Suppr超能文献

废物管理中的温室气体排放——量化方法评估。

Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management--assessment of quantification methods.

机构信息

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2011 May;61(5):480-93. doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.61.5.480.

Abstract

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities' corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities-Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of -53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.

摘要

在城市温室气体(GHG)排放的众多来源中,固体废物是唯一由市政府自身主要负责管理决策的来源,因此通常也是城市企业清单中最大的组成部分。决策者选择适当的量化方法并了解方法的优缺点至关重要。这项工作比较了四种不同的废物排放量化方法,包括政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)1996 年指南、IPCC 2006 年指南、美国环境保护署(EPA)废物减排模型(WARM)和加拿大联邦城市-气候保护合作伙伴(FCM-PCP)量化工具。所有方法均使用 2005 年大多伦多地区(GTA)的废物处置数据;在方法中,检查了可用的处理选项(包括垃圾填埋、焚烧、堆肥和厌氧消化)。垃圾填埋场被证明是温室气体排放的最大来源,占与废物管理相关的总排放量的四分之三以上。不同的垃圾填埋气(LFG)量化方法的结果从一个 557 千吨二氧化碳当量(CO2e)的排放源(FCM-PCP)到一个 53 千吨 CO2e 的碳汇(EPA WARM)。IPCC 方法之间也获得了类似的值。发现 IPCC 2006 方法更适合清单应用,因为它使用废物原地(WIP)方法,而不是甲烷承诺(MC)方法,尽管 WIP 方法需要大量数据。尽管对未来参数值的预测存在不确定性,但 MC 方法从规划角度来看是有用的;因此,限制了它们在温室气体清单编制中的适用性。在这种情况下,MC 和 WIP 方法提供了类似的结果;然而,这是具体情况,因为目前和未来垃圾填埋场参数的假设以及近年来每年沉积的废物数量的相似性相对一致。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验