Evaluating energy generation potential from municipal solid waste in an open dumping site of Khulna

IF 3.9 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES City and Environment Interactions Pub Date : 2024-09-24 DOI:10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100172
{"title":"Evaluating energy generation potential from municipal solid waste in an open dumping site of Khulna","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cacint.2024.100172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The expanding global population, waste output, land scarcity, and environmental deterioration make waste-to-energy (WtE) technology a feasible option for managing MSW. This study explores the economic benefits of WtE in the Rajbandh open dumpsite in Khulna and the potential of generating energy from MSW. The electricity generation potential under alternative scenarios namely scenario 2 (landfill gas to electricity (LFGTE)), scenario 3 (mass-burn incineration), scenario 4 (hybrid LFGTE, mechanical–biological treated (MBT) anaerobic digestion (AD) and incineration), and scenario 5 (hybrid AD and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) incineration) is based on projected waste generation over the next 20 years, taking population growth into account. These four options are compared to Business as Usual (BAU). Scenario 3 has the highest electricity generation capacity at 207799.73 MWh/year, followed by hybrid RDF-incineration/MBT-AD (scenario 5), LFGTE, however, lowest generation at 30683.07 MWh/year. Net Present Value (NPV), Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), and Payback Period define each scenario’s economic feasibility. Due to its greatest NPV of approximately 41.378 million USD, Scenario 3 is the most economically beneficial. Sensitivity analysis has been done selecting some sensitive parameters to evaluate the robustness of the output. Waste reduction model (WARM) estimates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use for each scenario. However, scenario 3 has the lowest GHG emissions and energy use. In addition to reducing GHG emissions and energy usage, recycling waste increased NPV and economic benefits. This analysis reveals that scenario 3 is the best way to generate power, provide economic benefits, and reduce energy consumption for ecologically friendly waste management in Khulna City.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":52395,"journal":{"name":"City and Environment Interactions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"City and Environment Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590252024000321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The expanding global population, waste output, land scarcity, and environmental deterioration make waste-to-energy (WtE) technology a feasible option for managing MSW. This study explores the economic benefits of WtE in the Rajbandh open dumpsite in Khulna and the potential of generating energy from MSW. The electricity generation potential under alternative scenarios namely scenario 2 (landfill gas to electricity (LFGTE)), scenario 3 (mass-burn incineration), scenario 4 (hybrid LFGTE, mechanical–biological treated (MBT) anaerobic digestion (AD) and incineration), and scenario 5 (hybrid AD and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) incineration) is based on projected waste generation over the next 20 years, taking population growth into account. These four options are compared to Business as Usual (BAU). Scenario 3 has the highest electricity generation capacity at 207799.73 MWh/year, followed by hybrid RDF-incineration/MBT-AD (scenario 5), LFGTE, however, lowest generation at 30683.07 MWh/year. Net Present Value (NPV), Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), and Payback Period define each scenario’s economic feasibility. Due to its greatest NPV of approximately 41.378 million USD, Scenario 3 is the most economically beneficial. Sensitivity analysis has been done selecting some sensitive parameters to evaluate the robustness of the output. Waste reduction model (WARM) estimates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use for each scenario. However, scenario 3 has the lowest GHG emissions and energy use. In addition to reducing GHG emissions and energy usage, recycling waste increased NPV and economic benefits. This analysis reveals that scenario 3 is the best way to generate power, provide economic benefits, and reduce energy consumption for ecologically friendly waste management in Khulna City.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估库尔纳露天垃圾场城市固体废物的能源生产潜力
随着全球人口的增长、废物产量的增加、土地的稀缺和环境的恶化,废物变能源(WtE)技术已成为管理城市固体废物的可行选择。本研究探讨了在库尔纳 Rajbandh 露天垃圾场进行 WtE 的经济效益,以及利用城市固体废物产生能源的潜力。根据对未来 20 年垃圾产生量的预测,并考虑到人口增长因素,对备选方案(方案 2(垃圾填埋气发电 (LFGTE))、方案 3(大规模焚烧)、方案 4(混合 LFGTE、机械生物处理 (MBT) 厌氧消化 (AD) 和焚烧)以及方案 5(混合厌氧消化和垃圾衍生燃料 (RDF) 焚烧)的发电潜力进行了分析。这四个方案与 "一切照旧"(BAU)方案进行了比较。方案 3 的发电量最高,为 207799.73 兆瓦时/年,其次是混合型 RDF-焚烧/MBT-AD(方案 5),然而,LFGTE 的发电量最低,为 30683.07 兆瓦时/年。净现值 (NPV)、平准化电力成本 (LCOE) 和投资回收期确定了每个方案的经济可行性。方案 3 的净现值最大,约为 4137.8 万美元,因此经济效益最高。敏感性分析选择了一些敏感参数,以评估输出的稳健性。减少废物模型(WARM)估算了每种方案的温室气体(GHG)排放量和能源使用量。然而,方案 3 的温室气体排放量和能源使用量最低。除了减少温室气体排放和能源消耗外,废物回收还增加了净现值和经济效益。该分析表明,方案 3 是库尔纳市进行生态友好型废物管理的最佳发电方式,既能提供经济效益,又能减少能源消耗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
City and Environment Interactions
City and Environment Interactions Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
27 days
期刊最新文献
Climate change hazards and the resilience of coastal cities in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A systematic review Health impact assessment of exposure to road traffic noise and air pollution according to pre- and post-densification scenarios in Helsingborg, Sweden Mapping heat-related risks in Swiss cities under different urban tree scenarios Assessing the degree of personal exposure to PM2.5 in growing cities of Rwanda based on time-activity patterns and microenvironments Indoor heat in Amsterdam: Comparing observed indoor air temperatures from a professional network and from a citizen science approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1