a case study of municipal solid waste management in the ... - lumes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 30Table 2. Investmentof Plant and EquipmentUnit: million RMB12-16* I 60-80** I 43***Source 1: * SEPA, 1998, Environmental Pollution Control and Measures in China,p: 189. And excluding the capping costs.Source 2: ** SEPA, 1998, Environmental Pollution Control and Measures in China,p: 189. This is incineratorfor treatment industrial was te, no electricity generator.Source 3: *** Kruger AB, (1998) Description of Kristianstad Biogas Plant, Sweden,p:7 and suppose SEK1roughly equals to RMB1.So, by considering the investment of above specific items, sanitary landfill is cheapestOlle, followed by biogas and compost plant, then lastly, incineration. If the differencesof transportation and operation costs of these three approaches are not accounted intathe comparisons but capping costs for sanitary landfill, e1ectricity generatorinvestment, and benefits from selling e1ectricity in incinerating plant and sellingbiogas and compost in biogas plant, the total costs for incinerating & landfill approachis like ly still rather higher than the other two. Moreover, because almost no economicbenefit will be obtained from sanitary landfill approach, contrarily, the obviousbenefits would be returned when biogas plant is operated normally, Olle of these twoapproaches cannot be ranked higher than the other through the simply economicanalyses, especially for the long flin.Based on the above rough economic estimation, the results are the approach ofincinerating, composting & landfill is eliminated. The conclusions based on availableinformation is the best approach either sanitary landfill or composting & landfi1l. Thesecond best approach is incinerating & landfill.7.4 Environmental AnalysesSince sanitary landfills are more secure and have more better pollution controI andmonitoring devices than earlier landfills, environrnental cancerns at properly managedlandfills are greatly reduced. Also, many new landfills lise methane recovertechnologies to develop a marketable product. So, from environrnental point of view,sanitary landfill is an acceptable approach if its potential polluting sources is undercontrol.The care environrnental problem concerning incineration is municipal solid waste sentfor incineration frequently include chlorine-containing substances, such as
Page 31polyvinylchloride (PVC). The trace amounts of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxinsand polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs and PCDFs), same of these are highlytoxic (Jackson & Jackson, 1996). But waste combustion reduces the bulk of municipalsolid waste and can provide the added benefit of energy production. And technologiesdevelopment in recent years have greatly reduced the adverse environmental impactsassociated with incineration through high temperature combustion, a long residencetime of the waste in a hot oxidizing environment and so on (Jackson & Jackson,1996). And although waste combustion is not risk-free, many leading industrialcountries are relying on or partly relying on this method.Through the composting & landfill approach, some of main environmental problemsregarding organic waste are likely to be solved. This also can reduce the lise of landfillgrace, save energy and natural resources and provide useful products. So thisapproach is most suitable for the sustainability.So, from the minimizing environmental effect aspect, the results should be the bestapproach either composting & landfill or sanitary landfill. The second best approachis incinerating & landfill.Therefore, from sustainable energy and nutrition recover aspect, the order of thesethree approaches are:1. composting & landfill2. incinerating & landfill3. sanitary landfill.7.5 Social Psychology AnalysesHere, only the social psychology of local residents is discussed for dealing withsanitary landfill, incinerating and composting. Sanitary landfill is neutral word inChinese. In order to improve their living environment, this is quite easily accepted byresidents since their waste can be treated in sanitary way. Chinese people have thecommon perception that incinerating plant will pollute the surrounding environmentwhen waste is combusted in incinerator because waste is dirty. So, it will difficult tochoose the location of incinerating plant near the city.China has a long history to producing biogas which is considered as a very goodenergy source. People have the basic knowledge on the composting process and feel itrealistic and practical. Since the 1970's, the strategy of government has beenpromoting underground, individual anaerobic digesters to process rural organicmaterials and resulted in approximately five million household anaerobic digestersinstalled in China today(J. Paul Henderson, January,1997). Biogas waste treatmentplant might be easily accepted by Jingshan residents.
Page 1: MASTER THE SISof Lund UniversityInt
Page 4 and 5: Page 27.1.2 Experiencesfrom SNEPB 2
Page 6 and 7: Page 4The comprehensive result of a
Page 9 and 10: Page 7. describe the general situat
Page 11 and 12: Page 9International Institute for I
Page 13 and 14: Page 115. OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL WAS
Page 15 and 16: Page 13Table 1. MunicipalSolid Wast
Page 17 and 18: Page 155.5.1 Landfi/lingHistoricall
Page 19 and 20: Page 176.2 The Characteristics of M
Page 21 and 22: Page 19In Jingshan, there are a tot
Page 23 and 24: Page 21....Source reduction tops th
Page 25 and 26: Page 23airpollution& globewarmmg++a
Page 27 and 28: Page 25urban population &economic g
Page 29 and 30: Page 27solid waste generated, inves
Page 31: Page 29selling electricity, biogas
Page 35 and 36: Page 33Table 3. The Credits of Diff
Page 37 and 38: Page 35carried to the corresponding
Page 39 and 40: Page 37Specific containers for diff
Page 41 and 42: Page 39rest of sewerage water, whic
Page 43 and 44: Page 41Household hazardous waste -
Page 45 and 46: Page 43J. Paul Henderson & Terrill

a case study of municipal solid waste management in the ... - lumes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?