The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1502–1512 | Cite as

Environmental impact and cost assessment of incineration and ethanol production as municipal solid waste management strategies

  • Mir Abbas Bozorgirad
  • Hao Zhang
  • Karl R. Haapala
  • Ganti S. Murthy
LCA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Abstract

Purpose

Municipal solid waste (MSW) can be handled with several traditional management strategies, including landfilling, incineration, and recycling. Ethanol production from MSW is a novel strategy that has been proposed and researched for practical use; however, MSW ethanol plants are not widely applied in practice. Thus, this study has been conducted to analyze and compare the environmental and economic performance of incineration and ethanol production as alternatives to landfilling MSW.

Methods

The ISO 14040 life cycle assessment framework is employed to conduct the environmental impact assessment of three different scenarios for the two MSW management strategies based on processing 1 ton of MSW as the functional unit. The first scenario models the process of incinerating MSW and recovering energy in the form of process heat; the second scenario also includes the process of incinerating MSW but yields in the recovery of energy in the form of electricity; and the third scenario models the process of converting MSW into ethanol. The economic impacts of each scenario are then assessed by performing benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) and net present value (NPV) analyses.

Results and discussion

The results from the environmental impact assessment of each scenario reveal that scenario 2 has the highest benefits for resource availability while scenario 3 is shown to be the best alternative to avoid human health and ecosystems diversity impacts. Scenario 1 has the worst environmental performance with respect to each of these environmental endpoint indicators and has net environmental impacts. The results of the economic analysis indicate that the third scenario is the best option with respect to BCR and NPV, followed by scenarios 2 and 1, respectively. Furthermore, environmental and economic analysis results are shown to be sensitive to MSW composition.

Conclusions

It appears municipalities should prefer MSW incineration with electricity generation or MSW-to-ethanol conversion over MSW incineration with heat recovery as an alternative to landfilling. The contradiction between the environmental impact assessment results and economic analysis results demonstrates that the decision-making process is sensitive to a broad set of variables. Decisions for a specific MSW management system are subject to facility location and size, MSW composition, energy prices, and governmental policies.

Keywords

Cost analysis Environmental Impact Ethanol production Incineration Life cycle assessment Municipal solid waste 

