Life Cycle Analysis Cradle to Grave for Municipal Solid Waste in Turkey

Life Cycle Analysis Cradle to Grave

life cycle analysis cradle to grave (LCA) for Solid waste management methods considered in the following scenario. The scenario is waste collection and transportation, source reduction, Material Recovery Facility (MRF) / Transfer Station (TS), incineration, anaerobic digestion, and landfill.

So that we can compare each scenario it is necessary to measure it based on functional units. In this case the amount of solid waste generated in the Ankara district is suitable as a functional unit.

Life Cycle Analysis Cradle to Grave
Life Cycle Analysis Cradle to Grave for Municipal Solid Waste in Turkey

The impact category to be calculated is

  • Reduced non-renewable energy sources,
  • final solid waste as hazardous and harmless materials,
  • global warming,
  • acidification,
  • eutrophication and
  • human toxicity.

Each impact category is classified based on the Input and output of each stage of management. Impacts are calculated by weighing each category to develop an environmental profile of each scenario

After the environmental impact assessment has been carried out the next stage of interpretation and improvement assessment, the aim of this stage is to be further evaluated and recommendations made to improve the current waste management system in the city of Ankara.

Every activity from the production of raw materials to the final disposal of waste must be thoroughly examined. Therefore, the LCA methodology (life cycle analysis cradle to grave) is used to examine environmental impacts from start to finish (from cradle to grave).

It has proven itself very useful as a technique for comparing two or more alternative options in relation to their potential environmental impact and combined ecological sustainability.

Impact assessment under the new law analyzes one specific activity. However, for system repair problems, sometimes it is still difficult to find the most influential point. Therefore, the LCA method (life cycle analysis cradle to grave) is suitable for analyzing this.

Life cycle analysis cradle to grave has been used as an effective environmental management tool in many studies

For example, life cycle analysis cradle to grave was used to compare the environmental impacts of different cars (Graedel et al., 1995), to compare the environmental impacts of using the main detergent making system (Morse et al., 1995), to lower the VOC content of paint at 0160-4120 / $ -see material front D 2005 Elsevier Ltd.

However, municipal solid waste management is still an unsolved problem in Turkey. Information on current municipal solid waste management practices, waste composition, total generation from households and commercial institutions, etc.,

According to the most recent study conducted in 2002, the annual solid waste collection was 25.37 million tonnes/year which offers cities with solid waste collection services in Turkey

The city government is authorized and responsible for the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste,

In the waste management system, the stages of collection and transportation are carried out by the city government; however, the requirements for recovery, storage, and disposal of solid waste cannot be carried out at the desired level

life cycle analysis cradle to grave (LCA) has a lot to offer in terms of selecting and implementing techniques, suitable MSW management technologies, and programs to achieve specific waste management goals and objectives.

The aim of this study is to use the life cycle analysis cradle to grave (LCA) as a tool to compare various solid waste management system options and determine the most viable system for Ankara, Turkey.

To this end, five different scenarios of municipal solid waste management systems (MSWMS) covering different methods of municipal solid waste treatment and/or disposal (MSWPDM) were developed and, subsequently, compared with respect to their environmental impacts and costs by using the Integrated Waste Management Model. (IWM) developed by White et al

Integrated waste management model (IWM) The IWM model developed by White et al.The flow of solid waste through its life cycle is followed in the model

Each stage in the solid waste life cycle is represented by a box containing input questions whose answers explain the solid waste management system is considered.

Although the waste material may be physically mixed, the different waste materials are kept separate in the model, which will be necessary to characterize the composition of the waste material, its heating value, and the effectiveness of any treatment process, anywhere. the point in the life cycle

unboxed in the model structure represents pre-sorting and collection, central sorting, material recycling, biological treatment, thermal treatment, and stockpiling

Methodology base on life cycle analysis cradle to grave

In each stage, as materials are recovered, they are subtracted from the waste stream


life cycle analysis cradle to grave
Life Cycle Analysis Cradle to Grave for Municipal Solid Waste in Turkey

C: collection,

T: transport,

L: landfilling,

MRF: material recovery facility,

SR: source reduction,

I: incineration,

AD: anaerobic digestion,

(- - -) system boundary,

(Y) inputs and outputs.

Result of life cycle analysis cradle to grave

The lowest energy use is obtained in Scenario 2. In all scenarios, the highest contribution to the net energy use impact category is due to the collection stage.

