IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2603-d757014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-Economic Analysis of Scenarios on Energy and Phosphorus Recovery from Mono- and Co-Combustion of Municipal Sewage Sludge

Author

Listed:
  • Marzieh Bagheri

    (Division of Energy Science, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden)

  • Marcus Öhman

    (Division of Energy Science, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden)

  • Elisabeth Wetterlund

    (Division of Energy Science, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden)

Abstract

This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of energy and phosphorus (P) fertilizer (PF) recovery from municipal sewage sludge (MSS) through incineration in new combustion plants. We evaluated the economic impact of five critical process design choices: (1) boiler type, (2) fuel (MSS mono-combustion/co-combustion with wheat straw), (3) production scale (10/100 MW), (4) products (heat, electricity, PF), and (5) ash destination. Aspen Plus modeling provided mass and energy balances of each technology scenario. The economic feasibility was evaluated by calculating the minimum selling price of the products, as well as the MSS gate fees required to reach profitability. The dependency on key boundary conditions (operating time, market prices, policy support) was also evaluated. The results showed a significant dependency on both energy and fertilizer market prices and on financial support in the form of an MSS gate fee. Heat was preferred over combined heat and power (CHP), which was feasible only on the largest scale (100 MW) at maximum annual operating time (8000 h/y). Co-combustion showed lower heat recovery cost (19–30 €/MWh) than mono-combustion (29–66 €/MWh) due to 25–35% lower energy demand and 17–25% higher fuel heating value. Co-combustion also showed promising performance for P recovery, as PF could be recovered without ash post-treatment and sold at a competitive price, and co-combustion could be applicable also in smaller cities. When implementing ash post-treatment, the final cost of ash-based PF was more than four times the price of commercial PF. In conclusion, investment in a new combustion plant for MSS treatment appears conditional to gate fees unless the boundary conditions would change significantly.

