4.5 Article

Recycling of Coal Fly Ash as an Example of an Efficient Circular Economy: A Stakeholder Approach

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14123597

Keywords

coal fly ash; coal combustion products; coal-fired power plants; circular economy recycling efficiency; stakeholder interaction; environmental and social benefits

Categories

Funding

  1. [FSRW-2020-0014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines the issue of coal fly ash recycling from the perspective of stakeholders, assessing the economic benefits and conflicts of interest in such projects and highlighting the reasons for the low interest of the Russian private sector, which include a lack of market incentives and high risks associated with clean coal technologies.
The scale of waste formation from coal-fired generation is significant and tends to grow steadily in the context of the global use of coal for power production. This paper covers the problems and current opportunities for recycling coal fly ash waste from coal generation from the position of a stakeholder approach, namely, identification of the main participants and determination of the effects for economic agents in coal fly ash recycling projects. Based on the method of economic modeling and the empirical assessment of project efficiency, this paper presents alternative patterns of stakeholder interaction in the process of implementing coal fly ash recycling projects, estimates the effects of using coal fly ash, and identifies conflicting interests between stakeholders. It is shown that the reason behind the low interest of the Russian private sector in the processing of coal fly ash is the lack of stimulating market mechanisms for manufacturers and consumers of ash products, the high risks of implementing recycling projects based on clean coal technologies, and low environmental payments for commercial companies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available