2009 Paper12 Plasticwasteasfuel-CO2neutralornot

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230582969

Plastic waste as a fuel – CO2-neutral or not?

Article  in  Energy & Environmental Science · August 2009


DOI: 10.1039/b908135f

CITATIONS READS

121 13,856

2 authors:

Ola Eriksson Göran Finnveden


University of Gävle KTH Royal Institute of Technology
114 PUBLICATIONS   2,586 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   12,419 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waste refinery View project

Research School Reesbe View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ola Eriksson on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


ANALYSIS www.rsc.org/ees | Energy & Environmental Science

Plastic waste as a fuel - CO2-neutral or not?


Ola Eriksson*a and G€
oran Finnvedenb
Received 23rd April 2009, Accepted 24th June 2009
First published as an Advance Article on the web 28th July 2009
DOI: 10.1039/b908135f

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is not only a societal problem addressed with environmental impact, it is
also a resource that can be used for energy supply. In Northern Europe combustion of MSW
(incineration with energy recovery) in combination with district heating systems is quite common. In
Sweden, about 47% of the household waste is treated by incineration with energy recovery. Most
incineration plants are CHP, summing up to 0.3% of the total electricity generation. MSW is to a high
extent a renewable fuel, but plastic, rubber etc. can amount to 50% of the carbon content in the waste.
Recycling of plastic is in general environmentally favourable in comparison to landfill disposal or
incineration. However, some plastic types are not possible to recycle and some plastic is of such low
quality that it is not suitable for recycling. This paper focuses on the non-renewable and non-recyclable
plastic in MSW. A CO2 assessment has been made for non-recyclable plastic where incineration
with energy recovery has been compared to landfill disposal. In the assessment, consideration has been
taken of alternative fuel in the incinerator, emissions from waste treatment and avoided emissions from
heat and power supply. For landfill disposal of plastic the emissions of CO2 amounts to 253 g kg1
plastic. For incineration, depending on different discrete choices, the results vary from 673 g kg1 to
4605 g kg1. Results indicate that for typical Swedish and European conditions, incineration of plastics
has net emissions of greenhouse gases. These emissions are also in general higher for incineration
than for landfill disposal. However in situations where plastics are incinerated with high efficiency and
high electricity to heat ratios, and the heat and the electricity from incineration of plastics are replacing
heat and electricity in non-combined heat and power plants based on fossil fuels, incineration of plastics
can give a net negative contribution of greenhouse gases. The results suggest that efforts should be
made to increase recycling of plastics, direct incineration of plastics in places where it can be combusted
with high efficiency and high electricity-to-heat ratios where it is replacing fossil fuels, and reconsider
the present policies of avoiding landfill disposal of plastics.

Introduction widely between different countries, in Fig. 1 municipal solid


waste generation in European countries is depicted.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) contains resources from society MSW will be more important as a resource in the future as the
that can be recovered as material or energy. In a global amount of waste increases. For example, the amount of house-
perspective MSW is mostly disposed of at landfill with no or poor hold waste has increased by 23.8% during 1998–2007 in Sweden.2
resource recovery. The waste production per capita changes This trend is also valid for waste from other sources and in other
countries.1
In Northern Europe combustion of MSW (incineration) in
combination with district heating systems is quite common. In
a
Division of Building Quality, Department of Technology and Built Sweden, a country with a high degree of material recycling
Environment, University of G€ avle, G€
avle, SE 801 76, Sweden
b (37%) and biological treatment (12%), about 47% of the
Division of Environmental Strategies Research – fms, Department of Urban
Planning and Environment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, household waste is treated by incineration with energy
KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, SE 100 44, Sweden recovery.2 Incineration accounts for approx. 25% of the district

Broader context
The awareness of climate change has increased dramatically during the last years. Many societal activities contribute to emissions of
gases contributing to climate change, amongst them waste management including emissions of fossil CO2 from incineration of waste
and CH4 from degradation of organic material in landfills. Recycling of plastics is often possible and many studies have shown that
material recycling is in general the best waste treatment option from an environmental perspective. But what is the best treatment
option for non-recyclable plastic; incineration or landfill disposal? In this paper we compare and assess these two options. For both
methods energy (both as electricity and heat) can be recovered. Our results indicate that for plastics, landfill disposal is often
preferable over incineration regarding emissions of gases contributing to climate change.

