Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management--assessment of quantification methods

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities' corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities-Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of -53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.     

Cost‐Effective Sediment Dredge Disposal Options for Small Craft Harbors in Canada

Sediment dredge disposal options were reviewed to improve cost‐effectiveness and environmental safety for dredging of coastal sediments at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Small Craft Harbours (DFO‐SCH) program in Canada. Historically, contaminated dredge sediments exceeding federal guidelines were disposed of in nearby landfills. Recent federal regulatory changes in sediment quality guidelines adopted by provincial regulators in Canada has resulted in updates to guidelines for disposal of contaminated solids in landfills. Updates now require specific and general disposal options for contaminated dredge material destined for land‐based disposal, resulting in more expensive disposal in containment cells (if contaminated sediments exceed federal guidelines). However, as part of this study, a leachate testing method was applied to contaminated sediments to simulate migration of potential contaminants in groundwater. Using this approach, leachate quality was compared to federal freshwater criteria and drinking water quality guidelines for compliance with new regulations. Leachate testing performed on the highest sediment contaminant concentrations triggered less than 2 percent potable water exceedances, meaning that most dredge spoils could be disposed of in privately owned or provincially operated landfill sites, providing less expensive disposal options compared to containment cell disposal. Current dredge disposal practices were reviewed at 35 harbor sites across Nova Scotia and their limitations identified in a gap analysis. Improved site management was developed following this review and consultation with interested marine stakeholders. New disposal options and chemical analyses were proposed, along with improvements to cost efficiencies for management of dredged marine sediments in Atlantic Canada. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A life-cycle comparison of alternative automobile fuels

We examine the life cycles of gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and ethanol (C2H5OH)-fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) automobiles. Port and direct injection and spark and compression ignition engines are examined. We investigate diesel fuel from both petroleum and biosources as well as C2H5OH from corn, herbaceous bio-mass, and woody biomass. The baseline vehicle is a gasoline-fueled 1998 Ford Taurus. We optimize the other fuel/powertrain combinations for each specific fuel as a part of making the vehicles comparable to the baseline in terms of range, emissions level, and vehicle lifetime. Life-cycle calculations are done using the economic input-output life-cycle analysis (EIO-LCA) software; fuel cycles and vehicle end-of-life stages are based on published model results. We find that recent advances in gasoline vehicles, the low petroleum price, and the extensive gasoline infrastructure make it difficult for any alternative fuel to become commercially viable. The most attractive alternative fuel is compressed natural gas because it is less expensive than gasoline, has lower regulated pollutant and toxics emissions, produces less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is available in North America in large quantities. However, the bulk and weight of gas storage cylinders required for the vehicle to attain a range comparable to that of gasoline vehicles necessitates a redesign of the engine and chassis. Additional natural gas transportation and distribution infrastructure is required for large-scale use of natural gas for transportation. Diesel engines are extremely attractive in terms of energy efficiency, but expert judgment is divided on whether these engines will be able to meet strict emissions standards, even with reformulated fuel. The attractiveness of direct injection engines depends on their being able to meet strict emissions standards without losing their greater efficiency. Biofuels offer lower GHG emissions, are sustainable, and reduce the demand for imported fuels. Fuels from food sources, such as biodiesel from soybeans and C2H5OH from corn, can be attractive only if the co-products are in high demand and if the fuel production does not diminish the food supply. C2H5OH from herbaceous or woody biomass could replace the gasoline burned in the light-duty fleet while supplying electricity as a co-product. While it costs more than gasoline, bioethanol would be attractive if the price of gasoline doubled, if significant reductions in GHG emissions were required, or if fuel economy regulations for gasoline vehicles were tightened.