Contents lets avalable at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment ELSEVIER journal homepage: [Link] com/locatelscitoteny Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration waste-to-energy technologies: Theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants fe Jun Dong *™*, Yuanjun Tang **, Ange Nzihou*, Yong Chi, Elsa Weiss-Hortala*, Mingjiang Ni? * Corre RSODEE ne des Mines Ab Cp ered 1019 Ab Cade. * sate Labora of Can egy etn eng esi, Hag HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT + Pyrolysis gasification and incineration ‘Waste-to Energy ae compared by 1A ‘Waste Energy Technologie + Seven multi-stage system configure- Te Gye Awsome tons ate modeled heel aa ac i + four ype oflagescale Waster fry pn te compared casey. « Toa Ta aay + Non-toxic and tox ensronmentl i = pacts are assessed with sensitivity NS Saran cm analysis + Potential improvements and impedi- rents fo the further development are E suggested, ia. ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT dee one ‘Municipal solid waste (MSW) pyrolysis and gasification aren development stimulated by a more sustainable feced Dever 217 waste-foenergy (WIE) option Since comprehensive comparisons of the existing WUE technologies are fir'y ered in reve fr 15 Janay 2018 Tare his study aims to conduct aie eel assessment (LCA) sing two sts of dat: theoretical analysis ad Ace 1 jay 2018 cep 16 ry 2078 ‘ase tues of largescale commercial plants Seven stems involving thermal conversion (pyrolsis gasifea- " ‘on, ncneratan) ana energy iiizaton steam cele gs urbine combined yc internal combustion engine) or Saclo ate modeled, Theoretical analysis results show that pyrolysis and gasification in parca couped with a gas turin combined eel have the potential to lessen te environmental lasing, The benefits derive fom anim- iets proved energy efficiency lacing 1 ess fssi-ased energy consumption andthe reduced proces emissions by Waseo-nerg tecnlogy Syngas combustion. Coraparison among the fur operating plans incineration, probs, gasieaton,gasca- Fnveonmentl tsinaiy ‘on-meling confirms a preferable performance ofthe gasification plant attributed to syngas cleaning. The mod Utoee acest erincneration is superior over pyrolysis and gasfiation-meling at present, ue tthe effectiveness of modern Nonstoncand oelmpacs Longe commer pts fue gas leaning use of combined heat and power (CHP) cycle. and ash ecelng. The sensivty analysis hih- lights crucial oo the plan efcienc and pyolsischar land uization. The study indicates thatthe hetero- geneity of MSW and syngas purification technologies are the mast relevan: impediments fo the current yroyssigasfiation-based WIE. Potential development should incorporate into al process aspects to boost the energy eficency, improve incoming waste qual, an achieve ecient residues management. (©2018 Elsevier AV, A rights reserve, + conespendng autor Cente RAPSOOEE. cle es Mines A. Campus ata 61013 Ab Cee, Face. Fm adder 26 doesn een Done). cote £6070 2018 Eee BV Al ies seve‘Bonga Scem ofthe tel Evwamen 6 (208) 24-753 8 1. Introduction In the transition towards more sustainable development, treatment technologies for municipal solid waste (MSW) have made considerable progress (Zhao et al, 2008). The last decades witnessed a gradually de- creased proportion of landfil as required by the European Landfill and Waste Framework Directives (Council of Eufopean Communities, 1999; The European Parliament and the Council of European (Communities, 2008). In contrast, waste-to-energy (WE) is gaining in- creasing interest. Until recently, incineration isthe most widespread \WEE technology with more than 1400 incineration plans in operation around the world (Leckner, 2015). However, even the last generation fof MSW incinerators is limited by a low electricity efficiency up to about 22-25% (Panepinto etal, 2015), duet the limitation in the max- imum steam temperature ofthe boiler, normally les than 450 °Cto pre~ ‘vent corrosion by gaseous HC (Relgiomo etal, 2003). Although modern and well-operated incinerators can fulfill the requirements ofan envi- ronmentally sound technology, potential risk of PCDD/Fs stil present asa debate forthe public. Asa consequence, technological development towards more environmental-fiendly and energy-efficient alternative (WEE options are sill required In recent years, there is considerable interest in new WEE technolo sis particularly pyrolysis and gasification, which attain te possibility {o obtain a syngas suitable for diferent applications (Funati et al, 2016; Khoo, 2008) About energetic usein WEE plants there isa general perception that pyrolysis and gasification could achieve a higher eff- ciency by supplying the syngas witha more ecient energy conversion device such s ages turbine/combined cycle (ga turbine/CC) or an in- ternal combustion engine (Arena, 2012). Even if in 2 steam eyele plant, the limitation of efficiency could be overcome by adding gas pre-treatment before it goes into the burner, to allow the removal of Hcl and an improvement in steam temperature of 520-540°C (Belgiomo etal, 2003), Besides, pyrolysis and gasification have the po- femtil to diminish PCDD/Fs (Noma et al, 2012), thus reducing the total generation of pollutant ifthe downstream syngas oxidization is proc- esse efficiently. However, using ofthe newly developed WeE options does not automatically guarantee the toal sustainability ofthe whole ‘multi-stage thermal conversion and energy lization chain (Ning et al, 2013; Wang etal, 2015). The “raw" syngas, which contains avatiety of contaminants such as HS, tar, NH and particulate matter (PM), needs to be purified to meet the stringent requirement of entering