4.8 Article

Systematic Exploration of Efficient Strategies to Manage Solid Waste in US Municipalities: Perspectives from the Solid Waste Optimization Life-Cycle Framework (SWOLF)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 7, 页码 3625-3631

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es500052h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Environmental Research and Educational Foundation
  3. Fiessinger Fellowship from the Environmental Research and Education Foundation
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1034059] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid waste management (SWM) systems must proactively adapt to changing policy requirements, waste composition, and an evolving energy system to sustainably manage future solid waste. This study represents the first application of an optimizable dynamic life-cycle assessment framework capable of considering these future changes. The framework was used to draw insights by analyzing the SWM system of a hypothetical suburban U.S. city of 100 000 people over 30 years while considering changes to population, waste generation, and energy mix and costs. The SWM system included 3 waste generation sectors, 30 types of waste materials, and 9 processes for waste separation, treatment, and disposal. A business-as-usual scenario (BAU) was compared to three optimization scenarios that (1) minimized cost (Min Cost), (2) maximized diversion (Max Diversion), and (3) minimized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Min GHG) from the system. The MM Cost scenario saved $7.2 million (12%) and reduced GHG emissions (3%) relative to the BAU scenario. Compared to the Max Diversion scenario, the MM GHG scenario cost approximately 27% less and more than doubled the net reduction in GHG emissions. The results illustrate how the timed-deployment of technologies in response to changes in waste composition and the energy system results in more efficient SWM system performance compared to what is possible from static analyses.

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

4.8
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