Structured decision making for assessment of solid waste-to-energy systems for decentralized onsite applications

Anna E. Tovkach, John C. Boyle, Enoch A. Nagelli, Corey M. James, Pamela L. Sheehan and Andrew R. Pfluger ()
Additional contact information
Anna E. Tovkach: Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering
John C. Boyle: Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering
Enoch A. Nagelli: Department of Chemistry and Life Science
Corey M. James: Department of Chemistry and Life Science
Pamela L. Sheehan: U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Demilitarization & Experimental Directorate, Army Futures Command, CCDC-AC
Andrew R. Pfluger: Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering

Environment Systems and Decisions, 2023, vol. 43, issue 1, 54-71

Abstract: Abstract In many situations centralized collection and treatment of solid waste is not practical. In these decentralized scenarios, onsite treatment can be used to meet treatment objectives such as maintaining public health and environmental quality, managing logistical constraints, generating power, and reducing solid waste production. For decades, the United States military has used open-air burn-pits (OBPs) to dispose of solid waste due to ease of use and low cost. However, OBPs have many negative consequences, including negative human health impacts, air quality impacts, and large quantities of residual waste. Waste-to-energy technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are alternatives to OBPs. This study presents a value-based, multi-step structured decision making (SDM) analysis of three pyrolysis technologies and three gasification technologies for solid waste-to-energy treatment on decentralized forward operating bases (FOBs) of three different sizes (120-personnel, 1,200-personnel, 12,000-personnel). The OBP was also considered for comparison. Forward deployed military soldiers were considered the stakeholders. A total of 18 value measures, constructed value measure plots, swing weights, and global weights were used to determine overall weighted values for comparative analysis of each technology considering four functional perspectives (human health and environment, waste reduction, logistical, and power generation). Results of this study suggest that both the functional perspective of the stakeholders and size of the community play an important role in determining the appropriate technology. Specifically, the SDM analysis found one gasification technology (labeled G1) and one pyrolysis technology (P1) had consistently higher overall values, suggesting these technologies were more appropriate from the perspective of the considered functional measures. A notable exception was the identification of the OBP as the most valuable and appropriate technology at the smallest military FOB size (i.e., a 120-person company-sized FOB) when logistical considerations were weighted most heavily. The value-based SDM approach presented in this study can be leveraged by others seeking to employ similar analyses for waste-to-energy technologies used in remote, on-site, self-sustainable scenarios.

Keywords: Resource recovery; Onsite solid waste treatment; Structured decision making; Pyrolysis; Gasification; Open burn pit (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-022-09885-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:43:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-022-09885-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.springer.com/journal/10669

DOI: 10.1007/s10669-022-09885-9

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment Systems and Decisions from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().