Evaluation of food waste disposal options by LCC analysis from the perspective of global warming: Jungnang case, South Korea

Journal Article · Thu Sep 15 00:00:00 EDT 2011 · Waste Management

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.019· OSTI ID:21578466

Kim, Mi-Hyung ^[1]; Song, Yul-Eum ^[2]; Song, Han-Byul ^[3]; Kim, Jung-Wk ^[1]; Hwang, Sun-Jin ^[4]

---

1. Department of Environmental Planning, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Sillim-Dong, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742 (Korea, Republic of)
2. Department of Philosophy, Dongguk University, Pil-Dong 3-Ga, Jung-Gu, Seoul 100-715 (Korea, Republic of)
3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Soongsil University, Sangdo-Ro 369, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul 156-743 (Korea, Republic of)
4. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Center for Environmental Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seocheon-Dong, Giheung-Gu, Yongin-Si, Gyeonggi-Do 446-701 (Korea, Republic of)

Highlights: > Various food waste disposal options were evaluated from the perspective of global warming. > Costs of the options were compared by the methodology of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis. > Carbon price and valuable by-products were used for analyzing environmental credits. > The benefit-cost ratio of wet feeding scenario was the highest. - Abstract: The costs associated with eight food waste disposal options, dry feeding, wet feeding, composting, anaerobic digestion, co-digestion with sewage sludge, food waste disposer, incineration, and landfilling, were evaluated in the perspective of global warming and energy and/or resource recovery. An expanded system boundary was employed to compare by-products. Life cycle cost was analyzed through the entire disposal process, which included discharge, separate collection, transportation, treatment, and final disposal stages, all of which were included in the system boundary. Costs and benefits were estimated by an avoided impact. Environmental benefits of each system per 1 tonne of food waste management were estimated using carbon prices resulting from CO{sub 2} reduction by avoided impact, as well as the prices of by-products such as animal feed, compost, and electricity. We found that the cost of landfilling was the lowest, followed by co-digestion. The benefits of wet feeding systems were the highest and landfilling the lowest.

• OSTI ID: 21578466
• Journal Information: Waste Management, Vol. 31, Issue 9-10; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.019; PII: S0956-053X(11)00217-0; Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; ISSN 0956-053X
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
ANIMAL FEEDS
BY-PRODUCTS
CARBON
CARBON DIOXIDE
COMBUSTION
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
COMPOST
COMPOSTING
ELECTRICITY
ENERGY RECOVERY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
GREENHOUSE EFFECT
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
LIFE-CYCLE COST
PRICES
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
SEWAGE SLUDGE
WASTE DISPOSAL
ASIA
BIOCONVERSION
BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS
BIOLOGICAL WASTES
CARBON COMPOUNDS
CARBON OXIDES
CHALCOGENIDES
CHEMICAL REACTIONS
CLIMATIC CHANGE
COST
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
DIGESTION
ELEMENTS
EVALUATION
FOOD
MANAGEMENT
MATERIALS
NONMETALS
ORGANIC WASTES
OXIDATION
OXIDES
OXYGEN COMPOUNDS
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROCESSING
SEWAGE
SLUDGES
THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WASTE PROCESSING
WASTES