Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon

Capture

A Preliminary Assessment of Their Potential Value to

the Decarbonisation of the UK

May 2020

Dennis Gammer
Practice Manager, CCS, H2 and Industry
Susie Elks
Energy Policy Advisor
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction to Energy Systems Catapult ......................................................................................... 2
Introduction to the report ..................................................................................................................... 2

3. The Potential of EfW with CCUS in the UK................................................................................................... 3

Plant Size..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Sector Size .................................................................................................................................................. 3
The Circular Economy ............................................................................................................................. 4

4. Capture of CO2 from EfW Plants ..................................................................................................................... 5

The Purity of the EfW Off gas ............................................................................................................... 5
The Scale of the Plants ........................................................................................................................... 5
The Concentration of CO2 in the EfW Off gas ................................................................................. 5

5. Preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment of EfW with Post Combustion Treatment .................. 7

6. Potential Impact on UK Clusters .................................................................................................................. 13

Teesside.................................................................................................................................................... 13
Merseyside .............................................................................................................................................. 14

7. Whole Energy System Impact ....................................................................................................................... 15

8. The Policy Environment for EfW with and without CCUS..................................................................... 17

9. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 18

10. Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 19

11. References .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

12. Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1: EfW with CCUS – Policy Background and Implications................................................. 22
Appendix 2 - Tables of Cost Sources and Assumptions ....................................................................... 28
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

DISCLAIMER
This document has been prepared by Energy Systems Catapult Limited. For full copyright, legal information
and defined terms, please refer to the “Licence / Disclaimer” section at the back of this document.

All information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Energy Systems Catapult
Limited. No warranty or representation is given concerning such information, which must not be taken as
establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon the Energy Systems Catapult Limited or any
of its subsidiary or associated companies.
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

1. Executive Summary
Energy from Waste (EfW) plants currently emit around 11 Mte CO2 per year in the UK, with
proposed and under-construction facilities potentially adding another 9 Mte CO2 per year.
Reducing these emissions would have a material impact on the UK’s low carbon energy transition.
Preliminary analysis of the potential of fitting carbon capture (CCUS) equipment to the growing
number of EfW plants in the UK as a means of CO2 reduction has therefore been undertaken.

The key conclusion from this analysis is that the cost of EfW-CCUS technology as a means of
emissions abatement is competitive with other industrial abatement options, but that its uptake
would require policies reflecting its ability to generate “negative emissions” as a consequence of
using the biogenic content of part of the carbon in waste.

The analysis has also shown that:

• Many EfW plants are geographically well located for CCUS, being in industrial clusters near
to accessible CO2 storage locations
• A significant proportion of the UK’s EfW fleet is relatively new [1] compared to other
industrial facilities, and they therefore have a long life ahead of them in which to benefit
from a CCUS retrofit investment
• CCUS significantly improves the sustainability of EfW facilities and can therefore mitigate
many of the system level environmental issues that threaten the long-term sustainability of
EfW in the UK
• On a lowest system transition cost basis, fitting CCUS to EfW plants could lead to 20% of all
captured CO2 in the UK being derived from EfW plants by 2050, with a corresponding 20%
overall increase in CO2 being captured in the same timeframe compared with the case
without EfW-CCUS being available

In addition to the technical analysis, current policies surrounding CCUS and waste treatment have
been reviewed. This has found that although being driven by the same environmental pressures,
there is conceptual tension between waste combustion with energy recovery and increased
recycling as options, which although carefully managed in current policy would need further
consideration if EfW with CCUS is to be incentivised. Due to the biogenic content in waste, adding
CCUS to EfW actually reduces net carbon in the system, which may be more effective than other
disposal options e.g. landfill.

There are three key recommendations arising from this analysis:

• EfW with CCUS should be included in the options the Government assesses when it
considers an investment in the decarbonisation of industrial clusters. Learnings from
experience from Japanese, Dutch and Norwegian projects should be sought.
• Policy is developed that reflects the system value of the “negative emissions” that EfW with
CCUS can provide. For large installations consideration should be given to the preferential
placement of new plants in known/developing CCUS areas.
• A more detailed option and techno-economic analysis is carried out that focuses on the
technical options available for decarbonising EfW plants, the economic sensitivities to
changes in waste quality/price, and which reviews the relative strengths of modern waste
treatment options from a lifecycle analysis and cost perspective.

Page 1 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

2. Introduction
Introduction to Energy Systems Catapult
Energy Systems Catapult was set up to accelerate the transformation of the UK’s energy system
and ensure UK businesses and consumers capture the opportunities of clean growth.

The Catapult is an independent, not-for-profit centre of excellence that bridges the gap between
industry, government, academia and research.

We take a whole system view of the energy sector, helping us to identify and address innovation
priorities and market barriers, to decarbonise the energy system at the lowest cost.

Introduction to the report

At the end of 2017, 40 Energy from Waste (EfW) plants were operational in the UK, with 16 in
construction and 13 in active development. The 40 existing facilities collectively emit around 11
Mte CO2 per year, with the remainder potentially adding another 9 Mte CO2 per year. Reducing
these emissions would have a material impact on the UK’s low carbon energy transition.

Although whole energy system models have demonstrated that CCUS can play a critical role in
decarbonising at the lowest possible cost, progress in deployment has been slow. In recent years
impactful amounts of renewables have been installed, and coal fired power stations have been
largely displaced from the UK market, removing the largest point sources of carbon dioxide.

Gas fired power stations now constitute the largest emissions in the energy supply sector, but it
remains to be seen if these, when fitted with CCUS, will play a role in high load factor power
generation as nuclear plants are decommissioned. Industry, including steelworks, refineries,
chemical plant and cement works, emits about 15% [2] of the UK GHG total, generally each works
having several point sources with few individual sources being over 0.5Mte/a CO2. Most industrial
CCUS demonstrations in operation today are around 1Mte/a, and the economies of scale on
projects begin to level off at around 3Mte/a – hence the attraction of working with clusters of
emitters.

Several reports [3], [4] have concluded that the economies of scale of CCUS favour large
installations, because offshore CO2 transportation and storage costs reduce rapidly with increasing
throughput. Therefore, clusters of onshore emitters with close geographical proximity (or otherwise
easily connected) are being identified as optimal places to kick-start CCUS in the UK before
progression to larger-scale CCUS rollout. BEIS is actively supporting this as part of the Clean
Growth Strategy [5] and has commissioned the “Industrial Clusters Mission” targeting the creation
of “Net Zero” zones to attract new businesses.

This short report provides an initial assessment of the potential for EfW with CCUS plants in the UK,
their carbon reduction potential, and the policy implications and challenges associated with its
widespread implementation in the UK.

Page 2 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

3. The Potential of EfW with CCUS in the UK

Plant Size
In the UK, most new EfW plants combust about 350kte/a of waste, releasing about 350kte/a CO 2
each. There are a few plants of around twice this scale (multiple combustion units) either
operational or in development, with Viridor’s Runcorn plant and Ferrybridge 1&2 set to burn over
1Mte/a. The industry has greatly improved the operational performance of EfW units, and they run
at high availability and have electrical LHV efficiencies of approximately 25% [6].

Figure 1 below shows how the CO2 emissions from new and proposed EfW and biomass plants
compare with current industrial emissions in two exemplar “clusters” in the UK. The current
industrial emissions data is taken from point source data for the sites [7], although it should be
noted that in general only around 50% of the emissions are likely to be economically capturable by
post combustion methods [8], [9]. The data used in Figures 1, 5 and 6 are tabulated in Appendix 2.4.
The values for EfW and biomass emissions in Figure 1 are estimates from plants which are either
operating or under construction (with the exception of EfW at Redcar and Protos which have not
received all approvals).

