Energy from Waste

(1)

Dorfstraße 51

D-16816 Nietwerder-Neuruppin

Phone: +49.3391-45.45-0 • Fax +49.3391-45.45-10 E-Mail: order@vivis.de

TK Verlag GmbH

order now www. .de

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann

Energie aus Abfall 14 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann

Energie aus Abfall 14

Energy from Waste

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 11Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 11 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 10 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 10 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 9 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 9

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 8

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 7 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 7

Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 2 Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann

Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann

Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Energie aus Abfall 2 Thomé-Kozmiensky Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 1

Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk Thomé-Kozmiensk

y

Beckmann Beckmann Beckmann Beckmann Beckmann Beckmann Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Energie aus Abfall 1 Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 12

Thomé-Kozmiensky und Beckmann Energie aus Abfall 12

Energie aus Abfall, Volume 1 (2006) ISBN: 978-3-935317-24-5 20.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 2 (2007) ISBN: 978-3-935317-26-9 20.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 3 (2007) ISBN: 978-3-935317-30-6 20.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 4 (2008) ISBN: 978-3-935317-32-0 20.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 5 (2008) ISBN: 978-3-935317-34-4 20.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 6 (2009) ISBN: 978-3-935317-39-9 30.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 7 (2010) ISBN: 978-3-935317-46-7 30.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 8 (2011) ISBN: 978-3-935317-60-3 30.00 EUR

Energie aus Abfall, Volume 11 (2014) ISBN: 978-3-944310-06-0 50.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 10 (2013) ISBN: 978-3-935317-92-4 50.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 9 (2012) ISBN: 978-3-935317-78-8 30.00 EUR

Energie aus Abfall, Volume 12 (2015) ISBN: 978-3-944310-18-3 50.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 13 (2016) ISBN: 978-3-944310-24-4 75.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 14 (2017) ISBN: 978-3-944310-32-9 100.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume15 (2018) ISBN: 978-3-944310-39-8 100.00 EUR

450.00 EUR

save 195.00 EUR Energie aus Abfall, Volume 1 – 15

Package Price

hardc

over with coloured illustrations

(2)

Pyrolysis/Gasification

Qualification of Alternative Systems

for the Thermal Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste

Frans Lamers

1. Introduction ...304

2. Methodology ...305

3. Conclusions ...311

4. Acknowledgement ...311

5. References ...311

There is a large number of alternative waste to energy systems, such as pyrolysis, gasification and plasma gasification, additional to two stage gasification/combustion systems that are all brought in the market for the treatment of mixed municipal solid waste.

Conventional waste to energy is based on incineration. The older generation of incineration plants (before 1990) showed high emissions of dioxins and other pollutants and showed a relatively low electrical efficiency. New generation grate fired incineration is highly controlled, air pollution meets the strictest air emission levels and net electrical efficiency can run to over 25 percent. More than 1,000 plants (all of comparable design) have been built worldwide since 1990, performance is widely reported and they can thus be considered proven and reliable technology.

Still alternative thermal treatment systems often claim to be an environmentally and energetically better and sometimes cheaper alternatives for conventional waste to energy.

The paper reviews the alternative technologies being presented in the market and their reported performances and it reviews whether these alternatives can be considered proven technology. At this moment, so-called two stage gasification/combustion installations (which are in fact more complex incineration plants) can be considered proven for the treatment of mixed municipal solid waste. Gasification, plasma gasification and pyrolysis plants have not yet run successfully with municipal solid waste at an even more or less comparable performance to modern incineration plants nor are their emission levels lower than for incineration.

In future possible conversion of sustainably generated syn-gases to fuels or chemicals may provide a chance for further development however this still needs to be proven and will probably take at least five years more.

(3)

1. Introduction

Economies that are investing into waste to energy are faced with challenges regarding environmentally compliant municipal solid waste management capacity and regarding reliable electricity supply capacity. From a sustainability point of view waste to energy is considered as a solution to provide both a stronger base load green electricity supply and a sustainable long term municipal solid waste management solution.

