There has been a considerable amount of academic research performed in the area of evaluating the feasibility of WTE systems through technology, environmental, and economical analysis. Some of these studies have been done by Jamasb and Nepal (2010), Zaman (2010), Evangelisti et al (2013) and Nixon et al (2013).
Jamasb and Nepal (2010) assessed the economic and environmental aspects of waste management options in the UK with focus on waste management targets and carbon prices, and the results were then compared with the conventional coal fired power systems. Comparisons were made through developing a social cost benefit analysis of recycling, energy recovery through landfill gas, incineration and coal power generation. The paper concluded that WTE is cost effective in comparison to a coal-fired plant, but the technology requires government policies and subsidies to allow the market to develop. This study could be further developed by including other advanced WTE technologies such as AD and ATT in the assessment, as well as taking into consideration the more recent developments in UK renewable energy government policies.
In another paper, Zaman (2010) analysed the environmental performances of three waste treatment technologies: sanitary landfill with energy recovery, incineration and gasification-pyrolysis. The methodology used was through conducting life cycle analysis (LCA) with SimaPro software, with the context of a Swedish waste treatment system. The author concluded
Waste treatment in London is not very energy-efficient or economical which is a cause for high taxes. An interesting alternative, in addition to recycling, is for household waste to be burned or converted to biogas to be used as a source of energy which can provide thousands of households with heat and electricity [13][14].
Kulczycka (2015) compared the demonstration of IWM-2 and SimaPro (Ecoinvent database) in which the calculation of the difference in results related to number, amount of emission (pollutants) and the consumption (materials and energy) was described. IWM-2 identified 31 types of emissions into the air for land filling while Ecoinvent identified 405 types of emissions into the air, and IWM-2 identified 39 types of emissions into water while Ecoinvent identified 403 types. The IWM-2 program did not cover the emissions into the soil, while the Ecoinvent database identified 60 types of impacts on landfill and 58 types of impacts for recycling
One of the new innovations is called Anaerobic digestion. This one of the best ways to deal with waste and gives a great to organic waste. Anaerobic digestion allows to turn the calumniating gases into energy. The process of anaerobic digestion is putting microorganisms in an environment with no oxygen to kill the bacteria. People will always produce bio waste, whether they produce food or sewage, anaerobic digestion is a great waste management system system but is also a source of renewable energy. Another innovation in dealing with waste is Waste to Energy also known as WTE. WTE has the benefit of being able to completely remove waste instead of reuse or process it. Usually the WTE plants operate by burning the waste and converting the resulting heat into energy. Now there are new types of WTE: gastification, pyrolysis, thermal deploymerization, and plasma arc gasification. Gastification is the process of changing into gas. Pyrolysis is the chemical change from the movement of heat. Thermal depolymerization is a process of the minimization of complex organic materials, usually waste products, into light crude oil. Plasma arc gastification is a process that converts organic matter into synthetic gas or electricity. These new ways of WTE are taking over in that
However, WTE is not just about burning trash but it is used to produce energy. The purpose of this paper is to outline how WTE plants work as well as the benefit the city stands to gain if it builds its own WTE facility. The city currently sends approximately 10% of its MSW to WTE plants in Hempstead, Long Island and Essex County, New Jersey (Cohen 2015, Citizen Budget Commission, 2012). If the city were to build its owns plant, it would save money from not spending on the transportation of waste and the use of other state’s landfills or WTE facilities. WTE has the ability to improve New York City’s current waste disposal practices (Citizen Budget Commission,
The adverse degradation of the environment as a result of human activities such as the disposal of waste to the environment in an unsustainable manner. About 70% of waste (controlled waste) is land filled in Scotland .The need to develop more robust waste management techniques to ensure that waste disposal to the environment is carried in such a way that it does not endanger human health and the environment. Land fill contributes substantially to the rising greenhouse gas which cause global warming. European Union Council, after series of public consultation with relevant stakeholders, set up a legislation known as the EU Waste Framework directive (75/442/EEC) in 1975 .It was amended in 1991 and 2008.It aims at reducing waste to landfill
It is estimated that every person in the UK produced 452kg of waste in 2010. Most of this waste was sent into landfills which is unsustainable. However, there is a decreasing use of landfills and an increase in recycling. For example, in 2004 33% of waste was recycled or composted compared to 45% in 2008. Landfill is when waste is dumped into old quarries or hollows, which is cheap in the short term but not sustainable. In the UK, landfill sites produced 36% of the nation’s methane emissions; this is not sustainable because greenhouse gasses cause climate change. However, there are developing technologies which allow the gases produced to be captured and used as a bio-fuel. In 2008, a landfill site in Mumbai captured the methane produced to generate electricity. This scheme is predicted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2 million tonnes by 2028.