The use of clean energy is found to be the same at the collection stage in all scenarios except for Scenario 2, because the lower collection frequency is applied in Scenario 2. Since excess energy is produced in Scenario 4 from the combustion stage, the amount of energy is also less. consumed in this scenario

Excess energy production is due to a large number of inputs for the incineration process in Scenario 4.There is also energy production from Scenario 5, but as a total input for this

Base on life cycle analysis cradle to grave (LCA) The smaller scenario than Scenario 4, can be seen from Table 1, Scenario 5 contributes more to the category of net energy use.

In Scenario 5, there is not only a biological process but also a presentation to sort organic waste that requires energy.

Therefore, the energy consumption at the biological treatment stage is calculated to be higher than that of the energy production.

Scenario 3 uses less energy overall than Scenario 1, although there are other contributing stages such as MRF and TPA, due to the savings gained from the recycling phase of this scenario base on life cycle analysis cradle to grave.

In the solid waste category, non-hazardous solid waste and hazardous waste were compared (Table 1).

In the life cycle analysis cradle to grave perspective, The lowest contribution occurs in Scenario 4 related to the amount of non-hazardous solid waste, while the highest contribution is also obtained from this scenario for the amount of B3 waste.

Solid waste decomposes as a residue for processing waste and industrial solid waste generated from energy generation, and the production of fuel and other raw materials to landfills in Scenario 4.The amount of hazardous waste arising from residual processing of thermal processing waste as fly ash, and from leachate treatment in the TPA stage, Scenario 4. However, in another scenario, B3 waste only comes from leachate treatment at the TPA stage.

Therefore, the highest value is obtained from Scenario 4 regarding B3 waste.

As a result of reducing the source in Scenario 2, the secondary material obtained is higher than in other scenarios which result in less waste input to the TPA.

The scenario contribution for the global warming category can also be observed from Table 1. In the case of the global warming impact category, the least burden comes from Scenario 5, due to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by energy generators as a result of anaerobic. digestion.

If the only concern is the impact category of GW, the best available option is Scenario 5. Despite the high contribution from the collection and stockpiling phase in Scenario 2, it is observed as another option that is less contributing to GW, due to the frequency of collection applied in the scenario.

In all scenarios, the highest contribution to acidification was due to the collection stage.

However, the smallest potential is obtained from Scenario 2. The frequency of collection applied reduces energy consumption and the resulting effects of fuel production and use.

The highest load with respect to the eutrophication impact category is determined to be from Scenario 1. Furthermore, the results are found to be very close in all scenarios, except for Scenario 2. It is observed as the lowest contribution scenario for eutrophication with 80.89 kg O2-eq / tonne of EP-managed waste.

The frequency of collection Scenario 2 results in a reduction in the contribution from the collection stage, which is the management stage that contributes the most.

If the assessment of each scenario is investigated, it can be seen that the contribution from collection and savings from recycling is calculated the same in Scenario 1, 3, 4, 5 and Scenario 3,4,5, respectively.

The highest contribution stage in other scenarios is the collection stage.

In Scenario 2, the least environmental impact is found with respect to the potential human toxicity of the waste management system, due to the frequency of collection applied.

The same amount of savings from the recycling phase was obtained from Scenarios 3, 4 and 5. Among these scenarios, the least impact was seen in Scenario 3.

The final step of the Impact Analysis phase is an assessment in which relative values ​​or weights are assigned to different impacts so that the evaluator can compare the importance of the various impacts.

Conclusion life cycle analysis cradle to grave

  • Scenario 2 (Sources Reduction + Collection + Transport-t + Landfilling) is a management train the most feasible because of the process of sourcing reduction and subsequent recycling of the sorted material.
  • In the case of energy use, Scenario 2 reveals the least amount of energy consumption because a lower collection frequency is applied in the collection stage as recycled materials are sorted at the source. Followed by Scenario 4 (Collection + Transport + MRF + Incineration + Stockpiling). Energy is generated as a result of this process, which decreases the total energy use of the entire scenario.
  • The minimum amount of final non-B3 solid waste obtained from Scenario 4; However, the highest amount of hazardous solid waste also arises from this scenario, which causes a higher toxicity impact.
  • In terms of the GWP 5 Scenario (Collection + Transport + MR- F + Anaerobic Digestion + Stockpiling) was found to be the most feasible system. Scenario 2 follows it in comparison to other scenarios.
  • In terms of the potential for acidification and eutrophication of scenario, Scenario 2 was found to have the least impact due to the frequency of collecting and recycling recycled dry materials.
  • The highest human toxicity impact is caused by the case of thermal treatment, Scenario 4, due to the high production of hazardous solid waste which can cause high heavy metal emissions. The smallest contribution to human toxicity impacts is observed in Scenario 2.

Source: O¨ zeler D., Yetis U¨ ., Demirer G.N. 2006. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Elsevier

Also read: Environmental LCA of Household Hazardous Waste

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel