Greenhouse Gas Incineration Vs Landfill

Greenhouse gas abatement:
landfill vs. incineration of

municipal solid waste
VS
This feature story was contributed by SEGHERSbetter technology (www.bettertechnology.com).

SEGHERSbettertechnology has gained considerable experience over 30 years, supplying environmental
solutions ranging from water treatment and waste to energy systems to flue gas cleaning world wide.
For more information about this feature story, please contact: mark_perilleux@bettertechnology.com
2
Greenhouse gas abatement:

landfill vs. incineration of
municipal solid waste
Contents
Feature
• Part I: Currrent status of waste management approaches pag. 3-4

• Part II: Waste management approaches and
their greenhouse impact pag. 5-8
• Part III: Greenhouse gas abatement using waste-to-energy plants pag. 9-11
• Part IV: Other environmental considerations and conclusions pag. 12-13
Technical papers
A References pag. 14-15

B Greenhouse gas abatement using WtE plants: detailed calculations for the case of
Australia pag. 16-22
3
Part I: Current status of waste

management approaches
Introduction
Forward-looking countries have adopted a battery of strategies across a wide range of
fields, including waste management, targeted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, in line with their support for the Kyoto Protocol. GHG emissions from the waste
sector are predominantly methane, generated from the anaerobic decomposition of
organic matter in landfills.
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.
Other environmental aspects of the technologies discussed are briefly considered to

identify important trends that are relevant in making decisions on their application.
Current status of waste management approaches

Table 1 compares the status of the various waste management approaches used in
Western Europe, North America and Australia. In Western Europe a large proportion of
waste incineration plants also involve the recovery of thermal energy.
4
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.
In the next installment...

The next installment focuses on the greenhouse impact of different waste management
approaches.
5
Part II: Waste management

approaches and their greenhouse
impact
The recent literature is reviewed to identify the consequences in terms of GHG emissions
from the following waste management options: (i) landfill disposal (ii) landfill disposal with
methane recovery, and (iii) thermal recycling. The present scope does not include the
detailed consequences for GHG emissions of the physical recycling of MSW, which have
been treated by others (e.g. Patel et al 2000).
Greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas inventories

Waste treatment may cause emissions of the important greenhouse gases, carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Given its importance, the current exercise will focus
mainly on methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Other greenhouse gases involved in
waste management processes are relatively minor, and in the case of waste-to-energy
(WTE) plants, de-NOx technologies are installed to significantly reduce these emissions.
Greenhouse gas inventories are concerned only with net GHG emissions that are a
consequence of human activity. Methodologies used for calculating GHG emissions
usually follow guidelines of the International Panel for Climate Control (IPCC 1995). These
guidelines specify that the emissions of CO2 generated from biomass sources should not
be counted in the GHG inventory. This is due to the assumption that over time regrowth of
biomass (crops and forests) equals consumption.
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)
Landfill gas comprises approximately 50 to 60% methane (produced by anaerobic

decomposition) and 40 to 50% carbon dioxide from the decomposition of organic materials
deposited in landfills (USEPA 1989). This biogas is produced over a 20-30 years gassing
lifetime. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) index of methane is taken as 21 times that
of carbon dioxide on a 100 year time horizon (IPCC 1996). The GWP of a gas represents
the relative warming effect of a unit mass of the gas when compared with the same mass
of carbon dioxide over a specific period (AGO 2000).
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.
Landfill disposal with gas recovery
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.
Landfill gas extraction is however, an inefficient means of recovering energy or reducing

greenhouse emissions compared to other pre-burial energy recovery options. This is
because only a portion of the methane is recoverable, and also because the gas continues
to be generated at declining rates for years after practical exploitation has been
discontinued (Arens 2001).
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
Grate furnace for incineration of municipal solid waste
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 next installment takes Australia as an example and comes to conclusions in view of
the Kyoto Protocol.
9
Part III: Greenhouse gas

abatement using waste-to-energy
plants
Australia as an example ...
In order to determine which of the main waste management options is better from the
viewpoint of minimizing anthropogenic GHG emissions, calculations of GHG emissions
have been carried out for two common waste management options, landfill disposal of
MSW and WTE thermal recycling. Australia is used as an example. The period taken is for
the full year to the end of June 1999. Calculations are based largely on the methodology
used by the Australian Greenhouse Office (1998, 2000) with modifications. In accordance
with this methodology, emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen in the present
exercise are not included in aggregate emissions when expressed as CO2-e.
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.
... and the conclusions in view of the Kyoto Protocol

