Life cycle assessment of solid refuse fuel production from MSW in Korea

Solid refuse fuel (SRF) produced from waste materials is a promising fuel that can be utilized for energy recovery in industries. This study considered both characterization and weighting modeling as life cycle assessment (LCA) results. This study aimed to analyze the flows of materials and energy and to evaluate the environmental impact of SRF plants using LCA and compared them with an incineration plant. Based on the results of material and energy flow analysis, SRF products had various energy potentials depending on the treatment method of municipal solid waste (MSW) and replaced the current fossil fuels by SRF combustion. Global impacts were mainly influenced by energy consumption, especially drying methods in the production of SRF, and affected the results of the weighting analysis. The SRF plant with a bio-drying option was evaluated as the best effective practice in the weighting analysis. The LCA results in this study indicated 0.021–9.88 points according to drying methods for SRF production and 1.38 points for incineration. In the sensitivity analysis, the environmental impact of SRF production was found to be significantly affected by the drying methods for MSW and the utilization of fossil energy. Thus, improvement of the drying options could significantly reduce the environmental impact.     

Review and meta-analysis of 82 studies on end-of-life management methods for source separated organics

This article reports on a literature review and meta-analysis of 82 studies, mostly life cycle assessments (LCAs), which quantified end-of-life (EOL) management options for organic waste. These studies were reviewed to determine the environmental preferability, or lack thereof, for a number of EOL management methods such as aerobic composting (AC), anaerobic digestion (AD), gasification, combustion, incineration with energy recovery (often denoted as waste-to-energy incineration), mechanical biological treatment, incineration without energy recovery (sometimes referenced by just the word “incineration”), and landfill disposal with and without energy recovery from generated methane. Given the vast differences in boundaries as well as uncertainty and variability in results, the LCAs among the 82 studies provided enough data and results to make conclusions regarding just four EOL management methods – aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, mass burn waste-to-energy (WTE), and landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE). For these four, the LCAs proved sufficient to determine that aerobic composting and anaerobic digestion are both environmentally preferable to either WTE or LFGTE in terms of climate change impacts.For climate change, LCA results were mixed for WTE versus LFGTE. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirically reliable estimates of the amount of organics input to AD that is converted to energy output versus remaining in the digestate. This digestate can be processed through aerobic composting into a compost product similar to the compost output from aerobic composting, assuming that the same type of organic materials are managed under AD as are managed via AC. The magnitude of any trade-off between generation of energy and production of compost in an AD system appears to be critical for ranking AC and AD for differing types of organics diversion streams. These results emphasize how little we generally know, and exemplify the fact that in the reviewed literature no single EOL management method consistently topped all other management options across all environmental impacts, and that future studies must strive to match existing analytical boundaries and alternatives assessed to increase knowledge if as a community we expect to be able to make even more generalized conclusions.     

An integrated appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using solid recovered fuel derived from municipal solid waste

This paper reports an integrated appraisal of options for utilising solid recovered fuels (SRF) (derived from municipal solid waste, MSW) in energy intensive industries within the United Kingdom (UK). Four potential co-combustion scenarios have been identified following discussions with industry stakeholders. These scenarios have been evaluated using (a) an existing energy and mass flow framework model, (b) a semi-quantitative risk analysis, (c) an environmental assessment and (d) a financial assessment. A summary of results from these evaluations for the four different scenarios is presented. For the given ranges of assumptions; SRF co-combustion with coal in cement kilns was found to be the optimal scenario followed by co-combustion of SRF in coal-fired power plants. The biogenic fraction in SRF (ca. 70%) reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions significantly (～2500 g CO₂ eqvt./kg DS SRF in co-fired cement kilns and ～1500 g CO₂ eqvt./kg DS SRF in co-fired power plants). Potential reductions in electricity or heat production occurred through using a lower calorific value (CV) fuel. This could be compensated for by savings in fuel costs (from SRF having a gate fee) and grants aimed at reducing GHG emission to encourage the use of fuels with high biomass fractions. Total revenues generated from coal-fired power plants appear to be the highest (£95/t SRF) from the four scenarios. However overall, cement kilns appear to be the best option due to the low technological risks, environmental emissions and fuel cost. Additionally, cement kiln operators have good experience of handling waste derived fuels. The scenarios involving co-combustion of SRF with MSW and biomass were less favourable due to higher environmental risks and technical issues.     

Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical–biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy

Primary energy savings potential is used to compare five residual municipal solid waste treatment systems, including configurations with mechanical (MT) and mechanical–biological (MBT) pre-treatment, which produce waste-derived fuels (RDF and SRF), biogas and/or recover additional materials for recycling, alongside a system based on conventional mass burn waste-to-energy and ash treatment. To examine the magnitude of potential savings we consider two energy efficiency levels (state-of-the-art and best available technology), the inclusion/exclusion of heat recovery (CHP vs. PP) and three different background end-use energy production systems (coal condensing electricity and natural gas heat, Nordic electricity mix and natural gas heat, and coal CHP energy quality allocation).The systems achieved net primary energy savings in a range between 34 and 140 MJ_primary/100 MJ_{input waste}, in the different scenario settings. The energy footprint of transportation needs, pre-treatment and reprocessing of recyclable materials was 3–9.5%, 1–18% and 1–8% respectively, relative to total energy savings. Mass combustion WtE achieved the highest savings in scenarios with CHP production, nonetheless, MBT-based systems had similarly high performance if SRF streams were co-combusted with coal. When RDF and SRF was only used in dedicated WtE plants, MBT-based systems totalled lower savings due to inherent system losses and additional energy costs. In scenarios without heat recovery, the biodrying MBS-based system achieved the highest savings, on the condition of SRF co-combustion. As a sensitivity scenario, alternative utilisation of SRF in cement kilns was modelled. It supported similar or higher net savings for all pre-treatment systems compared to mass combustion WtE, except when WtE CHP was possible in the first two background energy scenarios. Recovery of plastics for recycling before energy recovery increased net energy savings in most scenario variations, over those of full stream combustion. Sensitivity to assumptions regarding virgin plastic substitution was tested and was found to mostly favour plastic recovery.     

Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE).

A new computer based life cycle assessment model (EASEWASTE) was used to evaluate a municipal solid waste system with the purpose of identifying environmental benefits and disadvantages by anaerobic digestion of source-separated household waste and incineration. The most important processes that were included in the study are optical sorting and pre-treatment, anaerobic digestion with heat and power recovery, incineration with heat and power recovery, use of digested biomass on arable soils and finally, an estimated surplus consumption of plastic in order to achieve a higher quality and quantity of organic waste to the biogas plant. Results showed that there were no significant differences in most of the assessed environmental impacts for the two scenarios. However, the use of digested biomass may cause a potential toxicity impact on human health due to the heavy metal content of the organic waste. A sensitivity analysis showed that the results are sensitive to the energy recovery efficiencies, to the extra plastic consumption for waste bags and to the content of heavy metals in the waste. A model such as EASEWASTE is very suitable for evaluating the overall environmental consequences of different waste management strategies and technologies, and can be used for most waste material fractions existing in household waste.     

Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK case study

Particularly in the UK, there is potential for use of large-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) plants to treat food waste, possibly along with other organic wastes, to produce biogas. This paper presents the results of a life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impacts of AD with energy and organic fertiliser production against two alternative approaches: incineration with energy production by CHP and landfill with electricity production. In particular the paper investigates the dependency of the results on some specific assumptions and key process parameters. The input Life Cycle Inventory data are specific to the Greater London area, UK. Anaerobic digestion emerges as the best treatment option in terms of total CO₂ and total SO₂ saved, when energy and organic fertiliser substitute non-renewable electricity, heat and inorganic fertiliser. For photochemical ozone and nutrient enrichment potentials, AD is the second option while incineration is shown to be the most environmentally friendly solution. The robustness of the model is investigated with a sensitivity analysis. The most critical assumption concerns the quantity and quality of the energy substituted by the biogas production. Two key issues affect the development and deployment of future anaerobic digestion plants: maximising the electricity produced by the CHP unit fuelled by biogas and to defining the future energy scenario in which the plant will be embedded.     

