KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT · Ramboll - Kwinana Waste to Energy...

WS:ANZ_Active:47079786:v1

Intended for

Kwinana WTE Project Co

Kwinana Beach, Australia

Date

December 2018

KWINANA WASTE TO

ENERGY PROJECT

ARENA LIFE CYCLE

ASSESSMENT

Ramboll

1560 Broadway

Suite 1905

Denver, CO 80202

USA

T +1 303 382 5460

F +1 303 382 5499

www.ramboll.com

KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT

ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Project name Kwinana Waste to Energy Project

Project no. 1100021970-002

LCA Commissioner Kwinana WtE Project Co

Version 5

Date December 19, 2018

Prepared by Ramboll

LCA Practitioners Jim Mellentine, Ashley Kreuder

Ramboll - Kwinana Waste to Energy Project

1/33

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Kwinana Waste to Energy Plant 6 1.2 ARENA Life Cycle Assessment 6 2. Goal and Scope 8 2.1 Goal of Study 8 2.2 Scope of Study 8 2.2.1 System Boundary, Functional unit, reference flows, AND reference

system 8 2.2.2 Cutoff Criteria 9 2.2.3 Data Quality Criteria 9 2.2.4 Impact Categories 9 3. LCA Approach 11 3.1 Inventory of Inputs and Outputs (Life Cycle Inventory) 11 3.1.1 Kwinana Waste to Energy plant Electricity Production 11 3.1.2 Business as usual Reference system: Western Australia electricity

(black coal) production 15 3.2 Data sources and quality assessment 17 3.3 Emission factors and their sources, conversion factors (yields) 17 3.4 Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact

Assessment) 18 4. Summary of LCA Results 20 4.1 WtE Plant 20 4.2 BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production 22 4.3 Comparison to the Business as Usual Reference Scenario 23 4.3.1 Comparison to IFI Marginal Grid Electricity Factor 24 4.4 Sensitivity to Waste Collection Fuel Consumption 25 4.5 Alternative Scenario: WtE Bottom Ash Landfilled 26 5. Discussion and Interpretation 27 5.1 Study Limitations 27 6. Future Work 28 7. Critical Review 29


2/33

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Characterization

Methods. 10 Table 2: WTE Plant Electricity Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 line

per hour and per year, assuming 8,000 hrs/yr of operation 12 Table 3: Waste as Fuel: Waste collection and transport to WtE facility,

per tonne waste. 13 Table 4: Expected Waste Composition 14 Table 5: WTE Plant Air Emissions Output for 1 kWh generated. 14 Table 6: Waste as Fuel: Avoided Landfill Impact Assumptions, per tonne

of waste. 14 Table 7: Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production Inputs and

Outputs for 1 MWh generated. 15 Table 8: WtE Plant Data Sources and Quality Assessment 17 Table 9: Conversion Factors 18 Table 10: WtE Plant Impact Assessment Results 20 Table 11: BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production Impact Assessment

Results 22 Table 12: Reviewer’s Credentials 29

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Western Australia Electricity Generation by Fuel Type. 3 Figure 2: WtE Plant versus Western Australia Black Coal 4 Figure 3: WtE Plant Contribution Analysis 5 Figure 4: Example of GWP Characterization Factors 18 Figure 5: WtE Plant Contribution Analysis 21 Figure 6: Business as Usual Black Coal Plant Contribution Analysis 23 Figure 7: WtE Plant versus Western Australia Black Coal 24 Figure 8: Kwinana WtE annual GWP result compared the Australian

marginal grid electricity (IFI). 25 Figure 9: WtE LCA results for Low (1.4 liters/tonne), Baseline (5.75

liters/tonne), and High (10.1 liters/tonne) diesel consumption used for

waste collection prior to transport of the waste to the WtE facility. 25 Figure 10: WtE LCA results for the Baseline scenario and scenario where

Ash is disposed in a landfill 26

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Critical Review Report and Response to Comments

Appendix 2 WRATE Tables


3/33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kwinana WTE Project Co commissioned a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of their proposed Kwinana

Waste to Energy plant (WtE Plant) to meet funding requirements of the Australian Renewable

Energy Agency (ARENA). The WtE Plant will be located in Kwinana, Australia. It will have two

lines, each line estimated to generate 138,220 MWh of electricity annually from 25,000 kg per

hour of municipal solid waste. The Western Australian grid is primarily supplied by black coal and

gas, with a small portion of wind as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Western Australia Electricity Generation by Fuel Type1.

The objective of the LCA study is to meet the requirements of ARENA, which are to show the

overall environmental impact profile, primarily for embodied fossil energy and GHG balance and

to provide a benchmark on fossil energy used, energy return on energy invested (EROEI), and

GHG performance.

Whilst the Western Australian market is supplied with a blend of fuel types, the functional unit of

the study is to compare the cradle to grave impacts of 1 MWh of electricity supplied to the

Western Australian grid from proposed WtE Plant electricity production versus electricity

production using black coal. The WtE Plant impacts include collection and transportation of the

municipal solid waste as well as the displacement of municipal solid waste to landfill per the

ARENA requirements.

The results of the Fossil Energy Abiotic Depletion Potential Fossil Fuels (ADPF) for 1 MWh of

electricity are as follows:

• WtE Plant: ADPF is 17.3 kg oil eq per 1 MWh of electricity produced. This is

approximately 723 MJ2 or 0.201 MWh per MWh of electricity or a EROEI of 4.98.

• BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production: ADPF is 244 kg oil eq per 1 MWh of electricity

produced. The 244 kg oil equates to approximately 10,2003 MJ or 2,800 MWh per MWh of

electricity or a EROEI of 3.57E-04.

1 Niklaus A, Dowling L; Renewables Influence on the Generation Mix and Gas Demand in Western Australia. AEMO Insights. May 2017. Obtained

from https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Media_Centre/Insights/2017-05-24-Insights-Paper.pdf

2 Assumes a HHV of 41.8 MJ/kg heavy fuel oil from https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html.


https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html



4/33

• This is more than ten times higher than the WtE Plant.

The results of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) for 1 MWh of electricity are as follows:

• WtE Plant: -860 kg CO2 equivalent, which is a net benefit.

• BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production: GWP is 993 kg CO2 equivalent.

The LCA results in Figure 2 indicate that the proposed WtE Plant electricity is also preferable to

the current Western Australian grid electricity for the impact categories of Particulate Matter

(PM), Acidification Potential (AP), and Photochemical ozone creation potential (PCOP) However,

the black coal electricity production is preferable for Consumptive Water Use (CWU), Land Use

Change (LUC), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), and Eutrophication Potential (EP).

Figure 2: WtE Plant versus Western Australia Black Coal

Figure 3 illustrates the main drivers of the WtE Plant impacts. The Avoided landfill impacts and

waste transport are the most significant impact for all categories. Without considering the

avoided impacts, the disposal of the boiler fly ash and APCr to landfill is the main contributor to

the CWU, LUC, ADPF and EP impacts. Waste Collection and Transport of municipal waste to the

facility is a significant contributor to ODP, PM, and ADPF. WtE air emissions are the next

significant impact to AP and GWP.

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

WtE Black Coal


5/33

Figure 3: WtE Plant Contribution Analysis

From these results, Kwinana WTE Project Co may consider the following improvements to the

WtE Plant project going forward:

• Recycle or Upcycle Boiler Ash. The project is already planning to divert the bottom

ash for use as construction aggregate, while the remaining boiler ash and APCr will be

disposed in a landfill. This disposal has a significant impact on CWU and EP impacts.

Similarly finding an alternative use for the boiler ash and APCr will reduce these impacts.

The project is currently developing use of boiler ash as construction aggregate through

Carbon8 technology4.

• Improve Waste Collection and Transport. Waste collection has a significant impact

on PM, ODP, ADPF and other categories. As illustrated in the sensitivity analysis in

Section 4.4, optimizing truck routes, using fuel efficient vehicles or using alternative

fuel vehicles could significantly reduce these impacts.

• Improving WtE Plant Efficiency. Increasing the efficiency of the plant to require less

municipal waste per MWh of electricity would also reduce the waste collection impacts on

PM, ODP, and ADPF and the air emissions impacts on AP and GWP.

4 Carbon8 Aggregates. https://c8a.co.uk/

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

WtE Air Emissions WtE Input Water and Treatment

Urea Activated Carbon

Quicklime Waste Collection & Transport

Natural Gas Boiler Ash & APCr Disposal to Landfill

Avoided Landfill Impacts Avoided Waste Transport


6/33

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Kwinana Waste to Energy Plant

Kwinana WTE Project Co is applying for funding through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency

(ARENA) for the proposed Kwinana Waste to Energy plant (WtE Plant). Kwinana WTE Project Co

is a combination of the Phoenix Energy Power Plant company, Green Investment Bank, and the

Green Investment Group.

The WtE Plant is located in the Kwinana Industrial Area (KIA), which is zoned for heavy industry.

The KIA does not have a reticulated sewage system, so the WtE must reuse 100% of water

onsite.

The WtE Plant design recovers energy in the form of electricity using moving grate combustion

technology. The plant includes two (2) x 600 tonnes per day integrated moving grate fired

furnace/boiler (incineration) lines each with a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system

and a Semi-Dry air pollution control flue gas cleaning system. The lines have a common air

cooled condensing Steam Turbine Generator and are designed to have zero aqueous emissions.

The WtE Plant is designed to process up to 400,000 tonnes/year of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),

Commercial & Industrial Waste (C&I) and pre-sorted Construction & Demolition Waste (C&D). To

do this, the WtE Plant must be able to treat waste for at least 8,000 hours continuously per year.

The proposed source of the MSW, C&I, and C&D is from the towns of Armadale, Gosnells,

Mandurah, Murray, Serp-Jarra, South Perth, Canning and the City of Kwinana, which are a

combined 290 km from the WtE facility.

1.2 ARENA Life Cycle Assessment

ARENA requires a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study be undertaken for all bioenergy and biofuel

projects. All projects must complete a proof of concept LCA by the first funding milestone and

projects rated at a TRL 8-9/CRI 2+ must also deliver a commercialization LCA as a final

milestone deliverable. LCA provides valuable insights into the environmental advantages and

risks associated with bioenergy technologies. ARENA uses the results of the proof of concept LCA

to determine if the proposed technologies have a favorable overall environmental impact profile,

primarily for embodied fossil energy and GHG balance. ARENA uses the results of the

commercialization LCA to obtain a benchmark on fossil energy used, energy return on energy

invested (EROEI), and GHG performance. In addition, ARENA uses LCA to understand the risks of

other environmental impacts and communicate project benefits.

The WtE plant is rated at Technology Readiness Level 9+, so Ramboll completed a

commercialization LCA according to ARENA5 requirements and the International Standards

Organization (ISO) standards ISO 14040 – Life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework and

ISO 14044 – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines (ISO series 14040/14044). As

outlined in the ISO series 14040/14044, an LCA consists of four phases:

5 Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). (2016, October). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bioenergy Products and Projects: Method and

guidance for undertaking life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioenergy products and project. Retrieved from

https://arena.gov.au/assets/2017/05/AU21285-ARENA-LCA-Guidelines-12-1.pdf


7/33

1. Goal and scope definition: define the objectives and associated study framework and

boundaries;

2. Life cycle inventory (LCI): create an inventory of the mass and energy inputs and

outputs from processes associated with the product system processes (data collection

phase)

3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA): evaluation of the relative environmental

significance (e.g., global warming potential (GWP) associated with the inputs and

outputs; and,

4. Interpretation: summary of the conclusions in relation to the objectives of the study.


8/33

2. GOAL AND SCOPE

In LCA, the goal and scope define the objectives and associated study framework and boundaries

of the study.

2.1 Goal of Study

The goal of this LCA is to meet the requirements of ARENA and provide verified environmental

performance data to investors.

The primary audience for the study will be ARENA and project investors. This study does not

support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.

2.2 Scope of Study

The scope of the study defines the system boundary and specific products to be studied, which

then determines data collection and analysis needs. In addition, the scope establishes which

impact categories will be evaluated, which allocation procedures will be applied, and what data

will be required.

