Environment Institute, University College London, Pearson Building, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT London, United Kingdom.
Waste Manag. 2011 Mar;31(3):561-71. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.023.
An intense waste management (WM) planning activity is currently undergoing in England to build the infrastructure necessary to treat residual wastes, increase recycling levels and the recovery of energy from waste. From the analyses of local WM strategic and planning documents we have identified the emerging of three different energy recovery strategies: established combustion of residual waste; pre-treatment of residual waste and energy recovery from Solid Recovered Fuel in a dedicated plant, usually assumed to be a gasifier; pre-treatment of residual waste and reliance on the market to accept the 'fuel from waste' so produced. Each energy recovery strategy will result in a different solution in terms of the technology selected; moreover, on the basis of the favoured solution, the total number, scale and location of thermal treatment plants built in England will dramatically change. To support the evaluation and comparison of these three WM strategy in terms of global environmental impacts, energy recovery possibilities and performance with respect to changing 'fuel from waste' market conditions, the LCA comparison of eight alternative WM scenarios for a real case study dealing with a large flow of municipal wastes was performed with the modelling tool WRATE. The large flow of waste modelled allowed to formulate and assess realistic alternative WM scenarios and to design infrastructural systems which are likely to correspond to those submitted for approval to the local authorities. The results show that all alternative scenarios contribute to saving abiotic resources and reducing global warming potential. Particularly relevant to the current English debate, the performance of a scenario was shown to depend not from the thermal treatment technology but from a combination of parameters, among which most relevant are the efficiency of energy recovery processes (both electricity and heat) and the calorific value of residual waste and pre-treated material. The contribution and relative importance of recycling and treatment/recovery processes change with the impact category. The lack of reprocessing plants in the area of the case study has shown the relevance of transport distances for recyclate material in reducing the efficiency of a WM system. Highly relevant to the current English WM infrastructural debate, these results for the first time highlight the risk of a significant reduction in the energy that could be recovered by local WM strategies relying only on the market to dispose of the 'fuel from waste' in a non dedicated plant in the case that the SRF had to be sent to landfill for lack of treatment capacity.
目前,英格兰正在进行一项紧张的废物管理 (WM) 规划活动,以建设必要的基础设施来处理残余废物,提高回收水平并从废物中回收能源。从对当地 WM 战略和规划文件的分析中,我们已经确定了三种不同的能源回收策略的出现:已建立的残余废物燃烧;残余废物的预处理和在专用工厂中从固体回收燃料 (SRF) 中回收能源,通常假定为气化器;残余废物的预处理和依赖市场接受由此产生的“废物燃料”。每种能源回收策略都将导致所选技术的不同解决方案;此外,根据首选解决方案,在英格兰建造的热处理厂的总数、规模和位置将发生巨大变化。为了支持对这三种 WM 策略进行全球环境影响、能源回收可能性以及针对不断变化的“废物燃料”市场条件的性能的评估和比较,使用建模工具 WRATE 对涉及大量城市废物流量的实际案例研究的八种替代 WM 情景进行了生命周期评估比较。模拟的大量废物允许制定和评估现实的替代 WM 情景,并设计基础设施系统,这些系统可能与提交给地方当局批准的系统相对应。结果表明,所有替代情景都有助于节约非生物资源并减少全球变暖潜力。与当前英国的辩论特别相关的是,一个情景的性能不仅取决于热处理技术,还取决于参数的组合,其中最重要的是能源回收过程的效率(电和热)以及残余废物和预处理材料的热值。回收和处理/回收过程的贡献和相对重要性因影响类别而异。案例研究区域缺乏再加工工厂表明,对于减少 WM 系统效率,再循环材料的运输距离至关重要。与当前英国 WM 基础设施辩论高度相关的是,这些结果首次强调了,如果由于缺乏处理能力而不得不将 SRF 送往垃圾填埋场,那么仅依靠市场在非专用工厂处理“废物燃料”的当地 WM 策略可能会导致可回收能源显着减少的风险。