an engine (Wood etal, 2013). The configuration af different energy cycles downstream may also influence the overall environmental effect: the consumptions and losses of gasification and syngas clean-up may cause the overall energy efficiency be clase or lower to incineration. It isnot a simple procedure to select an optimal WIE technology. A com- prehensive assessment of different WEE process configurations isneces- sary to understand if pyrolysisigasification-based WtE may become potential alternative or improvement fr the current incineration. Guided by 10 standards (1S0, 1997), if cycle assessment (LCA) is benefited from the quantification ofthe entire lifecycle impacts. This can help identify the most critical process for environmental buréens (Millvard-Hopkins etal, 2018), and provide abencimatk for new tech- nologies LCA has provided reliable evaluation of MSW treatment tech- nologies (Kaplan etal, 2008; Lundie and Peters, 2005; Morselli etal, 2008; Wager and Hischier, 2015). However, LCA of WEE technologies is rarely performed other than incineration. This is mainly because the operational practice using pyrolysis and gasification is quite limited de~ spite that a number of applications do exist (Molino et al, 2016; Panepinto etal, 2015), making comparisons very dificult. The existing studies are focused mainly on the thermal conversion process isel, While few of them examine the downstream use of syngas in detail “The environmental performance of WE options depends on many fac tors suchasemission levels, energy efficiencies, type of end-use appica- tions, and energy source, However, the LCA studies available on pyrolysis and gasification are often based on varying assumptions and insufficient to thoroughly study these issues. This may limit the LCA ‘compatisons between diferent WEE technologies on a consistent and «common basis. ‘The gol ofthis work is to provide a detailed lifecycle investigation of different WEE technologies. In response othe incompleton and scar- ity ofdataon pyrolysis and gasification this study isstrivingto conduct oth theoretical analysis of the possible configuration of WEE technolo- ies and real case studies of several commercial plants la the Gist part a ‘general and extensive theoretical analysis of seven multi-stage WIE sjs- tems involving thermal conversion (pyrolysis, gasification, incinera- tion) and energy utilization (steam cycle, gas turbine/CC, internal ‘combustion engine) is modeled, using the most typical and wellac- ‘cepted reported data. In the second par, four large-scale commercial ‘operation WIE plants (pyrolysis, gasification, gasifcation-melting, mod- ‘em incineration) are compared, Besides, a sensitivity analysis is carried ‘ur to identity key parameters responsible fr the environmental i= pacts. This study aims at understanding how the current WEE could ‘get a benefit towards a more environmentally sustainable technology. Potential improvements and impeciments tothe further development ‘of pyrolysis and gasifiation-based WE technologies are aso discussed and suggested. 2. Methodology 21. system definition The system boundaries (Fig. 1) of the study atain at the moment when MSW enters the WIE plant-Four basic processes are included: (1) MW pre-treatment, 2) thermal conversion, (3) utilization of acquired products, and (4) ash and air pollution control (APC) resi- ‘dues management. MSW can either be thermally converted by adding sufficient amount of air (incineration), where the MSW is fully oxidized inco process heat; or by supplying an air deficiency, ‘where the waste is pyrolyzed (in the absence of air) or gasifed (in 4 partial oxidant amount lower than stoichiometric combustion) ‘The later case produces intermediated products including syngas, tar and char, which can recover energy in several pathways (Molino etal. 2016): to be combusted in a boiler and connected ‘with a steam turbine; of, ater a purification step, to be used in a 4248 turbine/CC of an internal combustion engine, Thus a total of Seven scenarios are formed. S1 is defined as MSW direct incineration the current WtE. S2, S3 and S4 represents pyrolysis th steam turbine, gas turbine/CC and internal combustion ‘engine, respectively; gasification combined with those energy de- vices are defined as 85, $5 and S7. MSW pre-treatment mainly refers to drying and shredding withthe aim of size reduetion and homoge- nization, While incineration plants could process MSW directly (Evangelist etal, 2015), pre-treatment is basically need prior to Pyrolysis/gasification (McKendry, 2002), Detailed flowchart of each systems illustrated in the Supplementary Material (Fig. $1), The functional unit is set at one ton of MSW as received at the plant, Upstream production of fuels and materials including diese, lecricity, lime, et. i considered asthe ‘cradle to grave’ type of cl- ‘culation. The benefits from useful co-products, such as electricity and heat, are allocated by system expansion. The recovered electricity is assumed to substitute that provided by the “energy mix” ofa specific region, here the European average (42.7% fossil fuels, 26 5% nuclear, 30.0% renewable energies, 0.7 waste and 0.1% other in 2015) is lected (Eurostat, na, nei-b). The produced heat displaces an ‘equal amount of heat generated by “heat mix", of which the heat pro- ‘duction data based on European average i again used (69.3% fossil fuels, 0.2% nuclear, 22.9% renewable energies, 4.8% waste and 2.7% ‘other in 2015) (Eurostat, n.