4.7 Article

Material and energy recovery in integrated waste management systems: Project overview and main results

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 31, 期 9-10, 页码 2057-2065

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.016

关键词

Integrated waste management; Material recovery; Energy recovery; Waste-to-energy; Mass and energy balance; Environmental indicators; Life cycle assessment

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Instruction, University and Research
  2. LEAP (Laboratorio Energia Ambiente Piacenza)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes the context, the basic assumptions and the main findings of a joint research project aimed at identifying the optimal breakdown between material recovery and energy recovery from municipal solid waste (MSW) in the framework of integrated waste management systems (IWMS). The project was carried out from 2007 to 2009 by five research groups at Politecnico di Milano, the Universities of Bologna and Trento, and the Bocconi University (Milan), with funding from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR). Since the optimization of IWMSs by analytical methods is practically impossible, the search for the most attractive strategy was carried out by comparing a number of relevant recovery paths from the point of view of mass and energy flows, technological features, environmental impact and economics. The main focus has been on mature processes applicable to MSW in Italy and Europe. Results show that, contrary to a rather widespread opinion, increasing the source separation level (SSL) has a very marginal effects on energy efficiency. What does generate very significant variations in energy efficiency is scale, i.e. the size of the waste-to-energy (WTE) plant. The mere value of SSL is inadequate to qualify the recovery system. The energy and environmental outcome of recovery depends not only on how much source separation is carried out, but rather on how a given SSL is reached. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据