Within mature economies, a Waste to Energy solution should be able to treat waste streams and generate electricity and/or heat reliably and predictably, for minimum 7,500, preferably 8,000 hours per year. In that way, a Waste to Energy solution becomes a utility. Regular Waste to Energy, based on grate fired combustion complies with all that conditions

Stakeholders of economies that are moving away from landfilling are regularly being approached by suppliers of alternative Waste to Energy technologies, with claims of optimal suitability for the local requirements and improvements with respect to:

• efficiency of electrical output

• lower air emissions

• carbon reduction and

• quality of solid residues and optimization of recycling.

A short overview is presented on the status of several alternative thermal technologies proposed on worldwide basis, compared to conventional but state of the art combustion system. The point of departure fore any Waste to Energy system being selected for commercial operation is that it should be proven technology.

The overview contains an assessment of the following systems:

• combustion systems (mainly grate combustion and fluidized bed combustion)

• staged gasification or pyrolysis systems

• pyrolysis systems

• gasification systems and

• plasma gasification systems.

Within the article an inventory is given of the indicative number of working installations worldwide, pre-treatment necessity, waste quality requirements, size of installations (tonnes / hour), net energy efficiency and emissions, to give an indication on the technology readiness of several alternative thermal systems. Furthermore, some examples of larger alternative technology developments are presented.

(4)

2. Methodology

Sources and background The paper is based on the ISWA White Paper Alternative Waste Conversion Technologies of which author was main editor and on experiences of several other ISWA members including the co-author. Furthermore, several worldwide directories were used to review technology penetration

The overview has been prepared to compile an overview of easily accessible information regarding various Waste to Energy technologies and to present the information that should be available to allow an investor to determine and compare which technology is suitable and fit for his purposes.

System boundaries To make a proper evaluation of a technology for thermal treatment of waste, the complete system of waste pretreatment, energy and material input, technology, energy and material output should be assessed and quantified. In that way a properly comparable material and energy balance can be made (Figure 1). This total system evaluation will prevent any inconsistent comparisons.

Waste treatment system

Operating resources

Recovered recources Waste

Energy _Materials^Valuable Materials Energy Materials Energy INPUT

OUTPUT

Mechanical

pretreatment Thermal pretreatment

(reductive, e.g. gasification)

Combustion (oxydic) Residues treatment Flue gas treatment

Energy recovery

Figure 1: Overview of system boundaries and input and output streams defining a thermal waste conversion process

(5)

The relation between several technologies is presented in Figure 2. Basically, combustion of waste involves all three steps of pyrolysis (no oxygen), gasification (under stoichi- ometric in oxygen) and incineration, leading to complete conversion to CO₂, water and ashes, whereas the typical pyrolysis or gasification processes provide intermediate products such as gas and / or oil that need to be combusted afterwards

increasing air supply

pyrolysis gasification incineration

λ < 1 partial air incomplete combustion λ = 0,

no air λ > 1

excess air complete combustion

λ = 1 stochiometric air for

combustion

Figure 2: Overview of relation between several classes of thermal conversion routes

Technical/economical information available

For a fair comparison of technologies, the reliability of statements should be comparable regarding performance, experience and mass balances.

To indicate the technical and economical suitability of the different thermal treatment systems, information was therefore collected from freely available sources on the following aspects:

• number of operating systems worldwide,

• average / max scale per line,

• area where the technology is penetrated,

• information (if available) on net electrical efficiency of the system,

• information (if available) on availability of the system (number of operating hours/

year) and

• information about the emissions.

(6)

The assessment does not pretend to be complete or accurate but is used to indicate the level of information that is easily accessible of several technologies and thus indicate the information barriers that technologies face.

Results and discussion Short general remarks on alternative treatment systems:

In general, the following short remarks can be made regarding alternative treatment systems:

• For alternative technologies, the number of designs around is very large, leading to a low amount of standardization and challenges to compare different suppliers.