A holistic life cycle analysis of waste management scenarios at increasing source segregation intensity: The case of an Italian urban area

Life cycle analysis of several waste management scenarios for an Italian urban area was performed on the basis of different source segregation collection (SS) intensities from 0% up to 52%. Source segregated waste was recycled and or/recovered by composting. Residual waste management options were by landfilling, incineration with energy recovery or solid recovered fuel (SRF) production to substitute for coal. The increase in fuel and materials consumption due to increase in SS had negligible influence on the environmental impact of the system. Recycling operations such as incineration and SRF were always advantageous for impact reduction. There was lower impact for an SS of 52% even though the difference with the SS intensity of 35% was quite limited, about 15%. In all the configurations analyzed, the best environmental performance was achieved for the management system producing SRF by the biodrying process.     

Energy recovery and greenhouse gas reduction potential from food waste in Japan

Waste-to-energy is one effective waste management approach for a sustainable society. The purpose of this study was to clarify the potential for energy recovery and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction that could be achieved by introducing anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities in the process of reconstructing aging incineration facilities in Japan. Using statistical data from 1068 incineration facilities, four future scenarios were considered and compared with the current situation. As results, compared with the current situation the amount of electricity generated could increase by 60 % in 2030, by combining AD facilities for food waste with new, high-efficiency incineration facilities for remaining municipal solid waste (MSW). From a life cycle perspective, net energy recovery in 2030 was approximately three times greater than in 2011, and GHG emission could be reduced by 27 %. The introduction of AD facilities is attractive for small authorities, which currently treat <100 t/day of MSW through incineration facilities without energy recovery. An AD facility is also beneficial for large authorities. On the contrary, in middle-scale authorities that treat 100–299 t/day of MSW, the reconstruction of incineration facilities to include electricity production capabilities requires careful consideration, because it will significantly influence energy recovery and GHG reduction effects.     

Life cycle assessment of bagasse waste management options

Bagasse is mostly utilized for steam and power production for domestic sugar mills. There have been a number of alternatives that could well be applied to manage bagasse, such as pulp production, conversion to biogas and electricity production. The selection of proper alternatives depends significantly on the appropriateness of the technology both from the technical and the environmental points of view. This work proposes a simple model based on the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of various alternatives for dealing with bagasse waste. The environmental aspects of concern included global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and photochemical oxidant creation. Four waste management scenarios for bagasse were evaluated: landfilling with utilization of landfill gas, anaerobic digestion with biogas production, incineration for power generation, and pulp production. In landfills, environmental impacts depended significantly on the biogas collection efficiency, whereas incineration of bagasse to electricity in the power plant showed better environmental performance than that of conventional low biogas collection efficiency landfills. Anaerobic digestion of bagasse in a control biogas reactor was superior to the other two energy generation options in all environmental aspects. Although the use of bagasse in pulp mills created relatively high environmental burdens, the results from the LCA revealed that other stages of the life cycle produced relatively small impacts and that this option might be the most environmentally benign alternative.     

Current EU-27 technical potential of organic waste streams for biogas and energy production

Anaerobic digestion of organic waste generated by households, businesses, agriculture, and industry is an important approach as method of waste treatment – especially with regard to its potential as an alternative energy source and its cost-effectiveness. Separate collection of biowaste from households or vegetal waste from public green spaces is already established in some EU-27 countries. The material recovery in composting plants is common for biowaste and vegetal waste. Brewery waste fractions generated by beer production are often used for animal feeding after a suitable preparation. Waste streams from paper industry generated by pulp and paper production such as black liquor or paper sludge are often highly contaminated with toxic substances. Recovery of chemicals and the use in thermal processes like incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification are typical utilization paths. The current utilization of organic waste from households and institutions (without agricultural waste) was investigated for EU-27 countries with Germany as an in-depth example. Besides of biowaste little is known about the suitability of waste streams from brewery and paper industry for anaerobic digestion. Therefore, an evaluation of the most important biogas process parameters for different substrates was carried out, in order to calculate the biogas utilization potential of these waste quantities. Furthermore, a calculation of biogas energy potentials was carried out for defined waste fractions which are most suitable for anaerobic digestion. Up to 1% of the primary energy demand can be covered by the calculated total biogas energy potential. By using a “best-practice-scenario” for separately collected biowaste, the coverage of primary energy demand may be increased above 2% for several countries. By using sector-specific waste streams, for example the German paper industry could cover up to 4.7% and the German brewery industry up to 71.2% of its total energy demand.     