2.2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARY, FUNCTIONAL UNIT, REFERENCE FLOWS, AND REFERENCE SYSTEM

The objective of this study is to compare the cradle to grave impacts of the WtE Plant electricity

production to Western Australia electricity (black coal) production business as usual reference

system (BAU: Black Coal electricity production). The WtE Plant is located in Kwinana, Australia.

The plant will have two lines, where each line will generate 138,220 MWh of electricity annually

from 25,000 kg per hour of municipal solid waste.

Following the ARENA requirements, the system boundary was expanded to include the impacts

associated with the handling and processing of the municipal solid waste and the avoided impacts

associated with the landfill impacts (e.g., avoided methane emissions and carbon storage).

Recycling of ferrous metals and aluminum from the bottom ash were considered to be outside the

system boundary. Given this system expansion, the system boundary includes all relevant unit

processes and allocation assumptions and procedures are not relevant. The boundary includes

municipal solid waste collection and transport to the Kwinana facility, upstream extraction and

production of auxiliary material, fuel, and water inputs, combustion for electricity generation,

disposal of boiler ash and APCr in a landfill, and avoided impacts from the transport of waste (in

excess of the amount of transport to the Kwinana facility) and processing of the waste in a

landfill. Sensitivity analyses associated with the waste collection impacts and diversion of ash

from landfill are included in Sections 4.4 and 4.5.

The functional unit of the study is the production of 1 MWh of electricity supplied to the Western

Australian grid.

The MWh of electricity functional unit is represented by the input and output reference flows

described in more detail in Section 3.1.

The study excludes the embodied impacts of capital equipment and infrastructure, which meets

the following requirements from ARENA:

• The production systems estimated to have an economic life of 10 years or greater, and


9/33

• The production systems do not require establishment of significant supporting physical

infrastructure.

Other material and energy flows were evaluated for their inclusion or exclusion according to the

cutoff criteria in Section 2.2.2.

2.2.2 CUTOFF CRITERIA

Cutoff criteria are used to determine the unit processes or product systems to be excluded from

the study. Exclusions are typically set by amount of material or energy flows, or the level of

environmental significance associated with unit processes.

The ARENA method requires that the cutoff criteria include:

• a cutoff for individual flows by at 1% and

• a cutoff for cumulative contribution of the excluded processes of less than 5%

The WtE Plant LCI is assumed to include at least 95% of processes by mass, 95% of processes

by energy, and 95% of GWP. The WtE Plant LCA accounted for all known inputs and outputs (i.e.,

no known inventory items were omitted due to the cut-off criteria). For BAU: Black Coal

electricity production, data was used as-is with no cut-off consideration.

2.2.3 DATA QUALITY CRITERIA

Data requirements provide guidelines for data quality in the life cycle assessment and are

important to ensure data quality is consistently tracked and measured throughout the analysis.

Data quality metrics include precision, completeness, and representativeness, as follows:

• Precision- describes the variability of the inventory data. This study applies primary

data for the WtE Plant mass and energy inputs and distribution tonne-kilometers and

associated modes. We apply secondary data from external databases for life cycle

inventory values associated with embodied emissions of upstream material production

and acquisition and distribution modes. See Table 8 for a description of databases used.

• Completeness- describes the usage of the available data in existence to describe the

scope of the LCA. We worked extensively with the WtE design team to obtain a

comprehensive set of data associated with the WtE Plant. See Section 3.1.1 for an

inventory of inputs and outputs.

• Representativeness- describes the ability of the data to reflect the system in question.

We measure representativeness with the time, technology, and geographic coverage of

the data. Time coverage describes the age of the inventory data and the period of time

over which data is collected. The WtE plant provided data for the Normal Operating Point

(NOP). We obtained secondary data for the production of input materials such as natural

gas from the Australian LCI (AusLCI) database6 and ecoinvent V3.47 database. These

datasets are from mostly from 2012 and are based on Australian or Global data, as

detailed in Section 3.2.

2.2.4 IMPACT CATEGORIES

Life cycle assessment uses environmental impact categories to relate the resource consumption

and emissions to air, water, and terrestrial environments. In this study, we use the life cycle

6 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2011). The Australian Life Cycle Inventory (AusLCI) Database. Retrieved from

http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/Datasets

7 Ecoinvent. (2017, October 4). Fourth update of ecoinvent version 3 (ecoinvent V3.4). Database. https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/older-

versions/ecoinvent-34/ecoinvent-34.html


https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/older-versions/ecoinvent-34/ecoinvent-34.html



10/33

assessment impact assessment (LCIA) indicators required by ARENA to assess the environmental

impacts of the WtE Plant, listed in Table 1. LCIA results are relative expressions and do not

predict actual impacts or actual damages, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins, or risks.

Table 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Characterization Methods.

LCIA Indicator LCIA Indicator Units Characterization Model

GWP100 (GWP) kg CO2 equivalents (kg CO2e) IPCC 5th Assessment Report model based on

100-year timeframe

Fossil energy (abiotic

depletion fossil fuels)

(ADPF)

kg oil equivalent (kg oil eq) All fossil energy carriers based on

relative scarcity (Goedkoop, et al., 2009)

Photochemical ozone

creation potential (PCOP)

kg of ethene equivalent (kg C2H4 eq) CML 2016

Eutrophication (EP) kg phosphate equivalent (kg PO4 eq) CML 2016

Acidification (AP) kg sulphur dioxide

equivalent (kg SO2 eq)

CML 2016

Particulate Matter (PM) particulate matter less

than 2.5 microns (kg intake or deaths)

Recommended factors from Pelton Workshop,

January 2016 published by UNEP/SETAC.

Ozone Depletion Potential

(ODP)

kg CFC 11 equivalent (kg CFC-11 eq) CML 2016

Land Use (LUC) kg soil organic matter

(SOM) (kg C/m2/a deficit)

ILCD

Consumptive Water Use

(CWU)

L H2O eq. global

average water scarcity (L H2O eq)

Method of Ridoutt & Pfster, (2010), with

Water stress indices of Pfster et al. (2009)


11/33

3. LCA APPROACH

Ramboll conducted this study according to the standards established by the ISO series

14040/14044 as well as the requirements define by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency

(ARENA) for LCA of bioenergy products and projects. This section details the life cycle

assessment approach including:

1. Inventory of inputs and outputs (Life Cycle Inventory),

2. Data sources and quality assessment,

3. Emission factor and their sources, conversion factors (yields), and

4. Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)

3.1 Inventory of Inputs and Outputs (Life Cycle Inventory)

This section describes the cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory (LCI) of the Kwinana WtE plant and

the BAU: Black Coal electricity production. Primary design data were collected from project

documentation. Waste collection and transport data were estimated based on the locations of the

waste sources and literature.

3.1.1 KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

WtE plant engineers provided the process diagrams, water, energy, and mass balances for the

plant NOP. Ramboll used these NOP diagrams to model the LCI inputs and outputs per hour and

per year based on 8,000 operating hours per year. Table 2 details the inputs and outputs for

each line at the WtE, in units per hour and per year. The air emissions were calculated from the

Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Section 2.78 and expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC.9 Table 3 summarizes the inputs, outputs and assumptions for the waste collection and transport to WtE facility, per tonne waste.

8 Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract – Schedule 3. Report. Section 2.7

9 National Environmental Research Institute (NERI). (2010). Emissions from Decentralised CHP Plants 2007-Energinet.DK Environmental Project

No. 07/1882. Project Report 5- Emission factors and emissions inventory for decentralized CHP production. Retrieved from

http://www.dmu.dk/pub/FR786.pdf.

http://www.dmu.dk/pub/FR786.pdf


12/33

Table 4 summarizes the expected composition of the input waste. Table 5 summarizes the air emissions outputs and assumptions. Table 6 summarizes the inputs, outputs and assumptions for the avoided landfill impacts. In some cases, truck sizes for the various waste transport routes were provided by the client. When unknown, we assumed a waste collection truck on routes from the city to the transfer station and on routes from the city to the landfill where there is no transfer station. We assumed a large truck (40 tonne load) on routes from the transfer station to the landfill. Based on the expected inputs and outputs, the overall energy efficiency of the plant is calculated to be 24.6%.

Table 2: WTE Plant Electricity Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 line per hour and per year, assuming 8,000

hrs/yr of operation

Inputs

Qty per hour Qty per year Unit Reference/Comments

i1 Industrial Water 7,483.333 59,866,666.667 liters From water balance10

i2 Potable Water 291.667 2,333,333.333 liters From water balance10

i3 Ammonia/urea

40% solution

77.000 616,000.000 kg From PFD11

i4 Activated carbon 6.000 48,000.000 kg From PFD11

i5 Quick lime (86%

pure)

255.000 2,040,000.000 kg From PFD.11 Assume that 14% is inert limestone,

sand, and clay.

i6 Waste as fuel 25,000.000 200,000,000.000 kg From PFD11; see Table 3 for associated waste

collection and transport,

Table 4 for waste composition, and Table 6 for

avoided landfill impact assumptions

i7 Support fuel

(natural gas)

7.325 58,599.722 kg 276,440 MWh/year12; Composition per Kwinana WtE

- EPC Contract - Schedule 38 and calculated density

of natural gas from specific gravity relative to air.

Outputs


o1 Electricity 17,277.500 138,220,000.000 kWh Contractually required production in first year

o2 Water to septic 291.667 2,333,333.333 liters The remaining water balance leaves system through

evaporation or in slag and model assumes there are

no impacts

o3 Ferrous metal 340.000 2,720,000.000 kg Ferrous metal is recycled at end of life. From

Client.13

o4 Aluminum (non-

ferrous metal)

120.000 960,000.000 kg Aluminum is recycled at end of life. From Client.13

o5 Bottom ash, wet,

to reuse as

construction

aggregate

4,625.000 37,000,000.000 kg From Client.13

Outputs

10 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part B- EPC Proposal from Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD & Water Balance

Diagram. Water Balance. MEB-005.

11 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part B- EPC Proposal from Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD & Water Balance

Diagram. Overall Process Flow Diagram. MEB-001.

12 The O&M contractor guarantee the following: The Facility shall generate no less than [276,440] MWhrs of electricity [for export and sale] in

each Operational Year.

13 Fichtner. (2016, May). Technical Note No. 12. Kwinana Waste to Energy Project. Renewable Energy Components in the Waste as Basis for Large

Scale Generation Certificate.


13/33


o6 Boiler fly ash to

landfill

150.000 1,200,000.000 kg From Client.13

o7 APCr to landfill 900.000 7,200,000.000 kg From Client.13

o8 Air emissions See Table 5.

Table 3: Waste as Fuel: Waste collection and transport to WtE facility, per tonne waste.

i6 Waste as Fuel: Waste Collection and Transport

Quantity Reference/Comments

Waste Collection

5.75 liters diesel/ tonne

waste Average of high and low as documented by Larsen et al, 2009

14.

Waste Transport to WtE facility

34.876 km Weighted average distance based on known contributing

municipalities. Assumed same distance for both contracted and

noncontracted waste.

14 Larsen et al. Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. July 2009. Waste Management &

Research. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26258094_Diesel_consumption_in_waste_collection_and_transport_and_its_environmental_significan

ce

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26258094_Diesel_consumption_in_waste_collection_and_transport_and_its_environmental_significance



14/33

Table 4: Expected Waste Composition

i6 Waste as Fuel: Waste Composition

% Reference/Comments

Water 36.49% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 5

8

Ash 14.25% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 58

C 27.18% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 58

H 3.72% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 5

8

O 17.26% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 5

8

N 0.69% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 5

8

S 0.10% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 58

Cl 0.31% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 5

8

Table 5: WTE Plant Air Emissions Output for 1 kWh generated.

o8 Air Emissions

g per kWh Reference/Comments

SO2 0.035 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC

9

NOx 0.320 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC9

UHC 0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC

9

NMVOC 0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC

9

CH4

-0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC9; Subtracted

ambient CH4 concentration from NOAA,15

which is oxidized in the system.

CO

0.019 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC9; Increased by

35% to represent 20% of the limit value.

N2O 0.005 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC

9

CO2

(fossil)

415.336 Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Table 58; Assume that waste has a biobased proportion of

71.2%.

CO2

(biogenic)

1,026.802 Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Section 2.4, Table 58; Assume that waste has a biobased

content of 71.2%.