On the contrary for conventional incineration systems there is basically a limited number of installation designs (grate fired / bubbling bed of circulating fluidized bed), that is used with small differences / modifications by different equipment suppliers.

• For a lot of the alternative waste treatment systems extensive pre-treatment (particle size reduction and separation of the iron and non-ferro metal fractions) is necessary to allow operation without problems.

• The information provided for the alternative systems is often not on unsorted municipal solid waste, but on better defined waste streams such as car shredder residues, defined biomass streams or well-defined SRF (solid recovered fuel).

• The quality of the syn-gases being generated in gasification systems is nor comparable to for instance natural gas. Syn-gas has a calorific value of 4 – 6 MJ/m03, whereas natural gas has 30-35 MJ/m³. Furthermore, the syn-gases are often highly polluted with tar. This is important in this way that the supply of syn-gases from gasification or pyrolysis to either a gas turbine or a gas engine is full of challenges.

• If one looks at the emissions from the gasification or pyrolysis systems, they have to be added to the emissions from combustion of the gas or pyrolysis oil.

• For a large number of the alternative systems being advertised, no public and cont- rollable information is available on aspects like: availability, net electrical efficiency, internal use, emissions etc.

• The total electrical efficiency of any gasification or pyrolysis system, is comparable or lower than that for conventional grate fired combustion. Therefore from the point of view of electrical efficiency, alternative systems cannot be considered breaktrough technologies.

• In societies where thermal waste treatment is operated in the combined heat and power mode (for supply of district heating or steam supply), alternative technologies bring no advantage at all.

• For the future, a number of developers of gasification couple gasification to the production of chemicals or liquid fuels. In view of added flexibility, and higher added value of chemicals or liquid fuels, that route for the future may be interesting, provided the technical challenges of such concepts are overcome.

(7)

All of these aspects need to be taken into consideration when assessing an alternative technology

A short description on a system level including some examples

Pyrolysis systems are based on the thermal breakdown of waste in the absence of air.

Waste is heated to high temperatures (>300 °C) by an external energy source, without adding steam nor oxygen. Pyrolysis itself is an endothermic reaction. The intermediate products that will be created are char, pyrolysis oil and syn-gas, dependent on the type of pyrolysis.

Pyrolysis oil is rather acid in character, therefore suitable measures need to be taken for the utilization. In the past pyrolysis systems have been typically used for the conversion of car tires into carbon. Recently a number of providers have been able to build pyrolysis installations for sorted biomass streams. For effective control of quality of oil and gas, the composition of the ingoing streams needs to be well defined and well controlled. There are some pyrolysis installations being used in Japan, with car shredder residues or SRF streams as input streams. Pyrolysis oils are typically acidic and need to be neutralized for use in typical combustion systems. A typical example of a pyrolysis technology was the so-called Siemens Schwel Brenn Technology. The technology was tested in Germany and built on a commercial scale in Fürth, but was aborted after extended start up difficulties. The technology was sold to Mitsui in Japan where 6 more installations were built and operated since 2001 on a scale of up till 65,000 tonnes of shreddered municipal solid waste or car shredder residues per year per line. After 2003 no more new installations were built. The net electrical efficiencies reported were in the order of 10 to 22 percent.

In “pure” gasification systems, waste is gasified in a reactor and syn-gases are cleaned to a level that syn-gases can be supplied to a gas turbine or a gas motor or alternatively converted into a liquid fuel or chemical. The fact that electrical efficiencies of a gas motor or a gas turbine are substantially higher than from an incineration system with a steam boiler/steam turbine combination. However this needs to be compensated with the so – called cold gas efficiency (MJ of gas per MJ of input waste), which may be 65 to 75 percent. A critical aspect of the resulting syn gas is that it is often highly bur- dened with tars that lead to a lot of operational problems (cogged pipes, damage to gas turbine blades). Still, in the years 1990 – 2010 large numbers of designs were presented to the market with suppliers like Thermoselect, HTCW, ETAG and a number of others.

