Giugliano M, Grosso M, Rigamonti L
DIIAR--Environmental Section, Politecnico of Milan, P.zza Leonardo da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy.
Waste Manag. 2008;28(1):39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.018. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
This paper reports the main outcome of research to compare and assess the merits of alternative strategies for energy recovery from municipal solid waste downstream of material recovery for an Italian province. Strategies analysed are based on well-established combustion technologies available at the commercial scale in the Italian market in comparison with an innovative but not yet proven option of refuse derived fuel gasification and subsequent co-combustion of syngas in a combined cycle power plant. The comparison is made using mass and energy balances, environmental assessment and economic analysis. From an energetic point of view, the best strategy is the one based on the refuse derived fuel gasification, which, on the contrary, does not show interesting environmental results. In this perspective, the best results are from strategies based on a dedicated plant, particularly when unsorted residual waste collected downstream of material recovery is used. Finally, from an economic point of view, the strategy with gasification allows the highest revenues from the sale of energy.
本文报告了一项研究的主要成果,该研究旨在比较和评估意大利一个省份在物料回收下游从城市固体废物中回收能源的替代策略的优缺点。与一种创新但尚未得到验证的选项(即垃圾衍生燃料气化以及随后在联合循环发电厂中对合成气进行共燃烧)相比,所分析的策略基于意大利市场上商业规模可用的成熟燃烧技术。通过质量和能量平衡、环境评估以及经济分析进行比较。从能源角度来看,最佳策略是基于垃圾衍生燃料气化的策略,然而,该策略在环境方面的结果并不理想。从这个角度来看,最佳结果来自基于专用工厂的策略,特别是当使用在物料回收下游收集的未分类残余废物时。最后,从经济角度来看,气化策略能带来最高的能源销售收入。