See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242141472

A Waste-to-Energy Power Plant with CO2 Sequestration

Article · January 2003

DOI: 10.1115/NAWTEC11-1694

CITATIONS READS
9 459

3 authors, including:

Nickolas J. Themelis
Columbia University
233 PUBLICATIONS   5,556 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Means for Increasing the Specific Capacity of Waste To Energy Combustion Units View project

energy recovery from solid wastes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nickolas J. Themelis on 09 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 North American Waste to Energy Conference (NAWTEC 11)11 Proceedings,
ASME International, Tampa FL (April 2003), p. 263-270, 2003

Analysis of a Waste-To-Energy Power Plant with CO2 Sequestration

Alexander Klein, Hanwei Zhang, and Nickolas J. Themelis

Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University

New York, NY 10027

Abstract
Over the past decade there has been growing interest in mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions. While the United States is not a member nation of the Kyoto Protocol, several
greenhouse gas emissions trading initiatives are being planned or implemented at the state
level. Abroad, numerous countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and are actively
regulating the emission of greenhouse gases.
This paper assesses the technical and economic feasibility of reducing the emission
of carbon dioxide, the predominant greenhouse gas, by combusting solid wastes with
industrial oxygen mixed with recycled carbon dioxide, thus resulting in a nearly pure CO2
product stream that will be captured, compressed and sold to Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) projects. By using municipal and other organic wastes as the feedstock and
underground storage as the CO2 recipient, this scheme is positioned to provide the
maximum environmental advantages possible, by producing electricity renewably and
physically sequestering carbon dioxide. The preliminary analysis to be presented in this paper
indicates a good opportunity to reduce carbon emissions at a lower cost than other proposed
methods for carbon sequestration.

Introduction
This paper assesses the technical and economic feasibility of combusting a selected
stream of solid wastes with industrial oxygen mixed with recycled carbon dioxide, thus
resulting in a nearly pure CO2 product stream that will be captured, compressed and sold to
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects. By using a feedstock consisting of natural and
man-made organics and storing the carbon dioxide product underground, the proposed
process would provide the maximum energy and environmental advantages possible.

Enhanced Oil Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Injection

A key aspect to the economics of this process is the presence of a market for CO2
utilization or disposal. Currently, several commercial processes exist that utilize and
effectively dispose of pure carbon dioxide. The major market is that for enhanced oil
recovery (EOR). In EOR, carbon dioxide is injected in oil wells and dissolves in the “in situ”
oil, thus increasing its volume and reducing its viscosity. This increases the mobility of the
oil, resulting in the recovery of oil that has been by-passed by primary and secondary
recovery methods. Typical carbon dioxide “floods” can yield an additional 7 to 15 percent of
the original oil in place (OOIP), thus extending the life of a producing field by as much as
15-30 years (Moritis, 2001).
The use of carbon dioxide is the fastest growing method of EOR and accounts for
about 25% of all EOR projects in the US. According to an EOR survey, there are a total of

1
64 CO2 EOR projects in the US, accounting for 3.3% of total US crude production. Of the
64 projects, 47 are located in the Permian Basin area of West Texas and Southeast New
Mexico (Ruether, et al 2002). Other areas with projects include the Rocky Mountains,
Oklahoma and Mississippi. Most of the carbon dioxide supplied to these fields originates
from large underground deposits of naturally occurring, high purity CO2. Three such
deposits transport by pipeline over 1 billion cubic feet per day ( >61,000 short tons of CO2
per day) of 97-99% pure CO2. A much smaller number of projects use CO2 waste streams
from natural gas processing facilities and fertilizer plants.
Future use of CO2 in EOR is expected to grow significantly, ensuring a stable
market. It has been estimated that in the Permian Basin alone over 50 additional projects,
recovering 500 million to 1 billion barrels of oil reserves, are economically viable at current
prices and technology. The largest potential region for CO2 -EOR is the State of California.
California is the fourth largest oil-producing state and has many mature fields that are ideal
for CO2 injection. In a DOE sponsored project, Chevron is conducting a CO2-EOR
experiment in the Lost Hills field that was discovered back in 1910. The field’s cumulative
oil production to date has been only 5% of the original oil in place (OOIP), largely due to its
low permeability. The experiments have demonstrated a rapid oil response and it is believed
that CO2 injection may increase the field’s oil recovery to 20% of OOIP (Ruether et al,
2002). If the project proves successful, this technique could be used to recover billions of
barrels of oil trapped in the siliceous shales and diatomite reservoirs in other parts of the
state (Montgomery et al., 2000). Another recent study estimated the demand for the entire
state of California to be of the order of 3-5 Tcf of CO2 (180 million to 305 million short tons
of carbon dioxide). At the Chevron project, CO2 is currently being trucked over 120 miles to
the injection site at a cost of $3.5 per thousand cubic feet (NTP) of CO2. This amounts to
$69 per short ton of carbon dioxide and illustrates the seriousness with which oil companies
are considering the benefit of CO2 injection.
The primary reason that the California CO2 EOR demand has yet to be satisfied is
the lack of a stable, readily available supply of carbon dioxide. Often, building pipelines to
transport CO2 from far away natural reserves through mountainous terrain proves
uneconomical.
The economics of a CO2 EOR project are heavily tied to the price of oil and
availability of CO2. The purchase of CO2 constitutes the largest cost of a CO2-EOR project.
Currently, the floor prices for providing CO2 from various sources are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Cost for producing CO2 from different sources