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009 Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 | 907
Fig. 1 Waste generation in European countries during 2007 in kg/capita.1

heating generated in Sweden where residential heating as well as Nevertheless, MSW is a more troublesome fuel compared to
process heat is included.2 Most incineration plants recover not other fuels due to its heterogeneity. Here pre-treatment and
only heat but also electricity (Combined Heat and Power, recycling helps, as the combustible fraction then becomes more
CHP), summing up to 18% of the electricity generation from homogenous since a well developed sorting (both at source or at
CHP in Swedish district heating3 which corresponds to 0.3% of a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) can produce more clean
the total electricity generation.4 In many other countries, energy combustible flows where different materials are not mixed. The
from waste incineration is mostly recovered as electricity with variable fuel quality gives rise to problems during the combus-
varying efficiencies. Energy recovery from waste can also be tion process which requires an advanced and expensive air
achieved by anaerobic digestion producing biogas that can pollution control and management of residues. Even if the
replace fossil fuels for transport or be used for heat and power overall degree of efficiency can be high due to flue gas conden-
production. sation, the electricity-to-heat ratio is in general lower than for e.g.
Compared to other fuels used in heat and power supply, wood combustion, which in turn in general is lower than for oil
municipal solid waste has both advantages and disadvantages and natural gas combustion.
with respect to technology, environmental impact and financial Within the European Union as well as in many other coun-
costs. One advantage is that MSW often has a low initial burden. tries, waste policy is based on the waste hierarchy:5
Only some collection and transportation is required. Other fuels 1. Waste prevention
often have costs and environmental impacts also from the 2. Re-use of products
production of the fuels. MSW is also a fuel available close to the 3. Recycling of material
end user. Due to urbanisation people tend to live in cities or 4. Recovery of energy
greater residential areas. This means high waste generation per 5. Final disposal
km2 which in turn makes the cost for waste collection less A large number of studies have been looking into the envi-
expensive than in sparsely populated areas. Another aspect is ronmental aspects of different waste management strategies.
that, compared to material recycling and biological treatment, There are also several synthesis reports available.6–9 These studies
incineration plants are robust with respect to waste quality. The seem to suggest that the waste hierarchy in general is valid from
plants are designed to be able to treat bulky heterogeneous waste. an environmental perspective. There can however be situations,
Another advantage can be observed for fuel economy with or waste fractions, which deviate from the hierarchy. In this
respect to the owner of an incinerator. Even if some costs are paper we will investigate one such possible exception and that is
higher due to expensive cleaning equipment, revenue from sold the treatment of plastic wastes concerning carbon dioxide and
energy is supported by a reception fee for the waste fuel. This other gases contributing to climate change.
makes MSW competitive with e.g. biomass as base load in MSW is partly a renewable fuel which is regarded as not
district heating systems. contributing to climate change. However, the waste often