CO2 Emissions on Merseyside, 2025 CO2 Emissions on Teesside, 2025

13%
37%
45%
28%
59%

18%

Core Fossil Emitters EFW Emitters Core Fossil Emitters EFW Emitters
BiomassEmitters BiomassEmitters

Figure 1: Charts showing the relative size of key emitters in two Industrial Clusters

Sector Size
At the end of 2017 there were 40 EfW plants in operation in the UK, burning around 12Mte/a of
waste and emitting around 11Mte/a of CO2 (approximately 3% of total UK emissions), with plants in
planning and construction set to lift this total to 20 Mte/a CO2 in the mid-2020s [1]. By way of
comparison, in 2016 the cement industry emitted under 7 Mte/a, chemicals 9 Mte/a, iron and steel
13Mte/a, and refining 13Mt/a [2]. Hence EfW emissions are a significant and material component
of industrial emissions in the UK [7]. Biomass energy plants are also now large point source
emitters, even without the contributions from Drax.

The current European waste incineration fleet emits around 90 Mte/a and the USA fleet around 32
Mte/a [10], so enhancing UK expertise in this area could create a valuable exportable technology
platform.

Page 3 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

The Circular Economy

Most players in the EfW industry expect it to grow in the short term [11]. Although the quantity of
residual waste may shrink over time, due to future improvements to recycling rates (which have
been flat for ten years [12]), reduced use of landfill will increase demand. Recently, European and
UK [13] strategies to increase waste recycling and encourage the development of a more circular
economy have been published. If, following consultations, this is converted to supported policy,
changes to the quantity and quality of UK waste is likely. For example, plastic components make up
about a third of the calorific value of the waste [14], [15], of which more could be recycled, with the
unrecyclable plastic simply landfilled as means of “carbon capture”. Similarly, food waste is often
incinerated in EfWs in preference to landfill because in the ground it gets converted to methane,
which if released to the atmosphere is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The UK has
made good progress in reducing GHG emissions from landfill sites, by encouraging EfW. New
policy could segregate food waste and push it towards Anaerobic Digestion (AD) for conversion to
biogas (which also produces CO2 emissions) or other recovery techniques. The waste industry has
assessed and published studies on its future capacity including the impacts of radical changes in
recycling [11], [12].

Analysis of these show that the supply of combustible waste that can be used as feedstock for EfW
plants is unlikely to recede so as to leave an overcapacity in the short or medium terms, but that
longer term growth rates of EfW to 2030 would be curtailed. Overcapacity in the EfW sector would
not just be an issue for the residual waste market but could be seen as disincentivising “better”
treatments from a circular economy viewpoint, although deep, lifecycle and system level analysis of
all options would be needed to justify any change to the system.

Due to the biogenic content in waste, adding CCUS to EfW actually reduces net carbon in the
system, which may be more effective than some recycling or other disposal options.

Page 4 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

4. Capture of CO2 from EfW Plants

For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that an amine solvent scrubber system is the
most easily commercialised technology for removing CO2 from the EfW flue gas. This technology
has been deployed at small scale (3kte/a) on an EfW plant in Japan [16], and a larger scale unit
(60kt/a CO2) is being built in the Netherlands in 2019 [17]1 , with both projects utilising the CO2 in
horticulture rather than providing geological storage. Further, amine technologies were tested in a
pilot unit at the Klemetstrud EfW plant in Norway [18] as part of the preparation for their CCUS
project which is currently progressing towards its Final Investment Decision (FID). This 340 kte/a
plant will store the CO2 in a geological store off the west coast of Norway.

With regards the basic cost of post combustion capture from EfW compared to emission capture
from other sources, there are three main properties of the technology that need to be examined:

The Purity of the EfW Off gas

Emissions to the air from EfW plants are regulated, and modern plants are equipped with
abatement devices to deal with the plethora of potential toxins that waste combustion can create.
These will help clean the gas prior to amine scrubbing. In the light of the successful operation and
testing of solvents referenced above, it has been assumed that if there are any potential
contaminants which affect the solvent these can be economically dealt with. The use of the amine
may increase nitrogen losses from the plant, but on balance air quality improvements are to be
expected from the scrubbing step of the capture plant [19].

The Scale of the Plants

As noted above, individual EfW plants have smaller CO2 emissions than many UK industrial sites.
However, as individual point sources they are comparable in size to many candidate plants in
current UK CCUS cluster projects, such as the H2 plants in Teesside [9] and Merseyside.

The Concentration of CO2 in the EfW Off gas

High CO2 concentrations in the off gas reduce the capital and operating costs of capture by an
amine solvent. The absorber tower can be made smaller, and the solvent can be used more
efficiently. The impact on costs of gas concentration was published by Husebye and Element
Energy [20], [21] and is shown courtesy of Element Energy in Figure 2 below. The off gas from an
EfW plant contains about 12% CO2. This is richer in CO2 than current CCGT off gas (3.5% CO2) or
fired heater off gases (9% CO2) which are common throughout the chemicals and refining
industries.

1
Footnote : Another 100kte/a CO2 capture plant has recently been bid for in Twence in Holland “€24.1M
deal to start EFW plants CCS system”
https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1582982/%E2%82%AC241m-deal-start-efw-plants-ccs-
system

Page 5 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

CCGT
Fired Heater
EfW Plant

Figure 2: Cost of Abatement vs CO2 concentration in Flue gas (simplified from Element Energy [20]), arrows added by
author

The relatively high CO2 concentration in the off gas from an EfW plant (similar to coal) should lead
to competitive abatement costs when compared to other sources, except for some direct process
emissions in the cement and steel sectors, which have higher CO2 concentrations.

A richer, higher pressure off gas could be made available if the waste was gasified rather than
combusted, making a step change reduction in the cost of capture and offering a cleaner off gas.
However, we have focussed on post combustion for this study because a new incineration fleet has
been built, and with a few exceptions, gasification projects from which CO2 could be captured are
struggling to fulfil their promise. Vacuum pressure swing adsorption and enzymatic capture are
alternative technologies also worthy of evaluation.

Page 6 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

5. Preliminary Techno-Economic Assessment of EfW with Post

Combustion Treatment
The costs associated with constructing and operating modern EfW facilities in the UK are available
from several publications carried out for local boroughs [22], [23]. Similarly, capital and operating
costs for the amine capture plant were based on studies for similarly sized capture plants [9], [24] in
the UK and Europe. These references are tabulated in Appendix 2. Additionally, Klemetsrud
publications [10] [18] were useful in showing energy integration options, land requirements and
timescales for project construction.

The impact of adding CCUS to a typical existing 350kte/a EfW plant is summarised in Figure 3
below, which also summarises the key economic assumptions that have been used in our indicative
techno-economic assessments. The assumed power price and carbon price relationship have been
derived using a Plexos model of the UK power market.

Figure 3: Outline Cost Structure for EfW plants with and without a CCUS Retrofit

Page 7 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Using the assumptions from Figure 3, an assumption that all non-biogenic CO2 emitted attracts a
carbon tax per Figure 3, and stored biogenic carbon attracts a credit, a simple picture of revenue
streams for a typical EfW-CCUS plant can be constructed per Figure 4 below:

Income and Expenditure for 350kte/a EfW Plants, £M/a

35
30
25
20
15
10
£M/a

5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Gate Fee Power Operations Carbon Tax Storage Total

EFW EFW with CCS

Figure 4: Revenue items for EfW Plants (2030)

It can be seen that gate fees, and by implication plant throughput, are key to sustaining good
revenues, and that the treatment of carbon taxation is key to the relative economics of EfW and
EfW with CCUS plants. Currently, EfW plants do not pay carbon tax and no credit is available to EfW
plants with CCUS for storing or using biogenic CO2.