Natural Domes $ 0.65 Mcf
Natural Gas Processing Plants $ 1 Mcf
Captured from Power Plant Flue Gases $ 3 Mcf
(1 Mcf = 1000 cubic feet at NTP)

The response of oil production from CO2 injection varies from field to field but the use of
gas is typically in the range of 2.5-11 Mcf CO2 injected per barrel of incremental oil
production. The average is 6 Mcf/bbl. In order to assess the cost of CO2 in any year
however, the following relationship developed by Martin and Taber can be used:

Value of CO2, $/thousand cubic feet (Mcf) = 0.50 + .020*(oil price, $/bbl)

2
 The next few years will likely see strong growth in CO2 EOR. It has been estimated
that if pure and inexpensive CO2 were available to all U.S. oil fields, total demand would be
of the order of 60 to 100 Tcf (Martin and Taber, 1992). Due to the disperse locations of the
target fields and increasing urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, captured power
plant CO2 may well become a growing part of the supply mix.

Figure 1. CO2 EOR Projects in the Permian Basin (Ruether 2002)

MSW as an Energy Feedstock

Municipal solid wastes (MSW) are a negatively priced, abundant and essentially
renewable feedstock. Currently, about 220 million tons per year or 0.8 tons of MSW per
capita are generated in the US (Klein, 2002). The composition of these wastes varies from
one community to the next, but the overall differences are not substantial. Table 2 shows
two separate estimates of the typical US MSW composition. If dumped in a landfill, MSW
biodegrades releasing large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide.

Table 2. Comparison of US MSW Composition (%) (Columbia, 2001)

Tchobanoglous, et al. 1993 EPA 530-S-97-015, 1997
Paper 34 33.7
Cardboard 6 5.5
Plastics 7.0 9.1
Textiles 2.0 3.6
Rubber, Leather, “other” 1.0 2.0
Wood 2.0 7.2
Yard Wastes 2.0 14.0
Food Wastes 9.0 9.0
Glass and Metals 17.5 13.1

The heat content of raw MSW depends on the concentration of combustible organic
materials in the waste and its moisture content. On the average, raw MSW has a heating
value of roughly 13,000 kJ/kg or about half that of bituminous coal (Smoot & Smith, 1985).

3
The moisture content of raw MSW is 20% on average. Based on the data shown by
Tchobanoglous (1993) in Table 2, Themelis and Kim (2002) showed that the hydrocarbon
formula that most closely approximated the mix of organic wastes in MSW is C6H10O4.
Raw MSW can be converted into a better fuel for power generation by making it
more homogeneous. Several waste-to-energy plants create a refuse-derived fuel (RDF),
through the separation of inert materials, size reduction, and densifying. RDF plants remove
recyclable or non-combustible materials and shred the remaining trash into a homogenous
fuel. The densified material is more easily transported, stored, combusted and gasified than
raw MSW. The size of a particle affects the time required to combust.

O 2 P la n t
A ir N2

A sh S te a m
B o il e r T u r b in e G R ID

RDF
P la n t
C O 2 D r y in g & P r o d u c t g a s to E O R
C o m p r e s s io n

