Evaluating the Environmental and Economic Performance of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal by All-Component Resource Recovery

Zhenjiang Liang, Ziling Luo, Jiangang Yuan (), Meiyun Li (), Yongyan Xia, Tingting Che, Lingyue Huang and Jianyi Liu
Additional contact information
Zhenjiang Liang: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Ziling Luo: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Jiangang Yuan: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Meiyun Li: School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Yongyan Xia: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Tingting Che: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Lingyue Huang: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Jianyi Liu: School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 24, 1-15

Abstract: Disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become increasingly challenging. In this study, we used life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate environmental impacts and financial performance of a new approach for MSW disposals, namely All-components Resource Recovery (AcRR), which is based on automatic sorting. We compared AcRR with the standardized Waste-to-Energy incineration (WtE) to provide decision-making support for MSW management. The results show that WtE and AcRR are both good MSW resource treatment methods. Through MSW disposal, WtE generates electricity, while AcRR generates secondary resources such as metals, plastics, pulp and organic fertilizers. WtE releases trace amounts of HCl, PM 10 , heavy metals, dioxins and dust, while AcRR does not produce such pollutants; AcRR produces more odor gases such as SO 2 and H 2 S. AcRR produces four environmental issues, i.e., Global Warming, Acidification, Photochemical Ozone Synthesis, and Eutrophication, each of which has a smaller impact than WtE; WtE has two more impacts than AcRR: Human Toxicity and Soot and Ashes. The total environmental impact potential of WtE is 3.38 times that of AcRR, and the greenhouse gas emission equivalent is 6.82 times that of AcRR. The cost of construction and operation of AcRR is lower than that of WtE, while the net profit of AcRR is much higher. In conclusion, AcRR is able to screen the mixed MSW into various secondary resources with less environmental emissions and environmental impacts and better financial performance; it may be a promising MSW disposal approach, especially for small cities, but a corresponding supporting industrial system is needed.

Keywords: municipal solid waste; incineration; life cycle assessment; resources recycling; environmental impact; financial performance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16898/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16898/ (text/html)

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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16898-:d:1005648

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().