4.6 Article

Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in France: An Overview of Air Pollution Control Techniques, Emissions, and Energy Efficiency

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 1016-1026

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12701

关键词

air emissions; APC; energy; industrial ecology; LCI; MSW incineration

资金

  1. French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In France, municipal solid waste (MSW) is primarily incinerated. This study aims at providing a complete, up-to-date, description of French MSW incineration regarding its technological, environmental, and energy features, in a context where these features are decisive for robust life cycle assessments (LCAs) to be performed. Data relative to, respectively, air pollution control (APC) techniques, consumption of reagents, air emissions and energy consumption and recovery were collected with respect to 90 French MSW incineration plants, considering the period 2012-2015. The compiled data set is representative for approximately 73% of the total mass of MSW annually incinerated in France (10.65 million tonnes of MSW in 2012). The analysis of the collected data first enables to determine the most used APC techniques in the French MSW incineration sector, respectively distinguishing dedusting + acid gas treatment and DeNOx + abatement of dioxins. Moreover, the statistical parameters that characterize the consumption of reagents in the French MSW incineration sector are provided as a function of APC techniques. Furthermore, regarding eight pollutants usually considered (at least partly) process specific in the LCA of MSW incineration (NOx, dust, dioxins, NH3, CO, volatile organic compounds, HCl, and SOx), this study discusses the significancein a statistical point of viewof differences in incineration air emission factors from one APC technique to the other. Finally, average energy consumption and energy recovery efficiency of the French MSW incineration sector are provided and discussed.

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

4.6
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