Most often these processes are high temperature processes leading to vitrified ashes.

A typical example is the Thermoselect technology that was first tried in Italy. A commercial installation of 30 t/h was built in Karlsruhe but never was put in operations.

The technology was sold to JEF In Japan where ten installations were built up till 2003, with an average capacity of 5 t/h (40,000 t/y). Only the final installation had a throughput or 13 t/h or up to 100,000 t/y. Installations run on EDF with a heating value of 18 MJ/kg and ran up to 6500 t/y (also due to Japanese boundary conditions).

The installations claimed efficiency was around 24 percent gross and 19 percent net (in view of internal use of electricity; electricity from cokes not taken into account).

Other external calculations came to lower efficiency assumptions.

(8)

An interesting process is the co-called Enerkem process, which has a commercial demo in Canada, where waste is gasified, the gas is quenched and subsequently converted into methanol. The process is in more or less continuous operation since a year after significant adjustments had to be done in the the waste feeding. The Enerkem process is fed with highly processed SRF. Enerkem is now planning a commercial installation of 25 tonnes/hour in the Netherlands. The possibility to create a chemical that can be stored, brings a significant added value compared with electricity production. The process still needs to be commercially proven.

Plasma gasification forms a special category of pure gasification. Electrical energy is used to create a high temperature (> 2,000 °C) plasma arc. Within this arc the organic parts of the waste are decomposed into elemental gas. A plasma is used most efficiently either in a pyrolysis mode or a pure oxygen gasification mode. The plasma arc has a very high electrical energy consumption. If oxygen is used for the plasma gasification, also the oxygen use for the gasification will contribute towards internal energy use.

In 2014-2017 a large scale Westinghouse/Alter NRG gasification system (2x350,000 t/y) was built in Teesside, UK. The project was abandoned in 2017 after sustained technical problems.

In 2012-16 the so-called CHO power installation was built in Morcenx France, a 50,000 t/a plasma gasification plant for solid recovered fuel with a fluidized bed pre- gasifier. The final takeover was delayed with around a few years due to operational problems.

Staged gasification systems are in output and end products very much alike incineration systems. The waste is gasified or pyrolyzed in the first stage or first chamber of the installation, but further on - after gas quality and quantity has been established – the gas is combusted in a steam boiler coupled to the same installation. Basically, this approach can also be called staged combustion.

Most so-called gasification systems around are based on feeding of the syn-gases to a combustion system and the systems can be called staged combustion. In principle the higher complexity of the system also increases internal energy use, so that in fact the staged gasification will turn out less efficient or effective than incineration systems.

Suppliers of staged gasification are often small startups, but also the regular suppliers of incineration systems can tune their systems so that they are operated in the staged gasification mode. Small modular systems can in some instances be advantageous, such as in small island situations or on cruise ships, however it needs to be clearly quality controlled. A lot of smaller landbased systems are in operation in a single or two lo- cations and with very unclear emission records. Staged gasification can be considered proven technology but it is questionable whether performance is better than regular incineration systems.

Incineration systems (grate combustion, fluidized bed combustion, rotary kiln) provide direct incineration of combustible non-hazardous waste, thus combining in one stage, pyrolysis, gasification and combustion. Depending on heat supply possibilities, the energy that is generated in a conventional EfW installation is either primarily converted

(9)

into heat (which specifically happens in North European Countries that have a high heat demand), into heat and electrical power (CHP) or electricity only if there is no demand for the heat. Conventional EfW meets with the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive on emissions and on the temperature levels within the furnace (flue gases have to show a temperature > 850 °C during > 2 seconds).

Overview of information

The information is tentatively presented in Tables 1 and 2.

The information suggests the following:

• there is a strong lead in numbers of installations and scale of operation for conventional incineration compared to alternatives,

• the geographical focus of alternative technologies is te be found in South East Asia/

Japan, possibly caused by differences in regulations, favourable for vitrification technologies,

• there is a strong lack of validated information on performance (energy efficiency and availability) of alternative technologies.