908 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
includes plastic and (synthetic) rubber that is produced from 1. Combustion of the fossil part (plastic) will cause CO2
fossil fuels, thus being non-renewable fuels contributing to emissions, but are the avoided emissions from substituted
climate change. The fossil content in MSW can be measured in fuels higher?
different ways; by weight percent, energy percent or carbon 2. Is non-recyclable plastic better treated in a sanitary landfill
percent. The balance between biogenic and fossil carbon dioxide with respect to global warming in a short time perspective?
will vary between different countries and incinerators depending 3. Are steps 4–5 in the waste hierarchy correct for non-
on the type of waste that is incinerated, recycling programs etc. recyclable plastic?
One recent Swiss study indicated that the biogenic fraction is
about 50% or slightly more.10 One American study11 indicated Method
that the biogenic fraction was approx. 65%. Recycling of plastic
is in general environmentally favourable in comparison to Goal and scope definition
landfill disposal or incineration.6–9 However, some plastic types A CO2 accounting is made for waste treatment of 1 kg of non-
are not technically possible to recycle, some may be too expensive recyclable plastic. The methodology used is based on established
to recycle and some plastic is of such poor quality that it cannot methods for environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of
be recycled. That means, that even with 100% source separation waste management systems13,14 and the ISO-standard for LCA
of plastic (no plastic found in the combustible fraction of MSW), (ISO, 2006).15 Two types of plastic are investigated: non-recy-
there will be some non-recyclable plastic that has to be treated. clable and a mixed fraction of presumed poor quality. The plastic
Plastic is usually made out of crude oil (bio-plastics are not waste itself has a zero burden when entering the waste manage-
of fossil origin and give no net increase of CO2 when com- ment system. This assumption can be made since the plastic
busted) and is chemically of two types: thermoplastic and waste (in terms of density) is identical in the two cases compared
thermoset. Thermoplastic, if exposed to heat, will melt and is (landfill disposal and incineration) and identical parts of the
therefore possible to reshape and recycle. Thermoset on the systems can be excluded in a comparative study.13,14 The waste
other hand will keep their shape until they are a charred, treatment options are incineration with energy recovery which
smoking mess. Thermoset are however possible to shred and has been compared to landfill disposal. In the assessment,
the chips can then be used as filling material or reinforcement consideration has been taken of GHG emissions (CO2, CH4 and
material in new products. Thermoset plastics go under N2O) from waste treatment and avoided emissions from heat and
product names such as polyurethane (PUR), acryl, epoxy and power supply.
different variants with formaldehyde like Urea Formaldehyde Two scenarios are being compared. In the first scenario the
(UF), Melamine Formaldehyde (MF) and Phenol Formalde- plastics are subject to sanitary landfill disposal. Parameters of
hyde (PF). Common applications are e.g. small boats, pipes concern are
and cable isolation.12 Thermoplastic can be recycled several  Emissions from landfill management
times but eventually the quality is too poor. Another reason  Carbon sequestration in landfill (not carbon sink as the
why a potentially recyclable plastic is sorted out at the recy- carbon is fossil)
cling plant is due to impurity. Therefore not only thermoset, In the second scenario the plastics are subject to incineration
but also thermoplastic can be subject to energy recovery. with combined heat and power (CHP). Parameters of concern
Besides, plastic products other than packages are collected at are
recycling centres. This plastic, which can be of both types, is  Emissions from the incineration plant
in Sweden often incinerated in cement kilns or regular incin-  Avoided emissions from other electricity generation
erators due to it not being included in the system for  Avoided emissions from other heat generation
producers’ responsibility. Landfill disposal is prohibited in The assessment is based on data for Swedish and European
many countries including Sweden. Most of the plastic pack- conditions. Choice of data has been made to achieve CO2-lean
ages in MSW are incinerated, cf. Table 1. and CO2-intense alternatives to explore as wide a span as
possible. The assessment is thought to cover both consequential
and book-keeping conditions (c.f. ref. 16) and represents a short
Aim of the paper time perspective with existing plants rather than a long time
This paper will determine under which circumstances incinera- perspective with improved technology.
tion of plastics as a part of MSW may have a zero or negative
impact on global warming; Data inventory
Parameters crucial to GWP impact have been identified and data
acquisition has been made. Concerning the plastic, two proper-
Table 1 Treatment of plastic packages in 20072 ties are of interest: heat value and chemical composition (in this
case the fossil carbon content). Heat values vary between
Waste management Amount (ton) Percentage (%)
different plastics depending on the molecular structure. The
Source separated, material 49 119 30.1 calculations use the higher heating values because incinerators in
recycling Sweden are equipped with flue gas condensation and the
Source separated, energy recovery 56 434 34.5 condensation heat recovered is included in figures on efficiency
Not source separated, incineration 57 842 35.4
and landfill disposal and total energy recovery. For example PVC has a heat value of
19 MJ kg DM1 meanwhile one of the most common