Although power is not the main driver of EfW economics, levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) were
calculated for comparative purposes. A simple spreadsheet-based analysis, discounting (at 7.5%)
showed that without a CfD for the CCUS plant, a new EfW and a new EfW with CCUS plant would
have similar LCOEs when the carbon price is around £90/te. A recent BEIS study [25] assumes this
carbon price occurs in 2035. At a carbon price of £45/te, a CfD of around £136/MWh for the CCUS
plant would be required to make the addition of CCUS financially plausible. Possible pathways to
reduce this penalty include retrofitting an older EfW plant, reducing the capital cost of capture
(high contingency in this estimate).

Page 8 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Possible reductions in CfD required to make CCUS attractive, £/MWh

Increase Decrease

160
140 136

120
CfD, £/MWh

100 -28.3
-9.4
80
60 -24.9

40 -16.9

20
0
New EfW, new EfW retrofit 20% CCUS plant 13% Throughput +10% 10% gate
CCUS cheaper cheaper premium

Figure 5: Cost reductions in CfD

More sophisticated financial analysis would be needed to provide more detailed conclusions.

This analysis was also used to examine sensitivities around cost and revenue factors. The outcomes
of this are tabulated in Figure 6 below. The capital cost sensitivities are based upon the upper cost
estimates from EfW and CCUS experts. The lower gate fee represents the fluctuations that can
occur and the economic impact this could have on an EfW plant given that the viability of these
types of plant are heavily dependent on gate fees.

Page 9 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Sensitivity Base Case

Costs and Flows Per Figure 3
Carbon Price £45/te, Gate Fees £80/te, CO2 Transport and Storage costs £17/te

Sensitivity Compensating Income

Required CfD or Gate Price
Higher Capital ( downside)
EfW Capital +10% 7.5% increase
EfW/CCUS Capital +10% 15% increase or 12.5% increase

EfW pays Carbon Tax on non- Bio carbon

EfW pays carbon at £45/te 27%increase

Lower Gate Fees ( downside)

EfW gate Fees -10%
EfW with CCUS -10% 13%increase

Higher Waste Throughput ( upside)

EfW +10% 6% decrease
EfW/CCUS +10% 12% decrease or 10% decrease
EfW/CCUS +10%, with 10% more power 21% decrease or 17% decrease

Figure 6: Sensitivities of Economics to Some Key Parameters

Adding CCUS to an EfW investment increases a project’s exposure to capital overspend, and
because the receipts from power sales are a lower contributor to revenue than gate fees, CfDs for
power are unlikely to stabilise the investment case as much as an equivalent contract based on
secure gate fees.

There are a range of factors that influence the economics of EfW facilities, and the economics of
adding capture to these facilities. These are summarised below:

Positive factors:

• The feedstock has a negative cost (assuming gate fees remain): Normally the energy loss
associated with regeneration of CO2 has a punitive effect on plant economics. In the case of
EfW, the capture plant does lose some ability to export power and therefore loses some
revenue, but the bulk of its revenue comes from gate fees which is unaffected.

• Few EfW plants in UK currently utilise their ability to release cheap heat: Most EfW plants
can increase steam production at the expense of power production, in the ratio of 4-5:1
MWth/MWe. If possible, an increase in feed rates could sustain power production. However,
of the 40 EfW facilities in operation in the UK, only eight have an outlet to export heat1, so
there is an untapped opportunity to provide capture plants with steam.

Page 10 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

• Carbon Capture increases the use of the energy in the waste fuel: Most plants produce
electricity only, at best using 30% of the energy in the fuel. Co-producing heat and
exporting this and electricity to the CCUS plant uses around 50% of the energy in the waste
fuel.

• The UK EfW fleet is young: To pay off the high investment cost of CCUS, reliability and a
long investment period are required. EfW plants are by far the youngest set of large
emitters in the UK. Most of the large units are under 6 years old - at least one “generation”
younger than most UK energy intensive industries. Hence there is plenty of operational life
left in the EfW fleet to make CCUS retrofit viable.

• Adding CCUS significantly improves the emissions performance of EfW facilities and
therefore increases the long-term sustainability of EfW technology: The CO2 emissions
performance of conventional EfW facilities is unlikely to be sustainable in the long-term as
emissions constraints bite harder. Adding CCUS substantially reduces CO2 emissions and
can ultimately deliver negative emissions, thereby improving emissions performance
significantly and (potentially) attracting revenue from carbon “credits”, perhaps via offset
deals with companies who find it difficult to reduce their own emissions.

Negative factors:

• The average new-build plant is suboptimal in scale for CCUS: Small CCUS plants find CO2
transportation and storage costs punitive. Plants need to be in a close cluster or located
close to a CO2 pipeline to be attractive.

• Recycling is the preferred option for waste rather than incineration: High levels of
recycling are unlikely to cause problems for a dozen or so EfW plants which are in good
locations for CCUS. However, increasing capital investment in combustion by adding CCUS
may be seen as increasing investment risk.

• Susceptibility to feedstock “Impurities”: The CCUS solvent is susceptible to degradation

from many types of contaminant. It is not yet known if EfW flue gas when operated at full
scale over long periods produces problems of this type. This technology risk is likely to have
a negative impact on investment appetite, until operational experience is gained.

• CCUS uses energy that might otherwise be sellable: Other opportunities may exist to
improve plant efficiency by using or selling heat, and these may be more investible than
adding a CCUS plant.

• The public acceptability of waste incineration remains a challenge: In spite of the

reduction in CO2 emissions, air quality upside from deploying CCUS and the efficiency
increase in terms of using the energy in waste, the public may prefer other waste treatment
methods.

• EfW facilities have an inherent economic exposure to gate price fluctuations and plant
throughput and it is unclear how these might evolve in the future: Adding CCUS increases
exposure to gate prices, and other policy driven value streams.

Page 11 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

In terms of sustainability, unabated EfW power plants produce power of carbon intensity around
600g/kWh (excluding biogenic carbon). This is about 50% higher than a typical CCGT, and already
higher than the current grid average intensity which is around 220 g/kWh. Assuming that the
decarbonisation of the power sector continues as expected, by 2030 the carbon intensity of
unabated EfW will be significantly higher than grid average, further weakening their attractiveness.

Overall though, there are no techno-economic reasons that would make CO2 capture from EfW
plants infeasible or that would lead to it having inherently higher cost than other industrial capture
options.

Page 12 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

6. Potential Impact on UK Clusters

Following its work on the Clean Growth Strategy, UK Government has followed up
recommendations and actions on industrial decarbonisation, announcing funding for work on
clusters at COP 24. More recently the Industrial Clusters Mission has been launched, which has
identified onshore clusters of interest. When studied in detail, there are several opportunities for
EfW plants with CCUS to make up part of cluster projects, mostly within the Mission clusters, as up
to two thirds of large EfW plants are in industrial cluster regions. The location of others outside the
Mission clusters also provide some brand-new opportunities.

In the interests of brevity, we illustrate these in two examples – Teesside and Merseyside - for
which some outline information was provided in Figure 1. Many other clusters, including Scotland
and the Humber (Drax, Ferrybridge, Hull) also have new large EfW / Biomass emitters.

