See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274952373

Integrated gasification and plasma for UK electricity from waste: a life cycle
perspective

Conference Paper · November 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 359

6 authors, including:

Sara Evangelisti Roland Clift

University College London University of Surrey
21 PUBLICATIONS   730 CITATIONS    310 PUBLICATIONS   11,888 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paola Lettieri Chris Chapman

University College London Advanced Plasma Power
164 PUBLICATIONS   4,127 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   454 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hot Gas Cleaning View project

Engineering Doctorate at Surrey University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roland Clift on 24 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Integrated gasification and plasma cleaning for waste treatment: A life

cycle perspective
Sara Evangelisti a, Carla Tagliaferri a,b, Roland Clift c, Paola Lettieri a,⇑, Richard Taylor b, Chris Chapman b
a
Chemical Engineering Department, University College London, Torrington Place, London WC1E 7JE, UK
b
Advanced Plasma Power (APP), Unit B2, Marston Gate, South Marston Business Park, Swindon SN3 4DE, UK
c
Centre for Environmental Strategy, The University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the past, almost all residual municipal waste in the UK was landfilled without treatment. Recent
Received 22 January 2015 European waste management directives have promoted the uptake of more sustainable treatment tech-
Accepted 29 May 2015 nologies, especially for biodegradable waste. Local authorities have started considering other options for
Available online 23 June 2015
dealing with residual waste. In this study, a life cycle assessment of a future 20 MWe plant using an
advanced two-stage gasification and plasma technology is undertaken. This plant can thermally treat
Keywords: waste feedstocks with different composition and heating value to produce electricity, steam and a vitri-
Life cycle assessment
fied product. The objective of the study is to analyse the environmental impacts of the process when fed
Gasification
Plasma
with seven different feedstocks (including municipal solid waste, solid refuse fuel, reuse-derived fuel,
Energy-from-waste technology wood biomass and commercial & industrial waste) and identify the process steps which contribute more
Metal recovery to the environmental burden. A scenario analysis on key processes, such as oxygen production technol-
ogy, metal recovery and the appropriate choice for the secondary market aggregate material, is per-
formed. The influence of accounting for the biogenic carbon content in the waste from the calculations
of the global warming potential is also shown. Results show that the treatment of the refuse-derived fuel
has the lowest impact in terms of both global warming potential and acidification potential because of its
high heating value. For all the other impact categories analysed, the two-stage gasification and plasma
process shows a negative impact for all the waste streams considered, mainly due to the avoided burdens
associated with the production of electricity from the plant. The plasma convertor, key characteristic of
the thermal process investigated, although utilising electricity shows a relatively small contribution to
the overall environmental impact of the plant. The results do not significantly vary in the scenario anal-
ysis. Accounting for biogenic carbon enhanced the performance of biomass and refuse-derived fuel in
terms of global warming potential. The main analysis of this study has been performed from a waste
management perspective, using 1 ton of waste as functional unit. A comparison of the results when
1 kWhe of electricity produced is used as functional unit shows similar trends for the environmental
impact categories considered.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Framework Directives (European Commission, 2008, 1999). Until