To get around the issue of these powerful companies being upset from the negative financial impact from the move to zero carbon, a shift must be made in governmental policy. Perhaps the solution may not be punishing companies for producing too much pollution, but rewarding companies for producing much less. In this way, the market for carbon emissions will eventually disappear and naturally profit-seeking companies will aim to pursue activities, hunt for new strategies, and invest in infrastructure and equipment that result in lower carbon emissions.
The OECD consists of thirty democratic governments that focuses on the economic and environmental issues of globalization (OECD 2). The organization provided precautionary steps in order to ensure that wastes are handled in a way that will protect the environment from any effects and will protect the wellbeing of the people, whether the waste is being exported or being recycled (8). With this in mind, the OECD put into place some Core Performance Elements (CPEs) that are part of the recommendations by the OECD Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) Council (BIR 33). There were six CPEs identified and were deemed as common requirements in order to ensure that waste is handled in a way that is environmentally sound. Some of these CPEs include putting in place an Environmental Management System (EMS) in the facility, taking measures to safeguard the health and safety of the workers and the
{Why it is Important to Manage Your Health Centre's Waste Carefully|The Significance of Proper Health Centre Waste Management|Why Health Centres Must Manage Their Waste Carefully}
According to Wikipedia, Mumbai is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra. It is the most populous city in India, most populous metropolitan area in India, and the eighth most populous agglomeration in the world, with an estimated city population of 18.4 million and metropolitan area population of 20.7 million as of 2011 . According to the 2011 census, the population of Mumbai was 12,479,608. The population density is estimated to be about 20,482 persons per square kilometer. The living space is 4.5sq meter per person.
Waste management is crucial in American Society. It is crucial because it would save money, decrease pollution, improve the environment and the overall health of the population and future generations. In the 17th and 18th century, waste management was much less than it is today. By the 20th century the availability of newer, cheaper products increased. As the population has increased, so has the amount of waste. The U.S. Industry produces more than 46.7 million tons of hazardous waste each year and the average person creates more than four pounds of waste each day. In essence, America has earned the nickname “The Throw Away Society”. People are not likely to repair things and they just throw them away. People even throw away things that are perfectly good just because it is old or out of style. Landfills are well-engineered facilities that accept solid waste. Landfills are getting filled up by an alarming rate and therefore cities need more land to purchase to dispose of the accumulating waste. They are regulated by the state and local governments which all taxpayers support with their taxes. They are monitored for compliance by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
Although recycling has been around to some degree for many years the landfill crisis is demanding reform from consumers. There is an urgent need to reduce waste and recycle products. It is imperative to spare the environment from global warming due to greenhouse gases directly related to waste, lands being consumed by new landfills, and to prolong the use of existing landfills.
The resource recovery facility then burns the recyclable material. However, RDF plants are very expensive to operate and construct making the best option for waste to energy technology be mass burn incinerators. A mass burn incinerator is much closer related to the high polluting incinerators of the 1950s. This type of incinerator simply burns the garbage at high temperatures and uses the heat to drive a turbine that produces electricity. These modern incinerators must adhere to guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency therefore they have measures to limit their pollutant output. These include filters to catch ash and the toxic parts of the released gases. (Mckinney and Michael 531-32)
The American people are unintentionally destroying Waste Management by reducing and recycling the amount of waste. There is a disconnection between the people and Waste Management. Even though Waste Management has more landfill capacity than others, no one wants to increase its wasteland profit. The business environment and sociocultural has changed. The changing environment and the trend analysis has supported the idea of many companies choosing the zero-waste route. This will therefore reduce revenues for Waste Management, creating an ambiguous future for the corporation.
Environmental Impacts because of product use and end of life phases were evaluated as follows: