Author: Prof. Hanak

  • Unlocking the potential of waste-to-energy and CCUS synergy: Redefining negative emissions in the UK

    TL;DR

    • WtE plants contribute significantly to UK emissions, yet play a vital role in waste management and energy generation.
    • Traditional CCUS methods like amine scrubbing are not ideal for WtE due to high energy demands, negatively impacting WtE’s energy output and economic viability.
    • Our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre explores CaL as a cost-effective and energy-efficient alternative for CO2 capture in WtE plants.
    • CaL offers significant advantages: Competitive cost of CO2 avoided: Lower than traditional methods, potentially incentivising WtE operators to adopt CCUS. Minimal efficiency penalties: CaL maintains or even increases WtE’s energy generation capacity unlike amine scrubbing. Net negative emissions potential: Captured CO2 exceeds plant emissions, contributing to negative emissions goals.

    Crossroads for WtE and CCUS: Redefining Sustainability in the UK

    The UK’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution boldly aspirates for a cleaner future. Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) is critical in delivering this aspiration. The East Coast Cluster stands in the vanguard of this ambitious strategy, aiming to remove nearly 50% of the UK’s industrial cluster emissions and support an average of 25,000 green jobs annually between now and 2050. While most of the current CCUS projects focus on low-carbon power generation or hydrogen supply, another promising pairing can contribute to delivering the net zero aspirations. Although not prioritised in the UK Government Track-1 CCUS cluster sequencing exercise, integration of waste-to-energy (WtE) and CCUS can deliver negative CO2 emissions and reduce the amount of landfilled waste.

    Notably, while WtE offers a valuable waste management solution and generates energy, its contribution to the CO2 emissions in the UK is substantial. In the Teesside Cluster alone, which is a part of the East Coast Cluster, WtE accounts for a staggering 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The projections are also concerning, as the UK’s WtE has been forecasted to emit up to 20 MtCO2e annually by the mid-2020s. Such a figure is higher than 11 MtCO2e annually reported in 2021 for industrial processes in the UK. The preliminary work on WtE and CCS integration by the Energy Systems Catapult showed that the specific CO2 emissions from WtE are 600 gCO2/kWh (excluding biogenic carbon), and flue gas contains up to 12%vol CO2. As a result, their ESME model demonstrated that unabated WtEs must be phased out by 2040 due to reduced carbon budgets, indicating the need to develop low-carbon alternatives.

    This is where CCUS can play a role. By strategically integrating CCUS into existing WtE plants, the UK can achieve a two-pronged victory: significantly curbing its carbon footprint and transforming WtE into a net negative emitter of greenhouse gases. Yet, unlocking the full potential of WtE-CCUS synergy requires careful consideration. Existing CCUS solutions, while potentially effective in larger-scale applications, pose challenges for WtE due to their high energy demands and potential impact on energy output and profitability. The search for alternative CCUS technologies with lower energy penalties and costs becomes paramount.

    Therefore, the future of WtE in the UK’s decarbonisation strategy hinges on two pillars: embracing innovation in CCUS technologies tailored to WtE applications and forging strategic partnerships to navigate the technological and economic complexities.

    The Challenge: Decarbonising WtE without hindering energy or economic performance

    While amine scrubbing has emerged as the CCUS technology of choice for many industrial applications, such as the Net Zero Teesside Power, its application to WtE presents unique and prohibitive challenges. This mature approach to CO2 capture stumbles on the high demand for steam required for its regeneration. In the UK, WtE plants often play a critical role in supplying heating, electricity, and/or industrial steam. Implementing amine scrubbing can have a detrimental impact on these vital functions, jeopardising both WtE’s energy output and economic viability.

    The severity of these challenges is well documented. An AECOM study revealed that amine-based capture units could consume a staggering 66% of the total thermal input to the steam turbine at a combustion-based WtE plant. This translates to a significant reduction in electricity generation, a key revenue stream for WtE facilities. Further research by Magnanelli et al. confirmed this concern, demonstrating that amine scrubbing integration can lead to a 30% reduction in power output and a 12% reduction in heat output from a typical WtE plant. Supplying such an amount of steam will not only be limited by technical considerations but will also substantially impair the economic viability of the WtE plant.

