首页> 外文期刊>Waste Management >The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion
【24h】

The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion

机译:垃圾处理占垃圾填埋与焚化的环境比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This study evaluates the environmental performance and discounted costs of the incineration and land-filling of municipal solid waste that is ready for the final disposal while accounting for existing waste diversion initiatives, using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Parameters such as changing waste generation quantities, diversion rates and waste composition were also considered. Two scenarios were assessed in this study on how to treat the waste that remains after diversion. The first scenario is the status quo, where the entire residual waste was landfilled whereas in the second scenario approximately 50% of the residual waste was incinerated while the remainder is landfilled. Electricity was produced in each scenario. Data from the City of Toronto was used to undertake this study. Results showed that the waste diversion initiatives were more effective in reducing the organic portion of the waste, in turn, reducing the net electricity production of the landfill while increasing the net electricity production of the incinerator. Therefore, the scenario that incorporated incineration performed better environmentally and contributed overall to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of the displacement of power plant emissions; however, at a noticeably higher cost. Although landfilling proves to be the better financial option, it is for the shorter term. The landfill option would require the need of a replacement landfill much sooner. The financial and environmental effects of this expenditure have yet to be considered.
机译:这项研究使用生命周期评估(LCA)方法评估了可用于最终处置的城市固体废物的焚化和填埋的环境绩效和折现成本,同时考虑了现有的废物转移计划。还考虑了诸如改变废物产生量,转移率和废物组成之类的参数。在这项研究中评估了两种方案,即如何处理转移后剩余的废物。第一种情况是现状,其中所有剩余废物都被填埋,而在第二种情况下,大约有50%的剩余废物被焚化,而其余部分则被填埋。在每种情况下都产生了电。多伦多市的数据用于进行这项研究。结果表明,废物转移计划在减少废物的有机部分方面更为有效,从而减少了垃圾填埋场的净发电量,同时增加了焚化炉的净发电量。因此,采用焚烧的方案在环境方面表现更好,并且由于电厂排放的置换而总体上导致了温室气体排放量的大幅减少;但是,成本却要高得多。尽管事实证明,填埋是更好的财务选择,但这是短期的。垃圾填埋场的选择将需要更快地更换垃圾填埋场。这笔支出的财务和环境影响尚未得到考虑。

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