Long-term affected energy production of waste to energy technologies identified by use of energy system analysis

Affected energy production is often decisive for the outcome of consequential life-cycle assessments when comparing the potential environmental impact of products or services. Affected energy production is however difficult to determine. In this article the future long-term affected energy production is identified by use of energy system analysis. The focus is on different uses of waste for energy production. The Waste-to-Energy technologies analysed include co-combustion of coal and waste, anaerobic digestion and thermal gasification. The analysis is based on optimization of both investments and production of electricity, district heating and bio-fuel in a future possible energy system in 2025 in the countries of the Northern European electricity market (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Germany). Scenarios with different CO₂ quota costs are analysed. It is demonstrated that the waste incineration continues to treat the largest amount of waste. Investments in new waste incineration capacity may, however, be superseded by investments in new Waste-to-Energy technologies, particularly those utilising sorted fractions such as organic waste and refuse derived fuel. The changed use of waste proves to always affect a combination of technologies. What is affected varies among the different Waste-to-Energy technologies and is furthermore dependent on the CO₂ quota costs and on the geographical scope. The necessity for investments in flexibility measures varies with the different technologies such as storage of heat and waste as well as expansion of district heating networks. Finally, inflexible technologies such as nuclear power plants are shown to be affected.     

Co-digestion of grease trap sludge and sewage sludge

Redirection of organic waste, from landfilling or incineration, to biological treatment such as anaerobic digestion is of current interest in the Malmö-Copenhagen region. One type of waste that is expected to be suitable for anaerobic digestion is sludge from grease traps. Separate anaerobic digestion of this waste type and co-digestion with sewage sludge were evaluated. The methane potential was measured in batch laboratory tests, and the methane yield was determined in continuous pilot-scale digestion. Co-digestion of sludge from grease traps and sewage sludge was successfully performed both in laboratory batch and continuous pilot-scale digestion tests. The addition of grease trap sludge to sewage sludge digesters was seen to increase the methane yield of 9–27% when 10–30% of sludge from grease traps (on VS-basis) was added. It was also seen that the grease trap sludge increases the methane yield without increasing the sludge production. Single-substrate digestion of grease trap sludge gave high methane potentials in batch tests, but could not reach stable methane production in continuous digestion.     

Energy implications of the thermal recovery of biodegradable municipal waste materials in the United Kingdom

Waste management policies and legislation in many developed countries call for a reduction in the quantity of biodegradable waste landfilled. Anaerobic digestion, combustion and gasification are options for managing biodegradable waste while generating renewable energy. However, very little research has been carried to establish the overall energy balance of the collection, preparation and energy recovery processes for different types of wastes. Without this information, it is impossible to determine the optimum method for managing a particular waste to recover renewable energy. In this study, energy balances were carried out for the thermal processing of food waste, garden waste, wood, waste paper and the non-recyclable fraction of municipal waste. For all of these wastes, combustion in dedicated facilities or incineration with the municipal waste stream was the most energy-advantageous option. However, we identified a lack of reliable information on the energy consumed in collecting individual wastes and preparing the wastes for thermal processing. There was also little reliable information on the performance and efficiency of anaerobic digestion and gasification facilities for waste.     

Driving forces for import of waste for energy recovery in Sweden.

