1. WHAT DRIVES INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN CHOOSING WASTE-TO-ENERGY CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES John Baker, Alan Environmental George Voss, Sustainability Business Management

2. INCINERATION;

3. WASTE HEAT FROM INCINERATORS CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE HEAT AND POWER (WHP) Drawbacks  Expensive  Relatively Inefficient  Environmental Concerns

4. WASTE TO ENERGY INCUDES ANAEROBIC DIGESTION;

5. COGENERATION SYSTEMS (CHP) CAN EFFICIENTLY CONVERT DIGESTER GAS TO ELECTRICITY(~40%)&HEAT(~50%) Digester Biogas CHP Power Generation Plant with “Plug & Play” Container Module, including Gas Conditioning & Treatment System

6. WASTE TO SYNGAS

7. GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES CONVERT A VARIETY OF WASTE INTO CLEAN ENERGY & COMMERCIAL MATERIALS

8. ABILITY TO RECOVER RECYCLABLES UPFRONT  Sustainability, environmental, economic and a philosophy of zero-waste-to- landfill drive consideration  Municipalities have goals to meet  State mandates  Environmental groups fear WtE will reduce recycling  Increases BTU value of remaining feedstock  Recovers inert material that does not add to energy

9. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE AND MARKETABILITY OF PRODUCTS  All WtE systems create residues  Incinerator ash is mostly landfilled  Digesters have sludge and wastewater  Sludge can be composted and nutrients recovered from wastewater  Gasifiers create either a powder-like ash can be used as soil or cement additive or vitrified ash (high temperature Plasma) can be used as construction materials  All WtE projects must take in to account all residuals requiring disposal and the potential marketability of residuals that may be recycled

10. NON-RECYCLABLE WASTE DIVERSION RATE  Important to clients that have Corporate mandate for “Zero” waste to landfills  State mandates and EPA waste management hierarchy has landfill ranked last  Environmentalists favor highest diversion rates from landfill  The cost savings associated with diversion (equivalent to savings from avoiding tip fees) oftentimes drives the initial economics of waste-to-energy implementations

11. EXPERIENCE AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF COMPANY  Management team important especially if the only offer on the table is a turnkey installation]  Management team needs to have technical resources for on-going support of WtE that are sold  WtE company needs to have financial resources to have guarantees and post performance bonds, etc.  WtE company financials need to show they will continue to exist in order to support the technology

12. FACILITY SIZE (ACRES AND HEIGHT) AND DESIGN FLEXIBILITY, INCLUDING DESIGN SOUNDNESS,  Based on feedstock (i.e., waste) tons(gallons)/day capacity, with fuel flexibility important in influencing economics  Ability to fit seamlessly for on-site WtE operations  Easy to operate automatically and monitor remotely  Needs to be safe and have safety approvals- like UL, CE, etc for local codes/regulations

13. FEASIBILITY OF OBTAINING ALL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMITS  Political and environmentalist climate  Public/community relations  State and Federal Agency experience with permitting similar technologies  Local regulatory support  Attainment vs. non-attainment considerations for air permit  More environmental permitting challenges are usually experienced in terms of length of approval process and technology review if hazardous wastes are utilized

14. OWNERSHIP PREFERENCE  In some cases, clients prefer to own and operate Wte equipment and facilities  If a client wants to own a new technology, starting with a lease may be preferable so can gain on-site experience and confidence in eventually buying the technology  Most technologies need to have trained operators  Material handling experience is required  Some suppliers will only provide turnkey systems for concerns of inappropriate operations could cause system failures

15. PRE-PROCESSING OF FUEL MIX  Determine if material handling/pre-processing is included in price/lease of equipment  Varies by technology- some take in waste “as-is”  Some require shredding/sizing  Some require RDF or pelletizing to certain size and dryness (e.g., 15% moisture)  Some require additional small amounts of fossil fuel/catalysts, etc.

16. READINESS AND RELIABILITY, INCLUDING CLIENT REFERENCES  Is technology been proven with 3 rd party engineering studies?  Has the technology been commercially proven and meeting performance efficiencies, environmental and compliance permit requirements?  Are plant tours available?  Can delivery schedules be met or are there back-log issues?

17. RISK ALLOCATION  Technology insurable?  Performance bond rating.  Shared risk?  Experience with solving problems at operating plants (e.g., retrofits, redesigns, etc)

18. CAPITAL, OPERATING, FINANCING, AND TIP FEES  Proforma for 15-20 year operating life including labor, consumable materials, parasitic load factors, feedstock contracts, recycling contracts for residuals, ROI,  Comparisons of existing options for waste disposal  Energy incentives, government grants, low interest lending programs for renewable energy projects can play an important role in initiating a waste- to-energy project

19. STANDARD CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS  Evaluation of supplier contracts for turnkey, sale or lease options  Legal review  Non-performance criteria

20. THERMAL AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY  Compare energy output per volume/ton of waste among suppliers reviewed  Some have capx higher for the same waste capacity but have higher energy production

21. UTILITY NEEDS  Sewer, water, electrical, fossil fuel needs  New construction required or existing on-site

22. CONTACT US