Table 6: Waste as Fuel: Avoided Landfill Impact Assumptions, per tonne of waste.

i6 Waste as Fuel: Avoided Landfill


Waste Collection

5.75 liters diesel/

tonne waste

Average of high and low as documented by Larsen et al, 200916

.

Waste Transport to transfer station

or landfill

20.269 km Weighted average distance to nearest transfer station or landfill from city

centers based on known contributing municipalities

15 Dlugokencky, Ed (2018). National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL). Retrieved from

www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/.

16 Larsen et al. Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. July 2009. Waste Management &

Research. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26258094_Diesel_consumption_in_waste_collection_and_transport_and_its_environmental_significan

ce

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/




15/33


Waste Transport to landfill from

transfer station (small 3.5-16t

truck)

25.24 km Weighted average distance from transfer station to landfill via small 3.5-

16 tonne truck.

Waste Transport to landfill from

transfer station (40t truck)

43.136 km Weighted average distance from transfer station to landfill via 40 tonne

truck.

Landfill operations (Australian

average)

1 tonne Average Australian landfill operations from AusLCI database. Assumes

46.2% methane capture rate.

3.1.2 BUSINESS AS USUAL REFERENCE SYSTEM: WESTERN AUSTRALIA ELECTRICITY (BLACK

COAL) PRODUCTION

The ARENA method requires that the bioenergy system is compared to a business as usual

reference system, which represents a scenario where the specific bioenergy under study is not

produced. For Western Australia, this is the electricity (black coal) WA reference fuel. Ramboll

collected the data from the AusLCI database17. Table 7 details the inputs and outputs for 1 MWh

of energy generated by Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production.

Table 7: Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 MWh generated.

Inputs

Qty per MWh Unit Reference/Comments

Tap Water 2,230 liters AusLCI17

Rail transport 26.877 tkm AusLCI17

Truck transport 0.856375 tkm AusLCI17

Black coal 520 kg AusLCI17

Outputs

Qty per MWh Unit Reference/Comments

Electricity 1 MWh AusLCI17

Water to septic 1,190 liters AusLCI17

Coal ash to landfill 28.6 kg AusLCI17

Bottom ash 3.17 kg AusLCI17

Emissions to Air

CO2 976 kg AusLCI17

CH4 9.37 g AusLCI17

N2O 8.33 g AusLCI17

CO 115 g AusLCI17

NOx 0.00416 g AusLCI17

NMVOC 17.7 g AusLCI17

SOx 0.00385 g AusLCI17

NH3 0.291 g AusLCI17

17 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2011). The Australian Life Cycle Inventory (AusLCI) Database. Retrieved from




16/33

As 0.0183 g AusLCI17

Be 0.0118 g AusLCI17

B 1.13 g AusLCI17

Cd 0.0150 g AusLCI17

Cr 0.0497 g AusLCI17

Cr VI 0.00259 g AusLCI17

Co 0.0443 g AusLCI17

Cu 0.0598 g AusLCI17

C9H12 0.00187 g AusLCI17

F 38.2 g AusLCI17

HCl 212.2 g AusLCI17

Pb 0.0712 g AusLCI17

Mn 0.131 g AusLCI17

Hg 0.0276 g AusLCI17

Ni 0.0837 g AusLCI17

PM10 188 g AusLCI17

PM2.5 75.1 g AusLCI17

Polychlorinated dioxins and furans 3.15E-07 g AusLCI17

PAH 0.00575 g AusLCI17

Zn 0.124 g AusLCI17

Emissions to Water

As 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI17

Cd 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI17

Cr 4.8895E-04 g AusLCI17

Co 4.906361E-03 g AusLCI17

Cu 1.2645261E-02 g AusLCI17

Pb 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI17

Mn 8.430174E-03 g AusLCI17

Hg 3.37E-05 g AusLCI17

Ni 8.430174E-03 g AusLCI17

Zn 1.1914646E-02 g AusLCI17

Emissions to soil

As 5.874325E-02 g AusLCI17

Cd 7.0266462E-02 g AusLCI17

Cr 8.1683419E-02 g AusLCI17

Co 7.46349592E-01 g AusLCI17


17/33

Cu 4.23244769E-01 g AusLCI17

Pb 2.14810056E-01 g AusLCI17

Mn 6.589723431 g AusLCI17


Ni 2.741194296 g AusLCI17

Zn 4.184491073 g AusLCI17

3.2 Data sources and quality assessment

Ramboll selected the LCI data described previously according to the data quality criteria in

Section 2.2.3 for the WtE Plant. For the reference scenario, ARENA requires the use of the

electricity (black coal) WA reference fuel from the AusLCI database. Table 8 lists the WtE Plant

data sources, references and the associated data quality by precision, completeness and

representativeness.

Table 8: WtE Plant Data Sources and Quality Assessment

Data Type Data

Source(s)

Precision Completeness Representativeness (Time,

Technology, Geography)

Primary data Kwinana WtE

Project Co and

WtE plant

design team

Primary

Data

Relevant data is included as

much as possible from the water,

mass, and energy balances.

Projected NOP for current WtE

technology located in Kwinana,

Australia

Australian

secondary life

cycle data

AusLCI U Secondary

Data

Datasets include all relevant

flows for unit processes (U) and

apply no cutoff criteria18

2012 average technology for

Western Australia or Australia.

Other

secondary life

cycle data

ecoinvent V3.4

Cut-off U

Secondary

Data

Datasets include all relevant

flows for unit processes (U) and

the primary production of

materials is always allocated to

the primary user of the material

(cut-off)

2005-2012 average technology for

global, rest of world, or swiss

datasets. Swiss datasets are

mostly used for waste treatment.

Where available primary data from Kwinana WtE Project Co and the WtE plant design team was

used. Data gaps were filled using assumptions and secondary data from AusLCI and ecoinvent

V3.4 as detailed in Table 2-Table 6 following the cutoff criteria in Section 2.2.2.

3.3 Emission factors and their sources, conversion factors (yields)

In life cycle assessment, emission factors (i.e., characterization factors) and conversion factors

are used to quantify life cycle environmental impacts of a product or service. Ramboll used the

emission factors from the environmental impact categories required by ARENA to assess the

environmental impacts of the WtE Plant, listed in Table 1. For example, ARENA requires the

GWP100 method from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report model based on a 100-year timeframe.

The GWP100 method is used to determine the climate change impacts from GHG inventory

substances in the LCI. To do this, the GWP100 applies a GWP characterization factor to the LCI to

determine the kg of CO2e equivalence. Figure 4 provides an example that includes the GHG

inventory substances for CO2, CH4, and SF6 and their associated GWP characterization factors.

18 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2014, March 6). Requirements for the development of AusLCI Data sets. Retrieved from

http://www.auslci.com.au/Documents/AUSLCI_Requirements_30.pdf



18/33

Figure 4: Example of GWP Characterization Factors

Ramboll used conversion factors in the LCA to convert energy, mass, and distances into different

units. Table 9 lists the conversion factor values, units and their references.

Table 9: Conversion Factors

Conversion Factor Value Units Reference/Comments

NOP Municipal Waste

Energy Content Lower

Heating Value (LHV)

10.1 MJ/kg Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract –

Schedule 3. Report. Section 3.3. Page 42

Efficiency of furnace +

boiler

0.882 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part

B- EPC Proposal from Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD &

Water Balance Diagram. Overall Process Flow Diagram. MEB-001.

Energy conversion from

megajoules (MJ) to kilowatt-

hours (kWh)

3.6 MJ/kWh

Density of air at 20 deg C 1.204084759 kg/m3 Converted from 101325 N/m2, 287.058 J/(kg·K), and 293.15K

per 20 deg C

Density of natural gas at 20

deg C

0.728471279 kg/m3 Calculated from specific gravity and density of air at 20 deg C

Higher Heating Value (HHV)

natural gas

37.1 MJ/m3 Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract –

Schedule 3. Report. Section 2.7.

Density of diesel 832.5 kg/m3 https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-densities-specific-

volumes-d_166.html

Ambient CH4 concentration,

which is oxidized in the

system

1.86 ppm https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/#global

1.77105478 mg/Nm3 ppm x CH4 g/mol / 24.46 L (standard molar volume of ideal gas

at 25C)

Conversion from mg/Nm3 to

g/GJ

1.9 (mg/Nm3)/

(g/GJ)

Methane sink 1.040581831 g/GJ Calculated from Ambient CH4 concentration and (mg/Nm3)/(g/GJ)

conversion factor

3.4 Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact

Assessment)

Ramboll used the SimaPro 8.5 LCA Software to generate the LCA results. First, the LCA model

was created for the WtE Plant and Reference Scenarios. The model was built with the LCI from

Section 3.1 and the data sources from Section 3.2. Then the LCIA characterization factors from


19/33

Table 1 were combined in SimaPro to generate results. Finally, the LCIA results were exported to

Excel to finalize the results and conduct the sensitivity analysis. Minimal manipulation of the

results was required in Excel, but to finalize the results, Ramboll completed the following:

• Multiplied Water Scarcity impacts in cubic meters by 1000 to convert to liters

• Removed credits for aluminum and ferrous metals recycling

• Calculated the avoided landfill credits from the landfill LCIA results multiplied by the

tonnes waste per MWh conversion factor of 1.44697.

Ramboll conducted sensitivity analysis on the following assumptions of the LCA:

• Fuel consumption amount used in waste collection. We reference a study that shows a

range of 1.4 to 10.1 liters of diesel used to collect waste. We assumed an average of

5.75 liters in our baseline model. Section 4.4 shows how sensitive the results are to

this assumption.

• Ash from the combustion of waste is assumed to be reused as construction aggregate.

As an alternative scenario that is relevant, we also considered the impacts for landfilling

the ash. Section 4.5 shows how landfilling the Ash would impact the results.


20/33

4. SUMMARY OF LCA RESULTS

This section summarizes the life cycle assessment results of the WtE Plant and the BAU: Black

Coal Electricity Production. Results include the assessment of key contributing factors,

comparison to the reference scenario, and sensitivity analysis to identify specific process stages

and substances that drive the results.

4.1 WtE Plant

The WtE Plant was evaluated for its cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts for ten impact categories.

Table 10 lists the WtE impact results for each impact category for 1 MWh of electricity produced.

Table 10: WtE Plant Impact Assessment Results

Impact

Category Total

WtE Air

Emissions

WtE Input

Water and

Treatment

Urea Activated

Carbon Quicklime

Waste

Collection

&

Transport

Natural

Gas

Ash

Disposal

to Landfill

Avoided

Landfill

Impacts

Avoided

Waste

Transport

GWP (kg

CO2 eq)

-8.60+02 4.17E+02 1.27E-02 5.49E+00 1.18E+00 1.53E+01 2.85E+01 8.90E-02 2.33E+01 -1.30E+03 -4.89E+01

ADPF (kg oil

eq)

1.94E-01 0.00E+00 2.86E-03 2.23E+00 2.91E-01 1.69E+00 9.41E+00 5.00E-01 3.15E+00 -1.87E+00 -1.52E+01

PCOP (kg

C2H4 eq)

-2.93E-01 2.19E-03 2.42E-06 1.07E-03 3.20E-04 2.49E-03 5.22E-03 6.70E-06 1.54E-03 -2.96E-01 -9.18E-03

EP (kg PO4-

-- eq)

3.49E-01 4.30E-02 2.13E-05 4.55E-03 1.58E-03 3.22E-03 2.62E-02 1.28E-05 5.29E-01 -2.14E-01 -4.51E-02

AP (kg SO2

eq)

-5.98E-01 2.03E-01 5.45E-05 2.74E-02 6.90E-03 1.93E-02 1.30E-01 4.89E-05 6.00E-02 -8.35E-01 -2.09E-01

PM (kg

intake)

-5.03E-07 0.00E+00 1.30E-10 9.55E-08 1.01E-08 1.88E-08 5.07E-07 3.81E-12 4.76E-08 -4.64E-07 -7.18E-07

PM (Deaths) -3.42E-06 0.00E+00 4.80E-10 6.09E-07 5.92E-08 8.77E-08 3.34E-06 2.52E-11 2.85E-07 -3.08E-06 -4.73E-06

ODP (kg

CFC-11 eq)

-3.69E-07 0.00E+00 3.09E-09 7.98E-07 2.74E-08 8.75E-07 5.08E-06 2.15E-11 2.05E-07 -6.11E-07 -6.74E-06

LUC (kg C

deficit)

-7.43E+01 0.00E+00 3.54E-03 1.20E-01 2.41E-01 1.51E+00 1.07E-01 -1.28E-05 4.61E+00 2.85E-02 -8.09E+01

CWU (L H2O

eq)

8.50E+01 0.00E+00 2.28E+02 1.85E+02 1.00E+00 5.88E+00 4.01E+01 1.18E-01 9.49E+02 -3.13E+02 -1.01E+03

The goal of this LCA is to meet the requirements of ARENA, which are to show the overall

environmental impact profile, primarily for embodied fossil energy and GHG balance and to

provide a benchmark on fossil energy used, energy return on energy invested (EROEI), and GHG

performance. The results of the ADPF or fossil fuel energy used and GWP for 1 MWh of electricity

from the WtE Plant are as follows:

• ADPF of the WtE Plant without considering avoided landfill and waste collection is 17.3 kg

oil eq per 1 MWh of electricity produced. This is approximately 723 MJ19 or 0.201 MWh

per MWh of electricity or a EROEI of 4.98.