In 2008, 53% of the household waste produced in the UK was
sent to a landfill, while only 1% was treated by incineration. By
2012, the proportion of household waste treated by incineration
plants had risen to 17%, while 37% was still sent to landfill
(EUROSTAT, 2014). The drivers of this change have been the need
to produce a cleaner and affordable energy and to divert the waste
from landfill as required by the European Landfill and Waste
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Chemical Engineering, UCL, Torrington
Place, Roberts Building, Room 312, London WC1E 7JE, UK. Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7679
7867; fax: +44 (0) 20 7383 2348.
E-mail address: p.lettieri@ucl.ac.uk (P. Lettieri).
recently, the main alternative to landfill which has been consid-
ered for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) is inciner-
ation (Arafat et al., 2013; Song et al., 2013; Ning et al., 2013).
However, local authorities have started looking at other thermo-
chemical treatment options to deal with municipal solid waste,
including pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc technologies,
pushed by public environmental concerns and fierce opposition
to new incineration plants. Waste gasification or pyrolysis is not
a new concept. Although pyrolysis and gasification have been used
extensively in the past to produce charcoal, coke or other fuels, it is
only recently that these technologies have received increasing
attention due to their higher recycling rates, lower emissions,
higher energy efficiencies, lower costs, smaller footprints and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.05.037
0956-053X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
486 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496
reduced visual impact (Materazzi et al., 2013). In particular, flu-
idized beds are considered as one of the most effective technolo-
gies for gasification or pyrolysis due to their high process
flexibility (Arena and Di Gregorio, 2014). Even so, the majority of
the existing energy-from-waste plants are grate-fired boilers (i.e.
incinerators) (Leckner, 2015).
In the UK, public investments are supporting the design, instal-
lation and operation of advanced waste-to-energy technologies to
achieve high recovery efficiency and flexibility and to demonstrate
the improved efficiencies offered by gasification over other tech-
nologies (DEFRA, 2013). A number of multi-stage advanced ther-
mochemical treatments have been developed including fast
pyrolysis with combustion, and gasification, usually in a fluidised
bed, with the resulting syngas cleaned by secondary high temper-
ature oxidation or a two stage gasification–plasma process
(Evangelisti et al., 2015). An example of the latter has been devel-
oped by Advanced Plasma Power (APP). This process combines two
commercially proven modules: a fluidised bed gasifier and a
plasma converter to clean and condition the gas to produce a high
quality syngas which can be used in a range of applications from
direct power generation to the production of substitute natural
gas, hydrogen and/or liquid biofuels. One of the potentialities of
a two-stage gasification–plasma process over a more traditional
thermochemical treatment of the waste, such as a single stage
gasification plant, is the significant reduction of the tars in the syn-
gas. Tars are in fact undesirable because of various problems asso-
ciated with condensation, formation of tar aerosols and
polymerisation to form more complex structures, which may dam-
age process equipment as well as end-use devices (e.g. gas engines
and fuel cells). In a two-stage gasification and plasma process the
tars are almost completely converted into H2 and CO, resulting in
high syngas yield, little by-products and nearly 100% carbon con-
version efficiency (Materazzi et al., 2014). A pilot refuse-derived
fuel (RDF) plant for trials and experimental purposes has been
developed recently and several design studies are ongoing for a
20 MWe plant.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to compare
such technologies and to evaluate their environmental perfor-
mances allowing decision makers to be correctly informed
(Moberg et al., 2005). LCA has previously been used to assess waste
to energy treatments of MSW, accounting from the collection pro-
cesses to electricity generation (Astrup et al., 2015; Consonni et al.,
2005; Evangelisti et al., 2014). However, relatively few studies
have been published on the life cycle assessment of advanced ther-
mal treatments for MSW (Al-Salem et al., 2014; Khoo, 2009;
Pressley et al., 2014; Zaman, 2013). Moreover, the majority of these
studies are comparative LCA where the advanced thermal treat-
ment is evaluated against more traditional technologies, rather
than pure attributional LCA studies which give full understanding
of a specific technology (Al-Salem et al., 2014; Khoo, 2009;
Zaman, 2013). As noted by Astrup et al. (2015), very few of the
existing LCA studies on waste-to-energy technologies provide suf-
ficient description of the technologies investigated and the key
assumptions of the LCA; as a consequence, the applicability of
inventory data and LCA results provided by the majority of the
existing studies are limited (Astrup et al., 2015).
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the life cycle environmental
impact of a two-stage thermochemical process, i.e. a gasification–
plasma process (G–Pl), for the treatment of solid waste, assessing
different waste composition and heating values. Several environ-
mental impact categories are analysed and a hot spot analysis is
performed to identify the more polluting sections of the process.
A scenario analysis on some key processes is presented. Overall
the study is intended to be performed ensuring transparency in
the methodological choices and robustness of the results and rec-
ommendations provided.
2. LCA methodology
Life cycle assessment is one of the most developed and widely
used environmental assessment tools for comparing alternative
technologies when the location of the activity is already defined
(Clift et al., 2000; Clift, 2013). LCA quantifies the amount of mate-
rials and energy used and the emissions and waste over the com-
plete supply chain (i.e. life cycles) of goods and services
(Baumann and Tillman, 2004). Moreover, it helps determining
the ‘‘hot spots’’ in the system, i.e. those activities that have the
most significant environmental impact and should be improved
in the first instance, thus enabling identification of more environ-
mentally sustainable options (Clift, 2006).
In LCA, a multifunctional process is defined as an activity that
fulfils more than one function, such as a waste management pro-
cess dealing with waste and generating energy (Ekvall and
Finnveden, 2001). It is then necessary to find a rational basis for
allocating the environmental burdens between the functions. The
problem of allocation in LCA has been the topic of much debate
(e.g. Clift et al., 2000; Heijungs and Guinée, 2007). The ISO stan-
dards recommend that the allocation should be avoided ‘‘expand-
ing the product system to include the additional functions
related to the co-products’’ (ISO, 2006a,b). This can be performed
by broadening the system boundaries to include the avoided bur-
dens of conventional productions (i.e. substitution by system
expansion) (ILCD, 2010; Eriksson et al., 2007). The same approach
is recommended by the UK product labelling standard provided
that it can be proved that the recovered material or energy is actu-
ally put to the use claimed (BSI, 2011). This approach is applied in
this study. Following the methodological approach of Clift et al.
(2000) for Integrated Waste Management (IWM), a pragmatic dis-
tinction is made between Foreground and Background, considering
the former as ‘the set of processes whose selection or mode of
operation is affected directly by decisions based on the study’
and the latter as ‘all other processes which interact with the
Foreground, usually by supplying or receiving material or energy’.
The burdens evaluated here are considered under three categories
(Clift et al., 2000): direct burdens, associated with the use phase of
the process/service; indirect burdens, due to upstream and down-
stream processes (e.g. energy provision for electricity or diesel for
transportation); and avoided burdens associated with products or
services supplied by the process (e.g. energy or secondary material
produced by the system). Following conventional practices (BSI,
2011) secondary data for the indirect and avoided burdens are
taken as the averages for the background system, while primary
data are used for the Foreground operations.
Carbon dioxide from biogenic carbon is sometimes excluded
from the comparison (Christensen et al., 2009) because it forms
part of the renewable carbon cycle, theoretically removed from
the atmosphere in succeeding products. However, in this study car-
bon dioxide emissions from biogenic carbon are included in the
estimates for the Global Warming Potential (GWP) because the
assessment is based on existing waste streams with defined carbon
content so that the production of the materials in the waste does
not enter the analysis. Therefore the total carbon content of the
waste is considered, with no distinction between biogenic and
non-biogenic carbon in the baseline. A further analysis is presented
in Section 4.3 where the results of the global warming potential
excluding biogenic carbon are showed.
Currently more than thirty software packages exist to perform
LCA analysis, with differing scope and capacity: some are specific
for certain applications, while others have been directly developed
by industrial organisations (Manfredi and Pant, 2012). In this study
GaBi 6 has been used (PE International, 2013). GaBi 6 contains
databases developed by PE International, it incorporates industry
organisations’ databases (e.g. Plastics Europe, Aluminium
 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496 487