This exercise shows that by processing the formerly landfilled waste through the WTE
plant only 5.2 Megatonne CO2 equivalent will be produced instead of the 14.0 Mt CO2-e
previously. Another 8.9 Mt CO2-e of emissions will be avoided by the replacement of the
fossil fuels needed to generate an equivalent amount of electricity in a WTE plant. The net
benefit therefore in GHG abatement by using WTE plants to thermally recycle the
previously landfilled waste is estimated to be 17.7 Mt CO2-e. This represents
approximately 105% of the reduction in the current (1999) excess GHG emissions (16.7 Mt
CO2-e) above the level agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol (Table III-1). This shows
clearly that the WTE treatment for MSW in towns larger than 100,000 population can be a
very effective manner of GHG abatement.
Mt CO2-e Kyoto target levels

Case 1: All MSW processed 17.7 105
through WtE plants
Case 2: Materials recycling 13.2 79
rate doubles to 40%
Case 3: No WtE thermal 6.3 38
recycling,but collected
landfill gas is flared
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.
The effect of recycling

Waste-to-energy incineration in Western Europe is quite compatible with high materials
recycling rates there (e.g. 58% 1999 recycling level in Flanders; Batchelor et al. 2001).
The 1997 materials recycling rate for Australia was approximately 20% (ABS 2001). For
the current study it was assumed as Case 2, that the Australian recycling rate was doubled
to 40%. Even though the quantity of MSW fed to the WTE plant dropped to 60% of the
MSW collected at source, the net benefit in GHG abatement by WTE treatment of the
residual MSW is estimated to be 13.2 Mt CO2-e. This is still a sizeable 79% reduction in
the 1999 excess GHG emissions above agreed Kyoto levels (Table III-1).
Landfills are not to be considered as carbon sinks

Some researchers (e.g. Pipatti and Savolainen 1996) have suggested that landfills have a
role as a carbon sink. This is because certain elements of MSW are only very slowly
biodegradable (e.g. wood, leather) or, like plastics, are virtually non-biodegradable
(Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). We, on the other hand, support the view that landfills should
not be considered sinks in the calculation of greenhouse gas inventories, since they are in
fact very bad sinks from an environmental perspective. In the first place, the garbage is
placed in an anaerobic environment where approximately half the gas emitted from
decomposition will be the notorious GHG methane (which would not otherwise be
generated if the material decomposed naturally on the surface, or was combusted).
Although the IPCC (1995) guideline default figure for the decomposition of organic carbon
in landfills is taken as 77%, in matter of fact, part of the remaining organic carbon will
continue to decompose over time to produce methane (GWP: 21). Any "sink" benefit will
be outweighed over time by the production of methane. Secondly, a considerable portion
of the non-degradable fraction is plastics, which has a very high heating value (three times
that of other biomass in the waste). If the plastic is locked away in a landfill rather than
being recycled or incinerated, it is an unconscionable waste of a valuable non-renewable
fuel.
11
Landfill gas collection and combustion

A variation of the above exercise was carried out for the case where, instead of treatment
of part of the landfilled waste through a WTE plant, a collection and combustion system
was set up for the methane generated from the landfills in towns with over 100,000
population. It is assumed that the methane is flared and not used to generate electricity. In
this case (Case 3), instead of an overall abatement of 17.7 Mt CO2-e (compared with
landfilling in Case 1) using WTE plants, only 6.3 Mt CO2-e will be abated. The figure is
based on indications that collection and combustion systems cannot normally avoid 50%
loss of the methane over the gassing lifetime of the landfill (see Part II).

