Assessing recycling versus incineration of key materials in municipal waste: The importance of efficient energy recovery and transport distances

被引:103
作者
Merrild, Hanna [1 ]
Larsen, Anna W. [1 ]
Christensen, Thomas H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Denmark, Dept Environm Engn, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
关键词
Recycling; Incineration; LCA; Household waste; Transport; EASEWASTE; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; SOLID-WASTE; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; MANAGEMENT; OPTIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.025
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Recycling of materials from municipal solid waste is commonly considered to be superior to any other waste treatment alternative. For the material fractions with a significant energy content this might not be the case if the treatment alternative is a waste-to-energy plant with high energy recovery rates. The environmental impacts from recycling and from incineration of six material fractions in household waste have been compared through life cycle assessment assuming high-performance technologies for material recycling as well as for waste incineration. The results showed that there are environmental benefits when recycling paper, glass, steel and aluminium instead of incinerating it. For cardboard and plastic the results were more unclear, depending on the level of energy recovery at the incineration plant, the system boundaries chosen and which impact category was in focus. Further, the environmental impact potentials from collection, pre-treatment and transport was compared to the environmental benefit from recycling and this showed that with the right means of transport, recyclables can in most cases be transported long distances. However, the results also showed that recycling of some of the material fractions can only contribute marginally in improving the overall waste management system taking into consideration their limited content in average Danish household waste. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1009 / 1018
页数:10
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
affald danmark, 2008, VURD MAENGD FORBR AF
[2]  
[Anonymous], MILJOMAESSIGE FORHOL
[3]  
[Anonymous], SAMMENSAETNING DAGRE
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2001, WASTE MANAGEMENT OPT
[5]   Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey [J].
Banar, Mufide ;
Cokaygil, Zerrin ;
Ozkan, Aysun .
WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2009, 29 (01) :54-62
[6]   Comparison of ecological effects and costs of communal waste management systems [J].
Beigl, P ;
Salhofer, S .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2004, 41 (02) :83-102
[7]   Life cycle assessment of disposal of residues from municipal solid waste incineration:: Recycling of bottom a sh in road construction or landfilling in Denmark evaluated in the ROAD-RES model [J].
Birgisdottir, H. ;
Bhander, G. ;
Hauschild, M. Z. ;
Christensen, T. H. .
WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2007, 27 (08) :S75-S84
[8]   Combining ecological and economic assessment of options for newspaper waste management [J].
Dahlbo, Helena ;
Ollikainen, Markku ;
Peltola, Sanna ;
Myllymaa, Tuuli ;
Melanen, Matti .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2007, 51 (01) :42-63
[9]  
*DAL PAP A S, 2008, ENV REP 2007
[10]   Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration [J].
Damgaard, Anders ;
Riber, Christian ;
Fruergaard, Thilde ;
Hulgaard, Tore ;
Christensen, Thomas H. .
WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2010, 30 (07) :1244-1250