/y ] CO2-Certificates

Quantity 63.292[ t.CO2 ]

CO2-certificates 10,00[ €/t.CO2 ] Cost 632.924[ €/y ]

Fuel Cost Saving

excl. CO2 Certificates € 1.257.714

incl. CO2 Certificates € 1.890.639

2009
 FUEL COST REDUCTION
(Austrian Plant Jan. 2009)

Income ‐462‘200 USD ‐361‘900 EUR

Total Fuel Cost:
Costs 466‘800 USD 365‘500 EUR 0.09 USD/t cli
Total cost 4‘600 USD 3‘600 EUR 0.07 EUR/t cli

2009 4. POTENTIAL COST REDUCTION

 ALTERNATIVE FUEL
PARTNERSHIP

ATEC & Partners provide

¾ alternative fuel preparetion plants

¾ pyro-process evaluation

¾ cconsultancy for CDM projects

¾ project finance (optional)

2009
 ALTERNATIVE FUEL SUPPLY CONTRACT

2009
 THE COMPLETE PACKAGE

2009
 THE SOLUTION

9 Cement plants can burn houshold waste without causing environmental hazards

9 Energy demand of cement plants can be partially covered with RDF (Refuse
Derived Fuel) 80% substitution

9 Plant adaptation and processing unit are not expensive

9 Typical ROI is within 3 years compared with non-substituted primary fuel cost

9 A profitable and sustainable investment (for communities)

9 Financing for selected countries is provided

2009
 EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA

2009
 AMERICAN & ASIAN CONTINENT

2009
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Please visit www.atec-ltd.com

2011