The next installment adds other environmental considerations and offers conclusions.
12
Part IV: Other environmental

considerations and conclusions
Other environmental considerations
Although the focus of this paper is on GHG abatement through using the most effective
treatment technology, this matter cannot be considered in isolation from other
environmental considerations when making an informed decision on which treatment to
use for processing residual 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.
Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y and Shechtner M 2000. Alternative MSW treatment options to

reduce global greenhouse gases emissions - the Israeli example. Waste Management &
Research, 18: 538-544.
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
Batchelor D, Eeraerts D and Sioen H 2001. Waste as a Resource for Sustainable

Development. Paper for presentation at Waste Management 2001Conf., Kuala Lumpur, 6-
9 November 2001.
Boels D and Fleming G 1993. Chemical time bombs from landfills - appraisal and
modelling. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 4: 399-405.
ETSU 1998. An Introduction to Household Waste Management. ETSU for Department of

Trade and Industry, March 1998.
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
Patel M, von Thiene N, Jochem E and Worrell E 2000. Recycling of plastics in

Germany. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 29: 65-90.
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
Schnurer H 1999. The contribution of waste management to sustainable development -

the situation in Germany and the European Union. Paper presented at 13th WWM
National Conference on Waste Management, Melbourne, 10-12 March 1999.
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil SA 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management.

Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
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
USEPA 1989. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. United States

Environmental Protection Agency publication EPA/530-SW-89-072. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wallmann R 1999. Okologische Bewertung der mechanisch-biologischen

Restabfallbehandlung und der Mullverbrennung auf Basis von Energie- und
Schadgasbilanzen (Ecological assessment of mechanical-biological pre-treatment and
incineration of municipal solid residual waste based on energy and gaseous pollutant
balances). Schriftenreihe ANS, 38: 194.
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
Appendix B: Greenhouse gas

abatement using WtE plants:
detailed calculations for the case
of Australia
In order to determine which of the main waste management options is better from the
viewpoint of minimizing anthropogenic GHG emissions, calculations of GHG emissions
have been carried out for two common waste management options, landfill disposal of
MSW and WTE thermal recycling. Australia is used as an example. The period taken is for
the full year to the end of June 1999. Calculations are based largely on the methodology
used by the Australian Greenhouse Office (1998, 2000) with modifications. In accordance
with this methodology, emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen in the present
exercise are not included in aggregate emissions when expressed as CO2-e.
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
Case 1: All MSW processed through WtE plants;
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 A: Reduction in GHG Emissions Required to Achieve Kyoto Protocol

Target
1
1990 Net GHG Emissions from human activities (incl. land clearing) Mt CO2-e 493,8
1
1999 Net GHG Emissions from human activities (incl.. land clearing) Mt CO2-e 529,9
2008 Target level (1990 + 8% calculated) Mt CO2-e 533,3
N1
1999 Net GHG Emissions level in line with target (1990 + 3.92%) Mt CO2-e 513,2
1999 Excess GHG Emissions above target level Mt CO2-e 16,7
PART B: GHG Emissions from Landfilled Solid Waste

I. GHG Emissions from 1999 Landfilled MSW over 25-year Period
1
1999 Annual MSW landfilled (Aust. GHG Inventory) Mt 15,32
2
1999 Total resident population Million 18,97
1999 MSW disposal rate/head/year kg 808
N2
1999 Annual gross methane generated kt 992,4
1
1999 Recovered methane from landfills kt 93,2
1999 Proportion net annual methane generated but not recovered % 90,6
1999 Net annual methane generated but not recovered kt 899,2
3
Global warming potential for CH4 cf. CO2 21
1999 Net annual GHG emissions from landfilled MSW Mt CO2-e 18,9
II. GHG Emissions of Landfilled MSW in Towns > 100,000 to be Diverted to WTE Plants
4
1999 Population in towns > 100,000 Million 14,07
1999 Annual MSW landfilled in towns > 100,000 Mt 11,36
1999 Gross methane generated by this waste in a landfill kt 736,1
N3
1999 Net methane generated by this waste in a landfill kt 667,0
1999 Net GHG emissions from MSW in large towns Mt CO2-e 14,0
N4
III. GHG Emissions from a WTE Reference Plant
N4
CO2 Flue gas emissions from a European reference plant per hour t/hour 13,45
N4
MSW throughput for the European reference plant per hour t/hour 9,75
CO2 Flue gas emissions rate from MSW for reference plant t CO2/t MSW 1,38
N5
1999 Emissions assuming incineration of MSW from towns >100,000 people Mt CO2 15,7
N6
1999 Emissions from non-renewable sources assuming incineration in towns Mt CO2 5,2
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
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
Case 2: Materials recycling rate doubles to 40 %;
CASE 2: DIVERSION MSW TO WTE PLANT IN LARGE TOWNS & CITIES; RECYCLING RATE DOUBLED

