Current and emerging waste-to-energy technologies: A comparative study with multi-criteria decision analysis

被引:0
作者
Patil, Shivaraj Chandrakant [1 ]
Schulze-Netzer, Corinna [2 ]
Korpas, Magnus [1 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Elect Energy, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
[2] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Energy & Proc Engn, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
来源
SMART ENERGY | 2024年 / 16卷
关键词
Waste-to-energy technologies; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Analytical hierarchy process; Optimal solution; Decision support; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; MUNICIPAL SOLID-WASTE; ANAEROBIC-DIGESTION; POLICY; GASIFICATION; OPTIONS; PLANTS; INDIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.segy.2024.100157
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
In response to the rise in waste crisis and the possibility of energy utilization from waste, there has been increasing interest in waste-to-energy (WtE) conversion technologies, which requires intense scientific attention. There are diverse WtE technologies that apply to different waste types and require multidisciplinary decision support. The paper applies a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool to compare their economic, technological, socio-cultural, and environmental aspects to help identify the most promising choice. The comparison used in this study concerns four widely used technologies: Incineration (INC), Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Gasification (GAS), and Pyrolysis (PYR), and one emerging WtE conversion technology, Hydro-thermal Carbonization (HTC). The Comparison criteria are divided into four main criteria and fifteen sub-criteria. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model was implemented using 'SuperDecisions' software to make pairwise comparisons of identified criteria and to rank the WtE technology alternatives. Thirty-two international studies were shortlisted to gather data and provide input into the AHP model. The results show that the environmental factors are prioritized with a priority vector of 0.56. Further, the study concludes that the most suitable WtE technology, based on chosen parameters, is AD, followed by HTC, INC, and PYR with the priority vectors of 0.348, 0.201, 0.162, and 0.148, respectively, provided applicability. The emerging technology, HTC, is found to be the second most suitable technology. Further, the results represent the hierarchy structure arranged so that the main components are divided into sub-components with alternatives at the structure's base, and the 'SuperDecisions' model based on this hierarchy can be used in the future to find suitable WtE technology for a specific city with the necessary input for identified main and sub-criteria. This research not only provides a structured comparison of WtE technologies but also offers a scalable AHP framework that can be adapted for specific municipal contexts in future studies. By addressing the diverse needs of decision-makers across different regions, our model contributes to a more nuanced understanding of WtE technology selection and lays the groundwork for incorporating local policies and regulations in subsequent research phases.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 66 条
  • [1] Adams W, 2003, Super Decis, V9, P43
  • [2] Development of quantitative SHE index for waste to energy technology selection
    Ahmad, Syaza I.
    Ho, Wai Shin
    Hassim, Mimi H.
    Elagroudy, Sherien
    Kohar, Rabiatul Adawiyyah Abdul
    Bong, Cassendra Phun Chien
    Hashim, Haslenda
    Rashid, Roslina
    [J]. ENERGY, 2020, 191
  • [3] A review of pyrolysis technologies and feedstock: A blending approach for plastic and biomass towards optimum biochar yield
    Al-Rumaihi, Aisha
    Shahbaz, Muhammad
    Mckay, Gordon
    Mackey, Hamish
    Al-Ansari, Tareq
    [J]. RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2022, 167
  • [4] Selection of Waste to Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management-Towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals
    Alam, Samina
    Rahman, Kazi Sajedur
    Rokonuzzaman, Md
    Salam, P. Abdul
    Miah, Md Sazal
    Das, Narottam
    Chowdhury, Shahariar
    Channumsin, Sittiporn
    Sreesawet, Suwat
    Channumsin, Manun
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (19)
  • [5] To dream or not to dream in Havana: multi-criteria decision-making for material and energy recovery from municipal solid wastes
    Alfonso-Cardero, Arael
    Pages-Diaz, Jhosane
    Kalogirou, Efstratios
    Psomopoulos, Constantinos S.
    Lorenzo-Llanes, Junior
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2023, 30 (04) : 8601 - 8616
  • [6] Improving waste incineration CHP plant efficiency by waste heat recovery for feedwater preheating process: energy, exergy, and economic (3E) analysis
    Alrobaian, Abdulrahman A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING, 2020, 42 (08)
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2018, What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050
  • [8] Solid waste disposal methodology selection using multi-criteria decision making methods and an application in Turkey
    Arikan, Emre
    Simsit-Kalender, Zeynep Tugce
    Vayvay, Ozalp
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017, 142 : 403 - 412
  • [9] Agricultural anaerobic digestion power plants in Ireland and Germany: policy and practice
    Auer, Agathe
    Burgt, Nathan H. Vande
    Abram, Florence
    Barry, Gerald
    Fenton, Owen
    Markey, Bryan K.
    Nolan, Stephen
    Richards, Karl
    Bolton, Declan
    De Waal, Theo
    Gordon, Stephen V.
    O'Flaherty, Vincent
    Whyte, Paul
    Zintl, Annetta
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, 2017, 97 (03) : 719 - 723
  • [10] Are Citizens Ready to Make an Environmental Effort? A Study of the Social Acceptability of Biogas in France
    Bourdin, Sebastien
    Chassy, Angelique
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2023, 71 (06) : 1228 - 1239