~2, ndb). The database Gabi 7.0 pro- vides the remaining, mainly indirect burdens, of the background system,6 Longe see fh tlio 52 (208) 24-253 ‘Thermal treatment! | Conversion isons Background System Fig 1st bouearies ofthe sty 2.2. MSW characteristics ‘The MSW typically treated in the WEE plant i the residual from the source-separated collection of ry recyclables and wet organic fractions. ‘The waste characteristics in different countries have a high variability depending on the culture, climate and socioeconomic (Vergara and ‘Tchobanogious, 2012). Therefore, atypical MSW, reflects the average waste composition in Europe (Arena et al, 2015), is selected as the basis for comparison (Table 1). 23, Data source for theoretical analysis “The data utilized for theoretical analysis are mainly derived fom in- dustrial practice, peer-reviewed literature, standards, and recent re- search reports, The data are regionalized inthe sense that they refer to thesituation of Europe Foreach athe WEE syster, the modeling of ma- terial consurnptions, emissions and energy recovery's analyzed on basis of mass and energy balance the detailed calculations are available in the Supplementary Material (Section SM-8). Each unit process and the ‘main data source are presented as following. 23.1. MSW pre-treatment A pre-treatment step is assumed to be conducted before pyrolysis and gasification process. In oder to failtate homogenization, the in- ‘coming MSW is shredded to an average size of a few hundred milime- ters (eg asize of around 100 mmin practice). The estimated energy use Tablet Charterites ofthe MSW aed at the pant ‘ace (wa eee aS) HW : (oy aiterence) 2 Mute au {lower heating value, MA on far mechanical treatments set at 100 kWh of electricity and 25 kWh of natural gas per ton of MSW (Kourkoumpas tal, 2015). The waste then undergoes dryingtoa final moisture contentof around 10%. The heat re- ‘quired by the dryer is internally supplied with a thermal efficiency of ‘90% (Roberts eal, 2009), For systems using gastrbine/CC and internal ‘combustion engine (53, $4, 8 and 7), the heat derives rom the syngas Purification unit which recovers the sensible heat ofthe hot syngas dur- ing cooling For S2 and S5, the heat is supplied by the hot flue gas. 23.2, Thermal conversion (pyrolysis, gosification and direct incineration) For pyrolysis, the proportion of each product (syngas tar and char) is strongly dependent on the reaction temperatut, residence time and heating rate (Van de Velden etal, 2010). For waste processing, arun- hing temperature of 500-550 °C is widely used in industrial plants (Chen et al, 2015). This pyrolysis technology, represented by the RWE-Contherm® process (Hauk et a, 2004), i cansidered in this anal- Yi, since it is the most typical pyrolysis process presently available in ‘the European market. The pyrolysis reactor isa rotary kiln type, with a residence time of approximately 1h, About 85% ofthe energy will be Converted into the hot gas (ie, ht gas efficiency), with col gas ef- ‘iency attaining around 50%. The cold gas efficiency can be defined as ‘the ratio of the energy content of the cold syngas to that ofthe feed- stock The balance i char and its mass proportion i around 30% The data are based on average reported values of the industrial plants (DEngineering - The rotary kin engineers, july, 20092, 2008). We as- sume the reliability is high because they can be cross-checked extensively, ‘Gasification owns the sole objective to produce syngas, although the ‘generation of tari inevitable along with the gs. In comparison to py- Tolysis, gasification occurs ata generally higher temperature: $50- ‘900 Cin ait gasification and 1000-1600 "Cif using pure oxygen, ox\- ‘gen-enrich gas or steam (Arena, 2012). Based on several operation data from the existing plants, the cold gas efficiency isin a range of, 50-80% (Arena, 2012), Here acold gas efficiency of 70Ris used as. acon- ‘servative estimate (Panepint tal, 2015; Yassin etal, 2009). Aho gas ceficiency f 90%s assumed in the case syngasis directly used inaboiler ‘without any pre-cooling [MSW direct incineration is well-proven and has greater operational reliability than pyrolysis and gasification. The assumed incineration is‘Bonga Scem ofthe tel Evwamen 6 (208) 24-753 1 based on a moving grate, The waste is directly combusted to heat up water inthe boiler to generate steam. A hea loss is also inevitable, for example the discharge ofthe ash and flue gas will cause a high loss of the sensible heat. However, we do not tend to assume this efficiency, since it wil be reflected inthe overall plant efficiency. ‘While the incineration process is exothermic, gasification can also achieve heat self-sustaining around an equivalence rato of 03-04 (Zhang etal. 2011}, no any external thermal assistance is needed, the same under which in the real plants (Arena and Di Gregorio, 2014), Nevertheless, pyrolysis requires an addtional thermal energy to maintain the reaction. The inpat energy is around 9 ofthe MSW en- exgy according tothe research of Baggio etal. (Bagzio et al, 2008).The heat is assumed tobe supplied by the hot fue gasas tis commonly pre- ferred in the plants, 23, Energy utilization cycles ach WEE plant inthis study is assumed tobe an integrated facility, inwhich the inal energy utlization is operated on-site. The electrical ficiency of the incineration plats set at 22.5% Arena, 2012; Mortisand Waldheim, 1988), which represents an average ofthe modem dedi- cated waste combustion systems. For pyrolysis and gasification systems, steam cycle i the simplest option because the hot syngas could undergo combustion inthe gas boiler without purification. A higher efficiency can be achieved (set at 278% in this study), since the homogenous and gas-phase combustion is more controllable and effective (Consonni and Vigan®, 2012). The syngas can also be burned in a gas {urbine/CC or an internal