Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste—part 1: general methodology and results

Finnveden, Göran; Johansson, Jessica; Lind, Per; Moberg, Åsa

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.023

Cited by 342 publications

(207 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is explained by that, even with a high degree of source separation, a large part of the waste has to be incinerated. A marginal study [6], comparing differences between incineration and recycling of 1 kg of plastic, would show a greater difference. Our study covers the whole waste stream as the aim is to find the total impact for different changes in the treatment of specific fractions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective

Eriksson

Reich

Frostell

et al. 2005

Journal of Cleaner Production

381

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different waste treatment options for municipal solid waste have been studied in a systems analysis. Different combinations of incineration, materials recycling of separated plastic and cardboard containers, and biological treatment (anaerobic digestion and composting) of biodegradable waste, were studied and compared to landfilling. The evaluation covered use of energy resources, environmental impact and financial and environmental costs. In the study, a calculation model (Orware) based on methodology from life cycle assessment (LCA) was used. Case studies were performed in three Swedish municipalities: Uppsala, Stockholm, and Ä lvdalen.The study shows that reduced landfilling in favour of increased recycling of energy and materials lead to lower environmental impact, lower consumption of energy resources, and lower economic costs. Landfilling of energy-rich waste should be avoided as far as possible, partly because of the negative environmental impacts from landfilling, but mainly because of the low recovery of resources when landfilling.Differences between materials recycling, nutrient recycling and incineration are small but in general recycling of plastic is somewhat better than incineration and biological treatment somewhat worse.When planning waste management, it is important to know that the choice of waste treatment method affects processes outside the waste management system, such as generation of district heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, plastic, cardboard, and fertiliser. #

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other system studies of waste management [6][7][8][9][10][11] performed in Sweden and abroad have been reviewed. A conclusion from the review is that system studies of municipal solid waste are not as broad as our study and do not have the same kind of scenario construction as made here.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective

Eriksson

Reich

Frostell

et al. 2005

Journal of Cleaner Production

381

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exclusion of upstream emissions of fuels will have a negligible effect on results because transportation of waste materials is generally a lower proportion of total waste-related emissions (Mohareb et al estimate a contribution of 8% of gross emissions or 15% of net emissions including credits for recycling) and combustion is the primary source of these emissions when diesel is used as a fuel. [27][28][29] Emission reductions from co-products directly resulting from on-site activities of treatment methods (i.e., electricity production from incineration) are also included within the LC boundary.…”

Section: Ghg Emissions (T Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finnveden et al 27 suggest that GHG emission benefits from fertilizer displacement from AD and composting are also likely small.…”

Section: Life-cycle-based Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management—Assessment of Quantification Methods

Mohareb

MacLean

Kennedy

2011

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities' corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian MunicipalitiesPartners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than threequarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of Ϫ53 kt CO 2 e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.

show abstract

“…Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been utilized extensively in waste management system studies, especially in Sweden [4][5][6]. Different LCA applications of waste management system studies have been compared by Winkler & Bilitewski [7].…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%