Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VS
Contents
Feature
Technical papers
In Western Europe where the movement for better environmental practices and
technologies has generally preceded other countries, there has been a strong movement
away from landfilling as a final disposal option, towards recycling and incineration with
energy recovery and flue gas cleaning. In other countries, notably Australia, Britain and the
United States, where there is still strong public antipathy to incineration, the debate
continues on whether residual waste from the recycling of municipal solid waste (MSW)
should be landfilled or incinerated.
Given the urgency for measures to address the global warming problem effectively, this
article examines the latest data and published studies to identify which of the cited
technologies (i) landfill disposal (ii) landfill disposal with methane recovery, or (iii) thermal
recycling, is better in terms of reducing GHG emissions. Pipatti and Savolainen (1996) had
suggested that incineration provided a promising option to mitigate the greenhouse impact
of waste treatment by reducing methane emissions, as well as by replacing fossil fuels in
energy production. This article investigates this suggestion in more detail.
With Australia as an example, estimates of net GHG emissions are developed over the
period of the respective life cycles to ensure validity of the comparisons made. Based on
established factors, the magnitude of GHG reduction is quantified, and discussed in terms
of the national reduction target for Australia under the Kyoto Protocol.
Table I-1. Notes: a) includes composting b) primarily with energy recovery c) North
Belgium; calculated from OVAM data for 1995 data; includes some industrial waste
d) Data for 1997 from Australian Bureau of Statistics e) 13% methane generated at
landfills recovered in 1998.
Organic materials in MSW that are prone to decomposition and the production of GHGs
include both biomass as well as materials derived from non-renewable resources, such as
plastics, paints and waste oils. In the case of fossil fuels that are locked in the ground, man
is responsible for their extraction, their combustion and the consequent increase of GHG in
the atmosphere. Consequently, derivatives from fossil fuels, such as plastics, do contribute
to net GHG emissions.
Pipatti and Savolainen (1996) found in their pioneering study that the most favorable
options to limit the greenhouse impact due to waste management are those that minimize
the methane emissions to the atmosphere and those that reduce the impact even further
by replacing fossil fuels in energy production.
6
Landfill disposal
(Source: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/landfills/ComplyStudy/default.htm)
The production of methane begins from about 1 year after the placement of waste and
continues for over 25 years. In bioreactor landfills methane development is deliberately
enhanced to speed up methane production, and thereby stabilize the landfill in a shorter
time. Unless this gas is recovered, flared and thereby converted to carbon dioxide, the
global warming effect of the methane will be very large.
The Solid Waste Authority is the first landfill in South Carolina to collect and
transform the naturally produced methane gas into electricity with Santee Cooper
and Horry Electric.
(Source: http://www.solidwasteauthority.org/aboutswa/default.htm)
7
Landfill gas recovery and combustion of methane gas in a flare or for energy production,
provides the means to mitigate the emissions.
Methane gas recovery from landfills still only achieves 40% - 75% during the lifetime of
dedicated recovery facilities (Wallis 1995; White and others 1995). Gases continue to
diffuse, albeit at a lower level, for years after commercial recovery systems are
discontinued, resulting in usually 50% or more loss of methane over the lifetime of the
landfill (Schnurer 1999).
Waste-to-energy plants
Methane emissions from waste incineration are negligible. As is the case for landfilled
MSW, the majority of CO2 produced during incineration originates predominantly from
waste from renewable sources, such as paper, wood or food remains, and its climatic
relevance is therefore neutral. That portion of MSW derived from non-renewable sources
should however, be counted as GHG emissions resulting from human activity. Some
authorities consider that MSW contains approximately 75% of biomass and 25% of
material sourced from fossil fuels, by weight. However, 50% of the calorific value of MSW
comes from the higher calorific non-renewable-sourced materials (e.g. plastics). In
assigning CO2 below (Part III) for the incineration of MSW, the conservative figure of 67%
biomass will be used in the calculation of GHG emissions.