    Adding to the complexity is the lack of readily available information regarding post-combustion CO2 capture for gasification-based WtE plants. These facilities, utilising a different waste processing technology, present additional unknowns regarding CCUS compatibility. This knowledge gap further accentuates the need for alternative CCUS solutions that can overcome the limitations of amine scrubbing and effectively decarbonise WtE without compromising its energy production and economic viability.

    A Promising Solution: Exploring the potential of carbonate looping

    Amidst the challenges of WtE decarbonisation with mature amine scrubbing, our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre has focused on emerging carbonate looping (CaL) technology. Unlike steam-hungry amine scrubbing, CaL offers a potentially cost-effective and energy-efficient solution for capturing CO2 from WtEs. Our past studies have demonstrated the remarkable cost advantages of CaL. Hanak et al. revealed that post-combustion CaL retrofits to coal-fired power plants could achieve a competitive cost of CO2 avoided (~£40/tCO2), significantly lower than the range reported for amine scrubbing by Wood (ranging from £73 to £173/tCO2). This translates to a potential financial incentive for WtE operators considering CO2 capture.

    However, the benefits of CaL extend beyond cost savings. Compared to amine scrubbing, CaL exhibits a demonstrably lower impact on energy efficiency (<7% points) and can actually increase the power output by 20-50%. This means that WtE facilities adopting CaL can maintain their current energy generation capabilities while simultaneously capturing CO2.

    However, our research pushes the boundaries even further. We have proposed calcium looping combustion (CaLC) as a potential breakthrough technology for WtE decarbonisation. By replacing conventional incinerators with indirect heat transfer in the calciner, CaLC can minimise efficiency penalties to an impressive <3% points. For power generation from coal, our research showed a remarkably low cost of CO2 avoided of <£35/tCO2. Notably, municipal solid waste is a lower-quality fuel than conventional fossil fuels. Therefore, the expected efficiency penalties and cost of CO2 avoided are expected to be higher. Yet we forecast it will still be substantially lower than the mature amine scrubbing retrofits. At NZIIC, we are currently working with the UKCCSRC and the major waste-to-energy organisations in the Teesside Cluster to assess the feasibility of such technology.

    Conclusion

    As the UK embarks on its Green Industrial Revolution, the East Coast Cluster stands as a beacon of ambition, aiming to capture nearly half of the UK’s industrial emissions. While the focus is low-carbon power and hydrogen, an often-overlooked pairing holds immense potential: integrating Waste-to-Energy (WtE) with Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS). Such a synergy offers a two-pronged victory, curbing the nation’s carbon footprint and transforming WtE into a net negative emitter.

    However, unlocking this potential requires navigating a complex landscape. While effective in larger applications, traditional amine scrubbing proves problematic for WtE due to its high energy demands and detrimental impact on energy output and profitability. The search for alternative CCUS solutions with lower energy penalties and costs becomes paramount.

    Our research at the Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre focuses on carbonate looping (CaL) as a promising alternative. Unlike amine scrubbing, CaL presents a cost-effective and energy-efficient solution. Studies indicate a competitive cost of CO2 avoided and minimal efficiency penalties. This allows WtE operators to embrace carbon capture without compromising their core functions.


    Acknowledgement

    This publication is based on research conducted within the “Techno-economic and carbon footprint assessment of advanced waste-to-energy with carbon capture and storage for East Coast Cluster” project funded by the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Community

  • My household carbon footprint

    My household carbon footprint

    Decarbonization has been at the heart of my career for years. As a professor, I’ve spent countless hours investigating technologies to reduce emissions, from carbon capture and utilization to waste-to-energy systems. I’ve worked on projects that integrate hydrogen production, develop cutting-edge direct air capture technologies, and even reimagine how we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at costs below £100 per tonne. But recently, I realized by that while my work focuses on system-wide solutions, I hadn’t fully explored my own carbon footprint.