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009 Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 | 909
Table 2 Data on plastics value for all Swedish incinerators in 2006 which is 80%. Of the
useful energy 8.2% is released as electricity and 91.8% as heat. If
Plastic property Value Unit Ref.
we had used an average Swedish CHP the figures would be 12%
Dry matter, non-recyclable 95 % 17 electricity and 88% heat. In the same report we found mean
Dry matter, mixed plastica 93 % 18 values for European incinerators with data from CEWEP. The
Heat value, non-recyclable 32.26 MJ kg1 17 average degree of overall efficiency is reported to be 41% and
Heat value, mixed plastic 38.94 MJ kg1 18
Fossil carbon content, non- 0.6560 kg kg1 17 energy recovered as electricity is 26% and heat 74%. Another
recyclable wet waste study in this field23 calculates electricity production at 13%, 24%
Fossil carbon content, mixed 0.6935 kg kg1 18 or 28% and the corresponding values for heat generation of 70%,
plastic wet waste 55% and 0%. Both degree of efficiency and the electricity-to-heat
a
The values for mixed plastic are mean values from four different ratio may have a strong influence on the results; therefore we
analyses of household waste fractions. will test the influence of these parameters in a sensitivity ana-
lysis. Emissions of N2O may also vary for different plants and
is not restricted in the incineration directive. We use the figure
thermoplastics Polyethene has 46 MJ kg DM1. The values 0.69 mg MJ1.24
depicted in Table 2 have been used. The alternatives to heat and power from combustion of plastic
The next step would be collection and transport of the plastic come next. Let’s begin with district heating. The fossil intense
to a treatment plant. This step is omitted, based on the afore- alternative was chosen to oil combustion. Oil is no longer
mentioned assumption and also that we have assumed the a common fuel in Swedish district heating, in 2007 it accounted
distance from the point of collection to a sanitary landfill and to for just about 3.5%.3 Hard coal accounted for 4%. But even if
an incinerator to be the same. these remaining parts soon will be substituted there may be
Regarding the landfill it is primarily a question of to what a secondary effect as some residential oil heating still can be
extent the plastic is decomposed and also which time frame to replaced by district heating. On a European level there is still
use. If plastic is degraded in the landfill we will attain air emis- high oil consumption for heating purpose.1 Emission factors for
sions of CO2 and CH4, but on the other hand some of the landfill CO2, CH4 and N2O were collected from ref. 25.
gas could be extracted and collected with energy recovery and The fossil lean alternative is biomass combustion in a CHP. In
therefore saving other fuels. The energy recovery suffers from a decision situation where a new base load heat plant is to be
a low efficiency compared to incineration with energy recovery. built in Sweden, an energy company often has a choice between
The result for the landfill is the accumulated estimated emissions building a biomass fired boiler, or an incinerator when consid-
(and energy recovery) during a period of approx. 100 years, ering costs and technical aspects. Bringing in a CHP as an
a time frame commonly used for landfills in LCA and also to alternative heat source makes the assessment a bit more
comply with the weighting factors used. complicated due to the fact that not only heat but also electricity
In this assessment we have assumed that the plastic will be is generated. Fig. 2 shows a simplification of the alternatives in
degraded by 3% during the first century due to a chemical reac- terms of energy balance. A CHP for MSW generates roughly
tion19 whereas 70% of the degraded carbon will form methane 80% of the energy as heat and 20% as electricity. In the first case
with a yield of 0.025 kg CH4 kg1 plastic. We have assumed that (alternative I) oil combustion will be substituted for heat and also
50% of the methane is collected and combusted. The rest is a corresponding amount of avoided electricity (we will come to
emitted, but 15% is released as CO2 due to soil oxidation in the the fuels for electricity later). In the second case (alternative II)
top layer.19 The collected landfill gas is combusted in a gas engine the incinerator will substitute biofuel CHP based on heat
with 85% degree of efficiency where 37.5% of the useful energy is production. For every unit of heat the biofuel CHP will also
recovered as electricity.20 Besides emissions of CO2 the gas engine generate some electricity. This electricity production is ‘‘lost’’ and
emits methane (430 mg MJ1 CH4) and also N2O (31 mg MJ1 may even be larger than the electricity from the incinerator (30%
CH4).20 There will also be some emissions of CO2 due to landfill in Fig. 2) as a biomass CHP often has a higher electricity-to-heat
management (mainly for compacting and creating a sealing ratio than an MSW CHP. Compared to the oil case where the
cover). The energy consumption is 0.04 MJ kg1 plastic21 and sum of heat and electricity from MSW and alternative 1 is zero,
emission factors are taken from ref. 18. the biomass CHP alternative leads to a net loss of electricity
If the plastic is put in an incinerator we assume complete (10%). This is compensated for by adding the missing electricity
combustion. Following parameters are then of interest for the production, shown as the last bar to the right in the figure
incineration plant: (alternative II). The biomass CHP in this study has energy
1. Degree of efficiency recovery with 27% electricity and 72% heat and with related
2. Heat and power plant versus heat plant emissions; taken from ref. 25.
3. Emission factor for N2O Last but not least, consideration must be made to compensa-
The degree of efficiency may vary widely from plant to plant. tory electricity. In the literature researchers and others use
The following figures are taken from ref. 22. In Sweden 20 different approaches depending on the purpose and choose data
incineration plants are operative while ten plants are for heat from different sources and years. As the uncertainties are huge
generation only and combust 31% of all MSW and the others are we follow the recommendation to use both a fossil rich and
CHP. For this purpose we have not chosen data from one single a ‘‘fossil free’’ alternative.26 We have not tried to collect and
plant, instead we use Swedish average values for the total heat review as many studies as possible, but more to find relevant
and power production. In the Swedish case we have used a mean options but with extreme values (reasonable figures while