• GWP of the WtE Plant is -860 kg CO2 equivalent, which is a net benefit. Assuming

276,440 MWh annual production, the annual benefit is approximately 238,000 tonnes

CO2e avoided.




21/33

Figure 5 illustrates the key components of the life cycle of the WtE Plant that are contributing to

the 10 life cycle impact categories: inputs waste collection and transport, urea, and quicklime

and outputs from air emissions and ash disposal. The inputs from municipal waste are driving the

impacts from avoiding disposal in the landfill, but they also contribute to ODP, PM, and ADPF

from the waste collection and transport of municipal waste to the facility. Urea contributes to the

CWU, ODP, PM, and ADPF impacts. Quicklime contributes to LUC, ODP, and ADPF impacts. The

disposal of the boiler ash and APCr to landfill is the main contributor to the CWU, LUC, and EP

impacts.


The CWU impacts for the WtE plant are driven by the avoided landfill and waste transport, which

displace almost double the water impacts. The landfill requires a large amount of electricity generation from the grid, which relies on a large amount of water consumption. The waste transport requires a large amount of electricity from the grid to build and maintain the roads and the maintain truck and on diesel fuel. The electricity grid relies on a large amount of water consumption. Diesel fuel uses a lot of water at the refinery and crude oil extraction.

Without the avoided landfill and waste transport displacement, the ash to landfill is the main

driver, which is 67% of the water impacts. WtE Input Water and Treatment accounts for 16% of the water impacts and Urea accounts for 13% of the impacts.

Whereas the Coal Plant uses more water in the plant and at the coal mine, equal to 88% of the coal plants water impacts. Coal Transport is 4% and Sewage treatment is 6% of the impacts. The coal plant generates less waste coal ash (1% of the water impacts) The Coal plant disposes of less waste: 0.007 kg of coal ash whereas the WtE plant disposes of 0.16 kg of bottom ash. This is 1% vs 41% of the water impacts.

Without the avoided landfill and waste transport, the WtE plant has 26% higher water consumption.

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)




Natural Gas Boiler Ash & APCr Disposal to Landfill

Avoided Landfill Impacts Avoided Waste Transport


22/33

The LUC impacts for the WtE plant are driven by the avoided waste transport. The avoided waste

transport’s land use impacts are from the diesel fuel and road construction. The diesel fuel land

use is from the extraction and refining of crude oil.

Without the avoided waste transport displacement, the ash disposal to landfill and quicklime are

the main drivers which account for 70% and 23% of the land use impacts, respectively. Ash

disposal to landfill impacts are driven by land use from the landfill. Quicklime land use impacts

are driven by limestone production and paper production for packaging.

Whereas the Coal Plant’s LUC impacts come from the coal transport (61%), ash disposal (24%),

and water (27%). Coal transport is driven by the land use required by the rail transport. Ash

disposal is driven by the land use from diesel fuel and road construction. And water is driven by

the land use required for wood used for charcoal in the water treatment plant.

Without the avoided landfill and waste transport, the WtE plant’s LUC is 109% higher than the

Coal plant.

4.2 BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production

The BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production was evaluated for the same ten impact categories to

show the current system impacts that the WtE Plant is proposed to displace. Table 11 lists the

black coal impact results for each category for 1 MWh of electricity produced.

Table 11: BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production Impact Assessment Results

Impact Category Result Impact Category Result

GWP (kg CO2 eq) 993 PM (kg intake) 3.01E-06

ADPF (kg oil eq) 244 PM (Deaths) 2.00E-05

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq) 5.38E-03 ODP (kg CFC-11 eq) 1.03E-06

EP (kg PO4--- eq) 0.591 LUC (kg C deficit) 3.15

AP (kg SO2 eq) 2.15 CWU (L H2O eq) 1,120

To meet the goal of the study and the ARENA LCA requirements, the BAU: Black Coal Electricity

Production is also evaluated for ADPF or fossil fuel energy used and GWP for 1 MWh of electricity

generated. The results are as follows:

• ADPF of the BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production is 244 kg oil eq per 1 MWh of

electricity produced. This is over ten times higher than the WtE Plant (without the

avoided landfill and waste transport impacts). The 244 kg oil equates to approximately

10,20020 MJ or 2,800 MWh per MWh of electricity or a EROEI of 3.57E-4.

• GWP of the WtE Plant is -860 kg CO2 equivalent, which is approximately 187% less than

the black coal plant.

Figure 6 illustrates the key components of the life cycle of the black coal plant that are

contributing to the 10 life cycle impact categories: black coal extraction, transport, combustion,

ash disposal, water, and sewage treatment. The combustion emissions are driving the impacts to

PM, AP, EP, PCOP, and GWP. Coal transport is the main contributor to LUC, while coal extraction

is the primary contributor to ODP and ADPF, and secondarily to PCOP. Water use at the plant is

the main contributor to CWU.




23/33

Figure 6: Business as Usual Black Coal Plant Contribution Analysis

4.3 Comparison to the Business as Usual Reference Scenario

The ARENA method requires that the bioenergy system is compared to a business as usual

reference system, which represents a scenario where the specific bioenergy under study is not

produced. For Western Australia, this is the electricity (black coal) WA reference fuel. The life

cycle impacts of electricity production vary from WtE and Black Coal as follows:

• Fuel extraction/collection & transportation: Black coal is extracted through coal

mining, which has significant impacts on ODP, PCOP, and ADPF. Coal mining is assumed

to have a 30-year lifetime, so there are some LUC benefits assumed for the coal mine to

be rehabilitated into shrub land. The coal is then transported to the coal power plant via

rail, which contributes mostly to LUC. The waste input to the WtE Plant is collected from

residential, industrial, and commercial facilities, so it offsets the impacts of transporting

the waste to landfill and treating the waste at the landfill. This provides a significant

benefit to all impact categories. The waste is then transported to the WtE Plant by truck,

which impacts ODP, PM, and ADPF (from diesel fuel).

• Electricity Production: The coal plant’s main impacts for electricity production are from

combustion and water input and treatment impacts. Coal combustion contributes to the

impacts of PM, AP, EP, PCOP, and GWP. Water input and treatment contributes mainly to

the impacts of CWU and LUC (from the wood extraction to produce charcoal for water

treatment). The WtE plant’s main impacts for electricity production is from combustion

air emissions, water input and treatment, urea, and quicklime. The air emissions

contribute mainly to the impacts of AP, EP, and GWP. Water input and treatment

contributes mainly to CWU. Quicklime contributes mainly to ODP and ADPF and quicklime

contributes mainly to AP, ODP, and ADPF.

• Waste Disposal: Both the coal and WtE plants create fly ash, which need to be disposed

of in a landfill. The disposal of ash contributes mainly to LUC, EP, and PCOP for coal and

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Combustion Emissions Coal Extraction Water

Coal Transport Ash Disposal Sewage Treatment


24/33

to CWU, AP, and ADPF for WtE. The AusLCI data set models coal ash as disposed in a

sanitary landfill, while we used the AusLCI data set for incineration ash in a residual

landfill for the WtE boiler ash and APCr.

The LCA results in Figure 7 indicate that the WtE Plant electricity is preferable to the current

Western Australian grid electricity (Black Coal) for all impact categories and with more

pronounced benefits for LUC, PCOP, and GWP.


4.3.1 COMPARISON TO IFI MARGINAL GRID ELECTRICITY FACTOR

In addition to comparing to black coal per ARENA requirements, we also compare GWP results to

the International Financial Institution (IFI) GHG emission factor for marginal grid electricity in

Australia, which is calculated to be 716.6 kg CO2e/MWh. Figure 8 shows the result per annum.

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

WtE Black Coal


25/33

Figure 8: Kwinana WtE annual GWP result compared the Australian marginal grid electricity (IFI).

4.4 Sensitivity to Waste Collection Fuel Consumption

Several impact categories of the WtE plant results are sensitive to the amount of diesel fuel used

in waste collection, which is also one of the most uncertain quantities in the inventory. To

address this uncertainty, we calculated the WtE plant results with the range of fuel consumption

values presented in the referenced study from the Technical University of Denmark. The study

presents a range of fuel consumption values from a low of 1.4 liters per tonne of waste to a high

10.1 liters per tonne of waste. In our baseline results, we used an average of 5.75 liters per

tonne of waste. Figure 9 shows how the overall results vary using the low, baseline, and high

values. The most sensitive categories are ADPF at ±97%, ODP at ±91%, PM at ±42%, CWU at

±14%, and AP at ±13%. EP, GWP, PCOP, and LUC categories all vary less than 5%.

Figure 9: WtE LCA results for Low (1.4 liters/tonne), Baseline (5.75 liters/tonne), and High (10.1 liters/tonne)

diesel consumption used for waste collection prior to transport of the waste to the WtE facility.

-237

198

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200

Kwinana WtE

Australian marginal grid electricity (IFI)

GWP (kt CO2e/year)

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

High (10.1 l/t) Baseline (5.75 l/t) Low (1.4 l/t)


26/33

4.5 Alternative Scenario: WtE Bottom Ash Landfilled

While the bottom ash from waste combustion is assumed to be reused as construction aggregate,

our analysis also considered the impacts of the landfilling the ash. Figure 10 shows the effect of

landfilling the ash on the WtE life cycle. The WtE impacts would increase in several categories.

The largest increases occur in ODP, EP and ADPF while the rest of the categories also show

increases.

Figure 10: WtE LCA results for the Baseline scenario and scenario where Ash is disposed in a landfill

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Baseline Ash Disposal in Landfill


27/33

5. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

Based on the considered life cycles of this study, the WtE Plant electricity is preferable to the

current Western Australian black coal electricity generation for all impact categories, especially

LUC, PCOP, and GWP.

5.1 Study Limitations

This study was created based on projected design of the WtE Plant at NOP. While the design

conditions are guaranteed, the results of this study may not always reflect actual operating

conditions. For future work, the LCA results could be updated using actual annual operating

conditions to reevaluate the impacts.


28/33

6. FUTURE WORK

Kwinana WtE Project Co would like to use the results of this LCA to improve the WtE Plant project

going forward. From the LCA findings, the following improvements could be made to improve the

life cycle impacts of the WtE Plant:

• Recycle or Upcycle Boiler Ash. The project is already planning to divert the bottom

ash to concrete, while the remaining boiler ash will be disposed in a landfill. This disposal

has a significant impact on CWU and EP impacts. Similarly finding an alternative use for

the boiler ash will reduce these impacts.

• Improve Waste Collection and Transport. Waste collection has a significant impact

on PM, ODP, ADPF and other categories. As illustrated in the sensitivity analysis in

Section 4.4, optimizing truck routes, using fuel efficient vehicles or using alternative

fuel vehicles could significantly reduce these impacts.

• Improving WtE Plant Efficiency. Increasing the efficiency of the plant to require less

municipal waste per MWh of electricity would also reduce the waste collection impacts on

PM, ODP, and ADPF and the air emissions impacts on AP and GWP.