Target
1
1
N1

1
2
N2
1
3
II. GHG Emissions of Landfilled MSW in Towns > 100,000 to be Diverted to WTE Plants
4
1999 Annual MSW landfilled in towns > 100,000N9 Mt 8,52
N3
1999 Net GHG emissions from MSW in large towns Mt CO2-e 10,5
N4
N4
CO2 Flue gas emissions from a European reference plant per hour t/hour 13,45
N4
MSW throughput for the European reference plant per hour t/hour 9,75
CO2 Flue gas emissions rate from MSW for reference plant t CO2/t MSW 1,38
N5
1999 Emissions assuming incineration of MSW from towns >100,000 people Mt CO2 11,8
N6
1999 Emissions from non-renewable sources assuming incineration in towns Mt CO2 3,9
Plant
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
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
1999 GHG emissions saved by diverting MSW in large towns to WTE plants Mt CO2-e 13,2
REFERENCES
NOTES
N9. 1999 Australian recycling rate of 20% assumed doubled to 40%.
21
Case 3: No WtE thermal recycling, but collected landfill gas is flared.
CASE 3: ALL FEASIBLE LANDFILL GAS RECOVERED & FLARED IN LARGE TOWNS & CITIES

Target
1
1
N1

1
2
N2
1
3
II. GHG Emissions of Landfilled MSW in Towns > 100,000
4
N3
1999 Net GHG emissions from MSW in large towns (cf. 14.0 Mt CO2-e, Case 1) Mt CO2-e 7,7
N4
Plant
1999 GHG emissions saved by recovering/flaring commercial landfill gas in large towns Mt CO2-e 6,3
REFERENCES
22
NOTES

Greenhouse Gas Incineration Vs Landfill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse Gas Incineration Vs Landfill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greenhouse gas abatement:

landfill vs. incineration of

This feature story was contributed by SEGHERSbetter technology (www.bettertechnology.com).

Greenhouse gas abatement:

• Part I: Currrent status of waste management approaches pag. 3-4

A References pag. 14-15

Part I: Current status of waste

Other environmental aspects of the technologies discussed are briefly considered to

Current status of waste management approaches

In the next installment...

Part II: Waste management

Greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas inventories

Landfill gas comprises approximately 50 to 60% methane (produced by anaerobic

Landfill disposal with gas recovery

Landfill gas extraction is however, an inefficient means of recovering energy or reducing

Grate furnace for incineration of municipal solid waste

In the next installment...

Part III: Greenhouse gas

... and the conclusions in view of the Kyoto Protocol

Mt CO2-e Kyoto target levels

The effect of recycling

Landfills are not to be considered as carbon sinks

Landfill gas collection and combustion

In the next installment...

Part IV: Other environmental

Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y and Shechtner M 2000. Alternative MSW treatment options to

Batchelor D, Eeraerts D and Sioen H 2001. Waste as a Resource for Sustainable

ETSU 1998. An Introduction to Household Waste Management. ETSU for Department of

Patel M, von Thiene N, Jochem E and Worrell E 2000. Recycling of plastics in

Schnurer H 1999. The contribution of waste management to sustainable development -

Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil SA 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management.

USEPA 1989. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. United States

Wallmann R 1999. Okologische Bewertung der mechanisch-biologischen

Appendix B: Greenhouse gas

Case 1: All MSW processed through WtE plants;

PART A: Reduction in GHG Emissions Required to Achieve Kyoto Protocol

PART B: GHG Emissions from Landfilled Solid Waste

Case 2: Materials recycling rate doubles to 40 %;

PART A: Reduction in GHG Emissions Required to Achieve Kyoto Protocol

PART B: GHG Emissions from Landfilled Solid Waste

Case 3: No WtE thermal recycling, but collected landfill gas is flared.

PART A: Reduction in GHG Emissions Required to Achieve Kyoto Protocol

PART B: GHG Emissions from Landfilled Solid Waste

You might also like