    This led me to ask: Am I practicing what I preach? What does my own path to net zero look like?

    Like many of you, I navigate the same daily decisions about heating my home, traveling, and managing household consumption. And while the scale of my footprint is small compared to industrial emissions, I believe that individual actions can add up — especially when shared and multiplied.

    So, I decided to embark on a personal journey to net zero, starting with an honest assessment of where I stand today. This is not just an experiment or a side project; it’s an extension of my professional commitment to a decarbonized future. By sharing my progress in this newsletter, I hope to inspire, learn from, and engage with others who are on similar journeys.

    The Episode #1 lays out my starting point. I’ll reveal my emissions, reflect on the challenges ahead, and outline my plans to make meaningful changes. Whether you’re just beginning to consider your impact or you’re further along in reducing your footprint, I hope you’ll find this series relatable, practical, and maybe even inspiring.

    Unpacking My Carbon Footprint

    When measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, we often categorise them into three scopes. In commercial setting, we use scopes to help understand where GHG emissions come from and who is responsible for them. Here’s a quick overview:

    Scope 1: Direct Emissions

    These are emissions that come directly from activities under your control. For example, burning gas for heating your home or using petrol in your car falls into this category.

    Scope 2: Indirect Emissions from Energy Use

    These emissions come from the generation of electricity or other energy that you use. While the emissions occur at the power plant, they are attributed to you as the end user of that energy.

    Scope 3: Other Indirect Emissions

    These are emissions from activities you influence but don’t directly control. This includes emissions from flights, the water you consume, the goods and services you buy, and even the waste you produce.

    Understanding these scopes helps to map out the sources of emissions and focus on areas where reductions can make the most impact. In my footprint, for example, Scope 1 includes gas heating and driving, Scope 2 comes from electricity use, and Scope 3 includes flights, water, and lifestyle emissions.

    Assumptions

    Here’s the breakdown of my annual emissions and given the following inputs:

    – we live in North East of England

    – our home is standard new-built from Dec 2022, no fancy energy or water recycling tech (yet)

    – my wife and I are working from home quite often

    – we on a single car, Vauxhall Astra, petrol

    – we use gas for heating and cooking, electricity for anything else

    Overview of my household greenhouse gas emissions

    Scope 1: Direct Emissions (3,017 kgCO2/year)

    These emissions come directly from my use of fossil fuels, primarily for heating and transportation using assets that my household owns.

    Gas Heating and Cooking: 1,397 kgCO2/year

    My household consumed 6,832 kWh of gas this year (as of 30/12/24), primarily for heating and cooking. At an emission factor of 0.2044 kgCO2/kWh (DEFRA, 2024), this is one of the largest sources of emissions. While my home is relatively new and efficient, relying on gas still has a significant environmental impact. Transitioning to a lower-carbon heating system could reduce this substantially.

    Car Travel: 1,620 kgCO2/year

    Driving my Vauxhall Astra (a petrol car with 46.4 MPG fuel efficiency) contributed a significant portion of my emissions. With only 5,990 miles driven in 2024, my car emitted approximately 0.2705 kgCO2 per mile (DEFRA, 2024). This highlights the importance of considering alternatives, such as reducing travel, switching to an electric vehicle, or using public transportation where possible.

    Scope 2: Indirect Emissions (394 kgCO2/year)

    These emissions are from 1,900 kWh of electricity my household consumed in 2024.

    Electricity Usage: 394 kgCO2/year

    While electricity is generally cleaner than gas in the location where I live (North East of England), the grid still relies partly on fossil fuels. First, I decided to use location-based emission factor rather than market-based emission factor. This was because my supplier claims the electricity they supply is 100% renewable, but how can I be cartain that my household actually uses 100% renewable energy. Hence, I uses an emission factor of 0.20705 kgCO2/kWh (DEFRA, 2024). My electricity use of 1,900 kWh/year to date this year added 394 kgCO2/year to my footprint. My home already features efficient LED lighting and a heat pump dryer, but adding solar, battery storage or improving household efficiency (i.e better class white goods) could help reduce this further.