In addition, once the WtE plant is operational the LCA results could be updated to include actual

annual operating data to reevaluate the impacts.


29/33

7. CRITICAL REVIEW

To meet ARENA’s requirements for commercialization LCAs, a critical review was conducted. The

reviewer was selected based on his/her ability to meet at least one of the following requirements

from ARENA:

• have at least five years of professional experience in the field of LCA;

• have been involved in at least five peer-reviewed LCA studies; or

• be a Life Cycle Assessment Certified Practitioner (LCACP) – administered by ALCAS or the

American Centre for Life Cycle Assessment.

Table 12 lists the reviewer’s credentials.

Table 12: Reviewer’s Credentials

Reviewer’s Name: Anders Daamgard

Reviewer’s Affiliation: Technical University of Denmark

Reviewer’s Credentials: Anders has at least five years of professional experience in the field of LCA.

The Critical Review Report and Response to Comments are listed in Appendix 1.


30/33

APPENDIX 1

CRITICAL REVIEW REPORT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Technical University of Denmark

Department of

Environmental Engineering

Bygningstorvet

Building 115

2800 Kgs. Lyngby

Denmark

Tel +45 45 25 16 00

Dir. +45 45 25 16 12

Fax +45 45 93 28 50

[email protected]

www.env.dtu.dk

MEMO

To Rambøll Consulting Engineers

Reg. CRITICAL REVIEW OF "KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT - ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT”

From Anders Damgaard, DTU Environment

18 October 2018

ADAM

Content

Summary 1

The general aspects 2

Checklist 4 Summary This critical review of the LCA "KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT - ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT” regarding the environmental effects from the proposed Kwinana Waste-to-Energy plant, was carried out by Anders Damgaard, DTU Environment, after the international standard ISO 14044 and the standards set by ARENA as closely as possible.

The review was carried out in October 2018.

The overall finding of the review is that the study lives up to the ISO standards and guidelines for LCA.

There are minor areas where the reporting can be improved, but the reviewer does not find this will

change the overall findings. Most of the choices with regards to data taken for the modelling of the

WTE plant are conservative, which indicate that value-choices in the LCA have been cautious, and if

anything the results could favour the WtE more than indicated.

2

The general aspects The following covers general comments to the life cycle assessment.

General aspects Comments

The methods have been used in accordance with the international standard

Yes, to a high degree

The methods are scientifically and technically valid.

Yes, the standard has been followed, except where they have indicated they

follow ARENA guidelines.

Applied data is appropriate and reasonable

Generally the data applied are reasonable.

There is an error with regards to avoided landfill where data for part of the

modelling is missing.

The assessment report is transparent and consistent

Overall the report is transparent and consistent.

The documentation for the avoided landfill modelling (Table 6) is though not

clear, and I think incomplete. Only transport and collection distances are

included, it is missing the data for how the actual avoided landfill was

modelled. This has a high impact on the results and should be updated.

Additional comments:

Modelling of CWU and LUC are highly dependent on the quality of

the applied processes. To me it looks like there are data missing for

CWU and LUC is the avoided landfill modelling as it does not seem

realistic this process does not have an impact on this similar to the

ash landfill.

The cut-off criteria reporting of 95% (section 3.2.2) is not indicated if

this is an assumption, or to some degree calculated. It is a

reasonable assumption, but could be made clearer.

In the avoided landfill reporting it is not clear why there are two

transports from transfer station to landfill.

The sensitivity scenario 5.5 with using ash in in construction and

infrastructure is mislabelled, since the modelling only considers how

the results look if ash landfilling is missing. There would be both

drawbacks and benefits in using ash this way, which could pull the

results in both directions for different impact categories.

I could have wished for a sensitivity scenario investigating the

importance of the waste composition. In the modelling is assumed a

fossil carbon content of 29.8% (rest is biogenic carbon). If this

3

percentage changed both the direct emissions from the WTE would

change, as well as the avoided landfill impacts. That said as long as

the alternative energy source is black coal this will not change the

overall findings.

4

Checklist The following should be covered by the report

Aspects from ISO 14044 Comments

1 General aspects

1.1 the Lifecycle Assessment Commissioner, Practitioner of the Life Cycle Assessment

√

1.2 report Date √

1.3 statement that the assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14044

√

2 The goal of the assessment

2.1 the reasons for carrying out the study √

2.2 its intended applications √

2.3 the target audience √

2.4 statement as to whether the study is intended to support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public

√

3 Scope of the study

3.1 funktion, including

a) statement of performance characteristics, and

√

b) any omission of additional functions in comparisons

√

3.2 functional unit, including

a) consistency with goal and scope It follows the ARENA guidelines.

b) definition √

c) results of performance measurement √

3.3 system boundary, including

a) omission of life cycle stages, processes or data needs

√

b) quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs, and

The modelling of the avoided landfill is incomplete

5

c) assumptions about electricity production Following ARENA guidelines.

In ISO 14044 I would have expected a

temporal consideration that could be different

from hard coal

3.4 cut-off criteria for initial inclusions of inputs and output, including

a) description of cut-off criteria and assumptions

√

b) effect of selection on results √

c) inclusion of mass, energy and environmental criteria

√

4 Life cycle inventory analysis

4.1 data collection procedure √

4.2 qualitative and quantitative description of unit processes

√

4.3 sources of published literature √

4.4 calculation procedures √

4.5 validation of data, including

a) data quality assessment √

b) treatment of missing data √

4.6 sensitivity analysis for refining the system boundary

As mentioned above there could have been more done on this point. Considering the analysis, this is not considered to change the overall recommendations of the study and is therefore acceptable.

4.7 allocation principles and procedures, including

a) documentation and justification of allocation procedures

√

b) uniform application of allocation procedures

√

5 Life cycle impact assessment, where applicable

5.1 the LCIA procedures, calculations and results of the study

√

5.2 limitation of the LCIA results relative to the defined goal and scope of the LCA

√

6

5.3 the relationship of the LCIA results to the defined goal and scope, see 4.2

√

5.4 the relationship of the LCIA results to the LCI results, see 4.4

√

5.5 impact categories and category indicators considered, including a rationale for their selection, including assumptions and a reference to their source

√

5.6 description of or reference to all characterization models, characterization factors and methods used, including all assumptions and limitations

√

5.7 description of or reference to all value-choices used in relation to impact categories, characterization models, characterization factors, normalization, grouping, weighting and, elsewhere in the LCIA, a justification for their use and their influence on the results, conclusions and recommendations

Not relevant

5.8 a statement that the LCIA results are relative expressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins or risks.

and, when included as part of the LCA, also

√

a) a description and justification of the definition and description of any new impact categories, category indicators or characterization models used for the LCIA

Not applicable

b) a statement and justification of any grouping of the impact categories

Not applicable

c) any further procedures that transform the indicator results, and a justification of the selected, references, weighting factors, etc.

Not applicable

d) any analysis of the indicator results, for example sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or use of environmental data, including any implications for the results, and

√

7

e) data and indicator results reached prior to any normalization, grouping or weighting shall be made available together with the normalized, grouped or weighted results

Not applicable

6 Life cycle interpretation

6.1 the results √

6.2 assumptions and limitations associated with the interpretation of results, both methodology and data related

√

6.3 data quality assessment

6.4 full transparency in terms of value-choices, rationales and expert judgements

√

7 Critical review, where applicable

7.1 name and affiliation of reviewers √ (only one reviewer and not a review panel

as in ISO 14044)

7.2 critical review reports √

7.3 responses to recommendations Comes later

Intended for

Kwinana WTE Project Co Kwinana Beach, Australia

Date

October 2018

KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Ramboll 1560 Broadway Suite 1905 Denver, CO 80202 USA T +1 303 382 5460 F +1 303 382 5499 www.ramboll.com

KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PROJECT ARENA LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Project name Kwinana Waste to Energy Project Project no. 1100021970-002 LCA Commissioner Kwinana WtE Project Co Version 1 Date October 5, 2018 Prepared by Ramboll LCA Practitioners Jim Mellentine, Ashley Kreuder


1/25

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 3 2. Introduction 5 3. Goal and Scope 6 3.1 Goal of Study 6 3.2 Scope of Study 6 3.2.1 System Boundary, Functional unit, reference flows, AND reference

system 6 3.2.2 Cutoff Criteria 7 3.2.3 Data Quality Criteria 7 3.2.4 Impact Categories 7 4. LCA Approach 9 4.1 Inventory of Inputs and Outputs (Life Cycle Inventory) 9 4.1.1 Kwinana Waste to Energy plant Electricity Production 9 4.1.2 Business as usual Reference system: Western Australia electricity

(black coal) production 11 4.2 Data sources and quality assessment 13 4.3 Emission factors and their sources, conversion factors (yields) 14 4.4 Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact

Assessment) 15 5. Summary of LCA Results 17 5.1 WtE Plant 17 5.2 BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production 18 5.3 Comparison to the Business as Usual Reference Scenario 18 6. Discussion and Interpretation 21 6.1 Study Limitations 21 7. Future Work 22 8. Critical Review 23

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Characterization Methods. 8 Table 2: WTE Plant Electricity Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 line per hour and per year, assuming 8,000 hrs/yr of operation 9


2/25

Table 3: Waste as Fuel: Waste collection and transport to WtE facility, per tonne waste. 10 Table 4: Expected Waste Composition and Bio/Fossil Ratio. 10 Table 5: WTE Plant Air Emissions Output for 1 kWh generated. 11 Table 6: Waste as Fuel: Avoided Landfill Impact Assumptions, per tonne of waste. 11 Table 7: Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 MWh generated. 12 Table 8: WtE Plant Data Sources and Quality Assessment 14 Table 9: Conversion Factors 15 Table 10: Reviewer’s Credentials 23

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: WtE Plant versus Western Australia Black Coal 3 Figure 2: WtE Plant Contribution Analysis 4 Figure 3: Example of GWP Characterization Factors 15 Figure 4: WtE Plant Contribution Analysis 17 Figure 5: Business as Usual Black Coal Plant Contribution Analysis 18 Figure 6: WtE Plant versus Western Australia Black Coal 19


3/25

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Kwinana WTE Project Co is commissioned a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of their Kwinana Waste to Energy plant (WtE Plant) to meet funding requirements of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). The WtE Plant is located in Kwinana, Australia and is estimated to generate 138,000 MWh of electricity annually from 25,000 tons per hour of municipal solid waste. Currently, the Western Australian grid is supplied by black coal. The objective of the LCA study is to compare the cradle to grave impacts of 1 MWh of electricity supplied to the Western Australian grid from WtE Plant electricity production versus the current Western Australia electricity (black coal) production. The WtE Plant impacts include collection and transportation of the municipal solid waste as well as the displacement of municipal solid waste to landfill per the ARENA requirements. The LCA results in Figure 1 indicate that the WtE Plant electricity is preferable to the current Western Australian grid electricity for the impact categories of Particulate Matter (PM), Acidification Potential (AP), Photochemical ozone creation potential (PCOP), Fossil Energy Abiotic Depletion Potential Fossil Fuels (ADPF), and Global Warming Potential (GWP). However, the black coal electricity production is preferable for Consumptive Water Use (CWU), Land Use Change (LUC), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), and Eutrophication Potential (EP).


Figure 2 illustrates the main drivers of the WtE Plant impacts. The disposal of the bottom ash to landfill is the main contributor to the CWU, LUC, and EP impacts. The main contributor to ODP is the Waste Collection and Transport of municipal waste to the facility.

-100.0% -50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Western Australia Black Coal WtE Plant

Commented [AD1]: kg

Commented [JM2R1]: updated


4/25


From these results, Kwinana WTE Project Co is considering the following improvements to the WtE Plant project going forward:

• Recycle or Upcycle Bottom Ash. Landfilling the bottom ash has a significant impact on CWU, LUC, and EP impacts. As illustrated in the scenario analysis in Section 5.5, recycling or upcycling the bottom ash in concrete could reduce these impacts.

• Improve Waste Collection and Transport. Waste collection has a significant impact on PM, ODP and other categories. As illustrated in the sensitivity analysis in Section 5.4, optimizing truck routes, using fuel efficient vehicles or using alternative fuel vehicles could significantly reduce these impacts.