Teesside
The Teesside cluster has been worked up for many years, promoted by the Teesside Collective and
much study work has already been delivered. Closure of the SSI steelworks, which was the “anchor”
site for a large CCUS development was a setback. However, if we consider recent investments in
EfW and biomass power stations, and entertain these as potential CCUS options, this cluster looks
potentially very attractive. Key emitters in the cluster are shown in Figure 7 below:

Figure 7: Map of Teesside emitters – EfW /Biomass in Blue (Basemap contain OS data © Crown copyright and database
right (2019) = OS Openmap)

Page 13 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

The core sites in the Teesside Collective proposal were the SSI Steelworks, the BOC Limited H2
Plant and CF Fertilisers ammonia plant. However, these have been recently supplemented [26] by
the Teesside Renewable Energy Plant (Biomass), Teesside EfW Plant, Port Clarence EfW plant, etc.
Arguably, these modern additions have improved the region as a candidate cluster for future CCUS
investment in spite of the steelworks’ closure.

Teesside can boast a close proximity of many plants, with relatively easy interconnectivity, which
few others can rival. This should contribute to keeping costs down.

Merseyside
The recent Cadent study highlighted Essar Refinery, Kemira Growhow and Encirc glassworks as
potential participant plants in a new industrial hydrogen hub in this area. If EfW/Biomass projects
are included in CCUS development plans, the new EfW plant and biomass plants at Protos26 are
geographically very close to the Kemira and Encirc plants. UPM (pulp) is also included as it is on the
existing pipe from Hamilton store.

Figure 8: Map of Merseyside emitters - EfW/Biomass in Blue (Basemap contains OS data © Crown copyright and database
right (2019) - OS Openmap)

In addition to the Industrial Mission clusters, emitting sites on the Thames stretching up across East
Anglia are large and diverse and could be connected in the future to the Hewett store which the
UK has already appraised.

Page 14 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

7. Whole Energy System Impact

A preliminary assessment of the potential impact of EfW with CCUS plants on an optimised UK
energy transition pathway has been performed using ESC’s “ESME“ [27] whole energy system
model. The ESME model contains techno-economic descriptions of all energy production and
conversion technologies, starting with primary energy sources (wind, coal, gas etc) and converting
these to end user level applications such as transportation, heat in buildings and homes, and
electricity. It is a lowest cost optimiser with the objective function to minimise the overall cost of
the UK energy system transition in line with meeting our GHG reduction commitments2 . It searches
for the lowest cost combinations of technologies that deliver the lowest-cost energy system
transition pathway (including meeting interim carbon budgets) in five-yearly time steps out to
2050.

Figure 9: ESC’s “ESME” model

Version 4.4 of the ESME model was run using ESC’s standard capital and operating cost
assumptions2, with updated data for waste combustion and gasification technology, with and
without CCUS. “Dry waste” is modelled as a finite resource in ESME, and it is only selected for
incineration when it is economically advantageous to do so. The assumed cost of dry waste in
these runs was -£80/te in 2020, similar to today’s gate fees, and that and its availability is assumed
not to change significantly out to 2050.

The key results of this ESME analysis are as follows:

ESME Runs – EfW without CCUS

Without CCUS being available on EfW facilities, ESME deploys incineration (about 1 GWe, utilising
under half the available dry waste) until the 2020s, and then closes down all power generation from
waste by 2040. This is a direct consequence of the tightening carbon budgets limiting the
applicability of EfW facilities due to their relatively high carbon footprint.

2
Footnote: The ESME model targets 80% decarbonisation by 2050 – this report predates the CCC Report
“Net Zero - The UK's contribution to stopping global warming Committee on Climate Change May 2019”

Page 15 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

ESME Runs – EfW with CCUS

With CCUS being available on EfW facilities, ESME deploys EfW with CCUS at the maximum
permitted build rate in the early 2020s, retrofitting CCUS to all EfW plants starting in the early
2020s. It continues to build and use incineration technology (with CCUS) out to 2050, deploying
1.7GWe and using all the available dry waste by 2040. This is the earliest deployment of CCUS
selected by the ESME model, highlighting its attractiveness as part of a lowest-cost decarbonisation
pathway. ESME does not generally deploy waste gasification technology when CCUS is available for
retro-fitting to combustion EfW facilities (EfW-CCUS is selected in preference to waste gasification
technology even though their cost and performance assumptions are similar as the model is not
configured to exploit other value adding opportunities for gasification other than energy).
Utilisation of waste heat was not an important factor in determining the level of deployment.

The lowest-cost energy system transition pathway produced by the ESME model shows that by
2050 one fifth of all CO2 captured in the UK could be from EfW plants, see Figure 10 below.

mtCO2 Captured
100 Industry

90
CCGT with CCS
80
H2 Plant (SMR with CCS)
70
H2 Plant (Biomass Gasification
60
Mt CO2/year

with CCS)
Incineration of Waste with CCS
50

40

30

20

10

0
ESME v4.41 Database
2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 02-04-19 Update

Figure 10: Captured CO2 in the UK (ESME lowest-cost pathway) - ESME adopts EfW with CCUS early, and uses all the
available dry waste

In runs including waste incineration with CCUS as an option, ESME outputs showed increases of
25% (10Mte/a) in “negative emissions”. Much of the “headroom” created by these emission savings
are used to reduce expenditure on much more expensive abatement options in the transport
sector. The total estimated undiscounted savings of this are £3Bn/a in the year 2050 (£2010),
equivalent to a cumulative discounted sum of £10Bn by 2050. These figures are likely to rise further
if a “Net Zero” constraint had been imposed by the model.

Page 16 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

8. The Policy Environment for EfW with and without CCUS

A review of historic policy decisions and the current policy effecting EfW and CCUS investments is
provided in Appendix 1. This includes landfill taxes, incentives for Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
plant (of which EfW is an example) and policy which incentivises efficiency improvements in
combustion and gasification of waste and other feedstocks (Advanced Conversion Technologies
(ACT). Additionally, recently emerging policies on waste and recycling are described along with
their compatibility with EfW with CCUS technology. This specifically considers possible distortions
that incentives for EfW with CCUS could produce.

In terms of how current policies are likely to impact on EfW investments, the following apply:

New EfW Plants (unabated)

• Do not currently pay carbon tax for non-biogenic CO2 emissions in the EU ETS.
This is worth an increasing amount, as under phase 4 (2020-30) of the EU ETS some energy
intensive industries will be expected to be granted less free credits, face more stringent
qualifications for these, and pay an increasing tax (currently c.£20/te).

• Do not receive ROCs, as this scheme has closed. Advanced plants (under the ACT initiative)
may attract CfDs, and recently these have been gasification technologies. The latest
incineration plants have little subsidy, especially if they have no heat offtake, and are
moving away from being supported by long term contracts to a more “merchant” model.

EfW Plants with CCUS

• Would expect to receive CfD, as they are producing clean power. However, as described in
section 5, this isn’t the main economic driver for EfW plants at present, as power production
is currently a modest income stream when compared to gate fees.

• Wouldn’t benefit otherwise from adding CCUS, as unabated plants don’t pay carbon tax for
their non-biogenic emission, and there is no policy to reward the “negative emissions”
brought about by storing CO2 from biogenic content.

In summary, the current policy environment provides very little incentive to fit carbon capture to
EfW plants. This may be at odds with an opportunity that offers relatively low-cost abatement for
modestly sized ventures, negates the need for abatement in more expensive areas of the system,
and offers “Net Zero” potential.