combustion engine. Potentially, the electrical efficiencies would be higher (set at 35.5% and 25.0% for gas turbine/CC and engine, respectively (Belgiomo etal, 2003; Morci and Waldheim, 1998). However, the syngas needs tobe cooled and purified to meet the stringent inlet gas quality requirement. To ensure the transparency ofthe data the values of plant efficiencies are determined by exten- sively searching and comparing with similar set-up inthe literature and reports (see detals in Table $2). Additionally, a range of variations ofeach plan efficiency willbe discussed inthe sensitivity analysis. For all the systems analyzed, 20% ofthe generated electricity is assumed tobe sel-consumed in the plant, with the remaining 80% sent tothe ower grid, For systems using gas turbine/CC and internal combustion engine (3, $4, $6 and $7), cleaning the syngas allows the chemical energy to be conserved. The sensible hea is recovered assuming an efficiency of| 75% (Vi etal, 2073). As stated earlier, the heat is used for MSW pre— treatment; the excessive amount s transferred tothe needs ofthe end user The formed pyrolysis char can either be combusted atthe facility to generate more energy or be used 28a product (biochar). The former application is considered as the baseline, wile the latter case wil be discussed in the sensitivity analysis. The pyrolysis char is assumed to be sent into the boiler and combusted together withthe gas inthe S2 system, which i in accordance with the real operation in reference plants Ifa gas turbine/CC or internal combustion engine is used, the ‘hari assumed to be combusted in a separated boiler for heat produc- tion ata thermal efficiency of 75% which isa typical value for industrial heating boilers in operation (Roberts et al, 2008). 23.4 Emissions atthe stack In attempt to beiter perform a transparent evaluation, the emission factors used in this theoretical analysis are estimated using the Euro- pean pollution control standards ie, the exhaust Mue gas from each WEE system is assumed to meet the requirements of specified emission standards (Directive 2007/76/EC (The Commission of the European Communities, 2007) and Directive 2010/75,EU with some adaptions (Directive, 2010)). The real emission data from industrial plant wll be analyzed in the second part (case studies). Table 2 summarizes the related emission factors, These data have been used in conjunction with estimates offue gas volumes per functional unit of MSW produced to derive the final mass release rates. Details on the standards, adaptations and calculations can be found in the Supplementary Mate- ‘ial (Section SM-5) 235, Ash and air potion control residues management ‘The amount of slid resides produced by incineration and pyrolysis ‘gasification plans are assumed tobe 180 kg/t-MSW and 120 ke/t-MSW, respectively s reported by UK's waste report (DEFRA UK, 2004). The solid residues may be recycled as road construction materials o con- ‘rete aggregate (Sakai and Hiraoka, 2000). However, only landfill scon- sidered in the theoretical analysis and the potential benefit will be included inthe case studies of the commercial plants. The APC residues, including mainly fly ashes and exhausted sorbents, are assumed to be stabilized before final disposal in landfill. Emissions, mainly heavy metals to the soil, are estimated according tothe UK's waste report (DEFRA UK. 2004). 24, Dota source for commercial operation WeE plants Four large-scale commercial operation WE plants (pyrolysis, asi «ation, gasification-melting, modern incineration) are modeled as case studies. The selected plants could represent the most typical madern state-of-the-art plants, therefore reflecting the actual environmental sustainability of eiferent WUE technologies. The selected plants are all in connection with a steam tubine cyte, ie, ina similar configuration ofthe S, $2 or $5 system. Table 2 and Table $5 summarizes the related ‘emission factors and information ofthese plants, respectively; with a brief introduction of ezch plant presented asfollowi incineration plant (C1): Silla? incineration plant, located in Milan, Italy, is studied as a typical case of the modern incineration. The plant is equipped with 3 moving grate combustion lines, having a treatment capacity of 450,000 t/a, MSW is incinerated at 850 °C to prodiuce electricity and istrict heating at an efficiency of 24% (net) and 6% respectively (Turconi et al, 2011), The flue gas cleaning in- Cludes electrostatic precipitator, acid gas neutralization (NaFICOs in- Jection), fabric filter and a SCR unit for NO, abatement (Amsa, Api 2008). After combustion, metals ae sorted from the bottom ash and recycled. 88% of the bottom ash is utilized in road construction, hile the remaining fraction is landfilled and the APC residues are safety disposed, + Pyrolysis plant (C2): The selected plant, located in Hamm. Germay, hhas capacity of 100,000 ta, although itis no longer in operation ater the chimney collapse in 2008. The pyrolysis process belongs tothe RWE-ConTherm® technology (DGEngineering - The rotary kiln engineers, July, 2008a). After shredded to 200 mm, the MSW is decomposed in the absence of arin 2 rotary kiln a 500 “C with a res- idence time of 1h, using natural gas the heating source. The prod- vets, hot syngas and char, are incinerated in the boiler of a coal-fired plant for electricity production. The residues are considered to be landfilled and the metals ae recycled. The plant electricity efficiency. (gross) is around 22% (Stein ané Tobiasen, 2004). + Gasification plant (C3): The selected plant, Lahti located in Finland, has started its commercial operation in 2012 with an annually capac- ity of 250,000 tons (Lahti Energia. nd). The feedstocks solid recov- ered fuels (SRF), Le, high calorific waste unsultable for recycling, The gasifier i a circulating fluidized bed operated at 850-900 °C. The syngas generated undergoes cooling at 400 °C to remove heavy ‘metals and PM The cleaned syngas enables a more efficient heat re- covery boiler at 121 bar and superheated steam at 540°C. The plant attains final 27% of electricity efficiency (net) and 61% of heat eff- tency (Savelainen and Isaksson, 2015). The flue gas cleaning system consists ofa bag house filter with additive injections (NaHCO and 3c- tivated carbon} and aSCR for NO, reduction. From the plant out, the bottom ash is removed to landfill eisposal and the APC residues are safety disposed, + Gasifcation- melting plant (C4): The reason to select his technologyEne 252018) 784-259 ants (Un: ng incnermor_Gasbolermeantatine Geta Tara onbason ese insneton prover Gaaienion Gaafetencmeline PCDOVFS(weTEQIm!) 01. a os ms ogo) Goma 7 SW nin scars with ib Diet 20077 whe pelt sumptons in Supiementary Mate aa te on for commer operated WE plants pln inaron and et Isits possibilty to recover materials effectively (Tanigai eta, 2012), The selected plant, having a total throughput of 80 MW, is located in Japan and is one of the largest gaification-melting facilities inthe ‘world. The MSW is charged into a shaft-furnace type gasifier from the top with coke and limestone, and the ash is melt atthe bottom by O,-rich air at 1000-1800 °C. No pre-treatment of the incoming. waste is tequired. The syngas transferred to be combusted to genet= ate steam at 400 "Cand 3.92 MPa The electricity efficiency (grass) a= is at 23% (Tanigaki etal, 2072). The ue gas cleaning applies a ‘quencher, a baghouse with Ca(OH), injection for desulfurization, a (4) Non-toxic impacts cavironmenta ipa (PE) () Toxic impacts recheater and a SCR for NO, reduction. The molten materials from the gasifier are magnetically separated into slag and metals, which can be completely recycled: while the APC residues are fur treated. 25. Life yee inventory By combining all unit processes input-output data a detailed Le1 table is compiled (see Table $5 and Table S7), Biogenic CO, i assumed mow feaac fan aon Fie 2 Normale envcomental gc of ent tems bad onthe heretic ays 4) nontoxic toxic pasFi 5. conebsona ans foreach envronmena impact asd onthe here aass1 ‘Done see fh tl Eurema 6 (208) 24-253 tobe carbon neutral to global climate change. For the specific MSW in this study, the fraction of biogenic carbon contributes 64% ofthe re- ceived MSW. Emissions to the water are not included, since modern ‘We systems are commonly designed with wastewater treatment and reused equipment to meet a ‘zero discharge’ target (Chen and Christensen, 2010), 26 Life cle impact assessment The well-accepted Danish EDIP methodology is used to aggregate the Lc data (Hauschild and Potting, 2005; Wenzel etal. 1987). Seven impact categories ae considered: global warming (GW), acidification (AC), terrestrial eutrophication (TE), photochemical ozone formation fa human health (POF), human toxicity via ar (HTa) and sole (HTS), and ecotoxicty via solid (FTs). Results based on normalized values are used to reflect the relative magnitude of different impacts into person equivalence, A summary of the normalization references is available in ‘Table 8, 53. Results 3.1. Theoretical analysis results Fig. 2 reports the overall environmental performance of different systems, Compated to direct incineration (SI), pyrolysis and gasiica- tion ate ellectve to lessen the environmental impacts of TE, POF, HTa and ETS, yet increase the burdens of GW and HTs, Fora direct compare son of different WEE processes, gasification systems (S5-S7) lead to a lower impact than pyrolysis systems (S2-S4). For systems using (a) Non-toxie impacts § om. cw ac diferent energy cycles gasturbine/CC(S3, $6) has surpassed steam tur- bine (52, $5) and internal combustion engine (54,87) and becomes the most preferred energy utilization approach. To give a clear and transparent explanation ofthe aforementioned results, the overall impact is divided into four stage-wise contributors energy input, direct emissions ash management and energy recovery. ‘As shown in Fig 3, the environmental savings for non-toxic impacts are primarily bought by energy recovery, which compensates asignif- icant amount of emissions generated by fossil fuel-based energy pro- duction. In particular, negative values appear for several systems garding [Link] and POFh, indicating that Une environmental benefit has balanced the loading and a net environmental saving is achieved. ‘The highest recovered energy has been found for systems equipped ‘with gas turbine/CC (53,55). Ths reveals the advantage brought by a mare efficient energy device that is able to counterbalance an increasing amaunt of emissions. Besides, pyrolysis equippee with combustion en- sine (54) also exhibits significant avoided impacts due to the additional savings from process heat (mainly from tar and char combustion), ‘which highlights the importance of heat recovery in improving the total recovered energy. Direct emissions also havea large influence tothe total impacts. Dif ferent systems show negligible diference of GW, because CO; emission is decisively contributed to GW and it manly drives from the fossi-or- igin carbonaceous compounds contained in MSW. However, there isa dramatic diference in diect emissions among all the systems, fcon- sulting the impacts of AC, TE and POFh. Compared with incineration (S1), 21-34% and 28-83% decrease in those indicators are achieved for pyrolysis and gasification systems, respectively. The principal contribu tors for