Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts

Pasi Vainikka (Corresponding Author), Eemeli Tsupari, Kai Sipilä, M. Hupa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO2-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)426-437
Number of pages12
JournalWaste Management
Volume32
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

greenhouse gas
combustion
power generation
natural gas
coal
combined heat and power
municipal solid waste
energy
electricity
fossil
heating
fluidised bed
emission reduction

Keywords

  • Co-combustion
  • coal
  • combustion
  • emissions
  • energy model
  • greenhouse gas
  • municipal solid waste
  • solid recovered fuel

Cite this

Vainikka, Pasi ; Tsupari, Eemeli ; Sipilä, Kai ; Hupa, M. / Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts. In: Waste Management. 2012 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 426-437.
@article{28da7ca485f947feae64576a503db7b1,
title = "Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts",
abstract = "Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35{\%} and 41{\%} in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28{\%} (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO2-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.",
keywords = "Co-combustion, coal, combustion, emissions, energy model, greenhouse gas, municipal solid waste, solid recovered fuel",
author = "Pasi Vainikka and Eemeli Tsupari and Kai Sipil{\"a} and M. Hupa",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "426--437",
journal = "Waste Management",
issn = "0956-053X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts. / Vainikka, Pasi (Corresponding Author); Tsupari, Eemeli; Sipilä, Kai; Hupa, M.

In: Waste Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2012, p. 426-437.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts

AU - Vainikka, Pasi

AU - Tsupari, Eemeli

AU - Sipilä, Kai

AU - Hupa, M.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO2-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.

AB - Three alternative condensing mode power and combined heat and power (CHP) waste-to-energy concepts were compared in terms of their impacts on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a heat and power generation system. The concepts included (i) grate, (ii) bubbling fluidised bed (BFB) and (iii) circulating fluidised bed (CFB) combustion of waste. The BFB and CFB take advantage of advanced combustion technology which enabled them to reach electric efficiency up to 35% and 41% in condensing mode, respectively, whereas 28% (based on the lower heating value) was applied for the grate fired unit. A simple energy system model was applied in calculating the GHG emissions in different scenarios where coal or natural gas was substituted in power generation and mix of fuel oil and natural gas in heat generation by waste combustion. Landfilling and waste transportation were not considered in the model. GHG emissions were reduced significantly in all of the considered scenarios where the waste combustion concepts substituted coal based power generation. With the exception of condensing mode grate incinerator the different waste combustion scenarios resulted approximately in 1 Mton of fossil CO2-eq. emission reduction per 1 Mton of municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerated. When natural gas based power generation was substituted by electricity from the waste combustion significant GHG emission reductions were not achieved.

KW - Co-combustion

KW - coal

KW - combustion

KW - emissions

KW - energy model

KW - greenhouse gas

KW - municipal solid waste

KW - solid recovered fuel

U2 - 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010

DO - 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.010

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 426

EP - 437

JO - Waste Management

JF - Waste Management

SN - 0956-053X

IS - 3

ER -