Veolia highlights the company’s comprehensive strategy and range of technologies to work towards a circular economy by diverting organics waste from landfill across Australia.
Waste and recycling has never been more topical across the Australian political and public landscape.
With international recycling markets closing their doors to Australian recyclable exports, governments are encouraging the development of viable recycling markets within our shores.
This has included putting in place stronger policies to increase the diversion of organic waste from landfill.
An example is Victoria’s recently released Recycling Victoria strategy which included a $129 million package for kerbside reform.
This announcement included a target for 100 per cent of households to have access to separate food and organics recovery service or composting by 2030, as well as halving the volume of organic material going to landfill by 50 per cent between 2020 and 2030.
Over in NSW, the government is targeting net zero emissions from organic waste to landfill by 2030, with a variety of supporting policies.
The trends across organics diversion are welcome news for leading environmental solutions organisation Veolia, which has been at the forefront of sector innovation for decades.
Laurie Kozlovic, Chief Innovation and Strategic Development Officer, Veolia Australia and New Zealand, says organics recovery is firmly part of its business strategy to ‘Resource the World’.
“For Veolia, it is not only about landfill diversion, but importantly, improving soil health which is extremely relevant in an Australian context,” he says.
Carbon storage in soil offers a host of ecological benefits such as release of nutrients, water retention, and absorption of organic and/or inorganic pollutants.
Its sequestration also supports other ecosystem services derived from soils, such as farming production, drinking water supply and biodiversity.
This occurs by increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil, thus improving its quality.
The Rabobank 2019 Food waste report identified that food waste costs Australians $10 billion annually.
Of course, the approach to tackling the problem is to avoid the generation of organic waste in the first instance, and education is key.
Once organic waste is generated however, the right technology and capability can provide numerous beneficial circular economy and climate resilient outcomes.
In Australia, Veolia operates a comprehensive range of technologies including a number of in-vessel composting facilities as well as an anaerobic digestion facility which produces both electricity and fertiliser.
Veolia’s compost products are beneficially reused in a number of urban amenity, agriculture, rehabilitation and environmental remediation applications across the country.
Additionally, the company collects organic waste from its broad customer base which includes councils, commercial and industrial businesses.
This experience also extends to its water business where organics such as biosolids are managed and beneficially reused.
Laurie says that removing organics from landfill crucially reduces carbon emissions. He adds that equally, compost plays an important role in providing food security, improving soil carbon and crop productivity, and reducing the effects of drought.
“Organic waste recycling is a great example of how we can value the inherent properties of waste and keep the materials circulating through the economy,” he says.
Additionally, Laurie says that identifying the waste streams for recovery early on enables the right infrastructure to be developed. The end result is an integrated and holistic solution crucial for any zero waste ambition.
With organics recycling rates being around 52 per cent in Australia, there is ample opportunity for improvement and innovation.
Mark Taylor, Head of Solid Waste Treatment, Veolia ANZ, says that the best outcomes are when customers take ownership of their wastes from a process and recovery point of view. He says this then becomes a prime partnership for finding optimal solutions together.
Veolia’s innovations include Soil Advisor – an app that has been in development internationally for a number of years through Veolia’s agronomic hub.
It provides farmers with a tool to optimise compost application by analysing the long-term effect of the compost. Importantly, it looks at compost’s impact on changes to soil organic matter and soil carbon storage.
This digital tool supports the international “4 per 1000, Soils for Food Security and Climate” initiative launched during COP21 in late 2015.
The idea is that a four per cent annual increase in the amount of carbon in all soils worldwide would compensate for yearly increases in human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.
An example is Veolia’s partnership with iugis Group, for the exclusive distribution of onsite organic food digester technologies, including the ORCA product in Australia and New Zealand.
The mobile, onsite organic digester solution is suitable for customers in a range of market sectors.
The iugis technology mimics a natural digestion process, biologically converting organic food waste into liquid tradewaste.
It supports landfill diversion as well as providing an on-site solution for Veolia customers that may be in remote or rural areas, or some distance away from a dedicated composting facility.
As with all waste issues, a systematic and comprehensive approach is needed to deliver meaningful outcomes.
Veolia is ready to work further with governments, businesses and communities to convert the various organics policy ambitions, as well as their customer objectives into practical and relevant solutions.
