Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Waste-to-Energy vs ...

Building Trust. Engineering Success.

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Waste-to-Energy vs. Landfilling

Federation of New York Solid Waste Association’s Solid Waste & Recycling Conference with Trade Show

May 19-22, 2019

Lisa Damiano, P.E. Sanborn, Head and Associates, Inc., 20 Foundry Street, Concord, NH 03301

Stephen Zemba, Ph.D., P.E.

Sanborn, Head and Associates, Inc., 187 Saint Paul Street, Burlington, VT 05401

Presentation Overview Introduction Motivation Life Cycle Assessment Tools MSW-DST Model Overview WARM Model Overview

WARM vs. MSW-DST Models Emission Factor Assessment

Final Thoughts

2

Introduction - Greenhouse Gases

3

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere

Global Warming Potential CO2 = 1 CH4 = 25

N2O = 298

Introduction Which solid waste disposal method has lower

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions ?

Landfilling or Waste-to-Energy (WTE)

4 https://www.como.gov/utilities/solidwaste/bioreactor-landfill/

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biomass_waste_to_energy

MSW Management in USA

5 https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

Where does the Carbon go?

8 Amended by Sanborn Head, http://www.sustainabilityroadmap.org/topics/wasteepa.shtml#.XKtYAZhKhaQ

http://www.sustainabilityroadmap.org/topics/wasteepa.shtml.XKtYAZhKhaQ

Introduction Which solid waste disposal method has lower





Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

10 https://www.ncasi.org/technical-studies/sustainable-manufacturing/life-cycle-assessment/

Landfill or Waste-to-Energy LCA starts when the products become waste

Analysis that assesses the environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product’s life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling.

https://www.ncasi.org/technical-studies/sustainable-manufacturing/life-cycle-assessment/









Life Cycle Assessment Tools Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool

(MSW-DST) Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Solid Waste Optimization Life-cycle Framework

(SWOLF) Environmental Assessment System for

Environmental Technologies (EASETECH) Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the

Environment (WRATE) And others

11

Motivation Results of a Comparative GHG Emission Assessment

by HDR Engineering on behalf of Oregon Metro

12 https://www.oregonmetro.gov/health-impact-assessment-waste-energy

MSW-DST

Development began in 1994 and became publicly available in 2013

Collaboration between USEPA and RTI International and its partners

Designed to help materials planners evaluate the economic and environmental aspects of integrated MSW management operations. Provides an estimate of the construction and operating costs of

material-management facilities. Calculates energy consumption, GHG emissions, and other

emissions, including criteria air pollutants and releases to water.

13

MSW-DST - System Boundaries

Transfer

Waste- to-energy

Collection

Ash Landfill

Materials recovery for recycling and composting

S. Thornloe, Municipal Solid Waste – Sustainable Materials Management, U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development, 9/13/2013, modified by Sanborn Head

Landfill

WARM WARM was first released in

1998 by the USEPA Developed for materials

managers to track the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of alternative materials-management practices.

WARM calculates emissions across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste

15

Material Types Recognized by WARM Aluminum Cans Food Waste (non-meat) Mixed Recyclables Aluminum Ingot Food Waste (meat only) Newspaper Asphalt Concrete Fruits and Vegetables Office Paper Asphalt Shingles Glass Personal Computers Beef Grains Mixed Plastics

Branches Grass PET (polyethylene terephthalate)

Bread HDPE (high-density polyethylene) Phonebooks

Carpet LDPE (low-density polyethylene) PLA (polylactic acid)

Clay Bricks Leaves Poultry

Concrete LLDPE (linear low-density polyethylene) PP (polypropylene)

Copper Wire Magazines/Third-Class Mail PS (polystyrene)

Corrugated Cardboard Medium Density Fiberboard PVC (polyvinyl chloride)

Dairy Products Mixed Metals Steel Cans

Dimensional Lumber Mixed MSW (municipal solid waste) Textbooks

Drywall Mixed Organics Tires Fiberglass Insulation Mixed Paper (general) Vinyl Flooring

Fly Ash Mixed Paper (primarily from offices) Wood Flooring

Food Waste Mixed Paper (primarily residential) Yard Trimmings

WARM Life Cycle Approach

16 U.S. EPA (2016). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM)

Fate of Carbon in Landfills

Landfilled organic carbon can: Degrade to CO2

Degrade to CH4

Remain in the landfill Plastics do not degrade Cellulose degrades Lignin does not degrade

17 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/landfill-carbon-storage-in-warm10-28-10.pdf

Carbon Storage/Sequestration

18

WARM model includes biogenic carbon storage as anthropogenic credit MSW-DST model does not, but allows user to

adjust results to include credit Oregon Metro analysis included the credit

in both models, yet the models still predicted different results

WARM vs. MSW-DST Why are the results so different?