G as
C le a n in g

T ip p in g F lo o r

M SW

Figure 2. Flow Diagram of the Proposed Process

Plant Design Overview

The proposed processing scheme is based on the SEMASS suspension-fired Waste-
to-Energy plant at Rochester, MA that was developed by Energy Answers Corporation and
proven technology for CO2 recycling that is used in the coal industry. Figure 2 is a
schematic diagram of the process. The waste first is loaded onto conveyors, shredded and
exposed to overhead magnets that recover ferrous metals from the waste. The shredded
material (called by Energy Answers Processed Refuse Fuel) is then fed into the combustion
chamber through inclined chutes. A portion of the feed is burned in suspension, while the
remainder falls onto a horizontal moving grate. Underfire and overfire oxygen are
introduced to enhance combustion. Waterwall tubes, a superheater and an economizer are
used to recover heat for production of steam. However, in the proposed process of using
bulk oxygen instead of air, the bulk oxygen is diluted by recycling a portion of the product
gas, consisting primarily of CO2 back to the boiler, in order to control the combustion
temperature. The use of CO2 as the temperature-controlling agent prevents the need to
dilute the product gas with nitrogen and avoids the need for gas separation after
combustion. For effective CO2 transport and utilization or disposal, all CO2 recovery
options include CO2 drying and compression to 135 atmospheres pressure (2,000 psig).

4
Non-condensable gases such as N2, O2, SO2 and NOx are stripped from the liquid CO2
during compression (Simbeck, 2001). As result, it is important that condensable
compounds, such as tars, are removed prior to compression to avoid operational problems
with the compressor. The use of pure oxygen allows for controlled combustion, which
should effectively eliminate these compounds in the flue gas. Furthermore, the use of
oxygen can reduce the need for large volumes of excess air thereby reducing the necessary
size and cost of the flue gas cleaning equipment.

Economic Analysis
In order to assess the cost of a Waste-to-Energy combustion plant supplied by bulk
oxygen and using recycled carbon dioxide, the following information was derived on the
basis of information available for the SEMASS existing facility at Rochester, Massachusetts:

Tons processed per Year: 910,000

Capital cost ($/kW): 3,676
Operating Cost ($/ton MSW): 30
Net power output (MW): 78
CO2 emitted (kg/kWh): 1.7

In addition, the following capital and operating costs for the oxygen plant were obtained
from reported data by Air Products and Chemicals. The APD “ITM” oxygen plant is a new
technology that may become commercially available in the near future.

APD “ITM” 3200 tons/day plant (Best Case):

• Capital Cost:$13,000/daily ton capacity
• Operating Cost (excluding energy): $0.71/ton oxygen
• Energy Consumption: 147 kWh per ton of oxygen

(Source: http://www.gasification.org/98GTC/GTC01054.pdf) (See Slide 13)

The capital charges were adjusted using the following rate:

• Capital charge rate of 12%/yr
• Annual capacity factor of 0.83 (7271 hrs/yr)
The economic analysis was conducted based on a break-even tipping fee for the municipal
solid waste. Table 3 summarizes the assumptions used and the resulting cash flow. The
analysis indicates that excluding any revenue from carbon dioxide credits, the break-even
tipping fee is about $59 per ton, which is very competitive with current existing WTE
technologies.
The capital and operating costs of the plant are based on the reported cost for the
SEMASS combustion facility located in Rochester, Massachusetts. This plant combusts
910,000 tons of MSW per year and has a gross power rating of 78 MW. The cost of the
oxygen plant is based on published data by Air Products and Chemicals for its novel ITM
unit. They report the electricity penalty for their oxygen plant is 147 kWh per ton of oxygen.
This plant, as compared to conventional cryogenic oxygen plant technology, has capital costs
that are 35% less, and reduces the amount of energy needed by 40%. The drying and
compression capital costs were extrapolated from an economic analysis presented to the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) by SFA Pacific. Revenue generated from
the sale of carbon dioxide is based on the equation developed by Martin and Taber and an

5
oil price of $30/bbl. At an oil price of $20/bbl, the break-even tipping fee increases to
about $63/ton, which is still competitive. Additional sources of potential revenue for this
plant include the sale of nitrogen from the oxygen plant, carbon dioxide credits and the sale
of its bottom ash and fly ash (or a reduced disposal expense). However, as these markets are
not sufficiently developed or always available, they were not included in the analysis.

