Literature DB >> 20378326

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

Anders Damgaard1, Christian Riber, Thilde Fruergaard, Tore Hulgaard, Thomas H Christensen.   

Abstract

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. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20378326     DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.03.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Waste Manag        ISSN: 0956-053X            Impact factor:   7.145


  5 in total

1.  Bridging the Energy Benefit and POPs Emission Risk from Waste Incineration.

Authors:  Cui Li; Lili Yang; Xiaoyun Liu; Yuanping Yang; Linjun Qin; Da Li; Guorui Liu
Journal:  Innovation (Camb)       Date:  2020-12-30

2.  Drivers of U.S. toxicological footprints trajectory 1998-2013.

Authors:  S C L Koh; T Ibn-Mohammed; A Acquaye; K Feng; I M Reaney; K Hubacek; H Fujii; K Khatab
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Air Pollutant and Health-Efficiency Evaluation Based on a Dynamic Network Data Envelopment Analysis.

Authors:  Tao Zhang; Yung-Ho Chiu; Ying Li; Tai-Yu Lin
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 4.  Analysis of the polyester clothing value chain to identify key intervention points for sustainability.

Authors:  Cristina Palacios-Mateo; Yvonne van der Meer; Gunnar Seide
Journal:  Environ Sci Eur       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.481

5.  Thermochemical treatment of daily COVID-19 single-use facemask waste: Power generation potential and environmental impact analysis.

Authors:  Dan Cudjoe; Hong Wang; Bangzhu Zhu
Journal:  Energy (Oxf)       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 8.857

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.