AC, TE and POFh are acid gases including NO, $0, HC and HE. a Por HII incineration plant 2c pywissis plant [EGS gasification plane C4: pestcaion-meting pant Fie Enviromental ipso een syste bed on ie sti othe sete connec WE pls) ontop (2 toning‘Bonga Scene tel Ever 6 (208) 24-753 mst ionmentl pac ange OH ® Ress eps a pewatge nee or decease te eve imp ‘The reduced emissions by pyrolysis and gasification can in fact be as cribed to, on one hand, a lower amount of fue gas. asa consequence of the lower excess air required for syngas combustion; on the other hand, the limited NO, generation asa result ofthe homogeneous gas- gasteaction (Consonni and Vigan®, 2012) It shows als a further reduc- tion ofemissions om gasification systems using gas turine/CCand in- temal combustion engine (S6, $7), because purifying te syngas allows the removal of a part of acid gases; and, the syngas volume is much __ (a) Non-toxic impacts ‘oa . cw ac (b) Toxic impacts z i i E Ta ig 5. Sestiy aay aera nzaon othe yrs ca based 0 the daa om thee amass Cobra smaller to imit the toal flue gas, Conversely the direct emissions from pyrolysis systems ($3, 54) tend to increase due to char and tar ‘combustion, All ystems contribute postive impacts to toxic categories including Ta, Hs and ET, Fig. 2 reveals that Ts an HTa are te highest burden ‘categories, being 1-2 orders of magnitude more significant than non- toxic impacts. Direct emissions and ash management aze the main con- tuibutors. The avoided emissions are insignificant, whichis opposite to that of non-toxic impacts, The toxic impacts are decisively due to heavy metals, PCDD/Fs and PM emissions fr their relatively high equiv alent factors. Ash management takes a crucial effect to HTs and ET, since heavy metals contained inthe asi able tobe transferred into the soil after landfill, or released during the soldificationstabilization process ofthe APC residues ‘Consequently, it could be concluded from the theoretical analysis ‘that compared with incineration, bot pyrolysis and gasification own ‘the potential to have a better environmental performance due to two- fold benefits: the reduced process emissions as well a a substantia in- ‘tease in the amount of energy recovered. However, the important input energy demand, for example waste pre-treatment, syngas ‘leaning nd endothermic pyrolysis reaction, may onthe other hand be- ‘come additional burdens especialy regarding GW. This is also one rea- son for an inferior performance from pyrolysis systems in comparison MSA (Zsa asa mms: es os: ut Els an for ne aplaton sso amendmentma Done see fhe tl Euironman 52 (208) 24-253 to gasification, Overall, gasification equipped with gas turbine (S6) is observed tobe the most environmentally preferable system, 32. Case studies for commercial operation WeE plants Fig. 4 summarizes the environmental impacts from four large-scale commercial operation WtE plants, where al impacts experience asig- nificant drop compated with the theoretical analysis, The benefit is mainly due fo the reduction inthe process direct emissions, revealing that plants based on all the technologies in connection with a steam boiler can comfortably meet the required emission limits. The envizon- ‘mental sustainability of each plant in descending orders: gasification > incineration > (pyrolysis, gasification-melting); while its difficult to figure out the relative superiority between pyrolysis and gasification- ‘melting Iteveals that the modern incineration could full an environ = ‘mentally sound technology, ie, better than pyrolysis and gasfication- ‘melting plants at present, The emission factors reported in Table indi- cate that the actual emissions rom the reference incineration and pyrol- ysisigasifcation plants are quite similar due to the technological performance ofthe modern five gas leaning devices (fabric filters, de- sulfurization, NO, abatement, activated carbon injection, etc). The im- proved performance of incineration could also be attributed to the use of the more efficient combined heat and power (CHP) cycle, which has achieved an additional 6% of heat production. On the other hand, gasification reaches the best performance among the four plants. This fact again verifies the positive role of syngas cleaning, which allows the gas clean enough to employ higher steam data (540°C, 121 bar compared with 400 °C 40 ber in conventional waste boiler) for an in- creased electricity efficiency (27% net compared wit 24% in incinera- tion). Addltionally, this gasification plant shows further advantage by an abundance of heat production (61%), significantly larger than inthe incineration plant (6%). Those together have resulted ina significant en- vironmental saving from the avoided heat and electricity production in the gasification plant, Contrary, pyrolysis and gasification-melting plants show an infe- rior performance. The increased environmental burdens ae ether due toa high amount of auxiliary fuel used, or alow amount of net energy recovered. Particulaly, gasiiation-melting plant shows an important internal parasitic energy demand reaching 24% ofthe total energy pro- duction, mainly due tothe use of O-tich alr for ash melting ‘An obvious reduction in MTs and ETs i achieved inthe incineration and gasfcation-melting plants. The ost impacts are mainly ateibuted to the recy benefits: the reduced amount of ash tobe treated, which isthe main cause of solid heavy metas leaching; and, the avoided manufcture of road constraction materials and metals from thir virgin materials 3.3, Senstvty analysis A sensitivity analysis has been carried out to identify key process pa- rameters as well as o seek for potential improvements. The evaluation