• Mark Swilling- Sustainabilit Institute• What are the obstacles to large scale

commercial applications here in SA?• Technology or policy constraints ?• Answer Sweden: no power and heating-

better payback• Combine heating with chillers• Strong political will visible

• Answer Price• Focus not be how to get things out of LF but to avoid to get

that organic materials in LF. Focus on waste recovery must be• Use of landfill only as last resource but not see as ch4

generators• Alternative mindset needed• Saliem: no seperation of waste- but this is key component.

Energy sources very cheap- little incentives. Mindset of people and politicians

• Part of developed countries. According to Kyoto- RSA can play role with carbon credits

• Flora City of JHB• No disincentives to produce waste ,

transport biggest costs in WM• SWM was managed by DWAF-did not a

good job therefore passed back to DEAT, to close loopholes

• Viability of project- how much gas need to be there ? Full potential of LF how can it be established ? Experiences from overseas.

• Capital cost- average, infrastructure, support mechanism required?

• John• Difficult to generalise, sites must be individually

tested to assess viability. In terms of electricity- premium is currently paid for green energy. This has to change !

• Recommendation to assess LFs close to industrial areas

• Difficult to give a generic figure• 1.8 million for 4 wells• Bellville: feasibilty R 450 000, 125 000 tons • John kinkhead- Ekhurweni: Reclaim brown sites for

LF• Does not think it will be feasable for the next

decades

• More education to recycling required to mitigate problem and improve

• Ward based refuse collection- the more reused and recycle the more incentives

• Peter Holm Sustainable Africa:• Waste treatment site in europe in the middle of

town- total systems approach should be rethought. Separate waste at source, shortest route to centralised site, use methane directly for heating and cooling

• Price –agrees with statements made• ICLEI thinks this is the best case scenario- has been

practiced in many countries and municipalities, Local handling of waste

• Sweden guy- Considerations in Stockholm• Diesel fuels for running cars much more expensive in

the long run- running biogas is good business for the transport companies in Stockholm

• Ron van der Berg (CDM Africa)• How was project received in Sweden ?• Role of wood waste• Look at viability and CDM at the same time• Low viability means high CDM potential• 50 000 tons Co2 per year should be retrieved

• Reduced rates for green cleans given by Joburg• Still large amounts of greens going to waste truck• Sweden public- well received, high marketing of

inititiatives, branding, corporation . Award as Green City

• Billy Twala Marin da Gama: Issues faced in Bellville gas migration threat to community. Do you engage in mechanism that control effects to underground water and other environmental threats?

• Serious look to source separation requested !

• John: Monitoring is very important. City employs external groups to monitor regularly.

• Mitigation planning has been put in place in case gas concentrations reach critical levels.

• Water quality- series of ponds constructed to dilute the leachate concentration

• Liners must be put in• Regular monitoring with probes• In jhb LF about 20 times more Ch4 than in bellville

• Thailand drives mainly on education –sufficient for medium and high income areas.

• What size of plant is required ? Operation time ? • Overseas electricity much more expensive than in

RSA• Generators can be clustered up• Size of JHB site- 30 MW if you fully utilise the

site.problem is dry winters- low gas production. Can not run throughout the year. Huge potential.

• In DWAFS Wmin guidelines do not incorporate considerations of LFG removal and CDM project.

• What is the right time, right price to jump, way to reduce risks ?

• Russia not signed Kyoto. European countries will proceed. Not to much concerned . SA structure has been set up. Price varies wildly, WWF Gold standard- for higher prices. Decisions must be made individually . But do not wait too long.

Summary of Eco Cycle utility project

• Very strong political involvement, support and public acceptance.• Below 5% fossil fuel utilisation in Stockholm• 50% of energy from incineration• 420 municipal eco cars • Target 60% of fleet by 2005• All buses on ethanol or hybrid• No organics allowed at LFs in Sweden• Ethanol as new business opportunity• NO tax for fuel- economy is same as for petrol. Incentives for the

future ?

Main outcomes and recommendations

• Government:• Merging of utilities into eco-cycles• Symbioses of metabolic streams• Compents: WWTP, Waste Treatment, Transport,

Energy, Water• Example: Off Heat / cooling is used from one utility

to the other • Closing resource cycles throughout the city• Politicians must realize longterm gains from that type

of mindset

Lessons learnt on Thailand biogas project

• Key to biogas utilisation is waste separation at source !!!

• Education well in advance to technical implementation

• Treats 70 tons per day produces fertiliser and electricity

• 95% Co2 savings (~43 500 tons/annum)

Tony Peterse -Ekhurlweni

• 1998 pilot project Cost R 558 000 in Weltevreden• 25% Diesel 75% Gas• 3 vehicles- 450 kg methane gas/day• Savings R 25000-35000 • Only 10% of LF site used• Filters to clean LF gas R 80 000 each• Conversion were expensive• Workshop not geared to maintain those vehicles• 20% loss in power• Frequent refill required

Ekhurlweni Lessons learnt

• Fuel might not be the best way to utilise LFG gas

• High potential for use

• Weltevrede LFG recovery potential about 20 times higher than in Bellville

John Coetzee• Potential of recovering 125 000 tons of C02 per annum• Prefeasibility study done by SSN• Feasibility study underway (R 450 000) MIIU• Capping posing risk of pressure cooker effect(gas

migrating)• Close proximity to industries• Current site unlined with low permeability Cape Flats sand• Pollution plume has been identified• Link up of portable gas extration unit with odour control

unit- good results

Summary of Q & A session• To not consider LFs as Methane producing factories but

try to cut amount of organics and recyclables to LF- via source separation

• Viability of LFG project must be established ad hoc. Viability /CDM ?

• Recommendation to assess LFs close to industrial areas• Waste treatment site in europe in the middle of town- total

systems approach should be rethought. Separate waste at source, shortest route to centralised site, use methane directly for heating and cooling. Generators can be clustered up