The environmental cost of recovering energy from municipal solid waste

Jun Dong, Harish Kumar Jeswani, Ange Nzihou and Adisa Azapagic

Applied Energy, 2020, vol. 267, issue C, No S0306261920303044

Abstract: Municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators require effective flue gas treatment (FGT) to meet stringent environmental regulations. However, this in turn generates additional environmental costs through the impacts of materials and energy used in the treatment – these impacts are currently scarcely known. Therefore, this study uses life cycle assessment to estimate the impacts of different FGT systems typically found in modern MSW incinerators. A total of 12 scenarios are modelled to consider different combinations of the following eight technologies: electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters for removal of particulate matter; dry, semi-dry and wet scrubbers for acid gases; selective non-catalytic and catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx); and activated carbon for removal of dioxins and heavy metals. The data are sourced from 90 full-scale incinerators operating in France. The results reveal that a dry system using sodium bicarbonate and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) is the best option for seven out of 18 impacts, including climate change (37.1 kg CO2 eq./t MSW). By contrast, a dry system with calcium hydroxide and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) has the highest impacts in six categories, including climate change (102 kg CO2 eq./t MSW). The wet systems have higher impacts than the dry alternatives, with the semi-dry options being in between. Compared to SNCR, the use of SCR decreases the NOx-related impacts (fine particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification and photochemical ozone formation) but increases other impacts. For example, the SCR systems have 49–284% greater climate change and 43–150% higher depletion of fossil resources than their SNCR counterparts. Overall, all FGT systems reduce significantly fine particulate matter formation (by 81–88%), photochemical ozone formation (76–90%) and terrestrial acidification (83–90%). However, they also cause 14 other impacts which would not be generated if the flue gas was left untreated, thus creating additional environmental costs. These include climate change, resource depletion and human and ecotoxicities. Therefore, these trade-offs should be considered carefully to minimise the unintended environmental consequences of flue gas treatment from incineration of MSW.

Keywords: Flue gas treatment; Incineration; Life cycle assessment; Municipal solid waste; Environmental impacts (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920303044
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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:eee:appene:v:267:y:2020:i:c:s0306261920303044

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 405891/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114792

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Energy is currently edited by J. Yan

More articles in Applied Energy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().