Environmental impact assessment of solid waste management in Beijing City, China

The environmental impacts of municipal solid waste management in Beijing City were evaluated using a life-cycle-based model, EASEWASTE, to take into account waste generation, collection, transportation, treatment/disposal technologies, and savings obtained by energy and material recovery. The current system, mainly involving the use of landfills, has manifested significant adverse environmental impacts caused by methane emissions from landfills and many other emissions from transfer stations. A short-term future scenario, where some of the landfills (which soon will reach their capacity because of rising amount of waste in Beijing City) are substituted by incinerators with energy recovery, would not result in significant environmental improvement. This is primarily because of the low calorific value of mixed waste, and it is likely that the incinerators would require significant amounts of auxiliary fuels to support combustion of wet waste. As for the long-term future scenario, efficient source separation of food waste could result in significant environmental improvements, primarily because of increase in calorific value of remaining waste incinerated with energy recovery. Sensitivity analysis emphasized the importance of efficient source separation of food waste, as well as the electricity recovery in incinerators, in order to obtain an environmentally friendly waste management system in Beijing City.     

Life-cycle assessment of a waste refinery process for enzymatic treatment of municipal solid waste

Decrease of fossil fuel dependence and resource saving has become increasingly important in recent years. From this perspective, higher recycling rates for valuable materials (e.g. metals) as well as energy recovery from waste streams could play a significant role substituting for virgin material production and saving fossil resources. This is especially important with respect to residual waste (i.e. the remains after source-separation and separate collection) which in Denmark is typically incinerated. In this paper, a life-cycle assessment and energy balance of a pilot-scale waste refinery for the enzymatic treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) is presented. The refinery produced a liquid (liquefied organic materials and paper) and a solid fraction (non-degradable materials) from the initial waste. A number of scenarios for the energy utilization of the two outputs were assessed. Co-combustion in existing power plants and utilization of the liquid fraction for biogas production were concluded to be the most favourable options with respect to their environmental impacts (particularly global warming) and energy performance. The optimization of the energy and environmental performance of the waste refinery was mainly associated with the opportunity to decrease energy and enzyme consumption.     

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.     

The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion

This study evaluates the environmental performance and discounted costs of the incineration and landfilling of municipal solid waste that is ready for the final disposal while accounting for existing waste diversion initiatives, using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Parameters such as changing waste generation quantities, diversion rates and waste composition were also considered. Two scenarios were assessed in this study on how to treat the waste that remains after diversion. The first scenario is the status quo, where the entire residual waste was landfilled whereas in the second scenario approximately 50% of the residual waste was incinerated while the remainder is landfilled. Electricity was produced in each scenario. Data from the City of Toronto was used to undertake this study. Results showed that the waste diversion initiatives were more effective in reducing the organic portion of the waste, in turn, reducing the net electricity production of the landfill while increasing the net electricity production of the incinerator. Therefore, the scenario that incorporated incineration performed better environmentally and contributed overall to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of the displacement of power plant emissions; however, at a noticeably higher cost. Although landfilling proves to be the better financial option, it is for the shorter term. The landfill option would require the need of a replacement landfill much sooner. The financial and environmental effects of this expenditure have yet to be considered.     

An LCA model for waste incineration enhanced with new technologies for metal recovery and application to the case of Switzerland

A process model of municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs) and new technologies for metal recovery from combustion residues was developed. The environmental impact is modeled as a function of waste composition as well as waste treatment and material recovery technologies. The model includes combustion with a grate incinerator, several flue gas treatment technologies, electricity and steam production from waste heat recovery, metal recovery from slag and fly ash, and landfilling of residues and can be tailored to specific plants and sites (software tools can be downloaded free of charge). Application of the model to Switzerland shows that the treatment of one tonne of municipal solid waste results on average in 425 kg CO₂-eq. generated in the incineration process, and 54 kg CO₂-eq. accrue in upstream processes such as waste transport and the production of operating materials. Downstream processes, i.e. residue disposal, generates 5 kg CO₂-eq. Savings from energy recovery are in the range of 67 to 752 kg CO₂-eq. depending on the assumptions regarding the substituted energy production, while the recovery of metals from slag and fly ash currently results in a net saving of approximately 35 kg CO₂-eq. A similar impact pattern is observed when assessing the MSWI model for aggregated environmental impacts (ReCiPe) and for non-renewable resource consumption (cumulative exergy demand), except that direct emissions have less and no relevance, respectively, on the total score. The study illustrates that MSWI plants can be an important element of industrial ecology as they provide waste disposal services and can help to close material and energetic cycles.     

Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts

Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO₂-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.     

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.     

CO₂ emission factors for waste incineration: Influence from source separation of recyclable materials

CO₂-loads from combustible waste are important inputs for national CO₂ inventories and life-cycle assessments (LCA). CO₂ emissions from waste incinerators are often expressed by emission factors in kg fossil CO₂ emitted per GJ energy content of the waste. Various studies have shown considerable variations between emission factors for different incinerators, but the background for these variations has not been thoroughly examined. One important reason may be variations in collection of recyclable materials as source separation alters the composition of the residual waste incinerated. The objective of this study was to quantify the importance of source separation for determination of emission factors for incineration of residual household waste. This was done by mimicking various source separation scenarios and based on waste composition data calculating resulting emission factors for residual waste routed to incineration. Emission factors ranged from 27 to 40 kg CO₂/GJ. The results appeared most sensitive towards variations in waste composition and water content. Recycling rates and lower heating values could not be used as simple indicators of the resulting emission factors for residual household waste; however the fossil carbon ratio of the waste after source separation was found to be appropriately correlated with the emission factor. Based on the results, it is recommended to carefully evaluate the source separation and collection systems behind reported literature values when comparing different studies and when using the values for environmental assessment purposes.     

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.     

Modelling of environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program EASEWASTE

A new computer-based life-cycle assessment model (EASEWASTE) has been developed to evaluate resource and environmental consequences of solid waste management systems. This paper describes the landfilling sub-model used in the life-cycle assessment program EASEWASTE, and examines some of the implications of this sub-model. All quantities and concentrations of leachate and landfill gas can be modified by the user in order to bring them in agreement with the actual landfill that is assessed by the model. All emissions, except the generation of landfill gas, are process specific. The landfill gas generation is calculated on the basis of organic matter in the landfilled waste. A landfill assessment example is provided. For this example, the normalised environmental effects of landfill gas on global warming and photochemical smog are much greater than the environmental effects for landfill leachate or for landfill construction. A sensitivity analysis for this example indicates that the overall environmental impact is sensitive to the gas collection efficiency and the use of the gas, but not to the amount of leachate generated, or the amount of soil or liner material used in construction. The landfill model can be used for evaluating different technologies with different liners, gas and leachate collection efficiencies, and to compare the environmental consequences of landfilling with alternative waste treatment options such as incineration or anaerobic digestion.     

Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge co-incineration in a coal-based power station

A life cycle assessment was conducted to evaluate the environmental and economic effects of sewage sludge co-incineration in a coal-fired power plant. The general approach employed by a coal-fired power plant was also assessed as control. Sewage sludge co-incineration technology causes greater environmental burden than does coal-based energy production technology because of the additional electricity consumption and wastewater treatment required for the pretreatment of sewage sludge, direct emissions from sludge incineration, and incinerated ash disposal processes. However, sewage sludge co-incineration presents higher economic benefits because of electricity subsidies and the income generating potential of sludge. Environmental assessment results indicate that sewage sludge co-incineration is unsuitable for mitigating the increasing pressure brought on by sewage sludge pollution. Reducing the overall environmental effect of sludge co-incineration power stations necessitates increasing net coal consumption efficiency, incinerated ash reuse rate, dedust system efficiency, and sludge water content rate.     

Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective

Energy production from two types of municipal solid waste was evaluated using life cycle assessment (LCA): (1) mixed high calorific waste suitable for production of solid recovered fuels (SRF) and (2) source separated organic waste. For SRF, co-combustion was compared with mass burn incineration. For organic waste, anaerobic digestion (AD) was compared with mass burn incineration. In the case of mass burn incineration, incineration with and without energy recovery was modelled. Biogas produced from anaerobic digestion was evaluated for use both as transportation fuel and for heat and power production. All relevant consequences for energy and resource consumptions, emissions to air, water and soil, upstream processes and downstream processes were included in the LCA. Energy substitutions were considered with respect to two different energy systems: a present-day Danish system based on fossil fuels and a potential future system based on 100% renewable energy. It was found that mass burn incineration of SRF with energy recovery provided savings in all impact categories, but co-combustion was better with respect to Global Warming (GW). If all heat from incineration could be utilized, however, the two alternatives were comparable for SRF. For organic waste, mass burn incineration with energy recovery was preferable over anaerobic digestion in most impact categories. Waste composition and flue gas cleaning at co-combustion plants were critical for the environmental performance of SRF treatment, while the impacts related to utilization of the digestate were significant for the outcome of organic waste treatment. The conclusions were robust in a present-day as well as in a future energy system. This indicated that mass burn incineration with efficient energy recovery is a very environmentally competitive solution overall.     

Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying energy system analysis

Even when policies of waste prevention, re-use and recycling are prioritised a fraction of waste will still be left which can be used for energy recovery. This article asks the question: How to utilise waste for energy in the best way seen from an energy system perspective? Eight different Waste-to-Energy technologies are compared with a focus on fuel efficiency, CO₂ reductions and costs. The comparison is carried out by conducting detailed energy system analyses of the present as well as a potential future Danish energy system with a large share of combined heat and power as well as wind power. The study shows potential of using waste for the production of transport fuels. Biogas and thermal gasification technologies are hence interesting alternatives to waste incineration and it is recommended to support the use of biogas based on manure and organic waste. It is also recommended to support research into gasification of waste without the addition of coal and biomass. Together the two solutions may contribute to alternate use of one third of the waste which is currently incinerated. The remaining fractions should still be incinerated with priority to combined heat and power plants with high electric efficiency.     

Energy recovery from waste incineration: Assessing the importance of district heating networks

Municipal solid waste incineration contributes with 20% of the heat supplied to the more than 400 district heating networks in Denmark. In evaluation of the environmental consequences of this heat production, the typical approach has been to assume that other (fossil) fuels could be saved on a 1:1 basis (e.g. 1 GJ of waste heat delivered substitutes for 1 GJ of coal-based heat). This paper investigates consequences of waste-based heat substitution in two specific Danish district heating networks and the energy-associated interactions between the plants connected to these networks. Despite almost equal electricity and heat efficiencies at the waste incinerators connected to the two district heating networks, the energy and CO₂ accounts showed significantly different results: waste incineration in one network caused a CO₂ saving of 48 kg CO₂/GJ energy input while in the other network a load of 43 kg CO₂/GJ. This was caused mainly by differences in operation mode and fuel types of the other heat producing plants attached to the networks. The paper clearly indicates that simple evaluations of waste-to-energy efficiencies at the incinerator are insufficient for assessing the consequences of heat substitution in district heating network systems. The paper also shows that using national averages for heat substitution will not provide a correct answer: local conditions need to be addressed thoroughly otherwise we may fail to assess correctly the heat recovery from waste incineration.     

Environmental and economic life cycle assessment for sewage sludge treatment processes in Japan

Life cycle assessment for sewage sludge treatment was carried out by estimating the environmental and economic impacts of the six alternative scenarios most often used in Japan: dewatering, composting, drying, incineration, incinerated ash melting and dewatered sludge melting, each with or without digestion. Three end-of-life treatments were also studied: landfilling, agricultural application and building material application. The results demonstrate that sewage sludge digestion can reduce the environmental load and cost through reduced dry matter volume. The global warming potential (GWP) generated from incineration and melting processes can be significantly reduced through the reuse of waste heat for electricity and/or heat generation. Equipment production in scenarios except dewatering has an important effect on GWP, whereas the contribution of construction is negligible. In addition, the results show that the dewatering scenario has the highest impact on land use and cost, the drying scenario has the highest impact on GWP and acidification, and the incinerated ash melting scenario has the highest impact on human toxicity due to re-emissions of heavy metals from incinerated ash in the melting unit process. On the contrary, the dewatering, composting and incineration scenarios generate the lowest impact on human toxicity, land use and acidification, respectively, and the incinerated ash melting scenario has the lowest impact on GWP and cost. Heavy metals released from atmospheric effluents generated the highest human toxicity impact, with the effect of dioxin emissions being significantly lower. This study proved that the dewatered sludge melting scenario is an environmentally optimal and economically affordable method.     