910 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
Fig. 2 Energy balance for different fuel alternatives. Units in % of energy release.

covering both high and low GWP). We have included wind Table 4 Input data for calculation of emissions and energy release from
power as fossil lean and coal condense power as fossil intense. incineration (in order of appearance)a
Wind power has an emission factor of 0.0607 g CO2 kWh125
Quantity Unit Symbol Value
and for coal condense the emission factor has been chosen/set to
1000 g CO2 kWh1. Carbon content kg C kg1 plastic Mc waste specific
Molar weight for CO2 g mol1 nCO2 44
Molar weight for C g mol1 nC 12
Emission factor N2O mg MJ1 EN2O 0.69
Impact assessment Emission factor CO2 g CO2 ECO2 waste specific
Characterisation 1 cfN2O 298
Table 3 gives the characterisation factors for GWP:27 factor N2O
Higher Heating Value MJ kg1 HHV waste specific
Table 3 Characterisation factors Degree of efficiency 1 h 0.80 or 0.41
Heat recovery kWh Wheat waste specific
Emission CO2-equivalents Part energy to heat 1 fheat 91.8% or 74%
Electricity recovery kWh Wel waste specific
Carbon dioxide, CO2 1 Part energy to electricity 1 fel 8.2% or 26%
Methane, CH4 25 a
Note: 1 kWh ¼ 3.6 MJ.
Nitrous oxide, N2O 298

Table 5 Energy recovery and emissions of CO2-eq. for landfill disposal


Calculations of plastic
The calculation of CO2-emissions from landfill disposal consists of Landfill disposal of 1 kg of plastic Non-recyclable Mixed
a sum of decomposition, soil oxidation of methane, direct methane
emissions and emissions and electricity generation from methane Waste treatment
combustion. These calculations are left out due to space limits. Degradation 5.90 6.24
Landfill gas emissions 271 271
Given the properties for plastic (Table 2) and parameters for the Landfill management 3.01 3.01
incineration plant (Table 4) the CO2 emissions and the generation of Energy recovery
heat and power can be calculated using the following formula. Heat, kWh 0 0
Electricity, kWh 0.061 0.061
Air emissions gas combustion 35 35
Avoided electricity
ECO2 ¼ Mc  (nCO2/nC)  1000 + (EN2O/1000) Coal condense power (1000 g CO2 61 61
 cfN2O  HHV  h (1) kWh1)
Sum 253.971 254.311

HHV  h  fheat
Wheat ¼ (2)
3:6
Results
HHV  h  fel
Wel ¼ (3) Given the data above a fossil carbon accounting has been carried
3:6 out. Results for landfill disposal of plastic are depicted in Table 5.
Results from insertion of waste specific data in (1), (2) and (3) The majority of the carbon in the material will be stored inside
above are presented in Table 5. the landfill and prevented from release to the atmosphere.

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009 Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 | 911
Table 6 Energy recovery and emissions of CO2-eq. for incineration of plastic

Sweden Europe

Incineration of 1 kg plastic Non-recyclable Mixed Non-recyclable Mixed

Waste treatment
GWP emissions 2411 2549 2408 2546
Specific GWP emission, g CO2 337 296 650 569
kWh1
Energy recovery
Heat, kWh 6.6 7.9 2.8 3.3
Electricity, kWh 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1
Avoided heat
Biomass CHP (19 g CO2 kWh1) 123 148 52 62
Electricity from biomass CHP, 2.46 2.97 1.03 1.25
kWh
Oil (318 g CO2 kWh1) 2083 2515 876 1058
Avoided electricity
Wind power (0.06 g CO2 kWh1) 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07
Coal condense power (1000 g CO2 586 707 949 1145
kWh1)
Compensatory electricity
Wind power (0.06 g CO2 kWh1) 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.01
Coal condense power (1000 g CO2 1873 2261 86 103
kWh1)

