ML19343B839

Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Tx Pirg Contention 5 Concerning Solid Waste Combustion

ML19343B839
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/18/1980
From:	Woodson H TEXAS, UNIV. OF, AUSTIN, TX
To:
Shared Package
ML19343B832	List: ML19343B831 ML19343B833 ML19343B834 ML19343B835 ML19343B836 ML19343B837 ML19343B838 ML19343B839 ML19343B840 ML19343B841 ML19343B842 ML19343B843 ML19343B844 ML19343B845 ML19343B846 ML19343B847 ML19343B848 ML19343B849
References
NUDOCS 8012300688
Download: ML19343B839 (13)

Text

- - - 9 4

O DIRECT TESTIMONY OF HERBERT H. WOODSON ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON LIGHTINC & POWER CCMPANY RE TEX PIRG CONTENTION 5/ SOLID WASTE CCMBUSTION 8012309{$%

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

~

HERBERT H. WOODSON RE SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION 3

Q. Please state your name and position.

4 A. My name is Herbert H. Woodson. I am Professor and 5 Chairman of Electrical Engineering and Director of the O

Center for Energy Studies at the University of Texas at

' Austin.

3 Please describe your education.

Q.

9 A. I have S.B., S.M. and Sc.D degrees in electrical 10 engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

11 Q. What are your professional accomplishments?

12 A. My professional activities are primarily in electric 13 power systems engineering and electromechanics. I am a 14 registered professional engineer in Texas and Massachusetts 15 and I hold four patents. I have been a teacher for more 16 than 20 years at M.I.T. and U.T. and have authored many 17 papers and coauthored two textbooks, Electromechanical Dynamics 18 (with J. R. Melcher) and Electromechanical Energy Conversion 19 (with D. C. White).

20 I have been a consultant for 14 firms, including a 21 large number of electric utilities and electric power equip-22 ment manufacturers, and have served on several advisory 23 Panels for industry and government, including service on the  !

24 Comanche Peak Design Review Team for Texas Utilities Company.

l l

1 I am a Past President of the Power Engineering Society of 2

the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and a 3

Fellow of IEEE. I am also a member of the National Academy 4

of Engineering and of a number of other professional and 5 honorary organizations.

6 I established and was the first Director of the Electric 7 Power Systems Engineering Laboratory at M.I.T. in 1968. In 8 1974 I was appointed the Director of the newly founded 9 Center for Energy Studies at UT. The center is an inter-10 disciplinary research organization that carries on a diverse 11 array of energy related projects. As Director of the Center, 12 I keep abreast of technological developments which hold the 13 promise of utilizing new resources for central station power 14 generation. I am familiar with research and technical 15 literature in such areas as synthetic fuels, solar energy, 16 biomass and combustion of refuse.

17 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony.

18 A. My testimony responds to TexPirg Contention 5 19 which alleges that 20 "Neither the Applicant nor the Staff have given adequate consideration to the combustion 21 of solid waste as an alternative energy source, because:

22

a. The Staff concludes on S 9-9 of the 23 DS-FES that "the lack of demonstrated technology on a commercial basis eliminates the potential 24 future energy sources from consideration as

1 alternatives for central station power by the late 1980's, apparently including refuse 2

combustion among the " future alternatives".

However, the evidence will indicate that the 3

Staff has been inaccurate with regard to solid waste combustion. Twenty-one operational 4 plants exist in the United States, with more

_ than one dozen under construction, over forty 3 in the advance planning stage, and over sixty l

in the feasibility study stage. Further, 6 such facilities have operated successfully in Europe for over 40 years.

b. The Staff states on 9 9-6 of DS-FES 8 that solid waste generation plants should be-used to " regain lost energy", but expresses 9 doubt that such plants will be contributing electricity in the near. future. The heat 10 content of solid mixed municipal waste is approximately 5,000 BTU /lb. or 40 percent the 11 value of coal. In waste processing systems, the removal of light combustibles and separation 12 of non-combustibles like glass and metals yield a paper-rich fraction in excess of 13 10,000 BTU /lb. or 90 percent the heat value of coal. Among the 80 operating " waste-to-14 electricity" plants in Europe are plants in Amsterdam and Frankfurt which supply six and 15 seven percent of their city's electricity needs, respectively. The assumptions of the 16 Staff regarding the use of this option are therefore incorrect.

17

c. The six thousand tons per day of 13 solid waste in Houston are more than adequate to support a three-thousand ton per day 19 conversion plant that would obviate the need for the proposed ACNGS; and this alternative 20 is technologically, environmentally, and economically desirable relative to nuclear 21 generation stations. (This option should be an issue at this hearing. Petitioner believes 2~, the solid waste of Houston can sustain 800-1,000 MWe of production; though this level of 23 supply could not have substituted for the two-unit ACNGS proposal in 1975, it does 24

, -, . .- . . - - _ . - . . - , - ~ .

l l

l 1

become viable in comparison to only one unit.