References

  1. Aden A, Ruth M, Ibsen K, Jechura J, Neeves K, Sheehan J, Wallace B (2002) Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Available from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/32438.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  2. Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of municipal solid waste management in the state of Kuwait. Euro J Sci Res 34:395–405Google Scholar
  3. Beccali G, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2001) Managing municipal solid waste. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (2012) Selected interest rates (Daily)-H15: historical data. In: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Available from http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm. Accessed 9 Sep 2012
  5. Cardona CA, Sánchez ÓJ (2007) Fuel ethanol production: Process design trends and integration opportunities. Bioresour Technol 98:2415–2457. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:4697–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaya W, Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. J Clean Prod 15:1463–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng H, Hu Y (2010) Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 101:3816–3824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S (2009) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34:2116–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chester M, Martin E (2009) Cellulosic ethanol from municipal solid waste: a case study of the economic, energy, and greenhouse gas impacts in California. Environ Sci Technol 43:5183–5189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtiss PS, Kreider JF (2009) Life cycle analysis of automotive ethanol produced from municipal solid waste. ASME 3rd Int Conf Energy Sustain 2009, pp. 181–186Google Scholar
  12. EPA (2010) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2010. Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  13. EPA of Ireland (2004) Municipal solid waste incineration as part of Ireland’s integrated waste management Strategy. Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland http://www.stefanomontanari.net/sito/images/pdf/epa_incinerators%20_ireland.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  14. Festel GW (2008) Biofuels—economic aspects. Chem Eng Technol 31:715–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. GeneSyst International (2012) Waste conversion technology. Available from http://www.genesyst.com/. Accessed 18 Apr 2012
  16. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessmentmethod which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I:characterisation. VROM, Den Haag, The Netherlands. Available from http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/misc/ReCiPe_main_report_final_27-02-2009_web.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  17. Green M, Kimchie S, Malester AI, Rugg B, Shelef G (1988) Utilization of municipal solid wastes (MSW) for alcohol production. Biol Wastes 26:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogg D (2002) Costs for municipal waste management in the EU - Final report to directorate general environment, Eur. Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/financingmuncipalwaste_management.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  19. Holstein B (2010) Analysis of WTE incinerator cost and sources of funding. Available from http://www.wastenotcarroll.org/Marschner %20July %2023.doc. Accessed 17 April 2012
  20. ICIS (2012) Indicative Chemical Prices A-Z. Available from http://www.icis.com/chemicals/channel-info-chemicals-a-z/. Accessed 13 May 2012
  21. Kalogo Y, Habibi S, MacLean HL, Joshi SV (2007) Environmental implications of municipal solid waste-derived ethanol. Environ Sci Technol 41:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katz J (2002) What a waste: the generation and disposal of trash imposes costs on society and the environment: should we be doing more? Reg Rev, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pp 22–30Google Scholar
  23. Li AD, Khraisheh M (2010) Bioenergy II: bio-ethanol from municipal solid waste (MSW): the role of biomass properties and structures during the ethanol conversion process. Int J Chem React Eng 8: Article A85Google Scholar
  24. Li X, Kraslawski A (2004) Conceptual process synthesis: past and current trends. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 43:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liamsanguan C, Gheewala S (2007) Environmental assessment of energy production from municipal solid waste incineration. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:529–536Google Scholar
  26. Liamsanguan C, Gheewala SH (2008) LCA: a decision support tool for environmental assessment of MSW management systems. J Environ Manag 87:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lo Mastro F, Mistretta M (2004) Cogeneration from thermal treatment of selected municipal solid wastes. A stoichiometric model building for the case study on Palermo. Waste Manag 24:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lo Mastro F, Mistretta M (2006) Thermoeconomic analysis of a coupled municipal solid waste thermovalorization–MSF desalination plant: an Italian case study. Desalination 196(1–3):293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maynard RL, Walton H, Pollit F, Fielder R (2010) The impact on health of emissions to air from municipal waste incinerators. Health Protection Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy JD, McKeogh E (2004) Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste. Renew Energy 29:1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ni JR, Wei HL, Liu YS, Zhao ZJ (2002) Life cycle analysis of sanitary landfill and incineration of municipal solid waste. Trans Nonferrous Metals Soc China 12:545–548Google Scholar
  32. Olsson L, Hahn-Hägerdal B (1996) Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates for ethanol production. Enzym Microb Technol 18:312–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Özeler D, Yetiş Ü, Demirer GN (2006) Life cycle assesment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environ Int 32:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment: Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30:701–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sakamoto O (2004) The financial feasibility analysis of municipal solid waste to ethanol conversion. Master of Science, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Available from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/11179/1/pb04sa01.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  36. Schmitt E, Bura R, Gustafson R et al (2012) Converting lignocellulosic solid waste into ethanol for the State of Washington: An investigation of treatment technologies and environmental impacts. Bioresour Technol 104:400–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sundqvist JO (1999) Life cycles assessments and solid waste-guidelines for solid waste treatment and disposal in LCA. Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Available from http://www.naturvardsverket.net/Documents/publikationer/afr-r-279-se.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  38. The World Bank (1999) Municipal solid waste incineration: A decision maker’s guide. The World Bank. Available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/463617-1202332338898/incineration-dmg.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2012
  39. US Department of Labor (2012) Inflation calculator: Bureau of labor statistics. In: United States Department of Labor. Available from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed 8 Sep 2012
  40. US DOE (2012a) Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center: Ethanol feedstocks. In: US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Available from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/ethanol_feedstocks.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2012
  41. US DOE (2012b) Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center: Alternative fuel price report. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/price_report.html. Accessed 30 May 2012
  42. Westerberg AW (2004) A retrospective on design and process synthesis. Comput Chem Eng 28:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang Y, Joshi S, MacLean HL (2010) Can ethanol alone meet California’s low carbon fuel standard? An evaluation of feedstock and conversion alternatives. Environ Res Lett 5:014002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mir Abbas Bozorgirad
    • 1
  • Hao Zhang
    • 1
  • Karl R. Haapala
    • 1
  • Ganti S. Murthy
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Ecological EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations