4.7 Article

Life-cycle environmental and cost impacts of reusing fly ash

期刊

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 255-260

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.001

关键词

MSWI fly ash; EAF ash; Life-cycle assessment; Cost-benefit analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) fly ash, which includes residues collected from semidry scrubbers and bag filters, is a common hazardous waste that is difficult to recycle. We evaluate a novel application of the reuse of MSWI fly ash as a substitute alkali reagent in the Waelz process at an electric arc furnace (EAF) ash recycling plant because of its economical and environmental benefits. Life-cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis were used to compare the application with other alternatives, namely, disposal in landfill after stabilization/solidification, reuse as part of raw material in a cement kiln, and reuse as part of aggregates in brick. Data from field experiments which were performed at a commercial EAF ash recycling plant in Taiwan were used for the evaluation. Our results show that the proposed application has the lowest environmental impact because the ZnO recycling of EAF ash is environmental friendly for reducing the excavation of zinc ore. In terms of economy, the higher sale price of the resulting cement product offers the best benefit among different applications in this research. After integration of environmental and economic effects, the application was still superior to the three alternatives. Although stabilization/solidification and subsequent disposal of MSWI fly ash is common practice, the scarcity of landfill sites and its volume leads to risks associated with operation of incinerators. Thus, finding multiple approaches to recycling of MSWI fly ash is necessary. This study provides a potential option for the recycling of MSWI fly ash and presents its environmental and economic benefits in management of fly ash from MSWIs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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