WTE plants have seen a lengthy period of development with continuous improvements,
especially to (i) minimize pollutant emissions, and (ii) improve the thermal efficiency of
converting the inherent energy of the waste into power. The net thermal efficiency of
converting MSW into grid electricity using a modern WTE plant is approximately 22%, after
subtracting plant internal electricity consumption. The furnace and boiler design maximizes
8
the conversion of thermal energy into steam that drives the steam turbine to produce the
electricity. Technology companies are also prepared to give guarantees that less than 3%
of combustible content (one company guarantees < 1%) remains in the bottom ash after
incineration.
Treatment of MSW through a waste to energy (WTE) plant will avoid the methane
emissions that would be generated otherwise by landfilling the waste. Non-renewable
fossil fuels are also replaced in generating the electricity. The net effect is therefore a
significant reduction in the emission of climate-effective gases. On this basis the UK
Working Group on the Greenhouse Effect (Thurlow 1990) concluded that "a substantial
benefit could be obtained by the incineration of combustible, non-recyclable refuse and
waste, in all possible cases with energy recovery".
This is confirmed by Pipatti and Savolainen's (1996) findings that landfilling has the
greatest greenhouse impact, although this can be mitigated somewhat by landfill gas
recovery and combustion. They reported that waste treatment alternatives that include
incineration were the most favorable when considering GHG emission abatement.
The current approach taken is to consider what effect on GHG emissions will occur if the
total MSW currently landfilled in towns with a population greater than 100,000 is redirected
instead to a modern WTE plant. Methane emissions from the MSW are calculated as total
emissions for the lifetime of the landfill gassing process. The waste generated by a town of
100,000 population is probably the minimum necessary for economic viability of a WTE
plant. The calculations used in this determination are detailed in appendix B.
Table III-1: GHG emissions saved of excess emissions above Kyoto target levels for
Australia
10
Similar results are expected for other countries that apply landfilling. A study conducted in
Austria found that if the dumping of waste in landfill sites, which is still Austria's most
widely practiced method of waste disposal, were to be replaced entirely by incineration
with energy utilization, then this measure alone would allow Austria to achieve its reduction
targets required by the Kyoto Protocol (Schnurer 1999). Our results are in line with
previous studies. The net GHG abatement figure calculated for Australia using landfilled
MSW as a baseline is 1.55 tonnes of CO2-e per tonne of MSW incinerated. This is close to
the estimate of 1.39 t CO2-e / t MSW abatement indicated from Ayalon and others' (2000)
data for Israeli MSW.
In the past eight years, major advances have been made in flue gas emissions control. In
particular there have been major reductions in dioxin emissions. In Western Europe this
has been partly the consequence of strict standards imposed for emissions from WTE
plants. There has also been encouraging developments with the increasing use of
incinerator ash for road bases, car parks, structural fills and in cement manufacture.
Strict controls have also been placed in Western Europe on landfilling, with a general
guideline to avoid landfilling with putrescible wastes. This is because landfills still have a
number of long-term problems that are not fully under control. Previous comparisons of
different waste treatment options based on Life Cycle Analysis generally underestimated
environmental concerns for landfilling because they have neglected the long-term impacts
from landfills (Wallmann 1999). There are considerable risks of future impacts to the
surrounding environment. For example, in the case of leachate, landfill liners generally do
not provide a perfect seal against future dispersion. Leachate from old landfills is therefore
a significant threat to future generations (Boels and Fleming 1993).
Conclusions
The investigation has shown that if MSW that is currently landfilled is, instead, processed
through modern WTE incinerator plants, a major abatement of GHG emissions would
follow. The magnitude of this reduction would, in the case of the Australian example for
MSW from towns of more than 100,000 population, achieve 105% of Australia's current
reduction that has been committed under the Kyoto Protocol. Even with a doubling of the
recycling rate in Australia resulting in a reduction of residual MSW available for WTE
processing, a significant 79% abatement of the excess GHG emissions can be achieved.
