Large scale EfW systems for processing MSW

Published: 6 September, 2007, updated 16 April 2008, 1 September 2008
Number of Juniper Ratings in this issue: 45
Covering 38 suppliers of 37 processes used in 9 configurations
Number of ratings changed: 14 (9 upwards - 5 downwards)
New Ratings: 2
Deleted Ratings: 1

SEE LIST OF PROCESSES RATED

SEE SAMPLE PAGE

We define large-scale as over 250 kTpa

Each RatingsReport identifies suppliers and processes and gives Juniper's score for supplier track record and provenness of system.

These Ratings reflect considerable underlying analysis: the team involved in preparing these Ratings has more than 50 man-years of experience assessing these technologies and the classifications derive from reference plant assessments conducted in Japan, North America and throughout Europe. In many cases we have been evaluating suppliers' capabilities for more than 10 years and have conducted Due Diligence reviews of the technologies.

The reports do not contain textual descriptions of the processes, which can be found in separate Juniper reports (where published)

This Rating Report includes all types of high temperature thermal processing, not just classical moving grate incineration.  Plasma companies, gasification technologies and a few pyrolysis processes are included where they are targeted at the above scale of application.  In addition to moving grate incineration systems, there are some fluidised bed technology supplers who also target this application and who are therefore included.

Systems from all over the world are included and the list is relatively comprehensive (but we make no claims that it is exhaustive).  Normally we list technologies under the company that is the process developer and not under local agents or engineering partners.  In some instances we have listed other companies with whom a technology is often associated, such as a licensee for a particular region of the world.

We have also separated out the applications covered to identify where a process is specifically targeted at only one particular feed.  Feedstocks covered include MSW ‘black bag’ waste; the residual fraction after recycling (grey bag waste’); and more homogeneous fuel fractions (such as RDF,SRF PEF or RRBF). Where a system aims to be accepted for several types of input, our assessment of the risk varies, depending upon the particular feed. For this reason, there may be multiple ratings for some processes.

Where the energy recovery method is not spelt out it is assumed to be generation of electricity via the steam cycle.  If other routes are being pursued (such as gas engines or gas turbines) this is noted and our rating reflects the extent to which this integrated concept has been demonstrated. 

It should be noted that a number of companies whose name is associated with EfW projects have technologies that are only applicable to smaller capacities: the reader should refer to our separate ratings sheets for small-to-medium scale applications. 

Number of pages: 19

How much do the ratings reports cost?