Environmental assessment of energy production from municipal solid waste incineration

LCA Case Studies
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background, Aims and Scope

During the combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW), energy is produced which can be utilized to generate electricity. However, electricity production from incineration has to be evaluated from the point view of the environmental performance. In this study, environmental impacts of electricity production from waste incineration plant in Thailand are compared with those from Thai conventional power plants.

Methods

The evaluation is based on a life cycle perspective using life cycle assessment (LCA) as the evaluation tool. Since MSW incineration provides two services, viz., waste management and electricity production, the conventional power production system is expanded to include landfilling without energy recovery, which is the most commonly used waste management system in Thailand, to provide the equivalent function of waste management.

Results

The study shows that the incineration performs better than conventional power plants vis-à-vis global warming and photochemical ozone formation, but not for acidification and nutrient enrichment.

Discussion

There are some aspects which may influence this result. If landfilling with gas collection and flaring systems is included in the analysis along with conventional power production instead of landfilling without energy recovery, the expanded system could become more favorable than the incineration in the global warming point of view. In addition, if the installation of deNOx process is employed in the MSW incineration process, nitrogen dioxide can be reduced with a consequent reduction of acidification and nutrient enrichment potentials. However, the conventional power plants still have lower acidification and nutrient enrichment potentials.

Conclusions

The study shows that incineration could not play the major role for electricity production, but in addition to being a waste management option, could be considered as a complement to conventional power production. To promote incineration as a benign waste management option, appropriate deNOx and dioxin removal processes should be provided. Separation of high moisture content waste fractions from the waste to be incinerated and improvement of the operation efficiency of the incineration plant must be considered to improve the environmental performance of MSW incineration.

Recommendations

This study provides an overall picture and impacts, and hence, can support a decision-making process for implementation of MSW incineration. The results obtained in this study could provide valuable information to implement incineration. But it should be noted that the results show the characteristics only from some viewpoints.

Outlook

Further analysis is required to evaluate the electricity production of the incineration plant from other environmental aspects such as toxicity and land-use.

Keywords

Combustion of MSW electricity production energy production land filling land-use life cycle assessment (LCA) MSW incineration municipal solid waste (MSW) power plant Thailand toxicity incineration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. [1]
    Gupta AK (2004): Clean Energy Production from Wastes and Plastics. Proceeding Sustainable Energy and Environment, pp 396–408Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Leão AL, Tan IH (1998): Potential of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a Source of Energy in São Paulo: Its Impact on CO2 Balance. Biomass & Bioenerg 14(1) 83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Denison R (1996): Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landfilling, and incineration: A review of recent studies. Annu Rev Energy Environ 21, 191–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Finnveden G, Ekvall T (1998): Life cycle assessment as a decision-support tool — The case of recycling vs. incineration of paper. Resour Conserv Recy 24, 235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg Å (2000): Life cycle assessments of energy from solid waste. fms 137. FOA-B-00-00622-222-SE, Stockholms universitet, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    ISO (1997): Environmental standard ISO 14040. Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principal and framework. Reference Number: ISO 14040: 1997(E)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    UNEP (2003): Environmental management tools: Life cycle assessment. 〈http://www.uneptie.org/pc/pc/tools/lca.htm〉
  8. [8]
    Gheewala SH (2003): Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Cleaner Production. Int Energ J 4(1) 5–15Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    EUROPEAN (1999): Use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a Policy Tool in the Field of Sustainable Packaging Waste Management. Le Royal Tervuren, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Doka G, Hischier R (2004): Waste Treatment and Assessment of Long-Term Emissions. Int J LCA 10(1) 77–34Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Bergsdal H, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2005): Environmental Assessment of Two Waste Incineration Strategies for Central Norway. Int J LCA 10(4) 263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Chevalier P, Rousseaux P, Benoit V, Benadda B (2003): Environmental assessment of flue gas cleaning processes of municipal solid waste incinerators by means of the life cycle assessment approach. Chem Eng Sci 58, 2053–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Mendes RM, Aramaki T, Hanaki K (2004): Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in São Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resour Conserv Recy 41, 47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F (2003): The environmental performance of alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. Chem Eng J 96, 207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Ross S, Evans D (2003): The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. J Clean Prod 11, 561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Sonesson U, Björklund A, Carlsson M, Dalemo M (2000): Environmental and economic analysis of management systems for biodegradable waste. Resour Conserv Recy 28, 29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Ruth LA (1998): Energy from municipal solid waste: A comparison with coal combustion technology. Prog Energ Combust 24, 545–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand). Accessed October 1, 2001 from 〈http://www.egat.co.th〉
  19. [19]
    PCD (Pollution Control Department, Thailand). Accessed December 22, 2005 from 〈http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/waste_garbage.html〉
  20. [20]
    TEI (2003): Final report for the project on life cycle assessment for Asian countries-Phase III. Thailand Environment Institute, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Harrison KW, Dumas RD, Barlaz MA (2000): Life-cycle inventory model of municipal solid waste combustion. J Air Waste Manage 50, 993–1003Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Sandgren J, Heie A, Sverud T (1996): Utslipp ved håndtering av kommunanalt avfall. Statens forurensningstilsyn (SFT). TA-number 1336/1996. In: Friðriksson GB, Johnsen T, Bjarnasóttir HJ, Slentnes H (2002), Guidelines for the use of LCA in the waste management sector. Nordtest Project nr. 1537-01Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Ramaswamy V, Boucher O, Haigh J, Hauglustaine D, Haywood J, Myhre G, Nakajima T, Shi GY, Solomon S (2001): Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds), Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution to working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Andersson-Sköld Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K (1992): Photochemical ozone creation potentials: A study of different concepts. J Air Waste Manage 42(9) 1152–1158. In: Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998), Environmental Assessment of Products Volume 2: Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental Assessment of Products Volume 2: Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Climate Leaders (2004): The Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance: Direct Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling. U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Unilabs Environmental, Characterisation and Estimation of Dioxin and Furan Emissions from Waste Incineration Facilities. AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    McKay G (2001): Dioxin characterization, formation and minimization during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: review. Chem Eng J 86, 343–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    EPRI (2001): Toxic Release Inventory Chemical Profile: Dioxins. Electric Power Research Institute, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Mandel SB, Incollingo M: Calibration Gases for SCR and SNCR Process and Environmental Instrument: Summary. Spectra Gases Inc., USA. Accessed April 26, 2005 from 〈http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/scr-sncr/mandelsummary.pdf〉Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    World Bank, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). Accessed April 26, 2005 from 〈http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/em/power/EA/mitigatn/aqnoscr.stm〉
  32. [32]
    TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation, NOx Emissions Reduced Through Various Technologies. The Netherlands. Accessed April 26, 2005 from 〈www.mep.tno.nl/Informatiebladen_eng/179e.pdf〉Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Phuket incineration plant, Operation and maintenance of incineration plant: monthly report, Kumjornkij Construction Company Limited, ThailandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Joint Graduate School of Energy and EnvironmentKing Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiBangmod, Tungkru, BangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations