Life Cycle Assessments of Energy From Solid Waste (PDF)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

0,0E+00 Base Medium transports Medium transports + passenger car Long transports Natural gas Saved wood used as fuel Plastics replace impregnated wood -5,0E+09 -1,0E+10 MJ/total amount of solid waste during one year -1,5E+10 -2,0E+10 -2,5E+10 -3,0E+10 -3,5E+10 Recycling Incineration Landfilling Recycling, plastics replace impregnated wood -4,0E+10 -4,5E+10 Figure 1. The total energy use for the whole system in a number of scenarios Base Medium transports Medium transports + passenger car Long transports Natural gas Saved wood used as fuel Short timeperspective for landfills Landfills as carbon sinks Plastics replace impregnated wood 3,0E+09 2,5E+09 2,0E+09 kg CO2-eq./total amount of solid waste 1,5E+09 1,0E+09 5,0E+08 0,0E+00 -5,0E+08 -1,0E+09 Recycling Incineration Landfilling Recycling, plastics replace impregnated wood -1,5E+09 -2,0E+09 Figure 2. Contribution to global warming from the whole system in different scenarios. To summarise some of the overall conclusions it can be noted that recycling of paper and plastic materials are in general favourable according to our study with regard to overall energy use, emissions of greenhouse gases and the total weighted results. These results are fairly robust. When looking at total energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases, recycling is the preferred strategy in all scenarios for the whole system, i.e. when all the studied waste
fractions are included. In Figures. 1 and 2 the results from several scenarios are shown compared to the base scenario. In the scenario “medium transports” the transport distances are increased compared to the base scenario and passenger cars are also assumed to be used in one scenario. In the scenario “long transports”, transportation distances are further increased compared to the “medium transports” scenario. In the scenario “natural gas”, it is assumed that the heat from incineration of waste and gas from digestion and landfilling replaces heat from incineration of natural gas. This is a change from the base scenario where it is assumed that the competing heat source is forest residues. In the scenario “saved wood used as fuel” it is assumed that the wood that is “saved” by recycling of paper materials is used as a fuel for heat production replacing natural gas. Such a scenario can correspond to a situation where there is increased competition for biomass. In the base scenario, emissions from landfills are considered for a hypothetical infinite time period. In the scenario “Short time perspective for landfills” this is changed. Also in the scenario “landfills as carbon sinks” only a short time perspective is considered and landfills are modelled as carbon traps for nondegraded biological materials. In the scenario, “Plastics replace impregnated wood” it is assumed that recycled plastics replace impregnated wood as palisades. This is a change from the base scenario where it is assumed that recycled paper and plastic materials replace the same materials produced from virgin raw materials. One exception to the general results is plastics when they are recycled and replace impregnated wood. In this case recycling of plastics is less favourable than incineration with respect to energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases although the difference is rather small. However, recycling may still be favourable with respect to toxicological impacts, and our results still show a benefit for recycling with regard to the total weighted results. Incineration is in general favourable over landfilling according to our study with regard to overall energy use, emissions of gases contributing to global warming and the total weighted results. There are however some aspects which may influence this ranking. If longer transportation distances are demanded in the incineration case, especially by passenger cars, landfilling can become more favourable than incineration. The modelling of landfills can also have a decisive influence. If shorter time periods are used, in the order of a century, landfilling is favoured and may become a preferable option over incineration. LCAs can be used to test the waste hierarchy and identify situations where the hierarchy is not valid. Our results suggest however that the waste hierarchy is valid as a rule of thumb. The results presented here can be used as a basis for policy decisions as well as strategic decisions on waste management systems.
Page 1: Life Cycle Assessments of Energy fr
Page 4 and 5: ISBN 91-7056-103-6 ISSN 1404-6520,
Page 6 and 7: Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G. (2000)
Page 9: Summary We live in a changing world
Page 14 and 15: Contents PREFACE ABSTRACT SUMMARY C
Page 16 and 17: Nutrients content in digestion resi
Page 18 and 19: 7.6.6 Summary 125 7.7 RESULTS SCENA
Page 20 and 21: USES VOC YLD YLL Uniform system for
Page 22 and 23: discussed. Another question is wher
Page 24 and 25: 2 Methodology 2.1 General LCA metho
