首页> 外文期刊>Resources, Conservation and Recycling >Comparison between material and energy recovery of municipal waste from an energy perspective - A study of two Swedish municipalities
【24h】

Comparison between material and energy recovery of municipal waste from an energy perspective - A study of two Swedish municipalities

机译:从能源角度比较城市垃圾的材料和能量回收-瑞典两个城市的研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The aim of this study is to compare material recovery to waste incineration with energy recovery from the criteria of energy efficiency. Material recovery saves virgin material and also energy since production processes using recovered material are less energy intensive than processes using virgin material, whereas energy recovery saves other fuels that differ among various energy systems. Optimisations are made for the district heating systems in two Swedish municipalities, showing that it is profitable for the energy utilities in the municipalities to invest in plants using waste as a fuel for electricity and heat production. The fuels replaced by the waste differ between the municipalities. For one it is mostly wood chips, and for the other, a lot of biomass is replaced, but the largest saving is in oil. Energy savings by material recycling of the waste are calculated. Non-combustible waste, such as metals and glass save energy in various extensions when material recycled, but give no heat contribution when incinerated. It is more complicated to compare material and energy recovery of combustible waste fractions, such as cardboard, paper, plastics and biodegradable waste since they can be recycled in both fashions. For these fractions it is important to consider the configuration of the energy system. The conclusions from the two municipalities are that even if there is a district heating system able to utilise the heat, from the energy-efficiency view point; paper and hard plastics should preferably be material recovered, whereas cardboard and biodegradable waste is more suited for energy recovery through waste incineration. These calculations are done with the assumption that biomass should be regarded as a limited resource and when saved eventually eliminates fossile fuel combustion in other facilities. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:这项研究的目的是从能源效率的标准中比较物料回收,废物焚烧和能源回收。材料回收不仅可以节省原始材料,还可以节省能源,因为使用回收材料的生产过程比使用原始材料的生产过程的能源消耗少,而能量回收可以节省不同能源系统之间不同的其他燃料。对瑞典两个市政当局的区域供热系统进行了优化,结果表明,市政当局的能源公司投资使用废物作为发电和供热燃料的工厂是有利可图的。各城市之间用废物替代的燃料有所不同。一种是主要是木屑,另一种是很多生物质被替代,但最大的节省是石油。计算了通过废物的材料循环利用而节省的能源。诸如金属和玻璃之类的不可燃废物在回收利用材料时可以节省各种能源,但是在焚化时不会产生热量。比较可燃废物部分(例如纸板,纸张,塑料和可生物降解的废物)的材料和能量回收更为复杂,因为它们可以两种方式进行回收。对于这些部分,重要的是要考虑能源系统的配置。从两个城市得出的结论是,即使从能源效率的角度来看,即使有一个区域供热系统都可以利用热量。纸和硬塑料最好是材料回收的,而纸板和可生物降解的废物更适合通过废物焚化进行能量回收。这些计算是基于这样的假设,即应将生物质视为一种有限的资源,并且在节省生物质时最终会消除其他设施中的化石燃料燃烧。 (C)2004 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

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