...
首页> 外文期刊>Waste Management >Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical-biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy
【24h】

Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical-biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy

机译:机械和机械生物处理与直接废物转化为能源的能源影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Primary energy savings potential is used to compare five residual municipal solid waste treatment systems, including configurations with mechanical (MT) and mechanical-biological (MBT) pre-treatment, which produce waste-derived fuels (RDF and SRF), biogas and/or recover additional materials for recycling, alongside a system based on conventional mass burn waste-to-energy and ash treatment. To examine the magnitude of potential savings we consider two energy efficiency levels (state-of-the-art and best available technology), the inclusion/exclusion of heat recovery (CHP vs. PP) and three different background end-use energy production systems (coal condensing electricity and natural gas heat, Nordic electricity mix and natural gas heat, and coal CHP energy quality allocation). The systems achieved net primary energy savings in a range between 34 and 140 MJ_(primary)/100 MJ_(inputwaste) in the different scenario settings. The energy footprint of transportation needs, pre-treatment and reprocessing of recyclable materials was 3-9.5%, 1-18% and 1-8% respectively, relative to total energy savings. Mass combustion WtE achieved the highest savings in scenarios with CHP production, nonetheless, MBT-based systems had similarly high performance if SRF streams were co-combusted with coal. When RDF and SRF was only used in dedicated WtE plants, MBT-based systems totalled lower savings due to inherent system losses and additional energy costs. In scenarios without heat recovery, the biodry-ing MBS-based system achieved the highest savings, on the condition of SRF co-combustion. As a sensitivity scenario, alternative utilisation of SRF in cement kilns was modelled. It supported similar or higher net savings for all pre-treatment systems compared to mass combustion WtE, except when WtE CHP was possible in the first two background energy scenarios. Recovery of plastics for recycling before energy recovery increased net energy savings in most scenario variations, over those of full stream combustion. Sensitivity to assumptions regarding virgin plastic substitution was tested and was found to mostly favour plastic recovery.
机译:主要的节能潜力可用于比较五个残留的城市固体废物处理系统,包括采用机械(MT)和机械生物(MBT)预处理的配置,这些系统可产生废物衍生的燃料(RDF和SRF),沼气和/或除了基于传统的大量燃烧废物转化为能源和灰分处理的系统外,还可以回收其他材料以进行回收。为了检查潜在节省的规模,我们考虑了两个能效水平(最新技术和最佳可用技术),热量回收的包含/排除(CHP与PP)和三种不同的背景最终用途能源生产系统(煤炭冷凝电力和天然气热,北欧电力混合和天然气热以及煤炭热电联产的能源质量分配)。在不同的场景设置下,系统实现的净一次能源净节省在34到140 MJ_(主要)/ 100 MJ_(输入废物)之间。相对于总节能量,运输需求,可回收材料的预处理和后处理的能源足迹分别为3-9.5%,1-18%和1-8%。在CHP生产的情况下,大规模燃烧WtE节省了最高的成本,但是,如果SRF流与煤一起燃烧,基于MBT的系统也具有类似的高性能。当仅在专用WtE工厂中使用RDF和SRF时,由于固有的系统损耗和额外的能源成本,基于MBT的系统的总节省额较低。在没有热回收的情况下,基于生物干燥的基于MBS的系统在SRF联合燃烧的条件下实现了最高的节省。作为敏感性方案,对水泥窑中SRF的替代利用进行了建模。与大规模燃烧WtE相比,它支持所有预处理系统的相似或更高的净节省,但在前两个背景能源方案中可以使用WtE CHP时除外。在大多数情况下,与全流燃烧相比,在能源回收之前回收塑料以进行回收可提高净节能量。测试了对原始塑料替代假设的敏感性,并发现其最有利于塑料回收。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号