is based on the data from the theoretical analysis considering two vari- ations: changing of the plant efficiency, and alternative utilization ofthe pyrolysis char as soil amendment. ‘A-10% vatiation ofthe plant efficiency for each system is con- ducted. Results in Table 3 show an up to 3 665% variation inthe envi- fonmental impacts, of which non-texie impacts appear of remarkable felevance. The variation s primarily related to the amount of ener covered ast could replace the associated emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, The results confirm a crucial role ofthe energy recovery el- ficiency in determining the total sustainability ofa WeE plant For pyrolysis systems (52-54) the sensitivity analysis considers also the case where the char is se. as soi amendment. In such case, the py rolysis char is considered to have two additional merits (Harder and Forton, 2007; Roberts etal, 2009): substitution of fertilizer (N, Pand ) and carbon sequestration. Key assumptions and calculations are presented in able S10. Fig. 5 indicates that this assumption has exhib- ited an obvious reduction on the majority af mpacts except for HTs and Els. The benefits éominantly atiributed to the reduced airborne emis sions from char combustion, together with a small portion of avoided emissions from fertilizer substitution and carbon sequestration How- ever, a non-negligible increase ofthe HTs and ETs loadings are observed due tothe increased heavy metas to soll, which should be controlled ef- Fectively part from the asociated potential benefits ofland application. 4. Discussions Pyrolysis and gasification have been applied to waste treatment since 1970s, however their commercial application does not achieve ‘widespread so far (Panepinto etal, 2015), One of the main impedi- rents is the heterogeneity of MSW ie, inconstant on size and highly variable on composition, which could not easily run stable, Despite ‘this challenge, after years of practical experience, the main technical i= ficulties seem tobe solved and innavative plants started tobe operated (Panepinto et a, 2015), ‘The theoretical analysis of this study shows that using pyrolysis/gas- ification to supply a gas tutbine/CC may achieve higher energy efficen- cies and lower emissions than the current incineration. However, its application has not yet avercome many obstacles. For example, the state-of the-art syngas purification technologies do not achieve the ve- quired quality standards. Also running gas turbines require complex maintenance. These reasons have in fact caused a very limited applica- tion ofthe gas turbine/CC in pyrolyss/gasification-based WtE plants (Panepinto etal, 2015); while the most common configuration today is to burn the syngas ina steam boiler, namely, “two-step oxidation (Consonni and Vigand, 2012) In recent years, development of the pyrolysis/gasification-based [WEE technologies has become a focus of attention, stimulated by the Search for more efficient energy recovery and environmentally sustain= able waste management. However, case studies results based on the current large-scale commercial plants reveal that the modem incinera- ‘on could fufill an environmentally sound technology, which performs ‘etter than the selected pyrolysis ane gasification-melking plants. To be commercially successful, the pyrolsis/gasifcation-based WIE must de- velop the whole process chain (pre-treatment, thermal conversion, products utilization, residues management). Those potential areas of development could include: 1. Boost the plant efficiency. The superior performance of the Lahti gas- ification plant attains tits effective syngas cleaning. which acicates, {increasing the steam parameters while avoiding the corrosion prob- lem. It could serve as.a demonstration for designing the next gener ation of WtE configuration. The overall energy efficiency could also be increased by the utilization of the CHP system, or syngas o-incin- craton ina higher efficiency power station, 2. Use of selected waste streams. Pyrolysis and gasification plants tend torequir very careful feedstock pre-treatment To be more elective, solutions could be the use of SRF, refuse derived fuel (RDF, or resid uals from mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems, which ae ‘more homogenous than the raw MSW. 5, Ffcient residues management, Recycling materials from WeE solid residues, particularly metals and bottom ash, may result in two main benefits: a decrease in waste landfil: and, a reduction in the ‘consumption of virgin raw materials, Pyrolysis plant could aso con= sider the use of char inland application. Te specific properties of ‘bottom ashichar, in particular the leaching behaviour, should be carefully considered to ensure thatthe residues would not cause ad- verse environmental impacts Long-term potential areas of development could also attain at (Engineers, 2004):Bonga Scene fhe tl Ever 52 (208) 24-753 183 1. Syngas putifcation and use in higher energy efficiency equipment ‘such 25 a dedicated gas turbine/CC, 2, Further processing of syngas tobe use as chemical feedstock, liquid fuels. ete Acknowledgments This project is supported by the French Centre National de la Rechercine Scientifique (CNRS), the Labex SOLSTICE (Agence Nationale de a Recherche, ANR), and the Chinese Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to University (B08025), ‘Appendix A. Supplementary data, Supplementary data to this article (detailed process description, ‘data acquisition and calculation, inventory analysis, and the sensitivity analysis used inthe LCA) are available in the online version, a https oLorg/10.1016 jsciotenv2018.01.151. References, ‘sa Ape 208 Si 2 ste Eat ant ‘Ne, 2012 Mocs ad chlo sects of munca sold waste gseton A eon: Waste Mang 32 625-59, ‘en. U- Di Grea F201 Casson of sl recovered fn pa sale Tn bee etre 17 S28-535 ‘rea dans, i Gegtie 2015, Alife ce asesent af envconnetal er Taances oo cmbuslon- ae aston ace waste techoooges laste ang 4, 74 eel Peer M. Capa. A, Longs, GA. 2008, es al evznmeal aa ‘ss afannnovtv stern based on munspal ald waste (MSW) press and fmbined yl Ap Ter ng 28, 35-184 etgloeo.