Type installations

worldwide Avg scale

tonnes/hr max scale

tonnes/hr area of

penetration

Pyrolysis 25 4 8 SE Asia/Japan

Gasification 25 5 10 Japan/Canada

Staged

gasification 75 5 15 world wide

Plasma

gasification 12 5 8 (35)* SE Asia /Japan /

Canada, Europe (**)

Combustion >1,000 20 40 world wide

Table 1: Number and scale of installations of several technologies worldwide

(*) The Teesside plasma gasification facility in startup has not yet been counted as operational, however has a scale of around 35 tonnes / hr (**) The Teesside UK and the Europlasma in France are both in (extended) startup operational results to be expected soon

Type

Net electrical efficiency

%

Availability

h/y Emissions Proven status? area

Pyrolysis ? ? -/0 pilot/small scale Japan

Gasification ? ? 0 medium scale only Japan

Staged

gasification 10-20 7,000 - 7,800 -/0 medium scale Europe / Asia

Plasma

gasification 15-25 ? ++ small scale Japan

Combustion 20-32 7,500 - 8,200 0 /+ large scale

proven worldwide

Table 2: Indication of technical information about installations of several technologies

(10)

3. Conclusions

The work presented here can only be considered as indicative information. From the available documentation it became apparent that there is a substantial lack of information on the performance and operation of alternative technologies, which clearly offers a drawback in due diligence assessments for project financing. Often no clear mass and energy balances and no clear comparable system boundaries are available to weigh different technological options, leading to a preference for widely proven technology. Furthermore very often the alternative technologies are demonstrated or used with highly prepared waste streams or biomass streams and not with unsorted municipal solid waste.

Examples provided show that a number of the larger commercial projects have had sig- nificant start up challenges, for some even leading to abandon the project.

It is therefore recommended that new technology developers widely and traceably present the technology and operational results of their technologies. Additional information will make it possible to better evaluate and judge the added value of these technologies. Plasma gasification and liquid chemicals and fuels production startups in Europe may lead to operational results within a short period, that may support the information on added value of this technology

4. Acknowledgement

The information provided by ISWA members is gratefully acknowledged

5. References

[1] ISWA: White paper Alternative Waste Conversion Technologies, 2013

Contact Person

Drs. Frans Lamers DNV GL Group

Principal Consultant Waste, Biomass and Due Diligence Utrechtseweg 310

6812 AR Arnheim THE NETHERLANDS Phone: 00 31 - 2 63 56 24 48 Email: frans.lamers@dnvgl.com

(11)

Für Wirtschaft und Politik ist ein nachhaltiger Umgang mit Abfall, Rohstoffen und Energie eine Frage der Zukunftssicherung. Umwelttechnisches Know-how und Informationen über grundle- gende Entwicklungen sind für den Erfolg entscheidend. Mit der Fachzeitschrift “ReSource – Abfall, Rohstoff, Energie“ sind Sie bestens über nachhaltiges Wirtschaften informiert.

Neben aktuellen Forschungsergebnissen stellt die Fachzeitschrift praxisrelevante Konzepte und Verfahren zur Vermeidung und Verringerung von Umweltbelastungen vor. Verfahren der kon- ventionellen Abfallbehandlung und -entsorgung wie Verbrennung sowie Recycling, Kompos- tierung, Vergärung und Deponierung werden auf ihre Effektivität und Umsetzbarkeit geprüft.

Experten aus dem In- und Ausland diskutieren Erfordernisse und Beispiele für eine zeitgemäße Rohstoffwirtschaft.

Abfall • Rohstoff • Energie

ReSource

4

²⁰¹⁶

29. Jahrgang ISSN 1868-9531 4. Quartal 2016 Preis 20,00 EUR A 13158 F

R e S ource

(Früher: MÜLLMAGAZIN · ISSN 0934-3482)

Abfall • Rohstoff • Energie Fachzeitschrift für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften

RHOMBOS HERAUSGEBER Dipl.-Pol. Bernhard Reiser

REDAKTION Professor Dr.-Ing. Dr. h. c.