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)




Natural Gas Ash Disposal to Landfill

Avoided Landfill Impacts


5/25

2. INTRODUCTION

Kwinana WTE Project Co is applying for funding through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the Kwinana Waste to Energy plant (WtE Plant). ARENA requires an LCA study be undertaken for all bioenergy and biofuel requirements. The WtE plant is rated at Technology Readiness Level 9+, so a commercialization LCA is required. Ramboll conducted the LCA study according to ARENA1 requirements and the International Standards Organization (ISO) standards ISO 14040 – Life cycle Assessment – Principles and framework and ISO 14044 – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines (ISO series 14040/14044). As outlined in the ISO series 14040/14044, an LCA consists of four phases:

1. Goal and scope definition: define the objectives and associated study framework and boundaries;

2. Life cycle inventory (LCI): create an inventory of the mass and energy inputs and outputs from processes associated with the product system processes (data collection phase)

3. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA): evaluation of the relative environmental significance (e.g., global warming potential (GWP) associated with the inputs and outputs; and,

4. Interpretation: summary of the conclusions in relation to the objectives of the study.

1 Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). (2016, October). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bioenergy Products and Projects: Method and guidance for undertaking life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioenergy products and project. Retrieved from https://arena.gov.au/assets/2017/05/AU21285-ARENA-LCA-Guidelines-12-1.pdf


6/25

3. GOAL AND SCOPE

In LCA, the goal and scope define the objectives and associated study framework and boundaries of the study.

3.1 Goal of Study The goal of this LCA is to meet the requirements of ARENA and provide verified environmental performance data to investors. The primary audience for the study will be ARENA and project investors. This study does not support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.

3.2 Scope of Study The scope of the study defines the system boundary and specific products to be studied, which then determines data collection and analysis needs. In addition, the scope establishes which impact categories will be evaluated, which allocation procedures will be applied, and what data will be required.

3.2.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARY, FUNCTIONAL UNIT, REFERENCE FLOWS, AND REFERENCE SYSTEM The objective of this study is to compare the cradle to grave impacts of the WtE plant electricity production to Western Australia electricity (black coal) production business as usual reference system (BAU: Black Coal electricity production). The WtE Plant is located in Kwinana, Australia and is estimated to generate 138,000 MWh of electricity annually from 25,000 tons per hour of municipal solid waste. Following the ARENA requirements, the system boundary was expanded to include the impacts associated with the handling and processing of the municipal solid waste and the avoided impacts associated with the landfill impacts (e.g., avoided methane emissions and carbon storage). Recycling of ferrous metals and aluminum from the bottom ash were considered to be outside the system boundary. Given this system expansion, the system boundary includes all relevant unit processes and allocation assumptions and procedures are not relevant. Sensitivity analyses associated with the inclusion of avoided landfill impacts and exclusion of credits from the recycling of ferrous metals and aluminum from the bottom ash are included in Section 5.1. The functional unit of the study is the production of 1 MWh of electricity supplied to the Western Australian grid. The MWh of electricity functional unit is represented by the input and output reference flows described in more detail in Section 4.1. The study excludes the embodied impacts of capital equipment and infrastructure, which meets the following requirements from ARENA:

• The production systems estimated to have an economic life of 10 years or greater, and • The production systems do not require establishment of significant supporting physical

infrastructure.

Commented [AD3]: kg

Commented [JM4R3]: Updated


7/25

Other material and energy flows were evaluated for their inclusion or exclusion according to the decision criteria in Section 3.2.2.

3.2.2 CUTOFF CRITERIA Cutoff criteria are used to determine the unit processes or product systems to be excluded from the study. Exclusions are typically set by amount of material or energy flows, or the level of environmental significance associated with unit processes. The ARENA method requires that the cutoff criteria include:

• a cutoff for individual flows by at 1% and • a cutoff for cumulative contribution of the excluded processes of less than 5%

The WtE Plant LCI includes 95% of processes by mass, 95% of processes by energy, and 95% of GWP. The WtE Plant LCA accounted for all known inputs and outputs (i.e., no known inventory items were omitted due to the cut-off criteria). For BAU: Black Coal electricity production, data was used as-is with no cut-off consideration.

3.2.3 DATA QUALITY CRITERIA Data requirements provide guidelines for data quality in the life cycle assessment and are important to ensure data quality is consistently tracked and measured throughout the analysis. Data quality metrics include precision, completeness, and representativeness, as follows:

• Precision- describes the variability of the inventory data. This study applies primary data for the WtE Plant mass and energy inputs and distribution tonne-kilometers and associated modes. We apply secondary data from external databases for life cycle inventory values associated with embodied emissions of upstream material production and acquisition and distribution modes.

• Completeness- describes the usage of the available data in existence to describe the scope of the LCA. We worked extensively with the WtE design team to obtain a comprehensive set of data associated with the WtE Plant.

• Representativeness- describes the ability of the data to reflect the system in question. We measure representativeness with the time, technology, and geographic coverage of the data. Time coverage describes the age of the inventory data and the period of time over which data is collected. The WtE plant provided data for the Normal Operating Point (NOP). We obtained secondary data for the production of input materials such as natural gas from the Australian LCI (AusLCI) database2 and ecoinvent V3.43 database. These datasets are from mostly from 2012 and are based on Australian or Global data, as detailed in Section 4.2

3.2.4 IMPACT CATEGORIES Life cycle assessment uses environmental impact categories to relate the resource consumption and emissions to air, water, and terrestrial environments. In this study, we use the life cycle assessment impact assessment (LCIA) indicators required by ARENA to assess the environmental

2 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2011). The Australian Life Cycle Inventory (AusLCI) Database. Retrieved from http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/Datasets

3 Ecoinvent. (2017, October 4). Fourth update of ecoinvent version 3 (ecoinvent V3.4). Database. https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/older-versions/ecoinvent-34/ecoinvent-34.html

Commented [AD5]: is this measured or assumed?


Commented [AD7]: Would point to section 4 for data


Commented [AD9]: Would point to section 4 for data






8/25

impacts of the WtE Plant, listed in Table 1. LCIA results are relative expressions and do not predict actual impacts or actual damages, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins, or risks.

Table 1: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Characterization Methods.

LCIA Indicator LCIA Indicator Units Characterization Model

GWP100 (GWP) kg CO2 equivalents (kg CO2e) IPCC 5th Assessment Report model based on 100-year timeframe

Fossil energy (abiotic depletion fossil fuels) (ADPF)

kg oil equivalent (kg oil eq) All fossil energy carriers based on

relative scarcity (Goedkoop, et al., 2009)

Photochemical ozone creation potential (PCOP)

kg of ethene equivalent (kg C2H4 eq) CML 2016

Eutrophication (EP) kg phosphate equivalent (kg PO4 eq) CML 2016

Acidification (AP) kg sulphur dioxide

equivalent (kg SO2 eq)

CML 2016

Particulate Matter (PM) particulate matter less

than 2.5 microns (kg intake or deaths)

Recommended factors from Pelton Workshop, January 2016 published by UNEP/SETAC.

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)

kg CFC 11 equivalent (kg CFC-11 eq) CML 2016

Land Use (LUC) kg soil organic matter

(SOM) (kg C/m2/a deficit)

ILCD

Consumptive Water Use (CWU)

L H2O eq. global

average water scarcity (L H2O eq)

Method of Ridoutt & Pfster, (2010), with Water stress indices of Pfster et al. (2009)

Commented [JM12R11]: Added detailed breakdown of drivers for LUC and CWU to results section to illuminate the reason for the differences and reflecting the updated results.

Commented [AD11]: Are you sure your Ecoinvent processes support the LUC and CWU data. Or could this be the reason for differences?


9/25

4. LCA APPROACH

Ramboll conducted this study according to the standards established by the ISO series 14040/14044 as well as the requirements define by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for LCA of bioenergy products and projects. This section details the life cycle assessment approach including:

1. Inventory of inputs and outputs (Life Cycle Inventory), 2. Data sources and quality assessment, 3. Emission factor and their sources, conversion factors (yields), and 4. Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)

4.1 Inventory of Inputs and Outputs (Life Cycle Inventory) This section describes the cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory (LCI) of the Kwinana WtE plant and the BAU: Black Coal electricity production. Primary design data were collected from project documentation. Waste collection and transport data were estimated based on the locations of the waste sources and literature.

4.1.1 KWINANA WASTE TO ENERGY PLANT ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION WtE plant engineers provided the process diagrams, water, energy, and mass balances for the plant NOP. Ramboll used these NOP diagrams to model the LCI inputs and outputs per hour and per year based on 8,000 operating hours per year. Table 2 details the inputs and outputs for 1 kWh of energy generated by the WTE plant. The air emissions were calculated from the Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Section 2.74 and expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC.5 Table 3 summarizes the inputs, outputs and assumptions for the waste collection and transport to WtE facility, per tonne waste. Table 4 summarizes the expected composition of the input waste. Table 5 summarizes the air emissions outputs and assumptions. Table 6 summarizes the inputs, outputs and assumptions for the avoided landfill impacts. Based on the expected inputs and outputs, the overall energy efficiency of the plant is calculated to be 24.6%.

Table 2: WTE Plant Electricity Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 line per hour and per year, assuming 8,000 hrs/yr of operation

Inputs Qty per hour Qty per year Unit Reference/Comments

i1 Industrial Water 7,483.333 59,866,666.667 liters From water balance6

i2 Potable Water 291.667 2,333,333.333 liters From water balance6

i3 Ammonia/urea 40% solution

77.000 616,000.000 kg From PFD7

4 Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract – Schedule 3. Report. Section 2.7 5 National Environmental Research Institute (NERI). (2010). Emissions from Decentralised CHP Plants 2007-Energinet.DK Environmental Project No. 07/1882. Project Report 5- Emission factors and emissions inventory for decentralized CHP production. Retrieved from http://www.dmu.dk/pub/FR786.pdf.

6 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part B- EPC Proposal From Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD & Water Balance Diagram. Water Balance. MEB-005.

7 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part B- EPC Proposal From Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD & Water Balance Diagram. Overall Process Flow Diagram. MEB-001.

http://www.dmu.dk/pub/FR786.pdf


10/25

Inputs i4 Activated carbon 6.000 48,000.000 kg From PFD7

i5 Quick lime (86% pure)

255.000 2,040,000.000 kg From PFD.7 Assume that 14% is inert limestone, sand, and clay.

i6 Waste as fuel 25,000.000 200,000,000.000 kg From PFD7; see Table 3 for associated waste collection and transport, Table 4 for waste composition, and Table 6 for avoided landfill impact assumptions

i7 Support fuel (natural gas)

7.325 58,599.722 kg 276,440 MWh/year8; Composition per Kwinana WtE

- EPC Contract - Schedule 34 and calculated density of natural gas from specific gravity relative to air.

Outputs Qty per hour Qty per year Unit Reference/Comments

o1 Electricity 17,277.500 138,220,000.000 kWh Contractually required production in first year

o2 Water to septic 291.667 2,333,333.333 liters The remaining water balance leaves system through evaporation or in slag and model assumes there are no impacts

o3 Ferrous metal 590.000 4,720,000.000 kg Ferrous metal is recycled at end of life

o4 Aluminum 88.000 704,000.000 kg Aluminum is recycled at end of life

o5 Bottom ash, wet, to landfill

2,331.000 18,648,000.000 kg From PFD.7 Subtracted aluminum and ferrous material from Bottom Ash input to screen. Assumes mass is 100% ash.

o6 Boiler ash to landfill

353.000 2,824,000.000 kg From PFD7

o7 Air emissions See Table 5.

Table 3: Waste as Fuel: Waste collection and transport to WtE facility, per tonne waste.

i6 Waste as Fuel: Waste Collection and Transport


Waste Collection 5.75 liters diesel/ tonne waste

Average of high and low as documented by Larsen et al, 20099.

Waste Transport to WtE facility 34.876 km Weighted average distance based on known contributing municipalities

Table 4: Expected Waste Composition and Bio/Fossil Ratio.


% Reference/Comments

C 55.18% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

H 7.56% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

O 35.03% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

N 1.4% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

8 The O&M contractor guarantee the following: The Facility shall generate no less than [276,440] MWhrs of electricity [for export and sale] in each Operational Year.