    Scope 3: Indirect Emissions from Other Activities (1,518 kgCO2/year)

    Scope 3 emissions cover areas like air travel, water use, and other indirect activities.

    A single return flight from Leeds to Krakow (2 adults, 960 miles one way, DEFRA) contributed a significant portion of my emissions. Air travel remains one of the most carbon-intensive activities we engage in, and even short-haul flights add up quickly. Finding ways to minimize flights or offset their emissions will be critical.

    Water Supply and Treatment: 33 kgCO2/year

    My household uses 269 liters of water per day, totaling 98 cubic meters annually. This is hI Though the emissions from water supply and treatment are relatively small, reducing water consumption through fixtures or behavior changes can have broader environmental benefits.

    Other Activities: 369 kgCO2/year

    This category includes emissions from groceries, shopping, dining out, and other indirect activities. Estimation of this component of my Scope 3 emissions is rather uncertain and based on the figures provided by my banking provider. While these emissions are more uncertain and lower than those from heating or travel, they reflect everyday habits that I’ll aim to refine as part of this journey.

    What Do These Numbers Mean?

    Total Emissions: 4,929 kgCO2/year

    For context, the average UK resident emits approximately 10,000 kgCO2/year. So an average household like ours should emit 20,000 kgCO2/year. While our emissions are lower than average, they’re still significant.

    The numbers highlight areas where I can take action. These are in order of priority:

    – Gas and electricity dominate my home energy emissions.

    – Car and air travel are my largest transportation-related impacts.

    – Indirect activities like water and lifestyle choices, while smaller, are opportunities for improvement.

    Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns

    Known Unknowns

    These are areas I’ve identified as gaps in my data:

    – Waste Emissions: I have yet to calculate the impact of household waste, including landfill, recycling, and composting habits.

    – Embedded Emissions in Purchases: My estimate for lifestyle emissions lacks detail about the specific carbon intensity of the products I consume. In still glad that my bank provides such data.

    – Heating Options: I need to explore which low-carbon heating systems are practical for my home.

    – Offsetting Flights and Car travel: I’ve yet to identify the best carbon offset programs for reducing my travel footprint.

    Unknown Unknowns

    These are surprises that may emerge as I dig deeper:

    – Hidden Carbon Costs: How much do digital activities or financial investments contribute to my footprint?

    – Feedback Effects: Will new choices, like an electric vehicle, increase other emission, such as electricity use, and by how much?

    – Shifting Emission Factors: As the grid decarbonises, how will this affect my future emissions?

    net zero

    What’s Next? My Decarbonization Plan

    This isn’t about perfection; it’s about progress. Here’s where I’ll focus my efforts:

    1. Home Energy Efficiency: Investigating ways to reduce reliance on gas, such as transitioning to electric heating systems (heat pump) and optimising electricity use.

    2. Travel Alternatives: Exploring lower-carbon options for transportation and offsetting emissions from necessary flights.

    3. Water Conservation: Reducing water use through efficiency measures and behavioral changes.

    4. Lifestyle Choices: Examining my spending and consumption habits to identify sustainable alternatives.

    5. Waste Analysis: Calculating and addressing emissions from waste, an area I haven’t yet fully quantified.

    Join Me on This Journey

    Have you calculated your carbon footprint? It’s a great first step in understanding your impact. If you’re curious, try this tool: [Carbon Footprint Calculator](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx).

    Already taking steps to reduce your footprint? I’d love to hear about your journey. What’s worked for you? What challenges have you faced? Your insights could help guide and inspire others—and I’d love to feature them in future editions of this newsletter.

    Looking Ahead

    In the next edition, I’ll take a closer look at home energy use and explore potential upgrades to reduce emissions from heating and electricity. I’ll evaluate the costs, challenges, and benefits of these options to see what’s practical for my household.

    Thank you for joining me on this journey. Together, we can turn awareness into action, one step at a time.

    Warm regards,

    Prof Dawid Hanak