However, air emissions (mainly as methane) and the generated Two combinations out of sixteen in Table 7 end up as
electricity cause maximum savings of 61 g (coal condense) a reduction of CO2 emissions, namely for Swedish conditions
resulting in approx. 254 g CO2 eq. kg1 of plastic. The results for and when fossil fuel alternatives for both heat and power are
the more complex assessment of incineration of 1 kg of plastic are present. As noted above, the present situation in Sweden with
presented in Table 6. From this a number of combinations can be current infrastructure, only small amounts of fossil fuels are
derived which are listed in Table 7. used, making these scenarios less relevant for the current Swedish
situation. If wind power is applied, when all other preconditions
are kept constant, a minor positive contribution (35 g) is found
Discussion and conclusions
for mixed plastic whereas non-recyclable plastic is higher with
As can be seen from Table 7, most cases result in net emissions of 327 g. The result for mixed plastic (327 g) cannot be considered as
greenhouse gases. Also in most cases, the emissions are higher robust, as the other combinations with wind power electricity
than for the landfill case. (odd numbers) have much higher emissions. Looking at the

Table 7 Net contribution of carbon dioxidea

Combination Incineration of plastic Avoided heat Avoided electricity Compensatory electricity Sum

Non-recyclable plastic
1 Sweden, bio CHP (he), wind (el) 2411 23 7 +0.11 ¼ 2241
2 Sweden, bio CHP (he) coal cond. 2411 23 7 + 1873 ¼ 4114
(el)
3 Sweden, oil (he) wind (el) 2411  083 .04 +0 ¼ 327
4 Sweden, oil (he) coal cond. (el) 2411  083 86 +0 ¼ 59
5 Europe, bio CHP (he), wind (el) 2408 2 0 +0.01 ¼ 2337
6 Europe, bio CHP (he), coal cond. 2408 2 0 +86 ¼ 2422
(el)
7 Europe, oil (he), wind (el) 2408 76 .06 +0 ¼ 1532
8 Europe, oil (he), coal cond. (el) 2408 76 49 +0 ¼ 583
Mixed plastic
9 Sweden, bio CHP (he), wind (el) 2549 48 6 +0.14 ¼ 2345
10 Sweden, bio CHP (he), coal 2549 48 6 +2261 ¼ 4605
cond. (el)
11 Sweden, oil (he), wind (el) 2549  515 .04 +0 ¼ 35
12 Sweden, oil (he), coal cond. (el) 2549  515 07 +0 ¼ 73
13 Europe, bio CHP (he), wind (el) 2546 2 4 +0.01 ¼ 2460
14 Europe, bio CHP (he), coal 2546 2 4 +103 ¼ 2563
cond. (el)
15 Europe, oil (he), wind (el) 2546  058 .07 +0 ¼ 1488
16 Europe, oil (he), coal cond. (el) 2546  058 1 145 +0 ¼ 343
a
he ¼ heat; el ¼ electricity.