9 Larsen et al. Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. July 2009. Waste Management & Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26258094_Diesel_consumption_in_waste_collection_and_transport_and_its_environmental_significance




11/25


S 0.21% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

Cl 0.62% Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Table 54

Table 5: WTE Plant Air Emissions Output for 1 kWh generated.

o7 Air Emissions

g per kWh Reference/Comments

SO2 0.035 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5

NOx 0.320 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5

UHC 0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5

NMVOC 0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5

CH4

-0.002 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5; Subtracted

ambient CH4 concentration from NOAA,10 which is oxidized in the system.

CO

0.019 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5; Increased by 35% to represent 20% of the limit value.

N2O 0.005 Expected air emissions from typical modern WTE plants versus EU limits, 2010/75/EC5

CO2 (fossil)

235.482 Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Table 54; Assume that waste has a biobased content of 71.2%.

CO2 (biogenic)

582.164 Kwinana WtE - EPC Contract - Schedule 3, Section 2.4, Table 54; Assume that waste has a biobased content of 71.2%.

Table 6: Waste as Fuel: Avoided Landfill Impact Assumptions, per tonne of waste.



Waste Collection

5.75 liters diesel/

tonne waste Average of high and low as documented by Larsen et al, 200911.

Waste Transport to transfer station or landfill

20.269 km Weighted average distance to nearest transfer station or landfill from city centers based on known contributing municipalities

Waste Transport to landfill from transfer station (small 3.5-16t truck)

25.24 km Weighted average distance from transfer station to landfill via small 3.5-16 tonne truck.

Waste Transport to landfill from transfer station (40t truck)

43.136 km Weighted average distance from transfer station to landfill via 40 tonne truck.

4.1.2 BUSINESS AS USUAL REFERENCE SYSTEM: WESTERN AUSTRALIA ELECTRICITY (BLACK COAL) PRODUCTION The ARENA method requires that the bioenergy system is compared to a business as usual reference system, which represents a scenario where the specific bioenergy under study is not

10 Dlugokencky, Ed (2018). National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL). Retrieved from www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/.

11 Larsen et al. Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. July 2009. Waste Management & Research. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26258094_Diesel_consumption_in_waste_collection_and_transport_and_its_environmental_significance

Commented [AD13]: No actual avoided landfill?

Commented [JM14R13]: Added to table

Commented [AD15]: Why both small and large scale trucks from transfer station to landfill. Not really clear how you do this.

Commented [JM16R15]: It’s a combination of information provided and assumptions. I added a description above Table 2.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/




12/25

produced. For Western Australia, this is the electricity (black coal) WA reference fuel. Ramboll collected the data from the AusLCI database12. Table 7 details the inputs and outputs for 1 MWh of energy generated by Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production.

Table 7: Western Australia Electricity (Black Coal) Production Inputs and Outputs for 1 MWh generated.

Inputs Qty per MWh Unit Reference/Comments

Tap Water 2,230 liters AusLCI12

Rail transport 26.877 tkm AusLCI12

Truck transport 0.856375 tkm AusLCI12

Black coal 520 kg AusLCI12

Outputs Qty per MWh Unit Reference/Comments

Electricity 1 MWh AusLCI12

Water to septic 1,190 liters AusLCI12

Coal ash to landfill 28.6 kg AusLCI12

Bottom ash 3.17 kg AusLCI12

Emissions to Air CO2 976 kg AusLCI12

CH4 9.37 g AusLCI12

N2O 8.33 g AusLCI12

CO 115 g AusLCI12

NOx 0.00416 g AusLCI12

NMVOC 17.7 g AusLCI12

SOx 0.00385 g AusLCI12

NH3 0.291 g AusLCI12

As 0.0183 g AusLCI12

Be 0.0118 g AusLCI12

B 1.13 g AusLCI12

Cd 0.0150 g AusLCI12

Cr 0.0497 g AusLCI12

Cr VI 0.00259 g AusLCI12

Co 0.0443 g AusLCI12

Cu 0.0598 g AusLCI12

C9H12 0.00187 g AusLCI12

12 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2011). The Australian Life Cycle Inventory (AusLCI) Database. Retrieved from http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/Datasets



13/25

F 38.2 g AusLCI12

HCl 212.2 g AusLCI12

Pb 0.0712 g AusLCI12

Mn 0.131 g AusLCI12

Hg 0.0276 g AusLCI12

Ni 0.0837 g AusLCI12

PM10 188 g AusLCI12

PM2.5 75.1 g AusLCI12

Polychlorinated dioxins and furans 3.15E-07 g AusLCI12

PAH 0.00575 g AusLCI12

Zn 0.124 g AusLCI12

Emissions to Water As 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI12

Cd 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI12

Cr 4.8895E-04 g AusLCI12

Co 4.906361E-03 g AusLCI12

Cu 1.2645261E-02 g AusLCI12

Pb 2.81006E-04 g AusLCI12

Mn 8.430174E-03 g AusLCI12


Ni 8.430174E-03 g AusLCI12

Zn 1.1914646E-02 g AusLCI12

Emissions to soil As 5.874325E-02 g AusLCI12

Cd 7.0266462E-02 g AusLCI12

Cr 8.1683419E-02 g AusLCI12

Co 7.46349592E-01 g AusLCI12

Cu 4.23244769E-01 g AusLCI12

Pb 2.14810056E-01 g AusLCI12

Mn 6.589723431 g AusLCI12


Ni 2.741194296 g AusLCI12

Zn 4.184491073 g AusLCI12

4.2 Data sources and quality assessment Ramboll selected the LCI data described previously according to the data quality criteria in Section 3.2.3 for the WtE Plant. For the reference scenario, ARENA requires the use of the


14/25

electricity (black coal) WA reference fuel from the AusLCI database. Table 8 lists the WtE Plant data sources, references and the associated data quality by precision, completeness and representativeness.

Table 8: WtE Plant Data Sources and Quality Assessment

Data Type Data Source(s) Precision Completeness Representativeness (Time, Technology, Geography)

Primary data Kwinana WtE Project Co and WtE plant design team

Primary Data

Relevant data is included as much as possible from the water, mass, and energy balances.

Projected NOP for current WtE technology located in Kwinana, Australia

Australian secondary life cycle data

AusLCI U Secondary Data

Datasets include all relevant flows for unit processes (U) and apply no cutoff criteria13

2012 average technology for Western Australia or Australia.

Other secondary life cycle data

ecoinvent V3.4 Cut-off U

Secondary Data

Datasets include all relevant flows for unit processes (U) and the primary production of materials is always allocated to the primary user of the material (cut-off)

2005-2012 average technology for global, rest of world, or swiss datasets. Swiss datasets are mostly used for waste treatment.

Where available primary data from Kwinana WtE Project Co and the WtE plant design team was used. Data gaps were filled using assumptions and secondary data from AusLCI and ecoinvent V3.4 as detailed in Table 2-Table 6 following the decision criteria in Section 3.2.2.

4.3 Emission factors and their sources, conversion factors (yields) In life cycle assessment, emission factors (i.e., characterization factors) and conversion factors are used to quantify life cycle environmental impacts of a product or service. Ramboll used the emission factors from the environmental impact categories required by ARENA to assess the environmental impacts of the WtE Plant, listed in Table 1. For example, ARENA requires the GWP100 method from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report model based on a 100-year timeframe. The GWP100 method is used to determine the climate change impacts from GHG inventory substances in the LCI. To do this, the GWP100 applies a GWP characterization factor to the LCI to determine the kg of CO2e equivalence. Figure 3 provides an example that includes the GHG inventory substances for CO2, CH4, and SF6 and their associated GWP characterization factors.

13 Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). (2014, March 6). Requirements for the development of AusLCI Data sets. Retrieved from http://www.auslci.com.au/Documents/AUSLCI_Requirements_30.pdf



15/25

Figure 3: Example of GWP Characterization Factors

Ramboll used conversion factors in the LCA to convert energy, mass, and distances into different units. Table 9 lists the conversion factor values, units and their references.

Table 9: Conversion Factors

Conversion Factor Value Units Reference/Comments

NOP Municipal Waste Energy Content Lower Heating Value (LHV)

10.1 MJ/kg Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract – Schedule 3. Report. Section 3.3. Page 42

Efficiency of furnace + boiler

0.882 Acciona. (2018, May 5). Kwinana Waste-to-Energy Project. Part B- EPC Proposal From Acciona- Technical. 20. Overall PFD & Water Balance Diagram. Overall Process Flow Diagram. MEB-001.

Energy conversion from megajoules (MJ) to kilowatt-hours (kWh)

3.6 MJ/kWh

Density of air at 20 deg C 1.204084759 kg/m3 Converted from 101325 N/m2, 287.058 J/(kg·K), and 293.15K per 20 deg C

Density of natural gas at 20 deg C

0.728471279 kg/m3 Calculated from specific gravity and density of air at 20 deg C

Higher Heating Value (HHV) natural gas

37.1 MJ/m3 Ashurst. (2018, August 16). Kwinana WtE – EPC Contract – Schedule 3. Report. Section 2.7.

Density of diesel 832.5 kg/m3 https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-densities-specific-volumes-d_166.html

Ambient CH4 concentration, which is oxidized in the system

1.86 ppm https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/#global

1.77105478 mg/Nm3 ppm x CH4 g/mol / 24.46 L (standard molar volume of ideal gas at 25C)

Conversion from mg/Nm3 to g/GJ

1.9 (mg/Nm3)/(g/GJ)

Methane sink 1.040581831 g/GJ Calculated from Ambient CH4 concentration and (mg/Nm3)/(g/GJ) conversion factor

4.4 Documentation of assumptions and calculations (Life Cycle Impact Assessment) Ramboll used the SimaPro 8.5 LCA Software to generate the LCA results. First, the LCA model was created for the WtE Plant and Reference Scenarios. The model was built with the LCI from Section 4.1 and the data sources from Section 4.2. Then the LCIA characterization factors from Table 1 were combined in SimaPro to generate results. Finally, the LCIA results were exported to Excel to finalize the results and conduct the sensitivity analysis. Minimal manipulation of the results was required in Excel, but to finalize the results, Ramboll completed the following:

• Multiplied Water Scarcity impacts in cubic meters by 1000 to convert to liters • Removed credits for aluminum and ferrous metals recycling • Calculated the avoided landfill credits from the landfill LCIA results multiplied by the

tonnes waste per MWh conversion factor of 1.44697. Ramboll conducted sensitivity analysis on the following system boundary assumptions of the LCA:


16/25

• Fuel consumption amount used in waste collection. We reference a study that shows a range of 1.4 to 10.1 liters of diesel used to collect waste. We assumed an average of 5.75 liters in our baseline model. Section 5.4 shows how sensitive the results are to this assumption.

• Ash from the combustion of waste is assumed to go to landfill. However, Kwinana WtE Project Co is investigating alternative uses that would divert this material from the landfill. Section 5.5 shows how diverting the ash from landfill would further decrease impacts.


17/25

5. SUMMARY OF LCA RESULTS

This section summarizes the life cycle assessment results of the WtE Plant and the BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production. Results include the assessment of key contributing factors, comparison to the reference scenario, and sensitivity analysis to identify specific process stages and substances that drive the results.

5.1 WtE Plant Figure 4 illustrates the key components of the life cycle of the WtE Plant several key components: inputs from municipal waste, urea, and quicklime and outputs from bottom ash. The inputs from municipal waste are driving the positive impacts from avoiding disposal in the landfill, but they are also contributing negatively to ODP, PM, and ADPF from the waste collection and transport of municipal waste to the facility. Urea is contributing negatively to the CWU, ODP, PM, and ADPF. Quicklime is contributing negatively to LUC, ODP, and ADPF. The disposal of the bottom ash to landfill is the main contributor to the CWU, LUC, and EP impacts.


Table 10 lists the WtE impact results for each category for 1 MWh of electricity produced.