Karl J. Thomé-Kozmiensky † Dr.-Ing. Stephanie Thiel Dipl.-Pol. Bernhard Reiser

REDAKTIONSBEIRAT Professor Dr.-Ing. Michael Beckmann Professor Dr. rer. nat. Matthias Finkbeiner Professor Dr.-Ing. Daniel Goldmann Professor Dr.-Ing. Karl E. Lorber Dipl.-Ing. Johannes J. E. Martin Dipl.-Chem.-Ing. Luciano Pelloni Dipl.-Ing. Christian Tebert Professor Dr. Andrea Versteyl

Felix Müller, Jan Kosmol, Hermann Keßler, Michael Angrick und Bettina Rechenberg

Materialflussindikatoren allein liefern keine hinreichende Orientierung für Strategien zur Ressourcenschonung Uwe Lahl

Ein Regulierungsvorschlag zeigt Ansätze, wie die Treibhausgas- Emissionen aus dem Verkehrssektor bis 2050 drastisch reduziert werden können

Thomas Krampitz, Holger Lieberwirth und Michael Stegelmann Die Berücksichtigung des Recyclings im Life Cycle Assessment der Fahrzeugindustrie ermöglicht Produktentwicklern frühzeitige Aussagen zur Ressourceneffizienz von Produkt und Prozess Roland Pomberger und Renato Sarc

Experten aus Forschung und Praxis haben für Österreich den Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zur Ressourcenschonung und Ressourceneffizienz untersucht

Wolfgang Rommel, Siegfried Kreibe und Markus Hertel In erster Linie bestimmen Materialmenge und deren Marktwert den Stellenwert und die Limitierungen des Recyclings von Technologierohstoffen

Jan Schlecht, Jan Henning Seelig und Torsten Zeller Die möglichen Auswirkungen eines Pfandsystems für Elektro- und Elektronikkleingeräte müssen noch genauer untersucht werden

Fotos: pixelio.de

Jahresabonnement (4 Ausgaben): 62 Euro (incl. MwSt. und Versand) 30. Jahrgang 2017

(12)

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar

Thiel, S.; Thomé-Kozmiensky, E.; Winter, F.; Juchelková, D. (Eds.):

Waste Management, Volume 8 – Waste-to-Energy –

ISBN 978-3-944310-42-8 Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag GmbH

Publisher: Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag GmbH • Neuruppin 2018 Editorial office: Dr.-Ing. Stephanie Thiel, Dr.-Ing. Olaf Holm,

Elisabeth Thomé-Kozmiensky, M.Sc.

Layout: Janin Burbott-Seidel, Ginette Teske, Roland Richter, Cordula Müller, Sarah Pietsch, Gabi Spiegel, Lena Bischkopf

Printing: Universal Medien GmbH, Munich

This work is protected by copyright. The rights founded by this, particularly those of translation, reprinting, lecturing, extraction of illustrations and tables, broadcasting, micro- filming or reproduction by other means and storing in a retrieval system, remain reserved, even for exploitation only of excerpts. Reproduction of this work or of part of this work, also in individual cases, is only permissible within the limits of the legal provisions of the copyright law of the Federal Republic of Germany from 9 September 1965 in the currently valid revision. There is a fundamental duty to pay for this. Infringements are subject to the penal provisions of the copyright law.

The repeating of commonly used names, trade names, goods descriptions etc. in this work does not permit, even without specific mention, the assumption that such names are to be considered free under the terms of the law concerning goods descriptions and trade mark protection and can thus be used by anyone.

Should reference be made in this work, directly or indirectly, to laws, regulations or guidelines, e.g. DIN, VDI, VDE, VGB, or these are quoted from, then the publisher cannot ac- cept any guarantee for correctness, completeness or currency. It is recommended to refer to the complete regulations or guidelines in their currently valid versions if required for ones own work.