It can therefore be concluded that with respect to climate protection targets, the efficient
incineration of waste that cannot expediently be recycled offers major advantages over the
conventional landfill approach.
Serious environmental problems and GHG emissions remain from landfills, even if landfill
gas is flared or used beneficially. For WTE technologies however, improvements over the
past 15 years have minimized pollutant emissions in flue gases, while treatments have
facilitated beneficial uses for much of the residual incinerator ash.
13
Since the energy content of the MSW can be recovered cleanly and efficiently in a modern
WTE plant thereby reducing GHG emissions and contributing to energy needs in an
environmentally friendly manner, such incineration is more properly termed 'thermal
recycling'.
14
Appendix A: References
Arens M 2001. Impact of the Kyoto Protocol and greenhouse on the waste management
industry. Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) News, Feb. 2001:5-6.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001. AusStats: Solid and liquid waste generation and
recycling. www.abs.gov.au/ausstats
Australian Greenhouse Office 1998. Waste. Workbook 8.1 with Supplements. National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee. Commonwealth of Australia.
www.greenhouse.gov.au
Australian Greenhouse Office 2000. 1999 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.
www.greenhouse.gov.au
Boels D and Fleming G 1993. Chemical time bombs from landfills - appraisal and
modelling. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 4: 399-405.
IPCC 1995. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories. Volume
3. UNEP/OECD/IEA/IPCC. Bracknell, UK: IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit, Hadley
Center, Meteorological Office.
IPCC 1996. Watson R T, Zinyowera M C & Moss R H (Eds). Climate change 1995:
Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses.
Cambridge University Press, UK.
OVAM 2001. Waste Management in Belgium and Flanders. Public Waste Agency of
Flanders (OVAM). 21 March 2001. www.ovam.be/english/beheeren.asp
Pipatti R and Savolainen I 1996. Role of energy production in the control of greenhouse
gas emissions from waste management. Energy Conversion and Management, 37: 1105-
1110.
15
Thurlow G (Ed.) 1990. Technological Responses to the Greenhouse Effect. The Watt
Committee on Energy Report Number 23. Elsevier Applied Science, London.
UK Department of Trade and Industry 1999. New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in
the UK for the 21st Century, Supporting Analysis. March 1999. www.iea.org
Wallis MK 1995. Reassessing methane from UK landfills. In: Sarsby (Ed.) "Waste
Disposal by Landfill - GREEN '93", Balkema, Rotterdam.
White PR, Franke M and Hindle P 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a Life
Cycle Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, London.
16
The current approach taken is to consider what effect on GHG emissions will occur if the
total MSW currently landfilled in towns with a population greater than 100,000 is redirected
instead to a modern WTE plant. Methane emissions from the MSW are calculated as total
emissions for the lifetime of the landfill gassing process. The waste generated by a town of
100,000 population is probably the minimum necessary for economic viability of a WTE
plant.
The calculations used in this determination are detailed in the attachments for three cases:
Case 1: All MSW processed through WtE plants;
Case 2: Materials recycling rate doubles to 40 %;
Case 3: No WtE thermal recycling, but collected landfill gas is flared.