In addition, since July, 1975, 28 communities 2

have begun feasibil'ity studies for solid waste power generation, 14 new plants went 3

into the planning stage, and two more plants became operational - thus suggesting an 4

increased viability of this option during o

that time)."

Q. Have you examined the testimony and materials 6

. produced in the discovery period pertaining to this contention?

8 A. Yes, I have reviewed the deposition of TexPirg's expert witness, Mr. Gregory Skie, and all the interrogatory answers and documents produced by TexPirg concerning this -

11 contention.

12 Q. Can you summarize your understanding of this 13 contention?

14 A. TexPirg asserts that tre municipal waste of Houston 15 can be used to generate up to 469 megawatts of electric 16 power in the same time frame and at a cost comparable to 17 Allens Creek. (The original contention stated that such a 13 station could generate 800-1000 MWe). The contention is 19 based on an energy conversion calculation, using estimates 20 of municipal waste heat ~ content and net cycle efficiency.

u

~~

Various existing and planned solid waste conversion plants 22 are cited as evidence of the present feasibility of solid 23 waste fueled electric generation.

24 4-e - + -- w - +9 w _ ,,.;---- , - _ w y -wr. , , - -- - . T---- w -- -

+7 ,- . - -,. -- ,a e+- *- m-- '

y--

1 Q. Are you aware of the solid waste combustion plants 2 planned under construction and operating, in the United -

3 States?

4 A. Yes, they number about forty. None have a capacity 5 in excess of 3000 tons per day and, of those which produce 6 electricity, none have an output in excess of approximately 7 80 MWe.

8 Q. What is your general assessment of the technology 9 and its present limitations?

10 A. I believe that under certain circemstances the 11 technology may be attractive. On the plus side, waste 12 segregation would allow recovery of valuable materials 13 f r recycling; there would'be some reduction in the volume 14 of landfill; and, finally, the electricity or steam pro-3-o duced would be of value. Of course, the economics of the process depend on the particular circumstances and would 16 have to be demonstrated.

7 g

There are a number of variations on the basic g

solid waste combustion technology which are derived either fr m the degree of preparation of the waste as a fuel or 0

improvements in the combustor efficiency. For example,

,1 4

fuel preparation ranges from simple shredding and separation (air or magnetic) to complicated pretreatments producing mechanically and chemically uniform fuel products such as 24 )

.1

-s- l 1

1 Hydraposal (wet pulping) and Eco-Fuel II ( fine particulate ) .

The sophistication in combustion then corresponds with the 3

preparation of the fuel, ranging from simple mass burning 4

to special waterwall and fluidized bed furnaces. In all 5

cases, however, no matter what the degree of fuel preparation 6 or the complexity of the combustor design, the total amount 7 of potential energy that can be extracted from municipal 8 solid waste is restricted to the latent energy contained in 9 the untreated solid waste. Therefore, a reasonable calcu-10 lation of energy conversion potential for solid waste com-11 bustion will tell you the maximum power available from this 12 source regardless of the available technology and techniques 13 used.

I 14 Q. Would present engineering and any reasonably 15 anticipated improvements permit the generation of as much as 16 469 megawatts electric fueled by the solid waste gathered 17 from the Houston area?

18 A. No. A calculated energy conversion potential based 19 on the most up-to-date designs of solid-waste combustion 20 plants for the production of electricity shows that a maximum 21 of approximately 100 megawatts of electric power can be 22 generated by the m0nicipal solid wastes available in Houston 23 at the present time.

24

I 1 Q. Would you describe your calculation of energy 2 conversion potential for solid waste combustion.

3 A. First, I developed a reasonable calculation of the 4 amount of municipal solid waste generated in the City of 5 Houston. I relied, in part, on a paper entitled " Evaluation 6 of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in Oil-Fired 7 Power Plants," ay V. G. Forzley of Stone and Webster Manage-a ment Consultants, Inc., and presented in a Seminar on 9 Municipal solid Waste as a Utility Fuel sponsored by the 10 Electric Power Research Institute in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 11 January 9-li, 1980. The paper shows that municipal solid 12 waste (excluding sewage sludge) produced in the United 13 States in 1977 was 130 million tons. For a population of 14 220 million people this calculates on the average to 3.24 pounds per capita per day.

15 Assuming that a population of 1.7 million people 16 (the approximate population of the Houston metropolitan 17 area) pr duces this per capita amount of municipal solid 18 waste, which is then collected and made available for energy g

production, cn amount of 2750 tons per day would be avail-able as fuel.

21 As a check on that calculation, I reviewed a proposal to the City of Houston by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, Brown & Root, Inc., Browning-Ferris 24

l l

1 Industries, Inc. and Grumman Energy Systems, Inc., for a 2 refuse disposal and energy recovery program (the "GCWDA 3 proposal"). That proposal states that 2550 tons of solid 4 waste is available, reflecting the " total solid waste stream 5 collected by the City of Houston." The figure derived from 6 the GCWDA proposal corresponds approximately with my calcula-7 tion derived from national figures (about 2750 tons per a day).

9 Next I approximated the heat content of this solid 10 waste. In the study by For: ley cited earlier, the heat 11 content of the municipal solid waste (from a New York City 1 cation) is 4375 BTU per pound. This is somewhat lower 12 than the 5000 BTU per pound used in the GCWDA proposal to 13 the City of Houston. (Higher heat contents are possible 4

g through segregation of garbage, isolating its most heat-rich content; this, of course, reduces the total volume available

., for burning.)

as As a basis for evaluating the electric energy production potential of municipal solid waste in Houston, I postulated a system of the type described and evaluated in the For ley paper. That system used 100 percent firing of untreated municipal solid waste in a dedicated waterwall 22 incinerator and utilization of the steam produced in a 23 dedicated turbine generator unit to generate electricity.

24

-- ._. _ , _ _ _ . . ~ _ - . . - _ . - . _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . , _ _ . __ . . _ . _ - _ . _ . _ . - -

I 1 The system evaluated by Forzley consumed 3620 tons per day 2 of municipal solid waste having a heat content of 4375 BTU 3 per pound and produced electricity at a heat rate of 14,286 4 BTU per KWH.

5 To be more Houston-specific in my evaluation, I 6 used the GCWDA proposal figures of 2550 tons per day with a 7 heat content of 5000 BTU per pound. The higher heat content a should allow a better heat rate and I assumed 12,500 BTU per 9 KWH which roughly scales heat rate with heat content.

10 Using these figures of 2550 tons per day of municipal 11 solid waste having a heat content of 5000 BTU per pound and 12 Producing electric energy at a heat rate of 12,500 BTU per 13 Pound, an amount of 2,040,000 KWH would be produced daily 14 with an average power of 85 megawatts.

15 The GCWDA proposal cited a 3 percent growth rate in the municipal solid waste available which would reach a 16 level of 3500 tons in about 10 years. This amount of waste 7

having 5000 BTU per pound and producing electric energy at a 13 g

heat rate of 12,500 BTU pe r KWH would produce 2,800,000 KWH per day or an average power of 117 megawatts.

Q. Do the present state-of-the art designs for solid waste combustion plants corroborate this calculated estimates of net energy produced from municipal waste consuming plants?

A. Yes. One primary example is a system which is

_9_

i l proposed for operation on Staten Island using municipal 2 solid waste from New York City. That system, which is one 3 of the possible systems evaluated in the Forzley paper I 4 have mentioned, was designed to consume 3620 tons per day of 5 municipal solid waste having a heat content of 4375 BTU per l

6 pound and producing 2,210,000 KWH per day or an average 7 power of 92 megawatts.

l 3 A second example is a plant under construction in t

l 9 Dade County, Florida, which is designed to consume 3000 tons

'O per day of segregated garbage having a heat content of 7000 11 to 8000 BTU per pound and to produce steam to drive two 38 12 megawatt-electric, turbine-generator units for a total of 76 13 megawatts. Both of these plants incorporate the best tech-14 nology and techniques available and closely corroborate the 13 simple calculation of potential electric generation I 3-0 described.

3 Q. What do these facts suggest about the feasibility

/

f a solid waste combustien plant of about 469 MWe in the I 13 l

Houston area?

19 A. Obviously, the solid waste available in the Houston 0

area, assuming use of all solid refuse generated in the area and allowing for reasonable growth, is not sufficient to generate even one fourth of the amount (469 MWe) postulated by Tex Firg.

1 10-

,r. -

y-., -

, -,y - --- c , - , , --~-.

~ ,-- .w-, -

1 Q. Please elaborate on the GCWDA proposal you cited 2 earlier, and, if it goes forward, the effect on the availa-i 3 bility of solid waste fuel in the Houston area.

4 A. That proposal is to build a plant containing four 5 waterwall incinerators of German design each capable of 6 consuming 875 tons of untreated municipal solid waste per 7 day for a total capacity of 3500 tons per day. The primary 8 purpose of the plant is to produce steam for use by industries 9 along the ship channel in Houston, but a steam-turbine 4

10 generating unit nominally rated for about 6.5 megawatts and 11 operating on the main steam out of the plant will provide 12 the electrical needs of the plant.

13 It appears that if the GCWDA proposed project goes 14 f rward, there will be virtually no municipal solid waste 15 available in Houston for primarily generating electricity.

16 Q. What is your opinion about the overall feasibility of using solid waste combustion as an alternative to Allens 7

13 g

A. Based on my examination of the current status and j future prospects of using municipal solid waste combustion 20 as an alternative source of energy, it is my opinion that municipal solid waste can produce only a small fraction of the energy needs of an urban area, so it should be considered a supplemental rather than an alternative source of energy.

i 1

, , _ . _ . _ .., ._. . _ , . ~ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ ._ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . - _ . . . _ .

1 It is not a potential replacement for a large,, modern base-2 load electric generating plant such as-Allens Creek.

3 Does that conclude your testimony?

Q.

4 A. Yes.

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l 20 21 22 23 24