IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v48y2006i3p227-248.html

Optimising waste treatment systems

Author

Listed:
  • Dornburg, Veronika
  • Faaij, André P.C.

Abstract

Material recycling as well as energetic production of biomass residues and other solid wastes could significantly contribute to fossil primary energy savings. Waste treatment should, therefore, aim to combine pollution abatement with the efficient saving of fossil primary energy. This article identifies optimal waste treatment strategies in The Netherlands. Here, an optimal strategy is one that either maximises the fossil primary energy savings or minimises the costs per unit of fossil primary energy savings that are achieved by the utilisation of available biomass residues and wastes. Also, the influence of different factors – for example, the availability of wastes or technological developments – on the robustness of technological options and on the variation of costs and fossil primary energy savings is studied. With a specially developed optimisation tool (described in Part I of this article series) several variants of Dutch waste treatment systems (‘scenarios’) are analysed by back casting to the year 2020. This tool allows for quick analyses of complete waste treatment infrastructures. The results show that the objective of the Dutch government to supply 120PJ of primary energy demand in 2020 from biomass and waste seems more than feasible, while in 2000 about 43PJ were realised. Including material recycling up to 437PJ primary energy could be saved with an optimised waste treatment infrastructure. Choices made about alternative waste treatment strategies influence the costs strongly. Total costs for the Dutch waste treatment system – not considering revenues from waste treatment tariffs – vary from revenues of €230 million/year to costs of €820 million/year. The contributions of material and energy recycling to avoid primary energy use change significantly under different preconditions. In the 11 different scenarios considered, of the primary energy savings achieved 25–76% resulted from material recycling, 20–80% from heat and electricity production, and a more modest 0–21% from the production of transport fuel. (Biomass) integrated gasification with combined cycle, hydro-thermal upgrading and waste separation emerge as key technologies from this study, while for example, waste incineration and biomass co-firing in coal power plants do not come out as most attractive options for the longer term. Generally, large-scale conversion units seem favourable to achieve better economies and energy recovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Dornburg, Veronika & Faaij, André P.C., 2006. "Optimising waste treatment systems," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 227-248.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:48:y:2006:i:3:p:227-248
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344906000164
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodrigues, Monica & Walter, Arnaldo & Faaij, André, 2003. "Co-firing of natural gas and Biomass gas in biomass integrated gasification/combined cycle systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1115-1131.
    2. Faaij, Andre P.C., 2006. "Bio-energy in Europe: changing technology choices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 322-342, February.
    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. Zhou, Ziqiao & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "Sustainable waste management and waste to energy: Valuation of energy potential of MSW in the Greater Bay Area of China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Gasol, Carles M. & Martínez, Sergio & Rigola, Miquel & Rieradevall, Joan & Anton, Assumpció & Carrasco, Juan & Ciria, Pilar & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2009. "Feasibility assessment of poplar bioenergy systems in the Southern Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 801-812, May.
    3. Wen, Shaoting & Buyukada, Musa & Evrendilek, Fatih & Liu, Jingyong, 2020. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of co-combustion/pyrolysis of textile dyeing sludge and incense sticks: Regression and machine-learning models," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 463-474.
    4. Nasrin Aghamohammadi & Stacy Simai Reginald & Ahmad Shamiri & Ali Akbar Zinatizadeh & Li Ping Wong & Nik Meriam Binti Nik Sulaiman, 2016. "An Investigation of Sustainable Power Generation from Oil Palm Biomass: A Case Study in Sarawak," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Al-Kassir, A. & Gañán-Gómez, J. & Mohamad, A.A. & Cuerda-Correa, E.M., 2010. "A study of energy production from cork residues: Sawdust, sandpaper dust and triturated wood," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 382-386.
    6. Escudero, Marcos & Jiménez, Ángel & González, Celina & López, Ignacio, 2013. "Quantitative analysis of potential power production and environmental benefits of Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 63-75.
    7. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Pongrácz, Eva & Fabritius, Timo, 2013. "The potential of using biomass-based reducing agents in the blast furnace: A review of thermochemical conversion technologies and assessments related to sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 511-528.
    8. Matteo De Besi & Kes McCormick, 2015. "Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National, Regional and Industrial Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Mirjana Golušin & Olja Munitlak Ivanovic & Simonida Vucenov, 2012. "Sustainable energy management - a prerequisite for the realization Kyoto Protocol," Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, Alliance of Central-Eastern European Universities, vol. 1(2), pages 24-34, September.
    10. Ovando, Paola & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2009. "Land use and carbon mitigation in Europe: A survey of the potentials of different alternatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 992-1003, March.
    11. Van de Velden, Manon & Baeyens, Jan & Brems, Anke & Janssens, Bart & Dewil, Raf, 2010. "Fundamentals, kinetics and endothermicity of the biomass pyrolysis reaction," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 232-242.
    12. Ge, Jiaqi & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Polhill, J. Gary & Matthews, Keith & Miller, Dave & Wardell-Johnson, Douglas, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting on-farm renewable energy adoption in Scotland using large-scale microdata," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 548-560.
    13. Luis Puigjaner & Mar Pérez-Fortes & José M. Laínez-Aguirre, 2015. "Towards a Carbon-Neutral Energy Sector: Opportunities and Challenges of Coordinated Bioenergy Supply Chains-A PSE Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-48, June.
    14. Wee, Hui-Ming & Yang, Wen-Hsiung & Chou, Chao-Wu & Padilan, Marivic V., 2012. "Renewable energy supply chains, performance, application barriers, and strategies for further development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5451-5465.
    15. Sérgio Ferreira & Eliseu Monteiro & Paulo Brito & Cândida Vilarinho, 2019. "A Holistic Review on Biomass Gasification Modified Equilibrium Models," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-31, January.
    16. Tosun, Jale & Solorio, Israel, 2011. "Exploring the Energy-Environment Relationship in the EU: Perspectives and Challenges for Theorizing and Empirical Analysis," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 15, November.
    17. Victor Platon & Simona Frone & Andreea Constantinescu & Sorina Jurist, 2010. "Current Perspectives and Challenges of Biofuel Production and Consumption," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 31(2(40)), pages 107-128, December.
    18. Bhagwat, Pradyumna C. & Marcheselli, Anna & Richstein, Jörn C. & Chappin, Emile J.L. & De Vries, Laurens J., 2017. "An analysis of a forward capacity market with long-term contracts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 255-267.
    19. Tate, Graham & Mbzibain, Aurelian & Ali, Shaukat, 2012. "A comparison of the drivers influencing farmers' adoption of enterprises associated with renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 400-409.
    20. Marbe, Asa & Harvey, Simon, 2006. "Opportunities for integration of biofuel gasifiers in natural-gas combined heat-and-power plants in district-heating systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(7), pages 723-748, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:recore:v:48:y:2006:i:3:p:227-248. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.