17
AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT CALCULATIONS (Calculated for Year to 30 June 1999)
CASE 1: DIVERSION OF MSW TO WTE PLANT IN ALL LARGE TOWNS & CITIES
Part C: GHG EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO GENERATE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT ELECTRICITY
I. Quantity of Electrical Power Generated by Landfilled Waste Directed to WTE
Plant
1999 Annual MSW landfilled in towns > 100,000 Mt 11,36
5
1999 Average calorific value of MSW landfilled MJ/kg 11
N5
1999 Thermal generation capacity required for this waste MWth 4340
5
Conversion efficiency to grid electricity 0,22
1999 Grid electricity generated from this waste MWe 954,8
1999 Grid electricity generated from this waste GWh 7638
II. Determine GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuels Used to Generate Same Quantity of Electricity
6
1999 Total electricity produced to the grid GWh 174.000
N7
1999 Proportion non-renewable electricity produced % 85
1999 Non-renewable electricity production to the grid GWh 147900
18
1999 Total net GHG emissions to produce this electricity Mt CO2-e 171,8
N8
1999 Rate GHG emitted to produce the non-renewable electricity kg CO2-e/kWh 1,16
1999 GHG emissions from equivalent electricity generated by fossil fuels Mt CO2-e 8,9
PART D: PROPORTION SAVING OF EXCESS GHG EMISSIONS USING WTE PLANTS IN TOWNS
1999 GHG emissions saved by diverting MSW in large towns to WTE plants Mt CO2-e 17,7
1999 Excess GHG emissions above target level Mt CO2-e 16,7
1999 Proportion of GHG emissions saved of excess emissions above target % 105
REFERENCES
1. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 1999. Australian Greenhouse Office.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
3. IPPC (1997) figure for methane.
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Population Distribution.
5. SEGHERS Better Technology estimates based on reference plants.
6. Australia's Electricity. Nuclear Isssues Briefing Paper 37. August 2000. www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Energy initiatives. Page 1.
8. UK Dept of Trade and Industry 1999.
NOTES
N1. Cumulative rate of increase calculated for year ending June 1999,
based on achieving 8% target in year ending June 2008.
N2. Based on formula used in Australian Greenhouse Office Workbook for Waste. 1996 Supplement.
Rather than averaging MSW amount over previous 25 years, methane is calculated using 1999 amount only.
N3. Net methane generation rate assumes 1999 methane recovery rate is maintained
for methane generation from 1999 MSW.
N4. Reference plant is at ISVAG, Antwerp, Belgium, with MSW throughout and emissions measured
and averaged over a 7 day period
N5. Calculated on the basis that a Waste-to-Energy Plant will operate for 8000 hours/year.
N6. Estimated considering that weight of plastics, oils, etc.from non-renewable sources comprises 1/3.
N7. 15% renewable electricity figure obtained by averaging figure of 20% 1999 renewable electricity
generating capacity (Source 6) and 1996-7 10% renewable energy share of electricity production (Source 7).
N8. This compares e.g. with a figure of 0.955 g/kWh for a Best Practice coal-fired power station (Source 8).
19
AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT CALCULATIONS (Calculated for Year to 30 June 1999)
CASE 2: DIVERSION MSW TO WTE PLANT IN LARGE TOWNS & CITIES; RECYCLING RATE DOUBLED
Part C: GHG EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO GENERATE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT ELECTRICITY
I. Quantity of Electrical Power Generated by Landfilled Waste Directed to WTE
Plant
1999 Annual MSW landfilled in towns > 100,000 Mt 8,52
5
1999 Average calorific value of MSW landfilled MJ/kg 11
N5
1999 Thermal generation capacity required for this waste MWth 3255
5
Conversion efficiency to grid electricity 0,22
1999 Grid electricity generated from this waste MWe 716,1
1999 Grid electricity generated from this waste GWh 5729
II. Determine GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuels Used to Generate Same Quantity of Electricity
6
1999 Total electricity produced to the grid GWh 174.000
N7
1999 Proportion non-renewable electricity produced % 85
1999 Non-renewable electricity production to the grid GWh 147900
1999 Total net GHG emissions to produce this electricity Mt CO2-e 171,8
20
N8
1999 Rate GHG emitted to produce the non-renewable electricity kg CO2-e/kWh 1,16
1999 GHG emissions from equivalent electricity generated by fossil fuels Mt CO2-e 6,7
PART D: PROPORTION SAVING OF EXCESS GHG EMISSIONS USING WTE PLANTS IN TOWNS
1999 GHG emissions saved by diverting MSW in large towns to WTE plants Mt CO2-e 13,2
1999 Excess GHG emissions above target level Mt CO2-e 16,7
1999 Proportion of GHG emissions saved of excess emissions above target % 79
REFERENCES
1. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 1999. Australian Greenhouse Office.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
3. IPPC (1997) figure for methane.
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Population Distribution.