Between 1996 and 2002, the Swedish import of so-called yellow waste for energy recovery increased. The import mainly consisted of separated wood waste and mixes of used wood and paper and/or plastics that was combusted in district heat production plants (DHPPs). Some mixed waste was imported to waste incineration plants for energy recovery (10% of the import of yellow waste for energy recovery in 2002). The import came primarily from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Finland. We identified six underlying driving forces for this recent increase of imported waste which are outlined and their interactive issues discussed. --The energy system infrastructure, which enables high energy recovery in Sweden. --The energy taxation, where high Swedish taxes on fossil fuels make relatively expensive solid biofuels the main alternative for base load production of district heat. --The quality of the waste-derived fuels, which has been higher in the exporting countries than in Sweden. --The bans on landfilling within Europe and the shortage of waste treatment capacity. --Taxes on waste management in Europe. --Gate fee differences between exporting countries and Sweden. In the future, the overall strength of these driving forces will probably be weakened. A Swedish tax on waste incineration is being investigated. In other European countries, the ambition to reach the Kyoto targets and increase the renewable electricity production could improve the competitiveness of waste-derived fuels in comparison with fossil fuels. Swedish DHPPs using waste-derived fuels will experience higher costs after the Waste Incineration Directive is fully implemented. The uncertainty about European waste generation and treatment capacity, however, might have a large influence on the future gate fees and thus also on the yellow waste import into Sweden.     

Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy--a Danish case study on waste paper

The waste hierarchy is being widely discussed these days, not only by cost-benefit analysts, but a growing number of life cycle assessments (LCA) have also begun to question it. In this article, we investigate the handling of waste paper in Denmark and compare the present situation with scenarios of more waste being recycled, incinerated or consigned to landfill. The investigations are made in accordance with ISO 14040-43 and based on the newly launched methodology of consequential LCA and following the recent guidelines of the European Centre on Waste and Material Flows. The LCA concerns the Danish consumption of paper in 1999, totalling 1.2 million tons. The results of the investigation indicate that the waste hierarchy is reliable; from an environmental point of view recycling of paper is better than incineration and landfilling. For incineration, the reason for the advantage of landfilling mainly comes from the substitution of fossil fuels, when incinerators provide heat and electricity. For recycling, the advantage is related to the saved wood resources, which can be used for generating energy from wood, i.e., from renewable fuel which does not contribute to global warming.     

Modelling of environmental impacts from biological treatment of organic municipal waste in EASEWASTE

The waste-LCA model EASEWASTE quantifies potential environmental effects from biological treatment of organic waste, based on mass and energy flows, emissions to air, water, soil and groundwater as well as effects from upstream and downstream processes. Default technologies for composting, anaerobic digestion and combinations hereof are available in the model, but the user can change all key parameters in the biological treatment module so that specific local plants and processes can be modelled. EASEWASTE is one of the newest waste LCA models and the biological treatment module was built partly on features of earlier waste-LCA models, but offers additional facilities, more flexibility, transparency and user-friendliness. The paper presents the main features of the module and provides some examples illustrating the capability of the model in environmentally assessing and discriminating the environmental performance of alternative biological treatment technologies in relation to their mass flows, energy consumption, gaseous emissions, biogas recovery and compost/digestate utilization.     

A life cycle approach to the management of household food waste - A Swedish full-scale case study

Environmental impacts from incineration, decentralised composting and centralised anaerobic digestion of solid organic household waste are compared using the EASEWASTE LCA-tool. The comparison is based on a full scale case study in southern Sweden and used input-data related to aspects such as source-separation behaviour, transport distances, etc. are site-specific. Results show that biological treatment methods - both anaerobic and aerobic, result in net avoidance of GHG-emissions, but give a larger contribution both to nutrient enrichment and acidification when compared to incineration. Results are to a high degree dependent on energy substitution and emissions during biological processes. It was seen that if it is assumed that produced biogas substitute electricity based on Danish coal power, this is preferable before use of biogas as car fuel. Use of biogas for Danish electricity substitution was also determined to be more beneficial compared to incineration of organic household waste. This is a result mainly of the use of plastic bags in the incineration alternative (compared to paper bags in the anaerobic) and the use of biofertiliser (digestate) from anaerobic treatment as substitution of chemical fertilisers used in an incineration alternative. Net impact related to GWP from the management chain varies from a contribution of 2.6 kg CO₂-eq/household and year if incineration is utilised, to an avoidance of 5.6 kg CO₂-eq/household and year if choosing anaerobic digestion and using produced biogas as car fuel. Impacts are often dependent on processes allocated far from the control of local decision-makers, indicating the importance of a holistic approach and extended collaboration between agents in the waste management chain.     

Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration

Incineration of municipal solid waste is a debated waste management technology. In some countries it is the main waste management option whereas in other countries it has been disregarded. The main discussion point on waste incineration is the release of air emissions from the combustion of the waste, but also the energy recovery efficiency has a large importance.The historical development of air pollution control in waste incineration was studied through life-cycle-assessment modelling of eight different air pollution control technologies. The results showed a drastic reduction in the release of air emissions and consequently a significant reduction in the potential environmental impacts of waste incineration. Improvements of a factor 0.85–174 were obtained in the different impact potentials as technology developed from no emission control at all, to the best available emission control technologies of today (2010).The importance of efficient energy recovery was studied through seven different combinations of heat and electricity recovery, which were modelled to substitute energy produced from either coal or natural gas. The best air pollution control technology was used at the incinerator. It was found that when substituting coal based energy production total net savings were obtained in both the standard and toxic impact categories. However, if the substituted energy production was based on natural gas, only the most efficient recovery options yielded net savings with respect to the standard impacts. With regards to the toxic impact categories, emissions from the waste incineration process were always larger than those from the avoided energy production based on natural gas. The results shows that the potential environmental impacts from air emissions have decreased drastically during the last 35 years and that these impacts can be partly or fully offset by recovering energy which otherwise should have been produced from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.     

Environmental assessment of supercritical water oxidation and other sewage sludge handling options.

Sustainable development relies on the eco-efficient use of all flows in society; more value created out of each resource unit. Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) can be used for treatment of wet organic waste. The technology has been under development for over 20 years but has not yet been fully commercialized. SCWO allows for complete oxidation of all organics in sewage sludge and almost complete recovery of the inherent energy, essentially without harmful emissions. In this paper, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of sewage sludge SCWO (Aqua-Critox) is presented and the results are compared with LCA results for other sludge handling options: agricultural use, co-incineration with municipal solid waste, incineration with subsequent phosphorus extraction (Bio-Con) and sludge fractionation with phosphorus recovery (Cambi-KREPRO). For SCWO, beneficial utilization of the heat of reaction is of crucial importance for the outcome. The electricity consumed by pumping and the nitrous oxide produced are other important parameters. The best sludge handling option from an environmental point of view depends on what aspect is considered more important in the impact assessment. Regarding global warming, the energy recovery methods perform better than agricultural use.     

LCA to choose among alternative design solutions: The case study of a new Italian incineration line

At international level LCA is being increasingly used to objectively evaluate the performances of different Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management solutions. One of the more important waste management options concerns MSW incineration. LCA is usually applied to existing incineration plants.In this study LCA methodology was applied to a new Italian incineration line, to facilitate the prediction, during the design phase, of its potential environmental impacts in terms of damage to human health, ecosystem quality and consumption of resources. The aim of the study was to analyse three different design alternatives: an incineration system with dry flue gas cleaning (without- and with-energy recovery) and one with wet flue gas cleaning. The last two technological solutions both incorporating facilities for energy recovery were compared. From the results of the study, the system with energy recovery and dry flue gas cleaning revealed lower environmental impacts in relation to the ecosystem quality.As LCA results are greatly affected by uncertainties of different types, the second part of the work provides for an uncertainty analysis aimed at detecting the extent output data from life cycle analysis are influenced by uncertainty of input data, and employs both qualitative (pedigree matrix) and quantitative methods (Monte Carlo analysis).