¥, Def, Gr Dele Howe, Napol 208 Eery rom sien of it Pests Wace Mana. 1a ‘en: D. Cent TH. 2010 Life asessment (EASEWASTE of wo rip To wate ncnerssn terol in hi Waste Nanay es 28 (0) 508378 me. ys Marg 2018 Protege ap i was ‘coun uepean Cones, 1958 Deve 1908/1 2 of 25. pe 1638 om he Tif waste Of) Comets 1 16, =18 DEFRA U, 2004 Rev of Eaten ape leah es of Waste Mangere: ‘Muna Soil Waste apd Siar Wastes Dela Pasion Lato Deepens Th yi age ly nea rs nt owes a Han MW yrs Pa Dtnginerng- The aya engines uly 2008 Waste pyres plant Burau” Baga MW yi Pan. Dec £2010 beet 2010/75/61 fhe upean Paramenad ofthe cunal of "4 Nove 2010 on ntl emo tegrated pln prevention adc troy Om eur Une 334, 17-11, nglnets. EC 2004 The aly ofaerane thermal treatment of MSW in the UK set report ures. ross eed hea proucion by fe, 6.28, 1960-2015 cuEpa, “esos atsis-expaed nex pple Grose peat pod Py Fuectg.o8 1980.20. urett Gros elec podcen by fuel CW, E28, 1980-2015 eceuEpa ‘ulurstattatsieexplaned/ndexppiPlescross sec. pradtion by Feelin it-26- 155020161 pre vaget Tape C Cit Leer, Tel, R Chapman, 2015. cle ‘essen lenses nd tea avinee entrant thle ‘Bet fr munca sold wate eset) Glan red 0H 212-2 FV Ml Te Bags B 2015. The peel pt of mpl sa waste = ‘i ai a he strapon om dese ol Even. St arden Ma Fron, . 207 Acta evi of developments the pay of te Toot sear fe Ana Aol yas 9387-304 auc sped 0. Uses Stadler, J, Zi, Mask, C2004 ‘Coniterthemal usa of was ina power pane by Ieate waster Set highest esta deat fs VS Poweteh 85, 11 sch, Pting 200, Spl iereataton ne de pact Asesment= “ye sbinns Mathafloy Technel Usverstyof Denmark Ise ar Pred Development 150199780 TaD: Eovconmental Managemen Cy Assen and Famewor BP copy oe, Genes Kaplan, 0, Dean). Thomel $2008 eter fo bam buy we orn kei generation? enon Se Teh 4. 1712-1717 ‘oo Hi 2008 fe gel mga! nesent vary wt anvensan ecnoges ‘Waste Mag 28 (6) 1882100 xoutkoumpss DS, Karls, 5. Roulumoundrs 5, Kouladinas,G. Grammei, P. ‘Tatar €, 2013 Craton af wastotoenerg posse ssun of Me jes “scien pl ion pec icin rece, ana Geran, Waste Buus Vali 55-021 ut Eorla hp ageaton ca ee Beas. ocess sap cobain sd acation Wase-o-Eory (WE) ks ast Manag 3, 15-25 tue. Pes CM, 205 Le pele assessment of fon wate manager options can Ped 13 375765, Mendy, 202 berg redcton fom mss (pt 3): seston thoes. "oer fool 8895-53 aoaeops, Asc) Puml 2,0. Vals CA. Bown, A aad. Tacondou-€, 2018 Fly inessted rede or staal assssnet {Doreen fom es Tol Sion, 615-08, ‘Motta A Canes, Musou D, 2016 Boras een teehoony the sta of ‘ear vere) Energy Cher 2510-2. Mor M. Wale 1988, ery reaver om slid wase fas sing advanced ‘reason eco Wie May 1337-904 Mens Be Rober Ch Pasta. f. Nasr 1.2008. ramen impacts "esi nenersson na regional sytem Ena maps aly eve rm 3 eye pespecte J arr Mate 159 (2-3), 505311 ing. Hing Ma. Chang Yo Wa Hine HS, Ro, 201, ent Ses cy ode Sas yt ot eas Pa Nowa T- 1K Ysa J Koja K, Mass Nala R aK, 202 Dele tent of ist gaseion ad gu eerig ase fi tuncpal sold ass {nisi Mae les Waste Mage a 15-16) ‘Pavel, B Tedescs, VBE» Gene, G, 215 Sonne perfamancs and hg efercy lr SW gasicaten Westnet Waste mas Valo 6 123-135, ote £, loy BA. seh 5 Seot UE Leans, 2008 Ue eee ese of Soca tems esting he enegeie cobom an cate change petal Environ Se Tech 4 47-025 ‘aS rank, 2000 Mun sol was inert reside reecing ye Thal paces Waste Manag 20, 248-258, ovelanen J kson [208 fara I Pane: ig Eiciene Use of Fin Power "reuctn trough caseabon (por by Lak Eneray Ltd Metso awe Oy rim. ‘ten Wabi, March 200 Kew 9S Sse Wate Conversion Ste eA Tioehergy Agere (Tsk 36 Work Toe 2) “arp Manat, Orda, M2012 Cogriicaon of munis sod wee and pater esvery ns argesesepaication ape melting sem Waste Mana [Link] ‘The Comision of he Taropea Communes 207, Conmison Dist 2007755 ‘tox hrnzne snd onl s ave Sabet OMe furl of he uropesn nin ‘he Eutopeat Pursment ad the Cou of European Corsmuntis 2008. Decve 200695 ofthe Euopeat Palette ofthe Counel of 18 Neve 2008 wat and repeal cin Deve Of) Eu Unum L312. 330, ‘ura Bute, ole, A rss, NM, Rao Ast 200 ie eas “sent of wasnt a Denia a Waly sig tw 1A model West ‘Manag nes. 29 10 Supp), 7-30. an de Velden Rasen. Be A Jasens, Dew 200. Fundamentals "sts an endothermic ofthe biomass pyr eacson. Renew ey 35, ine Vergara’. Tehebanoglous,C. 2012. Moca sold waste andthe enviroment a Tal perpen, Aan ev Enron Res 37, 277-308 age PA ete, 2015 Lie cele ses f post osu pass pedcton Tromwate eheveal an econ equipment (WEEE) eaten estas hace {eal Bupean pcs reccng plant Se Teal Enon 28, 156167 Wag H. Wang Shaan A, 205 ieee sess oft yal mig "eld waste in Now Caan of USA] Osh Pred 87, 511-578 Wier He, Allg L957, oneal Auten frees, Va “he Neodag on Saera es eapos Cd Wied, amin M, Ven Mt, Wing K, 201 Ree of sates waste cre echoes onan (UR). (Sae to, Ce Stes). p. 9-20 ‘asi L, Lt, P Sots, Catan A, 2008 Tecra ptorane of ‘tey-ftommiste fidaed be commbusen and pseatonpocce athe UR ote hem Eng.) 105. 315327 Y.9 Fe) i Deng). W201 Enery etalon lignite pyri a ha crm eal wh gsteton Ser ful 27, 325-455 ‘hang. YU, 8 UH, LH 2011, Theedjna vation of bomas gasicaton ha inauthentic Aca, 85-71 ‘Ahan. van et Vet, Zan. Huppe 6, 2009 Le ye sessment of mua Sold waste managesnent with regard to reenouse fs emsions ase of ‘a, China Total Eon 0. 1517-1528.