Page 17 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

9. Conclusions
Landfill of waste is not acceptable to the public for environmental reasons and policy has been put
in place to discourage this. Construction of EFW plants has therefore increased and looks set to
continue, although these are still high emitting units, and debate continues on the overall
environmental benefits, with government assistance to those attempting to improve efficiency. A
push to improve recycle rates may cause current growth rates of EfW to be curtailed.

In the meantime, CO2 reduction is still a core policy as the UK strives to meet its reduction
commitments, and CCUS is recognised as being essential to deliver deep decarbonisation. EfW with
CCUS offers competitive economics with many other industrial options for demonstration scale or
bolt-on projects within many industrial clusters, in spite of being sub-optimal in scale. This
competitiveness stems from their dominant revenue stream not being related to energy use, the
feedstock having a negative price and the off gas being relatively rich in CO2. The plants are much
newer than traditional industrial options, offering a long and stable payback time for the CCUS
investment.

At energy system level, EfW with CCUS is likely to be valued greatly. It abates the non-biogenic
carbon in waste and creates a negative emission from biogenic carbon that can be used to offset
greater potential abatement costs in the transport and heat sectors. The ESME model, which
develops lowest-cost energy system transition pathways to 2050, chooses to convert all EfW plants
to EfW with CCUS in the 2020s and uses all available feedstock by 2040. The addition of CCUS to
EfW plants in this way would deliver a cumulative discounted energy system cost saving of £10 Bn
to 2050. To deliver this in practice requires CCUS to be “up and running “and for EfW facilities to be
favourably located for CCUS (e.g. through appropriate clustering).

Based on outline economic data, carbon prices of £45/te and CfDs around £136/MWh would be
required to make adding CCUS to EFW a viable option, although more detailed work on this is
required.

It is therefore recommended that policy evolves to include EFW with CCUS as an option for CCUS
with other industrial emission opportunities. This policy would need to fully reward the creation of
negative emissions, which as system analysis has shown, obviate the need for expenditure on
emission reductions from sectors which are much more cost to abate, and are instrumental in
driving us to “Net Zero” solutions.

It is also recommended that a much fuller assessment of technology options is made than this
short study could tackle, with engineering, detailed costings and financial appraisal of the best
options. If not available to government already, life cycle and cost analysis comparing different
options currently available for treatment of wastes should be refreshed – including AD for food
waste, recycling of plastics etc as alternatives to incineration or gasification.

Page 18 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

10. Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to BEIS, Viridor and Carbon Clean Solutions for helpful guidance at the
beginning of this project. Thanks also go to Bilaal Hussain, Senior Analyst for Modelling at ESC for
his ESME modelling input, and Susanna Elks, Energy Policy Advisor at ESC for the section on policy
issues.

Page 19 of 33
Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

11. References

[1] Tolvik Consulting, “UK Energy from Waste Statistics - 2017,” 2018.

[2] Department For Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “Final UK greenhouse gas emissions
national statistics: 1990 to 2018,” 4 February 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-
statistics-1990-to-2018. [Accessed 10 February 2020].

[3] CCUS Cost Challenge Taskforce, “Delivering Clean Growth: CCUS Cost Challenge Task Force,”
2018.

[4] Energy Technologies Institute, “Taking Stock of UK CO2 Storage,” 2017.

[5] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “Clean Growth Strategy,” 2018.

[6] F. Di Maria, S. Contini, G. Bidini, A. Boncompagni, M. Lasagni and F. Sisani, “Energetic

Efficiency of an Existing Waste to Energy Power Plant,” Energy Procedia, vol. 101, pp. 1175-
1182, 2016.

[7] Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “National Atmospheric Emissions
Inventory,” [Online]. Available: http://naei.beis.gov.uk/.

[8] Shell, “CO2 Capture for refineries, a practical approach,” Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 179-
185, 2009.

[9] Foster Wheeler, “BOC HPU CCUS Study,” 2014.

[10] J. Stuen, “Carbon Capture from Waste to Energy in Oslo”.

[11] Tolvik Consulting, “UK Residual Waste: 2030 Market Review,” 2017.

[12] C. Jonas, ““Filling the Gap” Impact of the Resource and Waste Strategy,” Lets Recycle, 21
February 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/filling-the-
gap-impact-of-the-resources-and-waste-strategy/. [Accessed March 2019].

[13] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Resources and Waste Strategy for
England,” 2018.

[14] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Energy recovery for residual waste, a
carbon based approach,” 2014.

[15] The United Kingdom without Incineration Network, “Evaluation of the climate change impacts
of waste incineration in the United Kingdom,” 2018.

[16] IEAGHG, “Waste Power CCU Projects in Japan,” 2016.

Page 20 of 33
Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

[17] E. Slow, “AVR to capture CO2 in Holland,” letsrecycle.com, 8 June 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/avr-to-capture-co2-in-holland/. [Accessed
March 2019].

[18] Gassnova, “Full-scale CCS,” [Online]. Available: https://gassnova.no/en/full-scale-ccs.

[Accessed March 2019].

[19] European Environment Agency, “Air pollution impacts from carbon capture and storage
(CCS),” 2011.

[20] Element Energy, “Demonstrating CO2 capture in the UK cement, chemicals and oil refining
sector by 2025,” 2014.

[21] J. Husebye, A. Brunsvold, S. Roussanaly and X. Zhang, “Techno-economic evaluation of amine

based CO2 Capture,” Energy Procedia, vol. 23, pp. 381-390, 2012.

[22] G. Thornton, Project Transform Waste PFI OBC, Final Modelling Assumptions.

[23] AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Addendum to EfW Business Case,” Aberdeen City Council, 2015.

[24] IEAGHG, “Techno-Ecoomic Evaluation of SMR Based Standalone (Merchant) Hydrogen Plant
with CCS,” 2017.

[25] AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Assessing the Cost Reduction Potential and Competitiveness of Novel
(Next Generation) UK Carbon Capture Technology Benchmarking State-of-the-art and Next
Generation Technologies,” Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2018.

[26] Ends Waste & Bioenergy, 2019.

[27] Energy Technologies Institute, “ESME,” [Online]. Available:

https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/strategy/esme. [Accessed March 2019].

Page 21 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

12. Appendices

Appendix 1: EfW with CCUS – Policy Background and Implications

Past EfW Policies
During the 1980s, EfW was not favourably perceived within the UK; the prevalence of landfill-
suitable sites (former quarries), combined with negative public perception and the introduction of
tighter emission controls on incineration in 1989 resulted in no new plants being built from 1980-
1993.

In the mid-1990s, increased governmental and EU awareness of GHG emissions led to comparisons
of the emissions from different waste disposal mechanisms. These showed that EfW was
preferential to landfill, though it was dependant on the proportion of biogenic carbon in the waste,
with high levels of biogenic waste making EfW more attractive.

This combined with the public discontent with landfill led to the production of the European Union
Landfill Directive, which specified targets for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill. To
ensure they met these targets, many local authorities financed EfW plants with Private Finance
Initiatives (PFIs) from 1996 to 2009. As another measure the government also introduced the UK
1996 Landfill Tax which made EfW economically competitive with landfill. ¹

In 2002 and 2005 the Renewables Obligations scheme was introduced to Britain and Northern
Ireland. This subsidised renewable generation through obligating electricity suppliers to procure a
specific proportion of electricity from renewable sources and to prove it with the procurement of
Renewable Obligation Certificates. EfW incinerators without CHP Quality Assurance Programme
(CHPQA) status, accreditation which can only be obtained by high-quality efficient CHP plants,
were not eligible for the scheme. EfW with CHPQA and ACT EfW plants were included, and
therefore supported, due to their superior efficiency and the co-benefits of heat or hydrogen.

