Comparison of Green-House Gas Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness between Two Ways of Waste-to-Energy - Case Study of Tianjin, China

Yu He; Yuan Wang; Bei Bei Yan; Meng Han

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.726-731.2641

Paper Titles

Analysis of the Barrier Factors of Municipal Solid Waste Classification Recycling
p.2618

Characteristics of Cu²⁺ Adsorption by Modified Rice Straw
p.2622

Characterization of Bio-Oil Obtained from Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis Catalyzed by Char
p.2629

Comparative Study on the Anaerobically Methanogenic Results of Sauce Sweet Model Liquor and Fen-Flavor Liquor Wastewater
p.2636

Comparison of Green-House Gas Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness between Two Ways of Waste-to-Energy - Case Study of Tianjin, China
p.2641

Cooperative Game Analysis on Wastes Recycling from Industrial Zones
p.2645

Dewaterability of Excess Activated Sludge with Fly Ash Conditioning
p.2651

Discussion of a Treatment Technique for Spent Picking Solution Recycling
p.2655

Effect of Different Biochars on Yield and Yield Components of Wheat on Different Soils
p.2665

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vols. 726-731Comparison of Green-House Gas Emission Reduction...

Comparison of Green-House Gas Emission Reduction and Cost-Effectiveness between Two Ways of Waste-to-Energy - Case Study of Tianjin, China

Abstract:

There are two main waste-to-energy (WtE) ways to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) in China: incineration with electricity and landfill with landfill gas utilization. And the calculation methods provided by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines are often used for calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction of WtE. This paper compared the GHG emission reductions of the two WtE methods, and made a cost-benefit analysis of them. Results show that: incineration with electricity can reduce more GHG emission than landfill with landfill gas utilization while disposing of 1 t MSW and the cost of incineration is higher than landfill while reducing 1 t CO₂eq.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 726-731)

Pages:

2641-2644

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.726-731.2641

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

August 2013

Authors:

Yu He, Yuan Wang, Bei Bei Yan, Meng Han

Keywords:

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Greenhouse Gas Reduction, Waste-to-Energy

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, P.R. CHINA: China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook (2010) (China Planning Press, Beijing 2011). (in Chinese)

Google Scholar

[2] L. Zhao, D.Z. Chen, G.Y. Liu, J. Ruan, and H.C. Thomas: Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae Vol. 30 (2010), p.1634 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[3] Y.F. Chen, G. Pu, and J.Y. Ran: Journal of Chongqing Institute of Technology (Natural Science Edition) Vol. 21 (2007), p.25 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[4] IPCC, in: 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, edtied by Eggleston H.S. , Buendia L., Miwa K. , Ngara T. and Tanabe K./Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Publising, Japan (2006), in press.

Google Scholar

[5] P.J. He, M. Chen, N. Yang, and L.M. Shao: Environmental Science Vol. 31 (2011), p.402 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[6] Information on http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/JQA1193375340.58/view

Google Scholar

[7] Information on http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/NOJQ2KXHJ5OBJ10XON5Q5 5ZDQE2J4Q /view.html

Google Scholar

[8] Ministry of Construction of National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC): Project economic evaluation methods and parameters (third edition) (Report, Beijing 2006). (In Chinese)

Google Scholar