Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: Case study of KARTAMANTUL region, Yogyakarta

Gunamantha, I Made; Sarto, Sarto

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.008

Cited by 76 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 shows that conventional EfW is environmentally more advantageous than landfill as a means of managing residual municipal waste in each impact category. These results confirm previous studies (Hanan, 2012;Gunamantha and Sarto, 2012;Assamoi and Lawryshyn, 2012, for example).…”

Section: Overallsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Other authors have considered the entire municipal waste stream and these tended to focus on comparisons between landfill and thermal processing (Gunamantha and Sarto, 2012;Assamoi and Lawryshyn, 2012, for example) or on comparing different thermal processing technologies (for example, Bates, 2009;Watson et al, 2009;Burnley et al, 2012;Rigamonti et al, 2012). The results of these studies were all highly dependent on the thermal efficiency of the energy recovery process and the conventional fuel displaced by the recovery process.…”

Section: Review Of Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors influencing the life cycle burdens of the recovery of energy from residual municipal waste

Burnley

Coleman²,

Peirce

2015

Waste Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tA life cycle assessment was carried out to assess a selection of the factors influencing the environmental impacts and benefits of incinerating the fraction of municipal waste remaining after source-separation for reuse, recycling, composting or anaerobic digestion. The factors investigated were the extent of any metal and aggregate recovery from the bottom ash, the thermal efficiency of the process, and the conventional fuel for electricity generation displaced by the power generated. The results demonstrate that incineration has significant advantages over landfill with lower impacts from climate change, resource depletion, acidification, eutrophication human toxicity and aquatic ecotoxicity. To maximise the benefits of energy recovery, metals, particularly aluminium, should be reclaimed from the residual bottom ash and the energy recovery stage of the process should be as efficient as possible. The overall environmental benefits/burdens of energy from waste also strongly depend on the source of the power displaced by the energy from waste, with coal giving the greatest benefits and combined cycle turbines fuelled by natural gas the lowest of those considered. Regardless of the conventional power displaced incineration presents a lower environmental burden than landfill.

show abstract

Section: Overallsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Review Of Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the life cycle burdens of the recovery of energy from residual municipal waste

Burnley

Coleman²,

Peirce

2015

Waste Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This value is relatively high compared to similar studies conducted by other authors. For example, Miliūte and Staniškis (2010) analysed the landfill option for the waste generated in the region of Alytus (Lithuania), a total of 45,150 t/year, obtaining a value of 51,230 t of CO 2 eq (1,135 kg CO 2 eq/t waste) for this impact category; Mendes et al (2004) obtained a value of around 900 kg CO 2 eq/t waste for this impact category when analysing the landfill of waste generated in the city of Sao Paulo in Brazil; while Gunamantha and Sarto (2012) obtained a value of 188 kg CO 2 eq/t waste for a similarly defined scenario for three cities in the region of Yogyakarta in Indonesia. The high value obtained in our study may be due to the fact that the energy recovery considered in our case only refers to electricity generation, without taking into consideration the production of heat, which could also be obtained, given that this possibility is not currently available at the management centre's facilities.…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 97%

Life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management options: a case study of Asturias (Spain)

Fernández-Nava

Río

Rodríguez-Iglesias

et al. 2014

Journal of Cleaner Production

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses six strategies for managing the MSW generated in Asturias (Spain) in terms of their environmental impacts applying the Life Cycle Analysis methodology.To this end, the effect of these strategies on Human Health, Ecosystem Quality, GlobalWarming and Resource Depletion is studied. The analysed management options include direct landfill with recovery of biogas (S-0), direct incineration with energy recovery (S-1), biomethanization of the source-separated organic fraction with direct incineration of the mixed fraction (S-2), biomethanization of the source-separated organic fraction, sorting of the mixed fraction and incineration of the rejected fraction (S-3), biomethanization of the source-separated organic fraction, sorting of the mixed fraction and incineration of the rejected fraction following aerobic stabilization of the organic fraction (S-4 ) and biomethanization of the source-separated organic fraction, sorting of the mixed fraction and landfill of the rejected following aerobic stabilization of the organic fraction (S-5). The Consortium for Waste Management (COGERSA) provide data regarding on transport and collection of waste and consumption of energy, water, oil and reagents at each processes. The results obtained suggest that Scenario S-3 has the least impact on the analysed damage categories while the scenarios including landfilling produces the greatest impact in all the categories analysed. Regarding involved processes in studied scenarios, the transport produces a significant impact in the environment, biomethanization contributes to reducing the impact in all the damage categories and incineration adversely affects the categories of Human Health and Climate Change, but helps to reduce damage in the Resources category. M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT NUMBER OF WORDS INCLUDING REFERENCES,

show abstract

“…Insinerasi dilakukan dengan menggunakan sebuah sistem recovery energi [8]. Energi yang ditimbulkan dihitung berdasarkan nilai kalor/panas sampah yang lebih rendah (Lower Heating Value/LHV) yang diasumsikan untuk efisiensi energi dan penggunaan energi internal adalah 18% dan 15% dari energi listrik yang dihasilkan.…”

Section: Analisis Potensi Sampah Sebagai Bahanunclassified

Potensi Material Sampah Combustible pada Zona Pasif TPA Jatibarang Semarang sebagai Bahan Baku RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel)

Hutabarat¹,

Priyambada

Samudro

et al. 2018

jtm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: Case study of KARTAMANTUL region, Yogyakarta

Cited by 76 publications

References 18 publications

Factors influencing the life cycle burdens of the recovery of energy from residual municipal waste

Factors influencing the life cycle burdens of the recovery of energy from residual municipal waste

Life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management options: a case study of Asturias (Spain)

Potensi Material Sampah Combustible pada Zona Pasif TPA Jatibarang Semarang sebagai Bahan Baku RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About