Environmental assessment of amending the Amager Bakke incineration plant in Copenhagen with carbon capture and storage.

Amending municipal solid waste incineration with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a new approach that can reduce the climate change impacts of waste incineration. This study provides a detailed analysis of the consequences of amending the new Amager Bakke incinerator in Copenhagen (capacity: 600,000 tonnes waste per year) with CCS as a post-combustion technology. Emphasis is on the changes in the energy flows and outputs as well as the environmental performance of the plant; the latter is assessed by life cycle assessment. Amending Amager Bakke with CCS of the chosen configuration reduces the electricity output by 50% due to steam use by the capture unit, but introducing post-capture flue gas condensation increases the heat output utilized in the Copenhagen district heating system by 20%. Thus, the overall net energy efficiency is not affected. The CCS amendment reduces the fossil CO2 emissions to 40 kg CO2 per tonne of incinerated waste and stores 530 kg biogenic CO2 per tonne of incinerated waste. Potential developments in the composition of the residual waste incinerated or in the energy systems that Amager Bakke interacts with, do not question the benefits of the CCS amendment. In terms of climate change impacts, considering different waste composition and energy system scenarios, introducing CCS reduces in average the impact of Amager Bakke by 850 kg CO2-equivalents per tonne of incinerated waste. CCS increases the environmental impacts in other categories, but not in the same order of magnitude as the savings introduced within climate change.

Environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a post-treatment technology in waste incineration.

The effects of amending municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) with carbon capture and storage (CCS) via MEA (Monoethanolamine) technology differ according to the air pollution control technologies and energy recovery systems. Electricity output reduces by one-third for power-only plants and halves for combined heat-and-power plants, while variations in heat recovery depend on the presence of flue gas condensation. MSWI with CCS can capture roughly 800 kg of compressed CO2 per tonne of waste treated. Life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling of MSWI, with and without CCS, illustrates that despite energy penalties, CCS lowers its climate change impact. The difference in climate change impacts as a result of CCS amendment depends on the energy system in which MSWI operates. In a near-future energy system, MSWI with CCS reduces climate change impacts by 700 kg CO2-eq/tonne wet waste compared to MSWI without CCS. The climate change saving of CCS became increasingly larger as the energy system became "greener"; the climate change saving ultimately approached the capture efficiency (85% of CO2 in the flue gas) multiplied by the carbon content of the waste converted to CO2. Sensitivity analysis showed that capture efficiency was the main factor affecting the overall results, with increasing importance in non-fossil fuel-based energy systems. Likely changes in residual waste composition, as source segregation and collection systems improve, had only minor effects on the environmental benefits of CCS. The effects of CCS amendments on 13 other impact categories were marginal compared to the effects of different MSWI configurations.

Estimation of marginal costs at existing waste treatment facilities.

This investigation aims at providing an improved basis for assessing economic consequences of alternative Solid Waste Management (SWM) strategies for existing waste facilities. A bottom-up methodology was developed to determine marginal costs in existing facilities due to changes in the SWM system, based on the determination of average costs in such waste facilities as function of key facility and waste compositional parameters. The applicability of the method was demonstrated through a case study including two existing Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities, one with co-generation of heat and power (CHP) and another with only power generation (Power), affected by diversion strategies of five waste fractions (fibres, plastic, metals, organics and glass), named "target fractions". The study assumed three possible responses to waste diversion in the WtE facilities: (i) biomass was added to maintain a constant thermal load, (ii) Refused-Derived-Fuel (RDF) was included to maintain a constant thermal load, or (iii) no reaction occurred resulting in a reduced waste throughput without full utilization of the facility capacity. Results demonstrated that marginal costs of diversion from WtE were up to eleven times larger than average costs and dependent on the response in the WtE plant. Marginal cost of diversion were between 39 and 287 € Mg(-1) target fraction when biomass was added in a CHP (from 34 to 303 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case), between -2 and 300 € Mg(-1) target fraction when RDF was added in a CHP (from -2 to 294 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case) and between 40 and 303 € Mg(-1) target fraction when no reaction happened in a CHP (from 35 to 296 € Mg(-1) target fraction in the only Power case). Although average costs at WtE facilities were highly influenced by energy selling prices, marginal costs were not (provided a response was initiated at the WtE to keep constant the utilized thermal capacity). Failing to systematically address and include costs in existing waste facilities in decision-making may unintendedly lead to higher overall costs at societal level. To avoid misleading conclusions, economic assessment of alternative SWM solutions should not only consider potential costs associated with alternative treatment but also include marginal costs associated with existing facilities.

Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration.

Incineration of municipal solid waste is a debated waste management technology. In some countries it is the main waste management option whereas in other countries it has been disregarded. The main discussion point on waste incineration is the release of air emissions from the combustion of the waste, but also the energy recovery efficiency has a large importance. The historical development of air pollution control in waste incineration was studied through life-cycle-assessment modelling of eight different air pollution control technologies. The results showed a drastic reduction in the release of air emissions and consequently a significant reduction in the potential environmental impacts of waste incineration. Improvements of a factor 0.85-174 were obtained in the different impact potentials as technology developed from no emission control at all, to the best available emission control technologies of today (2010). The importance of efficient energy recovery was studied through seven different combinations of heat and electricity recovery, which were modelled to substitute energy produced from either coal or natural gas. The best air pollution control technology was used at the incinerator. It was found that when substituting coal based energy production total net savings were obtained in both the standard and toxic impact categories. However, if the substituted energy production was based on natural gas, only the most efficient recovery options yielded net savings with respect to the standard impacts. With regards to the toxic impact categories, emissions from the waste incineration process were always larger than those from the avoided energy production based on natural gas. The results shows that the potential environmental impacts from air emissions have decreased drastically during the last 35 years and that these impacts can be partly or fully offset by recovering energy which otherwise should have been produced from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.