912 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
overall results the highest net contributions are found for a biofuel since the electricity-to-heat ratio typically is higher for
combinations including biomass CHP. The two most extreme in oil and gas plants than for biofuel plants. If this extra elec-
this regard (# 2 and 10) suffer a high contribution from tricity replaced fossil fuels instead, incineration of plastics
compensatory electricity, i.e. lost electricity generation from would appear worse.
biomass CHP that has to be compensated for by coal condense The next step would be to explore the limitations of the study. Are
power. The combinations with biomass CHP and wind power accuracy and scope important to the conclusions? The first limita-
(1, 5, 9 and 13) are lower but still higher than all combinations tion to address is that the time frame is short. In the long term the
involving oil heat. The big benefit is substitution of oil heat, plastic will be degraded further, the incinerators may operate
which is logical as most of the released energy will be recovered as differently and the alternative fuel options may be others. The
heat (else the degree of efficiency is poor as the heat is lost). second limitation is that the assessment covers only CO2. In
In the discussion we will elaborate on the results from the a complete LCA, where toxic substances would be included, the
assessment. First the robustness of the results is examined. For conclusions may be different, due to the fact that additives in
robustness it is meant that if vital preconditions are slightly the plastic may leach and products of degradation are formed in the
changed the conclusions will not change. This can be tested in landfill. On the other hand emissions of toxic substances from
a sensitivity analysis. incineration and landfill disposal of combustion residue can be
avoided. This could be worked around by further steps in the
The importance of degree of efficiency assessment beyond the carbon accounting. Emissions to air and
water of other pollutants, the lack of resource recovery at many
To test this we apply the European figure to the Swedish incin- landfills worldwide, problems with uncontrolled landfill fires and
eration plants. Now no combination ends up with total negative pests are some of the problems not addressed in this paper. We
emissions. The degree of efficiency must be at least 0.65–0.7 to believe that more detailed calculations using computer models
shift at least one of the possible two options (4 and 12) into total (waste models like ORWARE or EASEWASTE and eventually full
negative emissions. LCA using SimaPro or similar) is called for if (1) the carbon
accounting does not show clear results (if different scenarios/alter-
The importance of MSW CHP natives are almost equal to each other) and (2) we want to capture
other environmental impacts than GWP. Another assumption that
When we assume that the Swedish plants are for district heat only
may inflict on the results is if the collection and transport work
combinations 3–4 result in 141 g CO2 and combinations 11–12
differs depending on treatment. Collection and transport of waste is
end up as 190 g CO2. Given oil heat substitution (which is
usually very expensive in comparison to the treatment cost. The
common for all these combinations) MSW CHP is not beneficial
environmental impact is the opposite (low for collection and
if the electricity is fossil lean (initial emissions for combinations 3
transport in comparison to the treatment). Therefore collection and
and 11 were higher) where minor savings on ‘‘clean’’ electricity
transport is often made as efficient as possible. There may however
are less favourable than major savings in oil heat. Likewise MSW
be situations where this assumption is not correct.
CHP is preferred if the electricity is fossil intense (compare
Coming back to the questions raised earlier we will draw
emissions for combinations 4 and 12). These results suggest that
conclusions on
CHP is important, particularly when fossil intense electricity like
1. What is the environmentally best treatment option for non-
coal condense power is substituted.
recyclable plastic—landfill disposal or incineration? If the
question is narrowed down to GWP, landfill disposal can
The importance of high electricity-to-heat ratio often be the least polluting treatment option.
By changing the degree of efficiency for the European incinerator 2. Under which circumstances is landfill disposal or incineration
from 0.41 to 0.80 we will compare two incinerators with different preferable? Incineration is to be preferred given a high effi-
electricity-to-heat-ratios (8.2/91.8 ¼ 0.09 and 26/74 ¼ 0.35). Now ciency, a high electricity-to-heat ratio and when energy from
combinations 8 and 16 become the most favorable options with incineration replaces fossil fuels, at least for district heating.
1106 (583) and 1696 (343) g CO2. When comparing the new 3. Under which circumstances can MSW be considered as
results with the initial results for all combinations we conclude CO2- neutral? See answer to question 2.
that given coal condense power it is better to have a high ratio. Finally we expand the discussion to encompass conclusions on
For wind power and oil heat it is worse to have a high ratio (less what to do with plastics presently not being recycled in Sweden:
beneficial to replace fossil lean electricity generation), but for 1. Develop recycling technologies for thermoset plastics.
wind power and biomass CHP it does not matter as the results 2. Stop incineration of plastic unless the incinerator is an
are almost the same. efficient CHP replacing oil heat and coal condense power.
3. Convert the plastic into a waste fuel which can be exported
to countries where it can be combusted with high efficiency
The importance of fuel for CHP plant
and substitute fossil fuels.
In the study it was assumed that the fuel for the CHP plant 4. Reconsider the policy not to landfill plastic materials.
was biofuel. If the fuel had been a fossil fuel, two contradictory
things would have happened. On the one hand incineration of
Acknowledgements
plastic waste would look better, since it is replacing a fossil
fuel. On the other hand, more electricity would be produced Financial support from the Swedish Environmental Protection
from the CHP plant when a fossil fuel is used instead of Agency is appreciated.

