Difference between revisions of "PSA B2 SOTA"
m |
m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== description of the state of the art of the technique or method addressed === | === description of the state of the art of the technique or method addressed === | ||
| + | The promotion of waste minimisation and recycling are important components of modern waste management strategies: to this end anaerobic digestion has been reported as the most cost-effective method. | ||
| − | + | Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and sewage sludge is a sustainable and an appropriate treatment alternative due to bioenergy and nutrient recovery while combining the treatment of two largest municipal waste streams. | |
| − | + | By co-digestion, volume of the organic wastes is reduced and stabilized, a residue that can be used for soil conditioning is produced, and energy in the form of methane is recovered. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Sludge occurring at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is considered as one of the most appropriate co-substrates for co-digestion with the OFMSW. With the large amount of sewage sludge produced in WWTPs and the large number of existing anaerobic digesters to stabilize it, the anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW with sewage sludge is especially attractive. | Sludge occurring at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is considered as one of the most appropriate co-substrates for co-digestion with the OFMSW. With the large amount of sewage sludge produced in WWTPs and the large number of existing anaerobic digesters to stabilize it, the anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW with sewage sludge is especially attractive. | ||
| − | + | Co-fermentation of biowastes in WWTP may affect plant operational performance in terms of degree of degradation, gas production, drainability, and backload. | |
| − | + | In addition, dilution of potential toxic compounds, improved balance of nutrients, and synergistic effect of microorganisms are the other benefits of co-digestion including hygienic stabilization under appropriate operational conditions. | |
| − | dilution of potential toxic compounds, improved balance of nutrients, and synergistic effect of microorganisms are the other benefits of co-digestion including hygienic stabilization | ||
Summarizing: | Summarizing: | ||
* anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and OF-MSW is a well-known process; | * anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and OF-MSW is a well-known process; | ||
* it is considered a preferable choice; | * it is considered a preferable choice; | ||
| − | * apparently there are not major drawbacks | + | * apparently there are not major drawbacks. |
| + | |||
| + | As seen in the description of the environmental problem targeted, this methods is not opposed by EU legal framework. | ||
So why isn't COWS-like projects on every WWTP and MSW manager? | So why isn't COWS-like projects on every WWTP and MSW manager? | ||
| − | + | Core technology providers focus their efforts primarily on new facilities where their whole process can be purchased without the need of extensive works and modifications as it happens on existing plants. | |
| + | |||
| + | One key point is pre-treatment, which is crucial for throughput performance and quality of residual digestate and organic waste. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pre-treatment is essential for: | ||
| + | * separating biodegradable, useful ingredients of MSW-OF from contaminants or contrary elements; | ||
| + | * breaking down OF waste to particles small enough to maximize mixing with sludge; | ||
| + | * reduce the volume of residual fraction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the majority of cases currently available, pre-treatment technologies and devices have been: | ||
| + | * pushed by providers of digester process technologies; | ||
| + | * derived from other industrial field, mainly pulp and plastics industry. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It should also be noticed that - while in a new plant a patented process can be used, there is little space for patenting integration of co-digestion in existing WWTP using "public-dominion" technology. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In conclusion there is a technology gap around integration of pre-treatment subsystems into existing WWTP AD processes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | exist, the j but have not been put together in a lean way; | ||
| + | * | ||
=== technical description of the processes or methods and/or proposed innovation(s), new elements, improvements === | === technical description of the processes or methods and/or proposed innovation(s), new elements, improvements === | ||
Revision as of 13:58, 16 July 2011
Contents
State of the art and innovative aspects of the project
Provide a description of the state of the art of the technique or method addressed. Elaborate on the technical description of the processes or methods and/or proposed innovation(s), new elements, improvements. Describe the previous research and experience carried out in preparation for the project implementation, including feasibility studies. Please take into account that the innovative nature of the proposed actions can be evaluated from different perspectives: a) relative to the technologies applied by the project (technological innovation), b) relative to the way technologies are implemented (innovation in processes or methods) and, c) concerning the business and economic models developed by the project (economic and business innovation). These different dimensions of the innovatory nature have to be compared with the state of the art at global (world) level. N.B. Geographical technology or practice transfer alone (without a genuine development of innovative character) can not be considered as innovative. Equally, projects which involve pure research and development or merely preparatory activities (studies, surveys, etc) can not be considered innovative per se.
description of the state of the art of the technique or method addressed
The promotion of waste minimisation and recycling are important components of modern waste management strategies: to this end anaerobic digestion has been reported as the most cost-effective method.
Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and sewage sludge is a sustainable and an appropriate treatment alternative due to bioenergy and nutrient recovery while combining the treatment of two largest municipal waste streams.
By co-digestion, volume of the organic wastes is reduced and stabilized, a residue that can be used for soil conditioning is produced, and energy in the form of methane is recovered.
Sludge occurring at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is considered as one of the most appropriate co-substrates for co-digestion with the OFMSW. With the large amount of sewage sludge produced in WWTPs and the large number of existing anaerobic digesters to stabilize it, the anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW with sewage sludge is especially attractive.
Co-fermentation of biowastes in WWTP may affect plant operational performance in terms of degree of degradation, gas production, drainability, and backload. In addition, dilution of potential toxic compounds, improved balance of nutrients, and synergistic effect of microorganisms are the other benefits of co-digestion including hygienic stabilization under appropriate operational conditions.
Summarizing:
- anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and OF-MSW is a well-known process;
- it is considered a preferable choice;
- apparently there are not major drawbacks.
As seen in the description of the environmental problem targeted, this methods is not opposed by EU legal framework.
So why isn't COWS-like projects on every WWTP and MSW manager?
Core technology providers focus their efforts primarily on new facilities where their whole process can be purchased without the need of extensive works and modifications as it happens on existing plants.
One key point is pre-treatment, which is crucial for throughput performance and quality of residual digestate and organic waste.
Pre-treatment is essential for:
- separating biodegradable, useful ingredients of MSW-OF from contaminants or contrary elements;
- breaking down OF waste to particles small enough to maximize mixing with sludge;
- reduce the volume of residual fraction.
In the majority of cases currently available, pre-treatment technologies and devices have been:
- pushed by providers of digester process technologies;
- derived from other industrial field, mainly pulp and plastics industry.
It should also be noticed that - while in a new plant a patented process can be used, there is little space for patenting integration of co-digestion in existing WWTP using "public-dominion" technology.
In conclusion there is a technology gap around integration of pre-treatment subsystems into existing WWTP AD processes.
exist, the j but have not been put together in a lean way;
