Garg A, Smith R, Hill D, Longhurst P J, Pollard S J T, Simms N J
Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK.
Waste Manag. 2009 Aug;29(8):2289-97. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.031. Epub 2009 May 13.
This paper reports an integrated appraisal of options for utilising solid recovered fuels (SRF) (derived from municipal solid waste, MSW) in energy intensive industries within the United Kingdom (UK). Four potential co-combustion scenarios have been identified following discussions with industry stakeholders. These scenarios have been evaluated using (a) an existing energy and mass flow framework model, (b) a semi-quantitative risk analysis, (c) an environmental assessment and (d) a financial assessment. A summary of results from these evaluations for the four different scenarios is presented. For the given ranges of assumptions; SRF co-combustion with coal in cement kilns was found to be the optimal scenario followed by co-combustion of SRF in coal-fired power plants. The biogenic fraction in SRF (ca. 70%) reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions significantly ( approximately 2500 g CO(2) eqvt./kg DS SRF in co-fired cement kilns and approximately 1500 g CO(2) eqvt./kg DS SRF in co-fired power plants). Potential reductions in electricity or heat production occurred through using a lower calorific value (CV) fuel. This could be compensated for by savings in fuel costs (from SRF having a gate fee) and grants aimed at reducing GHG emission to encourage the use of fuels with high biomass fractions. Total revenues generated from coal-fired power plants appear to be the highest ( 95 pounds/t SRF) from the four scenarios. However overall, cement kilns appear to be the best option due to the low technological risks, environmental emissions and fuel cost. Additionally, cement kiln operators have good experience of handling waste derived fuels. The scenarios involving co-combustion of SRF with MSW and biomass were less favourable due to higher environmental risks and technical issues.
本文报告了对英国能源密集型行业利用固体回收燃料（SRF，源自城市固体废物，MSW）的各种方案的综合评估。在与行业利益相关者进行讨论后，确定了四种潜在的共燃情景。已使用（a）现有的能量和质量流框架模型、（b）半定量风险分析、（c）环境评估和（d）财务评估对这些情景进行了评估。给出了这四种不同情景评估结果的总结。在给定的假设范围内，发现SRF与水泥窑中的煤共燃是最佳情景，其次是在燃煤发电厂中与煤共燃。SRF中的生物成分（约70%）显著减少了温室气体（GHG）排放（在共燃水泥窑中约为2500克二氧化碳当量/千克干物质SRF，在共燃发电厂中约为1500克二氧化碳当量/千克干物质SRF）。使用低热值（CV）燃料会导致电力或热量生产的潜在减少。这可以通过燃料成本节省（来自SRF有入场费）和旨在减少GHG排放以鼓励使用高生物质成分燃料的补贴来弥补。在这四种情景中，燃煤发电厂产生的总收入似乎最高（95英镑/吨SRF）。然而总体而言，水泥窑似乎是最佳选择，因为技术风险低、环境排放少且燃料成本低。此外，水泥窑运营商在处理衍生燃料方面有良好经验。涉及SRF与MSW和生物质共燃的情景不太有利，因为环境风险和技术问题较高。