However, Mark says Veolia needs all stakeholders to work together to create the framework and conditions necessary for the actions to be successful.
“Veolia will invest, however we need stable and reasonable policy, regulatory and contractual conditions. These conditions will enable long term and sustainable investments which are value creating for all partners,” Mark says.
As Veolia Australia and New Zealand progresses Australia’s first thermal energy recovery facility in Western Australia, Waste Management Review explores what to consider when looking to establish a successful new waste to energy facility.
When GHD was commissioned by the Federal Government in 2009 to prepare a study into waste technology and innovation, it predicted there would likely be a growing acceptance of thermal technologies in Australia.
This view, it said, was down to the fact that the level of sophistication was increasing and there were more examples of proven performance in advanced economies overseas.
Ten years down the track, the National Waste Report 2018 shows us that landfill gas, processed engineered fuels and anaerobic digestion are still the common forms of energy recovery in Australia. About 1.97 million tonnes of waste was used for energy recovery, 90 per cent of which was achieved through landfill gas.
Thermal treatment, on the other hand, is creeping up as an emerging technology, with Australian governments and the private sector increasingly recognising its local potential even though thermal technologies have been successfully used overseas for many years.
It cites the European example, where energy recovery facilities are coupled with recycling schemes to achieve resource recovery and landfill diversion rate above 75 per cent.
Locally, we’re seeing a step change in community acceptance of energy recovery through Waste to Energy facilities, with Veolia Australia and New Zealand emerging as a leader in this space. The company is now looking at applying its international experience in energy recovery to the Australian landscape.
Earlier this year, construction began on Australia’s first thermal energy recovery facility (ERF). Based in Kwinana, WA, the site will be operated and maintained (O&M) by Veolia Australia and New Zealand post-construction for 25 years.
Leveraging its experience in operating more than 65 ERFs across the globe, Veolia stands ready to spearhead efficient, effective and economically viable renewable energy solutions.
Across all of Veolia’s operations, ERFs serve as a complementary technology to recycling, while providing communities with sources of affordable and reliable energy. ERFs also benefit Veolia’s customers by reducing their environmental footprint as well as costs associated with landfill taxes.
In France, Veolia operates 45 energy recovery facilities, supplying almost 40 per cent of the nation’s active plants, 43 of which comprise an energy recovery system. Thermal energy supports district heating networks, green houses or is transformed into electrical energy which is then on-sold to distributors.
Across the European Union, around 27 per cent of municipal waste was incinerated using energy recovery. This rises to more than 30 per cent in countries like France and more than 50 per cent in Scandinavian nations.
As Veolia Australia and New Zealand lays the foundations for Australia’s first thermal ERF facility, Waste Management Review caught up with Guillaume Wallaert, Vice President of Waste Municipal & Commercial Offers at Veolia in France, and Laurie Kozlovic, Chief Strategic Development & Innovation Officer at Veolia Australia and New Zealand.
These experts provide insight into some of the myths surrounding ERFs, and considerations for successfully starting, operating and maintaining an ERF.
While the various forms of ‘energy recovery” can be confusing for some, Guillaume sums it up into six options: thermal treatment; RDF in various forms, including a dedicated combustion facility, co-incineration and gasification; anaerobic digestion and biogas from landfill.
“Thermal energy’s main advantage is that it’s reliable, we know it works, and you can reduce the volume of waste quite significantly while creating high quality energy for industrial purposes,” Guillaume says.
When it comes to the different forms of ERF, Guillaume says, there are various considerations that will work better for some ERF proponents more than others. For example, thermal mass burning is costly and combined heat and power systems (CHP) need to be prioritised to ensure energy recovery remains efficient. However, it’s a mature technology that offers good waste reduction of up to 90 per cent in volume and 70 per cent in weight. It can also be adapted to a large scope of waste.
RDF, on the other hand, can be costly due to the need for pre-treatment, but Guillaume says it’s mature technology provides a high calorific value. He says CHP mode needs to be prioritised to enhance energy. Guillaume also considers it to be more suited to commercial and industrial waste.
“We have seen for the past 10 or 20 years RDF being developed especially in Germany, over there we are quite a big player,” he says.
He adds that RDF is also dependant on secure outlets, namely cement kilns, which can present a challenge and create a reliance on export markets.