Concurrently, EU policy supported EfW through the 2005 European Union Emission Trading System
(EU ETS) excluding EfW emissions and the 2009 EU Renewables Energy Directive assuring
commitment to renewable electricity, heat and transport fuel out to 2020. Domestically, the 2004
landfill allowance trading scheme in England and the 2010 landfill tax escalator ensured EfWplant
enjoyed continued competitive advantage over landfill options whilst in 2012 PFI evolved into PF2
and continued to provide funding, though on a reduced scale, for EfW projects.

The government aimed to further incentivise improved EfW efficiencies and ‘renewable’ heat
generation. When RHIs were introduced in 2011, CHP plants were eligible for the funding; though
only if they were not accredited under the Renewable Obligation (RO) scheme. CHPs were also
incentivised to reach CHPQA status through the 2001 Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme, which
allows businesses tax breaks on eligible equipment and the 2001 Climate Change Levy which
removes tax on the generated electricity from a ‘renewable’ source2.

Current Situation- Subsidies and The Story

Last year (2018) ROCs were closed to new entrants; although current plants signed up to the
schemes will continue to get subsidies out to 2027 or 2037 depending on when they were
constructed. The scheme has been replaced by Contracts for Difference (CfDs); contracts awarded

Page 22 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

through an auction, to eligible renewable energy technologies guaranteeing the price they will be
paid for the electricity they supply. EfW incinerators with no heat retrieval are not eligible for CfDs
however, reflecting the government’s continued support, CHP EfW plants were eligible in Pot 1 (for
established technologies), due to their greater efficiencies and ACT plants were eligible in Pot 2 (for
less established technologies), due to their whole system benefits.

Unfortunately, this initiative has not caused a large uptake of these technologies with only six ACT
plants and two CHP plants gaining contracts in the 1st and 2nd auctions, and with lower strike prices
than hoped for. The low number of gasification and pyrolysis projects is due to the complex nature
of the technology and the associated high risk, often leading to unexpectedly high capital costs,
long construction periods and protracted commissioning periods. This coupled with the low strike
price currently makes the projects less appealing than conventional incinerators.

The construction rate of CHP technology has been higher than ACTs in the past, however, once
built, EfW plants often struggle to find a market for heat that is as robust as anticipated. This is
because of the relative selling prices of electricity and heat and the relative difficulty in developing
a market for heat. Furthermore, it can be difficult for EfW plants to gain planning approval in
residential areas due to objections from residents (fearing increases in traffic, noise, smell,
pollutants), meaning EfW CHP plants are often placed in areas with no potential for district heating.
This is worsened by the relatively small penetration of heat networks in the UK and the slow growth
of this market.

The Future Waste Landscape and the Implications for EfW

Defra released its vision for the future of waste management, the Resources and Waste Strategy for
England, in December 2018. It outlines a number of flagship policies which it hopes will create a
step change in waste management in the UK and enable the UK to meet its 2020 and 2030
recycling targets. It supports EfW plants processing the residual waste left after extensive ”reduce,
reuse and recycle“ practises and places specific emphasis on its support for EfW plants achieving
greater efficiencies and producing outputs which have system-wide benefits.

A key policy in the strategy with implications for the EfW industry, is the suggestion of households
separating the biogenic portion of the waste stream from municipal waste for use in anaerobic
digesters. This was included in the strategy as a suggestion, with its enactment being subject to
consultation, but its inclusion could suggest the future direction of travel. Simultaneously, there is a
large consumer movement to reduce plastic use in every-day lives which is widely supported by the
proposals in the strategy. This could lead to a reduction in plastic use and an increased use of
alternative materials such as bioplastics. In combination, these factors make it difficult to project
with certainty the future volume and composition (be it energy, carbon or biogenic content) of UK
waste, which clearly has implications for the future shape of the EfW industry.

Overall it is unclear what capacity of EfW plants, and which technologies, will be both necessary
and viable in the future. There is a specific emphasis on the UK not having an overcapacity of EfW
plants due to fears this brings waste down the waste hierarchy; though data from other countries
suggests that increased EfW capacity is correlated with the exact opposite. The government’s
method of ensuring there is not excess capacity is to ensure investment is market driven. This does
not remove the concerns that the rigid long-term contracts entered into by municipalities mean
that a variation or short fall of municipal waste in a region could lead to the unnecessary
incineration of waste, as often raised by several groups currently campaigning against EfW plants.

Page 23 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Possible Incentives for CCUS

The benefits of CCUS development are widely known. Without action from government it is
unlikely these benefits will be realised; as in conjunction with the large up-front costs, there are
currently only minor potential revenue streams and therefore little short-term incentive for
companies to invest in this technology. Therefore, just as with any location in the system, the EfW
industry would require funding assistance from the government to be able to construct CCUS
technology.

Potential incentive mechanisms to facilitate the deployment of CCUS on other high emitters in the
UK economy have been explored. They generally fall into the category of transitional technology
incentives or long-term carbon reduction incentives. The same incentive mechanisms would be
applicable for EfW plants:

Current Incentives

• The current Contracts for Difference could potentially apply to EfW incineration plant with
CCUS. These contracts substantially reduce the investment risk of a project by ensuring a
price for generated electricity for the next 15 years. If these contracts were adapted to
reflect the value of negative emissions, they could represent a higher income for CCUS
plants.

Possible Transitional Incentives

• Government co-investment could deliver CCUS demonstration projects by filling the gap in
both capital and risk allocation between industrial commitments and the requirements of a
project. In 2007 and 2012 the government set up competitions to provide funding for
industrial scale CCUS demonstration projects. Both competitions were cancelled due to the
government claiming the final projects were not good value for money. For this funding
route to be used it will require increased government support with an assurance of
continuity for industry. Also, a new funding process must reflect lessons learnt from the
previous two competitions (such as separately funding the transmission and storage
infrastructure as national assets and the government taking on additional risk).

• The government can support projects by applying tax incentives to plants with CCUS or
plants which significantly reduce emissions.

• Grant funding from innovation funds such as the UN’s proposed NER400 can add
significant capital. This can have particular weight if used to target the high-risk links in the
process which do not attract industry funding.

• Loan guarantees can reduce the risk of the project through raising the credit rating, thereby
attracting valuable funding.

• Capital and operating subsidies can also reduce the risk of a project and help secure quality
investments.

Creating a Market

• The government could, theoretically, reduce the permitted GHG emissions from EfW plants.
This would put the cost of installing CCUS on to the plants themselves. CCUS would likely
be too costly for EfW plants to install and remain competitive with landfill or international

Page 24 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

markets. This would lead to a net increase in emissions as EfW plants are likely to
experience widespread closures.

• Carbon pricing has been discussed in the UK for many years. The current EU ETS (which is to
be re-explored after Brexit) is the closest the UK has to a comprehensive emissions trading
scheme with it covering 45% of all emissions in the EU. Currently EfW plants are not within
the scheme and would not be able to sell the abated emissions on the market. If this was
changed, or EfW plants were included in the EU ETS/future schemes this could be an
additional revenue stream for EfW plants with CCUS; particularly if it specifically rewarded
negative emissions. The current carbon price is too low to remunerate the high costs of
CCUS installation, though in the future the price of carbon may increase. In this eventuality
CCUS may become a substantial revenue stream or cost saving mechanism across the
economy, particularly for EfW with CCUS due to the negative emission potential.