19

MSW-DST Evaluation: LFTGE v. WTE

20 Kaplan, P. O.; DeCarolis, J.; Thorneloe, S. (2009) Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste For Clean Electricity Generation? Environmental Science and Technology,

43, (6), 1711-1717

WTE is 6 to 11 times more efficient at recovering

energy than LFTGE

WARM GHG Emissions: LFTGE v. WTE

Based on disposal of

1 ton of each

material

21

Wastes with WTE > LFGTEMTCO2e per ton Wastes with LFTGE > WTE

MTCO2e per ton

PS -1.6 Office Paper 1.7LDPE -1.2 Textbooks 1.7LLDPE -1.2 Steel Cans 1.6PP -1.2 Mixed Metals 1.0HDPE -1.2 Corrugated Containers 0.74Mixed Plastics -1.2 Food Waste (non-meat) 0.68PET -1.2 Food Waste (meat only) 0.68Carpet -1.1 Beef 0.68PLA -1.0 Poultry 0.68PVC -0.62 Grains 0.68Tires -0.49 Bread 0.68Dimensional Lumber -0.40 Fruits and Vegetables 0.68Leaves -0.34 Dairy Products 0.68Branches -0.33 Food Waste 0.68Medium-density Fiberboard -0.28 Mixed Paper (general) 0.64Newspaper -0.24 Mixed Paper (primarily from offices) 0.63Phonebooks -0.24 Mixed Paper (primarily residential) 0.57Wood Flooring -0.087 Mixed Recyclables 0.49Magazines/third-class mail -0.025 Mixed MSW 0.41Aluminum Cans -0.015 Asphalt Shingles 0.37Aluminum Ingot -0.015 Mixed Organics 0.36Copper Wire -0.010 Vinyl Flooring 0.35Glass -0.0073 Grass 0.31Yard Trimmings -0.0048 Personal Computers 0.21

Emission Factor Assessment Compared the MSW-DST and WARM

models for similar waste categories Assumed landfill had a landfill gas to energy

(LFGTE) facility Assumed carbon sequestration in landfill Assume default values for all other inputs Estimated the emissions from waste

categories that were comparable between the two models in carbon equivalents (C-eq) per ton of waste type.

22

23

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DST

Landfill-MSW-DST-Sequestration

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Leaves

24

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DST


-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Branches

25

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DST

Landfill-MSW-DST-Sequestration-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Newspaper

26

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DST


-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Grass

27

WtE-WARMWtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DSTLandfill-MSW-DST-

Sequestration

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Phone Books

28

WtE-WARMWtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DSTLandfill-MSW-DST-Sequestration

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Office Paper

29

WtE-WARMWtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM Landfill-MSW-DSTLandfill-MSW-DST-

Sequestration

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Food waste

30

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST


Sequestration

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: PET

31

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST


Sequestration0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: HDPE

So….. Which solid waste disposal method has lower





Final thoughts and Next Steps There are significant differences in some of the

emission factors used in the MSW-DST versus WARM models

Additional investigation is needed into the underlying factors and assumptions of both models

Should non-degraded biogenic carbon in a landfill be treated as an anthropogenic carbon sink that can be deducted from a landfill’s potential methane emissions in calculating its net GHG impact?

33

Final Thoughts

34

35

Contact Information

Thank you for your attention!

Lisa Damiano, P.E. Project Manager

[email protected] T 603.415.6126

Stephen Zemba, Ph.D, P.E.

Project Director [email protected]

T 802.431.0539

36

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM

Landfill-MSW-DST


-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Corrugated Cardboard

37

WtE-WARMWtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM


Sequestration

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Books

38

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DSTLandfill-WARM


Sequestration

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Aluminum

39

WtE-WARM

WtE-MSW-DST

Landfill-WARM


Sequestration

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

0.009

Emiss

ion

Fact

or:

Tons

C-e

q / T

on W

aste

Waste: Glass

40

1. Which Greenhouse Gas is most important in waste-to-energy plant emissions?

____ (a) Carbon monoxide (CO)

____ (b) Carbon dioxide (CO2)

____ (c) Methane (CH4)

____ (d) Formaldehyde (HCHO)

____ (e) Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

2. Which Greenhouse Gas is most important in landfill emissions?

____ (a) Carbon monoxide (CO)

____ (b) Carbon dioxide (CO2)

____ (c) Methane (CH4)

____ (d) Formaldehyde (HCHO)

____ (e) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 3. What factor(s) influence on Greenhouse Gas emission estimates from landfills?

____ (a) Waste composition

____ (b) Treating collected landfill gas by a flare vs. an energy recovery engine

____ (c) Landfill gas collection efficiency

____ (d) Fraction of carbon in waste that does not degrade

____ (e) All of the above factors

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Waste-to-Energy vs ...

Documents

Transcript of Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Waste-to-Energy vs ...