Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from three alternative waste combustion concepts

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.

► Significant GHG reductions are possible by efficient WtE technologies.
► CHP and high power-to-heat ratio provide significant GHG savings.
► N2O and coal mine type are important in LCA GHG emissions of FBC co-combustion.
► Substituting coal and fuel oil by waste is beneficial in electricity and heat production.
► Substituting natural gas by waste may not be reasonable in CHP generation.