• The Parliamentary Advisory Group on Carbon Capture and Storage suggested that after
industrial scale CCUS technology has been demonstrated, fossil fuel suppliers should be
obligated to capture a set volume of emissions through a ‘CCUS Obligation Scheme’. The
captured and stored emissions would be recorded through a CCUS Certificate Scheme
which would underpin an increasing obligation for the proportion of stored emissions. This
would create an independent revenue stream for CCUS and fund the construction of further
projects under the ‘polluter pays’ philosophy. ³

Exploration of the Potential Impact on the System of EfW with CCUS

For the government to consider incentivising CCUS on EfW plants, the interactions with current EfW
policy must first be considered along with any potential distortions which could result from the
incentives. Through this process it could be seen whether EfW is an appealing location for CCUS in
the future and if so, how potential distortions can be mitigated or removed through effective
policy.

This report has considered the potential interactions with current EfW policy, along with any
potential distortions, which could arise from placing CCUS on EfW plants. Outlined below are some
of the key points which arose from this work;

Adhering to the Waste Hierarchy - Too much capacity and prioritising biomass use

As discussed in Section 3.3, there are concerns that rigid waste contracts and an over-capacity of
EfW plants could incentivise waste to move down the waste hierarchy. If EfW with CCUS
incentivises the construction of EfW plants, this could interfere with the government’s strategy of
ensuring the correct capacity is built by entrusting investment decisions to the market.

If EfW plants are rewarded based on the captured emissions, there are three possible distortions
which could occur:

• Incentivised burning of high-emission items

• Incentivised burning of non-waste items
• Incentivised burning of biomass

The first and second could occur if the plants rewards were based on the volume of emissions
captured and the third if they were based on negative emissions. The first is the unfavourable
combustion of plastic and other materials which would have benefited the system more if not
combusted. The second is a scenario where it is beneficial for plants to operate at maximum

Page 25 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

capacity and therefore to source items to combust; be it old waste from landfill or items which
could have been reused in the system. The third, if widely adopted, could have the largest impact
on the wider system. There is a finite amount of biomass in the UK economy. If EfW with CCUS
incentivises negative emissions it is important this does not lead to the combustion of biomass
from non-waste sources or disincentivise biogenic waste going to gasification plants, as these
resources have the potential to provide wider system benefits. One exception would be the
combustion of bio-plastic if this has an increased presence in the economy. These materials
breakdown to methane in landfill and are not readily recyclable. The combustion of these materials
for energy retrieval and negative emissions from CCUS would create an interesting chain in the
circular economy.

It must be ensured that the incentives for CCUS with EfW do not disincentivise investment in ACT,
which may offer long term benefits. This could occur because the added risk of ACT combined with
the added capital in CCUS is likely to prevent investment in ACT with CCUS projects. Therefore,
only incineration plants will be able to gain the benefits from the CCUS incentive schemes which
may make them a much more attractive project than new ACT plants. It must be ensured that this
does not lead to the exclusive construction of incineration plants.

Imports/Exports

It is difficult to estimate the future flows of waste across international borders, this being
dependent on additional capacity, overheads and transport costs. However, if a large number of UK
EfW plants were gaining additional revenue from the use of CCUS, they may be able to lower their
gate fee and compete with European EfW plants; depending on the excess capacity of European
EfW plants. This could lead to the UK being paid to import waste. It is also interesting to consider
the UK being paid to produce negative emissions for other European countries through EfW with
CCUS.

Conclusions
The discussion above and the wider assessment conducted for this work, suggest that EfW plants
are in a favourable position for CCUS demonstration projects and subject to careful
subsidy/support constraints, CCUS could present a long-term solution for EfW emissions.
Positioning EfW as an option for CCUS demonstration projects removes the potential distortions to
the market which could produce excess EfW plant capacity and widespread incineration of biomass
in the future energy system, whilst also acting as a solution to the current inertia in CCUS
investment. Using CCUS as a widespread solution to EfW emissions should be carefully considered.
Specific attention should be paid to how the abated emissions are tallied, where the waste is
sourced from and the eligible capacity of EfW. With appropriate measures this should ensure
counter-productive combustion of system-assets (i.e. biomass or items suited for higher up the
waste hierarchy) and an overcapacity of EfW plants are not incentivised.

To encourage investment in CCUS with EfW projects, it seems pragmatic that not only ACT plants
but also incinerators fitting CCUS are eligible for the available funding. In this way CCUS can be
demonstrated on a mature technology, reducing the risk of the project and helping it become
mature for the market. It is key that in parallel ACT projects are not disincentivised and continue to
be developed. In this way, once CCUS has been demonstrated in conjunction with a mature
technology and ACT has be developed in parallel, the two could be combined in projects with a
reduced, and acceptable, level of risk.

Page 26 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Furthermore, with the current necessity of decarbonising domestic heating, there is a substantial
argument for CHP plants with CCUS, as they could provide low-cost, negative-emission heat
through district networks. This could offset the costs of installing low-carbon heat technologies in
individual households and reinforcing constrained gas or electricity network infrastructure. The
timing of this is key, as once new infrastructure has been installed many of the benefits of installing
a district heat network will be reduced.

References
1) Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284612/p
b14130-energy-waste-201402.pdf

2) Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/O_And_EFW_Guidance_FULL.pdf

3) Available at: http://www.CCUSassociation.org/news-and-events/reports-and-publications/parliamentary-

advisory-group-on-CCUS-report/

Page 27 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

Appendix 2 - Tables of Cost Sources and Assumptions

2.1 References for Assumptions Used in Figure 3

ASSUMPTIONS ( Figure 3 ) REFERENCES ( Typical)

Technical
CO2 generation teCO2/te Feed 1 UK Without Incineration Network, Evaluation of the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Incineration, Oct 2018
Waste throughput, te/a 350,000 Typical size of new large units - Ends Waste& Bioenergy/Tolvik Reports in Refrences
EFW LHV Efficency% (100%power) 30 A Preliminary comparative performance evluation of Highly efficient Waste to Energy Plants, Energy Procedia 45 ( 2014)
LCV of Feed ,MJ/kg 8.9 UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2017 , Tolvik 2018
Heat out /power out (Z) 5 CHP Ready Guidance for Combustion and Energuy from Waste Power Plants, Environment Agency, 2013
CC heat requirement, GJ/te CO2 2.3 Best from GHGT-12 Shell Cansolv Capture Technology:Acheivement from First Commercial Plant, Energy Procedia* 63 (2014)
CO2 Capture rate,% 94 Best published figures from operating units
%Waste carbon biogenic, % 50 UK Without Incineration Network, Evaluation of the Climate Change Impacts of Waste Incineration, Oct 2018
Economic
Gate Fee £/te 80 UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2017 , Tolvik 2018
Power Price, £/MWh. 2030 60 Baringa : Power sector CCS and H2 Turbine Asset Modelling , 2017. Available at https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/carbon-capture-storage
Carbon Price, £/te 2030 45 Baringa : Power sector CCS and H2 Turbine Asset Modelling , 2017. Available at https://www.eti.co.uk/programmes/carbon-capture-storage
CO2 Trans & Storage, £/te 17 Progressing Development of the UK’s Strategic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resource

2.2 Table of References used for Capex and Opex Data

Page 28 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

2.3 Development of Data used in This Report from References Above

1.1 Capital Cost Estimate for CO2 Capture Addition
Example : From Foster Wheeler Study for Stockton Borough Council ( Reference 8)

