Meco mass recycle 2017 final

© 2014 | Marathon Equipment Company | All Rights Reserved. 1CONFIDENTIAL – Do Not Reproduce
COLLABORATIVE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT WINNING THROUGH CUSTOMERS HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS, OPENNESS, AND TRUST EXPECTATIONS FOR RESULTS RESPECTS AND VALUES PEOPLE
Diversion of Organics
Trade-offs between collection and processing costs and
How technology can shift those trade-offs
Presenter: Ken Beaver
Date: Mar 27,2017

Collection vs. Processing Costs
the impact of source-separation
 Pros: Lowest collection cost (one bin to
collect). Potentially high diversion rate,
as all material goes to the MRF (sorting
technology at the MRF will determine
the diversion rate).
 Cons: Highest processing cost, due to
the high capital and operating costs
associated with a MWP MRF. Many still
doubt the ability of a MWP MRF to
successfully separate recyclables from
organic waste in particular.
 Pros: (Potentially) highest purity of
incoming materials to the SSR MRF
and AD facilities.
 Cons: Highest collection costs (three
separate bins to collect). Relies on
generators to faithfully sort materials
into the correct bins. Some
generators may not have enough room
to store three bins.
Scenario 1 (One bin for all)
R1 MRF Bales
Landfill Gas
AD Compost
Scenario 3 (Garbage + SSR + Organic)
R1 MRF Bales
R2 Landfill Gas
R3 AD Compost
Source-Separation provides clean materials (maybe) and will increase collection costs

Optimum Number of Bins
modeling the economic trade-offs
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
$110
$120
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
TipFee(TF)
Route Density (M) - time between homes (seconds)
Optimum Scenario
as a function of route density (M) and tip fee (TF)
Scenario 0
SSR + Garbage, no AD
Scenario 2
Dry + Wet, AD
Scenario 1
1 Bin, AD
Scenario 3
3 Bins, AD
f = 0.72
Y = 16.0
Pc = $2.25
Pd= $3.50
CF = 26
SE = 94.0%
Scenario 0 (Current - no AD)
R1 MRF Bales
R2 Landfill
Scenario 1 (One bin for all)
R1 MRF Bales
Landfill Gas
AD Compost
Scenario 2 (Dry + Wet)
R1 MRF Bales
Landfill Gas
R3 AD Compost
Scenario 3 (Garbage + SSR + Organic)
R1 MRF Bales
R2 Landfill Gas
R3 AD Compost
Optimum number of bins depends on your specific situation – but CAN be determined

Conclusions
trade-offs between collection and processing
 Tip fee (avoidance) is a primary driver of economical organics diversion
 High route density justifies multiple bins, low route density does not
– Urban routes can be low density (stuck in traffic)
 In multiple-bin collections, “sorting efficiency” (getting the right stuff in
the right bin) has a major impact on economics of processing, as well
as diversion rates
– More bins does not necessarily equal higher diversion
 Evolving technology will challenge assumption that mixed-waste
processing (“dirty” MRF) can’t produce acceptable bale purity
 A complete economic analysis must include not just costs, but also
revenues (they will change with different scenarios)
 High correlation between best economics and highest diversion
– Economics and environment don’t have to be in conflict
When implementing organics program, consider both collection and processing

MSW Collection and Processing
Current vs Future State
• MRF residue (glass/organics) goes
to landfill
• Trash > 50% organic/fiber
• SSO challenges
– Commercial – contaminated
– Residential – low route densities
• Blue/Green Bags from Organix
Solutions provide clean SSO
– No additional collection route
– Recovered at OPF in pre-sort
• MRF residue sent to OPF
• OPF 3D sent to MRF
SSR
(source separated
recyclables)
MRF Bales
LandfillTrash
SSO
(source separated
organics)
Compost
Facility
Compost
SSR
(source separated
recyclables)
MRF Bales
Landfill
Trash
SSO
(source separated
organics)
Compost/
Biogas
OPF
(organics processing
facility)
Current – Diversion Rate < 40% Future – Diversion Rate > 80%

Layered Approach™
Four-Layer Material Flow
Trash and
SSO
Pre-Sort 2” Screen
Ballistic
Separator
BurCell®
System
¾” Screen
Metal
OBW
1” Screen
Fines
3D
(to MRF)
Anaerobic
Digestion Compost
RDF
Biogas
unders
Unders
overs
unders
overs
2D/heavy
3D
Blue Bag Organics®
Green Bag Organix™
TORXX® KP
Layer 1 Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
overs
Organics Processing Facility (OPF)
©2017 Organix Solutions

TORXX® Kinetic Pulverizer (TKP)
self-attrition for efficient size reduction
TKP utilizes “self-attrition” (the kinetic energy of
individual particles slamming into each other at
high speed) for size reduction. Benefits include
 The more brittle the material (i.e. glass) the
faster and finer it breaks down
 Improved system reliability, reduced
maintenance as size reduction does not rely
on blades or other high-wear components
for direct contact to achieve size reduction.
C&D Fines
before and after
MRF Fines
before and after

BurCell® System
enables cleaner separation of co-mingled food waste
Combination of heat and vacuum converts
imbedded water to steam, breaks down cell walls
of organics/fiber
 Breaks down contaminated paper/OCC
 Organic/fiber fraction easily separated with
trommel screen
 Reduces compost time, increases biogas
 Can kill pathogens if desired
Commercial SSO often
highly contaminated
Loading
BurCell®
System
Before screening
After screening

Thank You!
Ken Beaver
Director Processing Solutions
423-834-1228 (cell)
kbeaver@doveresg.com

Meco mass recycle 2017 final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Meco mass recycle 2017 final

Similaire à Meco mass recycle 2017 final (20)

Plus de MassRecycle .

Plus de MassRecycle . (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Meco mass recycle 2017 final