Manfredi Simone, Christensen Thomas H
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Building 115, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Waste Manag. 2009 Jan;29(1):32-43. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.021. Epub 2008 Apr 28.
By using life cycle assessment (LCA) modeling, this paper compares the environmental performance of six landfilling technologies (open dump, conventional landfill with flares, conventional landfill with energy recovery, standard bioreactor landfill, flushing bioreactor landfill and semi-aerobic landfill) and assesses the influence of the active operations practiced on these performances. The environmental assessments have been performed by means of the LCA-based tool EASEWASTE, whereby the functional unit utilized for the LCA is "landfilling of 1ton of wet household waste in a 10m deep landfill for 100 years". The assessment criteria include standard categories (global warming, nutrient enrichment, ozone depletion, photo-chemical ozone formation and acidification), toxicity-related categories (human toxicity and ecotoxicity) and impact on spoiled groundwater resources. Results demonstrate that it is crucially important to ensure the highest collection efficiency of landfill gas and leachate since a poor capture compromises the overall environmental performance. Once gas and leachate are collected and treated, the potential impacts in the standard environmental categories and on spoiled groundwater resources significantly decrease, although at the same time specific emissions from gas treatment lead to increased impact potentials in the toxicity-related categories. Gas utilization for energy recovery leads to saved emissions and avoided impact potentials in several environmental categories. Measures should be taken to prevent leachate infiltration to groundwater and it is essential to collect and treat the generated leachate. The bioreactor technologies recirculate the collected leachate to enhance the waste degradation process. This allows the gas collection period to be reduced from 40 to 15 years, although it does not lead to noticeable environmental benefits when considering a 100 years LCA-perspective. In order to more comprehensively understand the influence of the active operations (i.e., leachate recirculation, waste flushing and air injection) on the environmental performance, the time horizon of the assessment has been split into two time periods: years 0-15 and 16-100. Results show that if these operations are combined with gas utilization and leachate treatment, they are able to shorten the time frame that emissions lead to environmental impacts of concern.
通过使用生命周期评估(LCA)模型,本文比较了六种填埋技术(露天垃圾场、带火炬的传统填埋场、带能量回收的传统填埋场、标准生物反应器填埋场、冲洗式生物反应器填埋场和半好氧填埋场)的环境绩效,并评估了所实施的主动操作对这些绩效的影响。环境评估借助基于LCA的工具EASEWASTE进行,其中LCA使用的功能单元是“在一个10米深的填埋场中填埋1吨湿生活垃圾,为期100年”。评估标准包括标准类别(全球变暖、营养物质富集、臭氧层损耗、光化学臭氧形成和酸化)、与毒性相关的类别(人体毒性和生态毒性)以及对受污染地下水资源的影响。结果表明,确保填埋气和渗滤液的最高收集效率至关重要,因为收集不佳会损害整体环境绩效。一旦收集并处理了气体和渗滤液,标准环境类别以及对受污染地下水资源的潜在影响会显著降低,尽管与此同时,气体处理产生的特定排放会导致与毒性相关类别中的影响潜力增加。将气体用于能量回收可减少排放,并避免在几个环境类别中产生影响潜力。应采取措施防止渗滤液渗入地下水,并且收集和处理产生的渗滤液至关重要。生物反应器技术使收集到的渗滤液再循环,以加强废物降解过程。这可将气体收集期从40年缩短至15年,不过从100年的LCA视角来看,这并不会带来显著的环境效益。为了更全面地了解主动操作(即渗滤液再循环、废物冲洗和空气注入)对环境绩效的影响,评估的时间范围被划分为两个时间段:0至15年和16至100年。结果表明,如果将这些操作与气体利用和渗滤液处理相结合,它们能够缩短排放导致所关注环境影响的时间框架。