“If you don’t have cement kilns taking RDF then you need to create your own outlets. For example in the Czech Republic, we are converting coal-based power plants into RDF and biomass-based power plants, which is another option.”
Co-incineration is another viable option and according to Guillaume, it is a mature technology with a low carbon footprint, but requires high quality RDF and reliable and long-term users.
In RDF gasification, he says the limitation can be cost, while highlighting it is a less mature technology. Fortunately, it provides good waste traction, a solid carbon footprint and high levels of material recovery, but requires very high quality input. Anaerobic digestion is also quite costly, Guillaume says.
He says it’s a mature technology with high organic valorisation and a low carbon footprint. It can also only be adapted to organic fractions, requires good input quality and downstream solutions for digestate or compost.
Finally, biogas from landfill offers a low cost, mature and simple technology with a very high footprint, he says. It can also be adapted for all waste.
Guillaume’s significant experience has taught him about the nuances of energy recovery. When he homes in on how the landscape has changed over the past decade, he reflects on thermal treatment.
As one of the most developed systems in the EU, he says that combustion technology has embraced the principles of moving grates. He estimates more than 1200 facilities globally have used the technology, with 500 of these in the EU and the remainder in Asia, China, the US and Japan. Importantly, advancements in technology have supported a range of contemporary standards.
As ERF facilities produce flue gases from the combustion process, the European Union (EU) has set the standard via various directives. For example, Directive 2010-75/EU provides direction on emissions limits and flue gas treatment for the combustion process, which has been quoted as best practice by the Victorian Government. Guillaume says that EU regulations requiring additional flue gas treatment have been in place as early as 2002.
In Australia, the Kwinana Waste to Energy project will use Keppel Seghers moving grate technology, a proven technology used extensively in Europe. The plant has obtained all the necessary regulatory approvals from the WA EPA laid out in the Public Environmental Review document and Air Quality – Stack Emissions standards.
SOCIAL LICENCE TO OPERATE
Obtaining a social licence to operate is often a deciding factor of whether an ERF project successfully gets off the ground in the Australian market. This makes it critical that ERF proponents select the right strategic partner to operate and maintain a facility.
With ERFs relatively new to Australia, notably thermal treatment, Laurie Kozlovic, Chief Strategic Development & Innovation Officer at Veolia Australia and New Zealand, highlights the factors that have stalled investment in the past. Additionally, he points to the lessons Veolia is applying to manage the new energy landscape.
Firstly, he points out that there’s been a growing interest from the government, consumers and suppliers for more ERFs which provide a viable alternative to landfill within a waste hierarchy.
“In some parts of the country, the increase in waste levies has inspired a discussion around alternatives,” Laurie says.
Victoria, for example, announced in its long-awaited circular economy policy that it would raise the waste levy from $65.90 a tonne to $125.90 by 2022-23. Given the plan to double the levy over two years, this may inspire complementary energy recovery solutions.
Secondly, he says that when it comes to the economic factors driving ERFs, proponents need a clear regulatory environment to inform their investments.
“A lot of investments are made based on the ‘rules of the game’ so to speak, so the regulators need to be clear whether they want energy recovery as a complementary part of their waste management strategy and if so, how they want it to happen,” Laurie says.
“You can’t build 50-year infrastructure with a two to three-year policy framework, so for us, a clear and consistent long-term policy and strategy is important for getting the right investors into the sector,” he adds.
When it comes to Veolia’s O&M contract in Kwinana, Laurie highlights that the market signals were suitable for Veolia to be involved.
“The framework and guidelines were first in place there, and seemed to be further progressed than others, so that’s why it happened there. Whether it’s the best place or not, I guess only time will tell,” Laurie says.
“As an operator of a facility like Kwinana, we’re responsible for delivering an energy output based on the volume that’s coming in, and we need to be sure we can achieve that based on the material coming into the facility. That’s a key part of our role – working with our partners to provide them with the best advice and global experience to make the facility a success.”
DE-BUNKING THE MYTHS
Managing Australia’s ERF transition effectively, Laurie says, means breaking misconceptions. He recognises that not everyone will be in favour of energy recovery, but those that choose to take that position should do so with an informed view.
“It’s important that any misconceptions are cleared so that the people who are making decisions on ERFs know exactly what it is all about,” he says.
That said, Guillaume says that even with Europe’s extensive experience in ERFs, there are some broader misconceptions globally, including the common argument that ERF “cannibalises” recycling.