This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009 Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 | 913
References 17 EASEWASTE. Data available in computer model software http://
www.easewaste.dk, 2008.
1 Eurostat, 2009, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. 18 J.-O. Sundqvist, A. Baky, M. Carlsson Reich, O. Eriksson and
2 AvfallSverige, 2008a, Swedish Waste Management. Report available J. Granath, Hur ska hush allsavfallet tas omhand – utv€ ardering av
at http://www.avfallsverige.se. olika behandlingsmetoder (How shall the municipal solid waste be
3 Svensk Fj€ arrv€
arme, 2009, http://www.svenskfjarrvarme.se. managed – assessment of different treatment methods), 2002 IVL
4 AvfallSverige, Energi fr an avfall ur ett internationellt perspektiv Report 1462 (In Swedish with English summary).
(Energy from waste in an international perspective). Report 2008:13 19 G. Finnveden, A. C. Albertsson, J. Berendson, E. Eriksson,
(In Swedish), 2008b. L. O. H€ oglund, S. Karlsson and J.-O. Sundqvist, Solid waste
5 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of treatment within the framework of life-cycle assessment, J. Clean.
19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives, EU, Prod., 1995, 3, 189–199.
2008. 20 A. Baky and O. Eriksson, Systems Analysis of Organic Household
6 A. Bj€ orklund and G. Finnveden, Recycling revisited - life cycle Waste Management in Denmark: Environmental Project #822,
comparisons of waste management strategies, Resour., Conserv. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark,
Recycl., 2005, 44, 309–317. 2003.
7 M. Olofsson, J. Sundberg & J. Sahlin, Evaluating waste incineration 21 A. Bj€orklund, Environmental System Analysis of Waste Management
as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental with emphasis on Substance Flows and Environmental Impact,
point of view, 13th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy licentiate thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and
Conference, 2005, Orlando, Florida, May 23–25. Technology, Division of Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of
8 S. Tyskeng and G. Finnveden, Comparing energy use and Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (TRITA-KET-IM 1998:16, AFR
environmental impacts of recycling and waste incineration, Report 211) 1998.
J. Environ. Eng., 2009, submitted. 22 AvfallSverige 2008c, Energy Report (Status 2006), Results of Specific
9 WRAP, Environmental benefits of recycling - an international review of Data for Energy, Efficiency Rates, Plant Efficiency Factors, NCV and
life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector, Determination of the Main Energy Results of 20 Investigated Swedish
Water and Resource Action Program, Oxon, UK, 2006. W-t-E Plants, Report F2008:06.
10 J. Mohn, S. Szidat, J. Fellner, H. Rechberger, R. Quartier, 23 H. Merrild, A. Damgaard and T. H. Christensen, Life cycle
B. Buchmann and L. Emmenegger, Determination of biogenic and assessment of waste paper management: The importance of
fossil CO2 emitted by waste incineration based on 14CO2 and mass technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and
balances, Bioresour. Technol., 2008, 99, 6471–6479. incineration, Resour., Conserv. Recycl., 2008, 52, 1391–1398.
11 B. Bahor, K. Weitz and A. Szargot, Updated analysis of greenhouse 24 Renova, Milj€ orapport 2007 f€ or avfallskraftv€ armeverket och
gas emissions and mitigation from municipal solid waste management f€
orbehandlingsanl€aggningen, inklusive  atervinningscentralen vid
options using a carbon balance, Proceedings of Global Waste S€aven€as (Environmental report 2007 for waste CHP and pre-
Management Symposium, Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA, 2008. treatment facility, including the recycling central at S€ aven€
as), dnr
12 National Encyclopaedia, 2009, http://www.ne.se. 0222/08 (In Swedish), 2008.
13 R. Clift, A. Doig and G. Finnveden, The Application of Life Cycle 25 S. Uppenberg, M. Brandel, L.-G. Lindfors, H.-O. Marcus,
Assessment to Integrated Solid Waste Management, Part I - A. Wachtmeister and L. Zetterberg, Milj€ ofaktabok f€
or br€
anslen Del
Methodology, Trans. IChemE, 2000, 78(Part B), 279–287. 2. Bakgrundsinformation och teknisk bilaga (Environmental data on
14 G. Finnveden, Methodological Aspects of Life Cycle Assessment of fuels Part 2: Background information and technical appendix),
Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems, Resour., Conserv. Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), Stockholm,
Recycl., 1999, 26, 173–187. Sweden (IVL report B 1334 B) (In Swedish), 1999.
15 ISO 14040 International Standard. Environmental management - Life 26 G. Finnveden, A world with CO2 caps, Int. J. LCA, 2008, 13, 365–367.
cycle assessment - Principles and framework, International 27 IPCC, Climate change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Contribution
Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
16 T. Ekvall and B. P. Weidema, System Boundaries and Input Data in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Consequential Life Cycle Inventory Analysis, Int. J. LCA, 2004, 9(3), Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
161–171. 2007, 996 pp.

914 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 907–914 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2009
View publication stats

You might also like