Table 3. Economic Evaluation

Feedstock Site Characteristics
Short
MSW Heat Content 13 Mj/kg Tons Per Year 910,000
Tons
Moisture Content 20% MSW Throughput 113,518 kg/hr
Percent Combustible 60% Gross Power Rating 78 MW
Kg of O2 per tonne MSW 1,065 kg Plant Efficiency 19%
Kg of C per tonne MSW 296 kg Annual Capacity Factor 0.83
Kg of CO2 per tonne MSW 1085 kg % Excess Air 20%
Capital Cost of Base Plant 286,712,323 $US
Capital Cost of Oxygen
Economics Plant
49,851,616 $US
Capital Cost of CO2
Cost of Electricity 0.05 $/kWh 81,900,000 $US
drying and comp.
Total Capital Cost of
Cost of Oil 30 $/Barrel 418,463,939 $US
Plant
Cost of Recovered Metal 5 $/Ton
Discount Rate 12% Operations
Project Life 20 Years Operating Cost of Base Plant 30 $/ton MSW
Operating Cost of Oxygen
0.71 $/ton MSW
Plant
kWh/ton
Cash flow Gross Electricity Generation 660
MSW
Electricity Consumption of O2
Expenses 173 kwh/ton MSW
Plant
$/Ton Electricity Consumption of
Capital Annuity Payment -$61.56 110 kwh/ton MSW
MSW Base Plant
$/Ton Electricity Consumption of kWh/ton
Operating Cost -30.71 126
MSW drying and comp. MSW
kWh/ton
Revenue Net Electricity Generation 251
MSW
$/Ton
Electricity ($0.05/kWh) 12.57
MSW
$/Ton
Sale of Recovered Metal 0.22
MSW
$/Ton
CO2 Sale 20.29
MSW
Break-Even Tipping FEE -59.20 $/Ton

Conclusions
The preliminary economic analysis presented in this paper indicates that carbon
dioxide capture is economically and technologically feasible. This is, however, contingent on
the presence of a market for the utilization or disposal of the carbon dioxide. Several prior
studies have already shown that EOR projects that utilize carbon dioxide are expanding
rapidly (Mortis, Montgomery, and Ruether et al). Particularly in areas such as Southern
California, that are far from natural carbon dioxide reservoirs and have mature oil fields, it

6
appears that the demand exceeds the supply, especially in the current environment of high
oil prices. Carbon dioxide derived from industrial processes such as from hydrocarbon
combustion could fill this role economically especially if the WTE plants are sited near to
EOR projects. The primary reason that an oxygen combustion plant that recycles and
captures carbon dioxide has not yet been commercialized is the concern that the capital and
energy costs of producing significant quantities of oxygen would be prohibitively expensive.
However, over the last several years there has been significant innovation in the field of
oxygen separation that greatly reduces the energy consumption per ton of oxygen produced.
This, coupled with the concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and the prospect carbon
dioxide taxes or emissions trading system that would further enhance the economics of a
CO2 capturing scheme, seem to provide the impetus to look at such projects seriously.
From a technology viewpoint, this type of plant is available today and has been
proven to be reliable within the coal industry. For the purposes of this economic analysis, a
suspension firing Waste-to-Energy plant was chosen because it is proven technology.
However, numerous other combustion and gasification plants should be considered as well.
Combusting an MSW feedstock with industrial oxygen mixed with recycled carbon
dioxide, thus resulting in a nearly pure CO2 product stream that can be captured and
sequestered, offers numerous advantages. The resulting electricity provided is renewable, the
process would be net carbon negative, assuming a fraction of the waste is biomass in origin,
and the process provides a disposal alternative for non-recyclable combustibles with zero air
emissions.

References

Air Products and Chemicals. Presentation, Slide 13,

http://www.gasification.org/98GTC/GTC01054.pdf

Herzog, H. The Economics of CO2 Separation and Capture, Technology, vol. 7, supplement 1, pp.
13-23, (2000). http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/economics_in_technology.pdf

Klein, A. Gasification: An Alternative Disposal and Energy Recovery Process for Municipal Solid
Wastes. Earth and Environmental Engineering M.S. Thesis, Columbia University, 2002.

Martin, F.D. and J.J. Taber, Carbon Dioxide Flooding, J. Petroleum Technology, 396-400, 1992.

Moritis, G., Future of EOR & IOR, Oil & Gas J., 99.20, 68-73, 2001.

Montgomery, S., M. Morea, M. Emanuele, and P. Perri, San Joaquin basin is scene of new effort to
evaluate EOR in Monterey, Oil & Gas J., 98.39, 2000.

Ruether, J., R. Dahowski, M. Ramezan, and C. Schmidt, Prospects for Early Deployment of Power
Plants Employing Carbon Capture, Electric Utilities Environmental Conference, Tucson, AZ,
January 22-25, 2002. http://www.netl.doe.gov/products/ccps/index.html

Simbeck, D. , Carbon dioxide mitigation economics for existing coal fired power plants,U.S. Dept. of
Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) First National Conference on
Carbon Sequestration, May 14-17, 2001 Washington, DC.

7
 Themelis, N.J., Kim, H.Y., Brady, M.H. Energy Recovery from New York City municipal
solid wastes, Waste Manage Research, Vol. 20, p. 223-233 (2002).

View publication stats