5. SEGHERS Better Technology estimates based on reference plants.
6. Australia's Electricity. Nuclear Isssues Briefing Paper 37. August 2000. www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Energy initiatives. Page 1.
8. UK Dept of Trade and Industry 1999.
NOTES
N1. Cumulative rate of increase calculated for year ending June 1999,
based on achieving 8% target in year ending June 2008.
N2. Based on formula used in Australian Greenhouse Office Workbook for Waste. 1996 Supplement.
Rather than averaging MSW amount over previous 25 years, methane is calculated using 1999 amount only.
N3. Net methane generation rate assumes 1999 methane recovery rate is maintained
for methane generation from 1999 MSW.
N4. Reference plant is at ISVAG, Antwerp, Belgium, with MSW throughout and emissions measured
and averaged over a 7 day period
N5. Calculated on the basis that a Waste-to-Energy Plant will operate for 8000 hours/year.
N6. Estimated considering that weight of plastics, oils, etc.from non-renewable sources comprises 1/3.
N7. 15% renewable electricity figure obtained by averaging figure of 20% 1999 renewable electricity
generating capacity (Source 6) and 1996-7 10% renewable energy share of electricity production (Source 7).
N8. This compares e.g. with a figure of 0.955 g/kWh for a Best Practice coal-fired power station (Source 8).
N9. 1999 Australian recycling rate of 20% assumed doubled to 40%.
21
AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT CALCULATIONS (Calculated for Year to 30 June 1999)
CASE 3: ALL FEASIBLE LANDFILL GAS RECOVERED & FLARED IN LARGE TOWNS & CITIES
Part C: GHG EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO GENERATE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT ELECTRICITY
I. Quantity of Electrical Power Generated by Landfilled Waste Directed to WTE
Plant
II. Determine GHG Emissions from Fossil Fuels Used to Generate Same Quantity of Electricity
PART D: PROPORTION SAVING OF EXCESS GHG EMISSIONS USING WTE PLANTS IN TOWNS
1999 GHG emissions saved by recovering/flaring commercial landfill gas in large towns Mt CO2-e 6,3
1999 Excess GHG emissions above target level Mt CO2-e 16,7
1999 Proportion of GHG emissions saved of excess emissions above target % 38
REFERENCES
1. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report 1999. Australian Greenhouse Office.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
3. IPPC (1997) figure for methane.
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Population Distribution.
5. SEGHERS Better Technology estimates based on reference plants.
22
6. Australia's Electricity. Nuclear Isssues Briefing Paper 37. August 2000. www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. AusStats: Energy initiatives. Page 1.
8. UK Dept of Trade and Industry 1999.
NOTES
N1. Cumulative rate of increase calculated for year ending June 1999,
based on achieving 8% target in year ending June 2008.
N2. Based on formula used in Australian Greenhouse Office Workbook for Waste. 1996 Supplement.
Rather than averaging MSW amount over previous 25 years, methane is calculated using 1999 amount only.
N3. Net methane generation rate assumes 1999 methane recovery rate is maintained
for methane generation from 1999 MSW.
N4. Reference plant is at ISVAG, Antwerp, Belgium, with MSW throughout and emissions measured
and averaged over a 7 day period
N5. Calculated on the basis that a Waste-to-Energy Plant will operate for 8000 hours/year.
N6. Estimated considering that weight of plastics, oils, etc.from non-renewable sources comprises 1/3.
N7. 15% renewable electricity figure obtained by averaging figure of 20% 1999 renewable electricity
generating capacity (Source 6) and 1996-7 10% renewable energy share of electricity production (Source 7).
N8. This compares e.g. with a figure of 0.955 g/kWh for a Best Practice coal-fired power station (Source 8).