Sustainability Indicators to MSW Treatment Assessment: The Rio de Janeiro Case Study

被引:3
作者
Oliveira, Julia P. [1 ]
Pessoa, Fernando L. P. [2 ]
Mehl, Ana [3 ]
Alves, Flavia C. [1 ]
Secchi, Argimiro R. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Programa Posgrad Engn Proc Quim & Bioquim EPQB, Escola Quim, BR-21941909 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
[2] Univ Ctr SENAI CIMATEC, Chem Engn, BR-41650010 Salvador, Brazil
[3] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Escola Quim, BR-21941909 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
[4] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Chem Engn Program, Inst Alberto Luiz Coimbra Posgrad & Pesquisa Engn, BR-21941972 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
关键词
municipal solid waste; waste-to-energy; sustainability tripod; bioenergy; MUNICIPAL SOLID-WASTE; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; TO-ENERGY; MANAGEMENT; GASIFICATION; PYROLYSIS;
D O I
10.3390/su16177445
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The Brazilian Policy foresees the waste management hierarchy, according to which energy reuse from waste is preferred to final disposal. However, less than 0.2% of the country's waste goes to energy production. This paper proposes sustainability indicators to support the decision to choose the best process to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) through bioenergy generation technologies. Then, we conduct a case study for Rio de Janeiro. Incineration and gasification were not economically feasible-despite TRL 9 and 8. However, the projects presented a null net present value by increasing the gate fee to 94.69 and 255.39 USD/ton of MSW, respectively. The social indicators (job creation, salary increase with the absorption of waste pickers, population served, reduction in MSW sent to landfill) did not indicate the best technology. The results of the environmental indicators for incineration and gasification were, respectively, 0.45 and 0.37 t CO2eq/tMSW for GWP, 1.49 and 1.23 MWh/tMSW for energy intensity, 1.24 and 6.14 m3/tMSW for water intensity, 39.3 and 27.9 m2/tMSW for land use and 0.135 and 0.088 t SO2eq/tMSW for acidification. Gasification presented better results on 60% of the environmental indicators. However, incineration scored better in the important ones, water and energy intensities, in addition to the technical-economic aspect.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 83 条
[41]  
Lara CTR CPEA (Consultoria Planejamento e Estudos Ambientais Ltda), 2019, Unidade de Recuperao EnergticaURE Mau: Relatrio de Impacto AmbientalRIMA
[42]  
LAVORO Consulting, 2017, RIMARelatrio de Impacto Ambiental: Usina de Recuperao de EnergiaURE Caju
[43]  
LAVORO Consulting, 2017, Estudo de Impacto AmbientaoEIA Da Usina de Recuperao de EnergiaURE Caju
[44]  
Manancial, 2021, EIAEstudo de Impacto Ambiental: Central de Tratamentos de Resduos Consimares
[45]  
Manancial, 2021, RIMARelatrio de Impacto Ambiental: Central de Tratamentos de Resduos Consimares
[46]  
Michaels T., 2018, Energy recovery Council-2018 Directory of Waste-to-Energy Facilities
[47]   Integrated Process Design Optimization Accounting for Co-Digestion of Sludge and Municipal Solid Waste [J].
Morero, Betzabet ;
Montagna, Agustin F. ;
Campanella, Enrique A. ;
Cafaro, Diego C. .
27TH EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER AIDED PROCESS ENGINEERING, PT A, 2017, 40A :853-858
[48]   A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA [J].
Mukherjee, C. ;
Denney, J. ;
Mbonimpa, E. G. ;
Slagley, J. ;
Bhowmik, R. .
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2020, 119
[49]  
NEA (National Environment Agency), Waste Management Infrastructure|Refuse Disposal Facility
[50]   Energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Mauritius: Opportunities and challenges [J].
Neehaul, Nirvana ;
Jeetah, Pratima ;
Deenapanray, Prakash .
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT, 2020, 33