Suggested Citation

  • Marzieh Bagheri & Marcus Öhman & Elisabeth Wetterlund, 2022. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Scenarios on Energy and Phosphorus Recovery from Mono- and Co-Combustion of Municipal Sewage Sludge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-25, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2603-:d:757014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2603/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2603/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tan, Zhongxin & Lagerkvist, Anders, 2011. "Phosphorus recovery from the biomass ash: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3588-3602.
    2. World Bank Group, 2017. "Commodity Markets Outlook, January 2017," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 25895.
    3. Salman, Chaudhary Awais & Naqvi, Muhammad & Thorin, Eva & Yan, Jinyue, 2018. "Gasification process integration with existing combined heat and power plants for polygeneration of dimethyl ether or methanol: A detailed profitability analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 116-128.
    4. Dana Cordell & Stuart White, 2011. "Peak Phosphorus: Clarifying the Key Issues of a Vigorous Debate about Long-Term Phosphorus Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Sina Shaddel & Hamidreza Bakhtiary-Davijany & Christian Kabbe & Farbod Dadgar & Stein W. Østerhus, 2019. "Sustainable Sewage Sludge Management: From Current Practices to Emerging Nutrient Recovery Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Makarichi, Luke & Jutidamrongphan, Warangkana & Techato, Kua-anan, 2018. "The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 812-821.
    7. Lo, Shirleen Lee Yuen & How, Bing Shen & Leong, Wei Dong & Teng, Sin Yong & Rhamdhani, Muhammad Akbar & Sunarso, Jaka, 2021. "Techno-economic analysis for biomass supply chain: A state-of-the-art review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Singh, Renu & Shukla, Ashish, 2014. "A review on methods of flue gas cleaning from combustion of biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 854-864.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hossein Beidaghy Dizaji & Thomas Zeng & Volker Lenz & Dirk Enke, 2022. "Valorization of Residues from Energy Conversion of Biomass for Advanced and Sustainable Material Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-5, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhai, Jihua & Burke, Ian T. & Stewart, Douglas I., 2021. "Beneficial management of biomass combustion ashes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Marzena Smol & Michał Preisner & Augusto Bianchini & Jessica Rossi & Ludwig Hermann & Tanja Schaaf & Jolita Kruopienė & Kastytis Pamakštys & Maris Klavins & Ruta Ozola-Davidane & Daina Kalnina & Elina, 2020. "Strategies for Sustainable and Circular Management of Phosphorus in the Baltic Sea Region: The Holistic Approach of the InPhos Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Raheem, Abdur & Hassan, Mohammad Yusri & Shakoor, Rabia, 2016. "Bioenergy from anaerobic digestion in Pakistan: Potential, development and prospects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 264-275.
    4. Thomas, Paul & Soren, Nirmala & Rumjit, Nelson Pynadathu & George James, Jake & Saravanakumar, M.P., 2017. "Biomass resources and potential of anaerobic digestion in Indian scenario," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 718-730.
    5. Naqvi, Salman Raza & Jamshaid, Sana & Naqvi, Muhammad & Farooq, Wasif & Niazi, Muhammad Bilal Khan & Aman, Zaeem & Zubair, Muhammad & Ali, Majid & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Inayat, Abrar & Afzal, Waheed, 2018. "Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on present case and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1247-1258.
    6. Wang, Yuting & Chen, Heng & Qiao, Shichao & Pan, Peiyuan & Xu, Gang & Dong, Yuehong & Jiang, Xue, 2023. "A novel methanol-electricity cogeneration system based on the integration of water electrolysis and plasma waste gasification," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    7. Li, Shenghui & Sun, Xiaojing & Liu, Linlin & Du, Jian, 2023. "A full process optimization of methanol production integrated with co-generation based on the co-gasification of biomass and coal," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    8. Zhao, Xinyue & Chen, Heng & Zheng, Qiwei & Liu, Jun & Pan, Peiyuan & Xu, Gang & Zhao, Qinxin & Jiang, Xue, 2023. "Thermo-economic analysis of a novel hydrogen production system using medical waste and biogas with zero carbon emission," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    9. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    10. Lim, Juin Yau & Teng, Sin Yong & How, Bing Shen & Nam, KiJeon & Heo, SungKu & Máša, Vítězslav & Stehlík, Petr & Yoo, Chang Kyoo, 2022. "From microalgae to bioenergy: Identifying optimally integrated biorefinery pathways and harvest scheduling under uncertainties in predicted climate," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    11. Patuzzi, Francesco & Basso, Daniele & Vakalis, Stergios & Antolini, Daniele & Piazzi, Stefano & Benedetti, Vittoria & Cordioli, Eleonora & Baratieri, Marco, 2021. "State-of-the-art of small-scale biomass gasification systems: An extensive and unique monitoring review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    12. Daniel Reißmann & Daniela Thrän & Alberto Bezama, 2018. "Key Development Factors of Hydrothermal Processes in Germany by 2030: A Fuzzy Logic Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Karel Mulder, 2019. "Future Options for Sewage and Drainage Systems Three Scenarios for Transitions and Continuity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Marissa A. De Boer & Anjelika G. Romeo-Hall & Tomas M. Rooimans & J. Chris Slootweg, 2018. "An Assessment of the Drivers and Barriers for the Deployment of Urban Phosphorus Recovery Technologies: A Case Study of The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    15. Eksi, Guner & Karaosmanoglu, Filiz, 2017. "Combined bioheat and biopower: A technology review and an assessment for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1313-1332.
    16. Sharma, Monikankana & N, Rakesh & Dasappa, S., 2016. "Solid oxide fuel cell operating with biomass derived producer gas: Status and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 450-463.
    17. Magdalena Szymańska & Tomasz Sosulski & Ewa Szara & Adam Wąs & Piotr Sulewski & Gijs W.P. van Pruissen & René L. Cornelissen, 2019. "Ammonium Sulphate from a Bio-Refinery System as a Fertilizer—Agronomic and Economic Effectiveness on the Farm Scale," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Schumacher, Felix & Nussbaumer, Thomas, 2023. "Four approaches for the year-round operation of wood-fired heating plants with low pollutant emissions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    19. Daraei, Mahsa & Avelin, Anders & Dotzauer, Erik & Thorin, Eva, 2019. "Evaluation of biofuel production integrated with existing CHP plants and the impacts on production planning of the system – A case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Luís Carmo-Calado & Manuel Jesús Hermoso-Orzáez & Roberta Mota-Panizio & Bruno Guilherme-Garcia & Paulo Brito, 2020. "Co-Combustion of Waste Tires and Plastic-Rubber Wastes with Biomass Technical and Environmental Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2603-:d:757014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.