Table 10: WtE Plant Impact Assessment Results


GWP (kg CO2 eq) -955 PM (kg intake) 2.89E-07

ADPF (kg oil eq) 20.3 PM (Deaths) 1.75E-06

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq) -0.281 ODP (kg CFC-11 eq) 6.69E-06


AP (kg SO2 eq) -0.295 CWU (L H2O eq) 2,570

-100% -50% 0% 50% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)CWU (L H2O eq)




Natural Gas Ash Disposal to Landfill

Avoided Landfill Impacts

Commented [AD17]: I suggest you make this bigger so you can see the axis title for each line



18/25

5.2 BAU: Black Coal Electricity Production Figure 5 illustrates the key components of the life cycle of the black coal plant several key components: black coal extraction, transport, combustion, ash disposal, water, and sewage treatment. The combustion emissions are driving the impacts to PM, AP, EP, PCOP, and GWP. Coal transport is the main contributor to LUC, while coal extraction is the primary contributor to ODP and ADPF, and secondarily to PCOP. Water use at the plant is the main contributor to CWU.

Figure 5: Business as Usual Black Coal Plant Contribution Analysis

Table 11 lists the black coal impact results for each category for 1 MWh of electricity produced.

Table 11: Black Coal Impact Assessment Results


GWP (kg CO2 eq) 993 PM (kg intake) 3.01E-06

ADPF (kg oil eq) 244 PM (Deaths) 2.00E-05

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq) 5.38E-03 ODP (kg CFC-11 eq) 1.03E-06


AP (kg SO2 eq) 2.15 CWU (L H2O eq) 1,120

5.3 Comparison to the Business as Usual Reference Scenario The LCA results in Figure 6 indicate that the WtE Plant electricity is preferable to the current Western Australian grid electricity for several evaluated impact categories of Particulate Matter (PM), Acidification Potential (AP), Photochemical ozone creation potential (PCOP), Fossil Energy Abiotic Depletion Potential Fossil Fuels (ADPF), and Global Warming Potential (GWP). However,

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Combustion Emissions Coal Extraction Water

Coal Transport Ash Disposal Sewage Treatment


19/25

the black coal electricity production is preferable for Consumptive Water Use (CWU), Land Use Change (LUC), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), and Eutrophication Potential (EP).


5.4 Sensitivity to Waste Collection Fuel Consumption Several impact categories of the WtE plant results are sensitive to the amount of diesel fuel used in waste collection, which is also one of the most uncertain quantities in the inventory. To address this uncertainty, we calculated the WtE plant results with the range of fuel consumption values presented in the referenced study from the Technical University of Denmark. The study presents a range of fuel consumption values from a low of 1.4 liters per tonne of waste to a high 10.1 liters per tonne of waste. In our baseline results, we used an average of 5.75 liters per tonne of waste. Figure 7 shows how the overall results vary using the low, baseline, and high values. The most sensitive categories are PM (Deaths) at ±57%, PM (kg intake) at ±55%, ODP at ±35%, ADPF at ±24% and AP at ±23%. GWP, PCOP, EP, LUC, and CWU categories all vary less than 2%.

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Black Coal WtE


20/25

Figure 7: WtE LCA results for Low (1.4 liters/tonne), Baseline (5.75 liters/tonne), and High (10.1 liters/tonne) diesel consumption used for waste collection prior to transport of the waste to the WtE facility.

5.5 Alternative Scenario: Ash Upcycled in Construction and Infrastructure Materials While the ash from waste combustion is assumed to go to landfill, Kwinana WtE Project Co is investigating alternative uses for the ash as a fill material in concrete for building and infrastructure projects. This would have the effect of eliminating the ash disposal impacts from the life cycle. Figure 8 shows the effect of removing the impacts from ash disposal from the WtE life cycle. Since ash disposal is a large contributor in several categories, the overall WtE impacts would further decrease. The largest decreases occur in EP, CWU, and LUC, while PM and ADPF also show large decreases.

Figure 8: WtE LCA results for the Baseline scenario and scenario where ash is used in concrete (i.e., ash disposal impacts are removed).

-100.0% -80.0% -60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)CWU (L H2O eq)

High (10.1 l/t) Baseline (5.75 l/t) Low (1.4 l/t)

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GWP (kg CO2 eq)

ADPF (kg oil eq)

PCOP (kg C2H4 eq)

EP (kg PO4--- eq)

AP (kg SO2 eq)

PM (kg intake)

PM (Deaths)

ODP (kg CFC-11 eq)

LUC (kg C deficit)

CWU (L H2O eq)

Without Ash Disposal Baseline


21/25

6. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION

Based on the considered life cycles of this study, the WtE Plant electricity is preferable to the current Western Australian black coal electricity generation for several impact categories – PM, AP, PCOP, ADPF, and GWP. Black coal electricity is preferable to the WtE Plant electricity CWU, LUC, ODP, and EP.

6.1 Study Limitations This study was created based on projected design of the WtE Plant at NOP. While the design conditions are guaranteed, the results of this study may not always reflect actual operating conditions. For future work, the LCA results could be updated using actual annual operating conditions to reevaluate the impacts.


22/25

7. FUTURE WORK

Kwinana WtE Project Co would like to use the results of this LCA to improve the WtE Plant project going forward. From the LCA findings, the following improvements could be made to improve the life cycle impacts of the WtE Plant:

• Recycle or Upcycle Bottom Ash. Landfilling the bottom ash has a significant impact on CWU, LUC, and EP impacts. As illustrated in the scenario analysis in Section 5.5, recycling or upcycling the bottom ash in concrete could reduce these impacts.

• Improve Waste Collection and Transport. Waste collection has a significant impact on PM, ODP and other categories. As illustrated in the sensitivity analysis in Section 5.4, optimizing truck routes, using fuel efficient vehicles or using alternative fuel vehicles could significantly reduce these impacts.

In addition, once the WtE plant is operational the LCA results could be updated to include actual annual operating data to reevaluate the impacts.


23/25

8. CRITICAL REVIEW

To meet ARENA’s requirements for commercialization LCAs, a critical review was conducted. The reviewer was selected based on his/her ability to meet at least one of the following requirements from ARENA: • have at least five years of professional experience in the field of LCA; • have been involved in at least five peer-reviewed LCA studies; or • be a Life Cycle Assessment Certified Practitioner (LCACP) – administered by ALCAS or the American Centre for Life Cycle Assessment. Table 10 lists the reviewer’s credentials.

Table 12: Reviewer’s Credentials

Reviewer’s Name: Anders Daamgard

Reviewer’s Affiliation: Technical University of Denmark

Reviewer’s Credentials:

The Critical Review Report and Response to Comments are listed in Appendix 1.


32/33

APPENDIX 2

WRATE TABLES

Baseline1 Project Net Source Notes

198,097 -237,842 -435,938

Baseline is the International

Financial Institution (IFI) GHG

emission factor for marginal grid

electricity in Australia, which is

calculated to be 716.6 kg

CO2e/MWh and project is the

Kwinana WtE p. 23 Figure 8.

Non-biogenic 115,200.0 4,838.4 -110,361.6

p. 19 Table 10.

Assumes baseline waste to landfill

content has a biogenic content of

71.2% from p. 13 Table 5.

Non-biogenic content

determined by mass, not

CV or atomic carbon

value

Biogenic 284,800.0 11,961.6 -272,838.4

p. 19 Table 10.

Assumes baseline waste to landfill

content has a biogenic content of

71.2% from p. 13 Table 5.

Biogenic content

determined by mass, not

CV or atomic carbon

value

Compost (All) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Compost can include

both PAS 100 compliant

compost and other forms

of compost of beneficial

use made from source

segregated feedstock.

Digestate (Only PAS

110)0.0 0.0 0.0

Digestate must derive

from source segregated

organic feedstocks and

be PAS 110 compliant

Compost-like-output

(“CLO”)0.0 0.0 0.0

All other compost-like

digestate product should

be categorized as

Compost Like Output

(CLO), provided that it is

for 'beneficial use' (i.e.

there is a market for the

commodity)Plastics 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ferrous Metals 0.0 5,440.0 5,440.0p. 12 Table 2 (multiplied by 2 for

two lines)

Appendix 2

WRATE Project Green Impact Data Table

Kwinana Waste to Energy Project: ARENA Life Cycle Assessment

Kwinana, Australia

Materials

recycled

(tonnes per

annum)2

Greenhouse gas emissions

(tonnes CO2e per annum)

Waste to

landfill

(tonnes per

annum)

Green Metric

Page 1 of 4

Baseline1 Project Net Source Notes

Appendix 2

WRATE Project Green Impact Data Table


Kwinana, Australia

Green Metric

Non-ferrous metals 0.0 1,920.0 1,920.0p. 12 Table 2 (multiplied by 2 for

two lines)

Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0

Card 0.0 0.0 0.0

Glass 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mineral aggregates 0.0 74,000.0 74,000.0

p. 12 Table 2, Output o5. Bottom

ash reused as construction

aggregate (multiplied by 2 for two

lines)

Mineral aggregates for

beneficial use includes all

fly ash, bottom ash,

mixed glass not recycled

as glass, grit and other

mineralsWaste Electronic

and

Electrical Equipment

(“WEEE”)

0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0

'Other' categories are all

remaining recycled

material - specify

additional categories as

necessary

Notes:

2 The mass of all materials recycled should be reported on the basis of the equivalent level of moisture content of the feedstock. This particularly applies to

Compost, CLO and Digestate and aggregates, which can increase moisture content. Accordingly, the mass of the materials recycled should not be higher

than the mass of feedstock input.

1 The Baseline Scenario for all rows except the first GHG row represents the waste collection, transport, and landfill Impacts from the WtE Plant input waste

as if it were not avoided. In the LCA report these impacts are listed as avoided impacts and are shown as a net benefit in Table 10.

Materials

recycled

(tonnes per

annum)2

Page 2 of 4

115,165 tonnes CO2e per annum

Electricity 16.8 MWe

Heat 0 MWth

Electricity 17.8 MWe

Heat 0 MWth

Renewable2 134 GWh per annum

Non-renewable2 142 GWh per annum

Total 276 GWh per annum

Renewable2 0 GWh per annum

Non-renewable2 0 GWh per annum

Total 0 GWh per annum

124,400 m3 (if known)

400,000 tonnes per annum

24.6 %

Water consumption (projects >5 MWe)

Absolute (gross) GHG emissions of the project (equivalent to the

Direct Process Emissions + any emissions associated with energy

inputs – Scope 2)1

Capacity to

produce renewable

energy (gross)

Capacity to

produce non-

renewable energy

(gross)

Electricity

exported (net of

parasitic load)

Heat exported (net of

parasitic load)

Total quantity of waste treated3

Net efficiency of energy recovery4

Appendix 2

WRATE Key Project Assumptions Table


Kwinana, Australia

Page 3 of 4

Appendix 2

WRATE Key Project Assumptions Table


Kwinana, Australia

Non-biogenic 115,200 tonnes per annum

Virgin biomass 0 oven dried tonnes per annum

Biogenic 284,800 tonnes per annum

Non-biogenic 142,228 MWh per annum

Virgin biomass 0 MWh per annum

Biogenic 134,212 MWh per annum

Notes:

6 Eligible E% or renewable energy portion of energy generated from a mixed waste stream (such as MSW, C&I & Special) from the PE RRC 2 Bin

Calculation on page 14. Fichtner. (2016, May). Technical Note No. 12. Kwinana Waste to Energy Project. Renewable Energy Components in the

Waste as Basis for Large Scale Generation Certificate.

1 Calculated direct emissions from the project air emissions plus the natural gas usage multiplied by the GHG Protocol natural gas emission factors

from http://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/Emission_Factors_from_Cross_Sector_Tools_March_2017.xlsx and the IPCC AR5 Global Warming

Potentials.

4 Net efficiency, after taking account of any parasitic load.

5 This will usually be the amount of waste sent to thermal treatment EfW, but may also include any waste sent to anaerobic digestion.

Amount of material

from which energy

recovery takes

place (mass)5

Calorific content

from which energy

recovery takes

place (calorific

value)6

2 The allocation of net (not gross) electricity and/ or heat produced between renewable and non-renewable categories should be made in proportion

to the ratio of CV of biogenic vs. non-biogenic feedstock from which energy from waste is derived.

3 Waste treated at the project plant should not include rejects, but rather focus on that waste that is actually treated at the plant. For EfW projects,

the waste treated and total mass of waste from which energy recovery takes place will be the same.

Page 4 of 4

Date post:	20-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times