Guillaume points out that the EU has a common target to achieve a 65 per cent recycling rate for municipal waste by 2030. He says that the other 35 per cent then becomes a critical residual component.
“We’ve all heard this a few times: if you have a ERF facility you won’t recycle any longer. We have plenty of evidence that proves that wrong. In fact the more you recycle, the more you develop ERFs and we have to combine both to create an efficient solution,” Guillaume says.
This view is shared by Laurie, who says that we need to share the global experience where ERFs are mature technologies and in the middle of cities around the world.
“I think there’s a lot of work to be done in educating key stakeholders to ensure you don’t get decisions made on unproven technologies or ideas that sound great at the time but haven’t been tested or proven in other markets,” Laurie says.
Pondering on the planning phase, Laurie says that there is no one-size-fits-all answer for energy recovery in Australia. There are not only unique circumstances in different geographies, but other variables such as the type of waste a facility is receiving, their pricing mechanisms, energy offtake, allowable inputs and desired outputs.
“That is why we’re technology agnostic, because there are different solutions appropriate for different environments,” he says.
He says Veolia Australia and New Zealand will assess the above variables and then draw on its global counterparts to come up with the right solution or technology for that particular market.
“The beauty of having access to some of the best experts in the world, who have successfully managed multiple plants using various technologies around the world, is that it allows us to draw on that experience and make informed decisions in our own market.”
Pointing to the European example, Guillaume says that in many cases, ERF facilities operate in close quarters to urban communities in Europe. As such, he says integrating these facilities into the surrounding environment has become a focal point.
In Leeds in the UK, Veolia partnered with architects in the UK to line its ERF facility with healthy green foliage, helping it blend in with the local scenery while providing a striking architectural landmark. Guillaume says the facility is the largest of its kind, and helps improve community confidence in ERF by creating a positive and innovative landmark for the Aire Valley region.
“This is a key point for all countries adopting a ERF solution and also in countries where the technology is relatively new such as in Australia,” he says.
Likewise, he says that collaborating with stakeholders and local authorities from the outset of a ERF project is important. In some cases, he says projects in Europe are led by the local council or statutory authority with integrated facilities that incorporate materials recovery facilities.
CHOOSING THE RIGHT TECH
Choosing a reliable technology is also an important part of achieving long-term success, says Guillame. A poor choice in technology, he says, can be the difference between seven years of equipment service life, and 40. Effective management can also significantly determine long-term financial outcomes. For example, predictive maintenance can eliminate costly maintenance cycles.
“If you use predictive maintenance, you can potentially do it once every 18 months or even every two years instead of every year with the right data and tools,” he says.
With Australia steadily advancing towards increased ERF, Laurie recognises there are still barriers to entry in the Australian market. Competition by low cost landfill, emerging legal frameworks, cheap energy prices and emerging market maturity could see operators face hurdles. Moreover, a lack of space (geographically) and higher demand for district heating helped propel projects forward in markets such as Europe – drivers which simply don’t exist in Australia.
But even if operators get all of these ingredients right and the approvals process progresses, there are some deciding factors that can make or break a project. This is where Guillaume highlights the importance of finding the right risk allocation among engineering, procurement and construction players. Getting a project to financial close, he says, requires robust and experienced contractors.
He adds that the banks and investors will look closely at all revenues the proponent expects to gain from the facility, including expected gate fees and energy spot prices.
“It’s a really key point we’re always discussing with customers – a project has to be affordable for a city,” he says.
Adding to these views, Laurie highlights the importance of sizing your ERF appropriately.
“If you look around the world there are both small-scale and large-scale ERFs. You don’t want to be in a situation where you make your ERF too big and you end up having problems being able to find volumes to feed them. On the other hand, if you make them too small and you’ve got to return your investment on a smaller volume, then it doesn’t make it economical to run. It’s why there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to ERFs,” Laurie says.
As for how the Australian ERF market will evolve? Laurie is optimistic about its future based on what’s already been achieved around the world.
“There’s no doubt that ERF’s will become a more integral part of Australia’s waste management strategy in coming years – and with new approaches and technologies emerging all the time, this knowledge will only prove valuable as we start to apply what works best within our local regulatory and commercial frameworks,” Laurie says.
To subscribe to Waste Management Review with free home delivery click here.