Application of the US decision support tool for materials and waste management

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) launched the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) in 2002 to help reduce waste and move towards more sustainable resource consumption. The objective of the RCC is to help communities, industries, and the public think in terms of materials management rather than waste disposal. Reducing cost, finding more efficient and effective strategies to manage municipal waste, and thinking in terms of materials management requires a holistic approach that considers life-cycle environmental tradeoffs. The US EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory has led the development of a municipal solid waste decision support tool (MSW-DST). The computer software can be used to calculate life-cycle environmental tradeoffs and full costs of different waste management or materials recovery programs. The environmental methodology is based on the use of life-cycle assessment and the cost methodology is based on the use of full-cost accounting. Life-cycle inventory (LCI) environmental impacts and costs are calculated from the point of collection, handling, transport, treatment, and disposal. For any materials that are recovered for recycling, offsets are calculated to reflect potential emissions savings from use of virgin materials. The use of the MSW-DST provides a standardized format and consistent basis to compare alternatives. This paper provides an illustration of how the MSW-DST can be used by evaluating ten management strategies for a hypothetical medium-sized community to compare the life-cycle environmental and cost tradeoffs. The LCI results from the MSW-DST are then used as inputs into another US EPA tool, the Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts, to convert the LCI results into impact indicators. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the MSW-DST can be used to identify and balance multiple criteria (costs and environmental impacts) when evaluating options for materials and waste management. This type of approach is needed in identifying strategies that lead to reduced waste and more sustainable resource consumption. This helps to meet the goals established in the US EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge.     

Environmental assessment of gas management options at the Old Ämmässuo landfill (Finland) by means of LCA-modeling (EASEWASTE)

The current landfill gas (LFG) management (based on flaring and utilization for heat generation of the collected gas) and three potential future gas management options (LFG flaring, heat generation and combined heat and power generation) for the Old Ämmässuo landfill (Espoo, Finland) were evaluated by life-cycle assessment modeling. The evaluation accounts for all resource utilization and emissions to the environment related to the gas generation and management for a life-cycle time horizon of 100 yr. The assessment criteria comprise standard impact categories (global warming, photo-chemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification and nutrient enrichment) and toxicity-related impact categories (human toxicity via soil, via water and via air, eco-toxicity in soil and in water chronic).The results of the life-cycle impact assessment show that disperse emissions of LFG from the landfill surface determine the highest potential impacts in terms of global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, and human toxicity via soil. Conversely, the impact potentials estimated for other categories are numerically-negative when the collected LFG is utilized for energy generation, demonstrating that net environmental savings can be obtained. Such savings are proportional to the amount of gas utilized for energy generation and the gas energy recovery efficiency achieved, which thus have to be regarded as key parameters. As a result, the overall best performance is found for the heat generation option – as it has the highest LFG utilization/energy recovery rates – whereas the worst performance is estimated for the LFG flaring option, as no LFG is here utilized for energy generation.Therefore, to reduce the environmental burdens caused by the current gas management strategy, more LFG should be used for energy generation. This inherently requires a superior LFG capture rate that, in addition, would reduce fugitive emissions of LFG from the landfill surface, bringing further environmental benefits.     

Life cycle assessment for optimising the level of separated collection in integrated MSW management systems

This life cycle assessment study analyses material and energy recovery within integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems, and, in particular, the recovery of the source-separated materials (packaging and organic waste) and the energy recovery from the residual waste. The recovery of materials and energy are analysed together, with the final aim to evaluate possible optimum levels of source-separated collection that lead to the most favourable energetic and environmental results; this method allows identification of an optimum configuration of the MSW management system. The results show that the optimum level of source-separated collection is about 60%, when all the materials are recovered with high efficiency; it decreases to about 50%, when the 60% level is reached as a result of a very high recovery efficiency for organic fractions at the expense of the packaging materials, or when this implies an appreciable reduction of the quality of collected materials. The optimum MSW management system is thus characterized by source-separated collection levels as included in the above indicated range, with subsequent recycling of the separated materials and energy recovery of the residual waste in a large-scale incinerator operating in combined heat and power mode.     

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.     

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.