skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts

Abstract

Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Significant GHG reductions are possible by efficient WtE technologies. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer CHP and high power-to-heat ratio provide significant GHG savings. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer N{sub 2}O and coal mine type are important in LCA GHG emissions of FBC co-combustion. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Substituting coal and fuel oil by waste is beneficial in electricity and heat production. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Substituting natural gas by waste may not be reasonable in CHP generation. - Abstract: Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfillingmore » and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO{sub 2}-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. VTT, Koivurannantie 1, FIN 40101 Jyvaeskylae (Finland)
  2. Aabo Akademi Process Chemistry Centre, Piispankatu 8, FIN 20500 Turku (Finland)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21612944
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
Waste Management
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 32; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010; PII: S0956-053X(11)00469-7; Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); Journal ID: ISSN 0956-053X
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT; CARBON DIOXIDE; COAL; COAL MINES; COMBUSTION; ELECTRICITY; ENERGY MODELS; ENERGY SYSTEMS; FLUIDIZED BEDS; FUEL OILS; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; GREENHOUSE GASES; HEAT PRODUCTION; INCINERATORS; NATURAL GAS; NITROUS OXIDE; POWER GENERATION; SOLID WASTES; WASTE TRANSPORTATION; CARBON COMPOUNDS; CARBON OXIDES; CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS; CHALCOGENIDES; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; CLIMATIC CHANGE; CONVERSION; DISTILLATES; ENERGY CONVERSION; ENERGY SOURCES; FLUIDS; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL GAS; FUELS; GAS FUELS; GAS OILS; GASES; LIQUID FUELS; MANAGEMENT; MATERIALS; MINES; NITROGEN COMPOUNDS; NITROGEN OXIDES; OXIDATION; OXIDES; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; PETROLEUM; PETROLEUM DISTILLATES; PETROLEUM FRACTIONS; PETROLEUM PRODUCTS; POLLUTION ABATEMENT; THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES; UNDERGROUND FACILITIES; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WASTES

Citation Formats

Vainikka, Pasi, Tsupari, Eemeli, Sipilae, Kai, and Hupa, Mikko. Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts. United States: N. p., 2012. Web. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010.
Vainikka, Pasi, Tsupari, Eemeli, Sipilae, Kai, & Hupa, Mikko. Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010
Vainikka, Pasi, Tsupari, Eemeli, Sipilae, Kai, and Hupa, Mikko. 2012. "Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010.
@article{osti_21612944,
title = {Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts},
author = {Vainikka, Pasi and Tsupari, Eemeli and Sipilae, Kai and Hupa, Mikko},
abstractNote = {Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Significant GHG reductions are possible by efficient WtE technologies. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer CHP and high power-to-heat ratio provide significant GHG savings. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer N{sub 2}O and coal mine type are important in LCA GHG emissions of FBC co-combustion. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Substituting coal and fuel oil by waste is beneficial in electricity and heat production. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Substituting natural gas by waste may not be reasonable in CHP generation. - Abstract: Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO{sub 2}-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.},
doi = {10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/21612944}, journal = {Waste Management},
issn = {0956-053X},
number = 3,
volume = 32,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Mar 15 00:00:00 EDT 2012},
month = {Thu Mar 15 00:00:00 EDT 2012}
}