Description of Headline Figures from above study

Teesside Unit: Total Installed Cost ( TIC) £43.5M in Q42014 (+/-30% )

Scope Includes : Capture ( 304kte/a, 90% capture, 17% CO2 in flue) , Regenrator, Compression, Cooling Supply, MEA tank, power
Scope Excludes: Offsite modifications ( H2 Plant)
Cost includes: EPC, EPC mangt,
Cost Excludes : Owners Cost, Land, Finance, Commissioning, Contingency,Insurances,Technology Fees
Fixed Cost ( Opex) £3.95M/a
Variable Cost (Inc. Power) £4.43M/a

Development of Teesside TIC Cost to Estimate for CCUS for EfW Plant, 330 kte/a

Total Installed Cost from above 43.5

Scale multiplier to TIC( gas flow) 1.27 55.245

Allowance for EFW Mods/Tie-Ins8 63.245
Contingency 20% TIC
Fees/Ins/Int 5% TIC
Commissioning/Charge 2% TIC
Pre Feed 5% TIC
Spares 1% TIC
Land 5% TIC
Owners Cost 10% TIC
Escalation Q42014-2017 5% TIC

Total Cost Build factors 53%

Capital Estimate for 330kte/a addition, £M 2017 £97M

1.2. Opex Estimate for CO2 Capture Addition

This was taken directly from the same reference £4M/a

2. 1Capital Cost Estimation of Core EfW Plant
Example : Unit Cost of EFW plant from GCCSi, EFW Section 14.7 Cost and Pricing

Description of Headline Figures from above study

"High" scenario figures show £7000/MWe, flat over time

Development Cost to Estimate for EfW Plant 350kte/a/32MW

Capital Estimate , £M 2017 £224M

More convincingly ,this figure matches those in published figures from a number of recently completed UK projects with similar
waste throughputs

2. 2 Opex Cost Estimation of Core EfW Plant

Example : Addendum to Energy from Waste Business Case ) Aberdeen City Council ( Reference 23)

Description of Headline Figures from above study

Opex is given for a 150kte/a unit
Maintenance £11/te
Variable Opex £19/te
Fixed opex £10/te

Adjustments to above

Maintenance - adjusted for scale 8

Variable opex - no adjustment 19
Fixed Opex -adjusted for scale 5
(Insurance separate)
Total Opex with 6% Escalation from 2015 £12M/a

Page 29 of 33
 Energy from Waste Plants with Carbon Capture
A Preliminary Assessment of their Potential Value to the Decarbonisation of the UK

2.4 Site Data used in Figures 1,5,6

Table of Merseyside and Teesside Emitters

Site Operator Data Source Reference Data Reference Vaue C alc Emission kte/a Notes

Mersey Core Fossil kte C O2 /a

Stanlow Refinery Essar Oil (UK) Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 623457.9319 2286
Ince Kemira Growhow UK Ltd NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 183046.6364 671
Ince Encirc Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 56488.35372 207
Total C ore Fossil 3164
Mersey EfW
Hooton Bio Power Peel and C oGen BWSC 1 te/a waste capacity 240000 240
Protos EfW (Ince) Biffa & C ovanta& Peel 2 te/a waste capacity 350000 0 pre FID
RuncornEfW Viridor Laing GM 3 te/a waste capacity 1100000 1,100
Lostock EfW ( Nantwich) Tata. 12 miles SE of Runcorn( just off map) 4 te/a waste capacity 500000 100 p20 ( thru FID)
Total EfW Emission 1440
Mersey Bio
Mersey Bioenergy Bioenergy Infra Group 2 te/a waste wood capacity 140000 140
Ince Bio Bioenergy Infra Group 2 te/a waste wood capacity 170000 170
UPM-Kymmene (UK) 5 te/a CO2 from Shotton 350000 350
Grannox/ PDM Group Saria 6 te/a meat and bone meal 46000 70
Total Bio Emission 730
Teesside Core Fossil
Wilton Olefins 6 SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 324569.7273 1190
Billingham C F Fertilisers UK Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 180845.4545 663
Wilton SembC orp Utilities (UK) Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 137474.4106 0 (CHP power)
Seal Sands INEOS Nitriles (UK) Ltd NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 104538 383
Seal Sands C ONOC OPHILLIPS NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 86380.67698 317
Teesside Hydrogen Plant BOC Limited NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 76703.33411 281
C assel Works Lucite International UK Ltd NAEI 2016 te C /a 2016 61988.65502 227
Total C ore Fossil Emission 3062 ( excluding CHP)
Teesside Efw
Teeside EfW Plant/NEERC Suez 7 kte/a capacity 756 756
Wilton 11 EfW Plant Suez 7 kte/a capacity 600 600
Redcar EfW PMAC Energy 8 te/a capacity 500000 0 pre FID
Total Efw 1356
Teeside Bio
Teeside Renewable Energy Plant MGT Teesside Ltd 9,10 te/a pellets & wood chip 1500 1800
Wilton 10 biomass Sembcorp 7 kte/a capacity 293 300
Port Clarence Energy Project Glennmont Partners 11 te/ waste wood capacity 325,000 350
Total Bio 2450

1 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/construction-starts-hooton-gasification-plant/
2 http://bioenergyinfrastructure.co.uk/site
3 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/viridor-increase-runcorn-efw-capacity/
4 https://www.endswasteandbioenergy.com/article/1580347/cip-fcc-move-600000t-yr-efw-plant-forward
5 private communication - similar order of magnitude figure in
www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/EfW%20plant%20databasewww.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/EfW%20plant%20database.xlsx.xlsx
6 https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Tolvik-UK-Biomass-Statistics-2017-2.pdf
7 https://www.tolvik.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tolvik-EfW-Statistics-2018-Report_June-2019_published.pdf
8 https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/plans-redcar-efw-plant/
9 Average of a number of wide ranging sources , including https://www.banktrack.org/project/mgt_teesside_biomass_power_station/pdf
10 https://www.shi-fw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MGT-TEESSIDE-HERALDS-A-NEW-300-MW-CLASS-BIOMASS-CFB-POWER-PLANT.pdf
11 http://www.volund.dk/References_and_cases/Multi-fuel_energy_solutions/Teesside

Notes on Conversion of Plant Capcity to Estimates of CO2 Emission

1 1.Following study of numerous published analytical data and Environmental Agency data, WIN estimated that 1 te of UK Waste (MSW) produced 1 Te of CO2
See Table 7 of UK WIN publication "Evaluation of the climate change impacts of waste incineration in the United Kingdom October 2018 (Rev 1.01: April 2019) "

2 2.Although the carbon content of RDF, wood waste , pellets is higher than the above, the annual emission levels may be offset by lower plant availability ( Ref 6).
Calculations on emissions default conservatively to 1 te of waste capacity produced 1 te CO2 where insufficeint information is available
Information on Carbon content of feeds can be found for example at
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-016-1223-9
https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/carbon-emissions-of-different-fuels/
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19019

3 3.Other published emissions include

Klemetsrudanlegget in Norway
1 Te waste produces 1.14 Te CO2
http://task41project5.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Stuen.pdf Slide 5

Page 1 of 33
Energy Systems Catapult supports
innovators in unleashing opportunities
from the transition to a clean, intelligent
energy system.

Energy Systems Catapult

7th Floor, Cannon House
18 Priory Queensway
Birmingham
B4 6BS

es.catapult.org.uk
[email protected]
+44 (0)121 203 3700

© 2020 Energy Systems Catapult