Page 26 and 27: geographical coverage, and consiste
Page 28 and 29: Weighting is and has always been a
Page 30 and 31: 2.2.2 Open-loop recycling Open-loop
Page 32 and 33: often assumed to replace virgin pap
Page 34 and 35: the differentiation between biotic
Page 36 and 37: composting of the food waste. Sourc
Page 38 and 39: 2.3.7 Landfills as a carbon sink In
Page 40 and 41: et al (1998) (recycling of PET), He
Page 42 and 43: 3 Scenarios and major assumptions 3
Page 44 and 45: of the incinerator capacity. If, ho
Page 46 and 47: Finally, in the long transport scen
Page 48 and 49: Table 3.4 Vehicles and distances wi
Page 50 and 51: 3.9.2 Medium transports scenario Th
Page 52 and 53: 4 Household waste composition 4.1 I
Page 54 and 55: Table 4.4 Composition of the fracti
Page 56 and 57: defined composition of newspaper. T
Page 58 and 59: 5. Processes 5.1 Introduction The w
Page 60 and 61:
WASTE PAPER ADDITIVES EL. TRANSPORT
Page 62 and 63:
Combining testliner and wellenstoff
Page 64 and 65:
The first step in the recycling pro
Page 66 and 67:
involves PET-resin production from
Page 68 and 69:
PE as described in section 5.2. Thi
Page 70 and 71:
The original inventory data for ana
Page 72 and 73:
5.3.3 Avoided production of fertili
Page 74 and 75:
FOOD WASTE TRANSPORT ENERGY INCL EL
Page 76 and 77:
The heat released in the kiln is ca
Page 78 and 79:
Aluminium, CaCO 3 , clay, crude oil
Page 80 and 81:
Emissions formed during landfill fi
Page 82 and 83:
energy used for purification is ass
Page 84 and 85:
5.7.2 Exceptions Marginal electrici
Page 86 and 87:
Combustion of biomass is not consid
Page 88 and 89:
6.2.5 Stratospheric ozone depletion
Page 90 and 91:
Table 6.2 Some emissions lacking a
Page 92 and 93:
Table 6.4 Some emissions lacking a
Page 94 and 95:
Non-treated waste All waste that ha
Page 96 and 97:
Table 6.6 continued… Impact categ
Page 98 and 99:
6.4.4 Additions For some substances
Page 100 and 101:
categories for the substances found
Page 102 and 103:
For PET most energy is saved in the
Page 104 and 105:
Table 7.2 The table shows weighted
Page 106 and 107:
The results for the food waste frac
Page 108 and 109:
for both alternatives. Most of this
Page 110 and 111:
7.2.13 Undefined substances As disc
Page 112 and 113:
Table 7.4 The results for all impac
Page 114 and 115:
7.3.1 Energy, abiotic resources and
Page 116 and 117:
7.3.3 Toxicological effects Medium
Page 118 and 119:
7.3.5 Summary A final summary of th
Page 120 and 121:
7.4.2 Non-toxicological impacts For
Page 122 and 123:
7.4.4 Total weighted results Change
Page 124 and 125:
Table 7.16 Comparison between a sce
Page 126 and 127:
The categories acidification (excl
Page 128 and 129:
7.5.4 Total weighted results When u
Page 130 and 131:
7.5.5 Summary A final summary of th
Page 132 and 133:
Table 7.22 Weighted results for the
Page 134 and 135:
A similar pattern results for SO x
Page 136 and 137:
Table 7.25 Weighted results for hum
Page 138 and 139:
Table 7.27 The ranking of the waste
Page 140 and 141:
Table 7.29 Weighted results for the
Page 142 and 143:
Table 7.31 Weighted results for hum
Page 144 and 145:
7.8.2 Non-toxicological impacts The
Page 146 and 147:
Opposite to the USESmin results, no
Page 148 and 149:
More alterations in ranking occur i
Page 150 and 151:
Table 7.39 Weighted global warming
Page 152 and 153:
7.10 Results Scenario Plastic Palis
Page 154 and 155:
Table 7.43 The ranking of the waste
Page 156 and 157:
In category human toxicology there
Page 158 and 159:
7.12 Results Qualitative discussion
Page 160 and 161:
Table 7.49 The 100 year perspective
Page 162 and 163:
Table 7.50 Continued Different time
Page 164 and 165:
(MJ/ton) 0.0E+00 -1.0E+04 -2.0E+04
Page 166 and 167:
materials in the base scenario (sec
Page 168 and 169:
In general anaerobic digestion is p
Page 170 and 171:
8.4 Limitations and need for furthe
Page 172 and 173:
separation of fractions to be incin
Page 174 and 175:
CEPI and BIR (1999). European List
Page 176 and 177:
Finnveden, G., and T. Ekvall (1998)
Page 178 and 179:
Johansson, S. (1998). Förstudie av
Page 180 and 181:
Tukker, A. (1999a). Life Cycle Asse
Page 183 and 184:
Additives Active pesticide Record:
Page 185 and 186:
HCl (100%) B250 - (Hydrochloric aci
Page 187 and 188:
NaClO 3 - (Sodiumchlorate) Record:
Page 189 and 190:
Inputs from technosphere: Potato S
Page 191 and 192:
natural gas, coal, water, silver an
Page 193 and 194:
Energy - heat Heat diesel B250 Reco
Page 195 and 196:
MJth gas energy Record: IVAM Refere
Page 197 and 198:
of the coal and efficiency losses.
Page 199 and 200:
MJel oil NL Record: IVAM References
Page 201 and 202:
Gaslinetransport NL Record: IVAM Re
Page 203 and 204:
Other Wastew. Treatment industry Re
Page 205 and 206:
Chauvel & Lefebvre (1989) Chauvel &
Page 207 and 208:
LCA-landbouw LCA-landbouw Database
Page 209 and 210:
Remmerswaal (1996) J.Remmerswaal, F
Page 211:
VNC Vereniging Nederlandse Cementin
show all

Life Cycle Assessments of Energy From Solid Waste (PDF)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?