producers, etc.) and also regional and national databases (e.g. production of 1 MJ of electricity from the grid, and in particular
Ecoinvent, Japan database, US database, etc.). in the carbon footprint which is equal to 0.155 kg of CO2 eq
(including biogenic carbon) for the UK (PE International, 2013).

2.1. Functional unit and system boundary

The aim of this study is to perform an attributional life cycle
assessment with system expansion of a two stage gasification
and plasma process for waste treatment, assessing different feed-
stock composition (i.e. ultimate analysis and heating value). The
Functional unit used is 1ton of waste as received at the plant,
because the primary function of the studied process is to treat
waste. Results based on the secondary function of the plant, i.e.
electricity production, are showed in Section 4.4. Fig. 1 shows the
boundary of the system considered in this paper. The Foreground
system data used are site-specific wherever possible and based
on experimental and modelling results, mainly derived from mod-
elling studies validated against experimental results from the pilot
plant. Otherwise, average data from the literature, specific data-
sets, and general models are used. In this work, the background
data are regionalised in the sense that they refer to the UK system
rather than the European average (PE International, 2013). Neither
transportation of waste from the generation point to the plant nor
the generation of the waste are considered in the system.
The valuable outputs considered in the system expansion are:
the electricity generated by the process; the vitrified product
referred to as ‘‘Plasmarok’’ generated by the plasma converter;
and the metals recovered from the waste pre-treatment process.
The electricity produced by the thermal treatment of the waste is
assumed to substitute the electricity from the UK grid. This is pre-
sently based on an average mix of generating technology,
described by data from PE International (2013), and including: nat-
ural gas (44%), hard coal (28%) and nuclear energy (18%). This is
reflected in the environmental impact associated with the
2.2. Feedstock composition
Seven different waste streams are analysed in this study:
 MSW1, which reflects the average MSW in the UK.
 MSW2, with no organic fines but with a higher amount of
plastics.
 MSW3, with higher amount of inert material and wood waste.
MSW2 and MSW3 represents two alternative municipal waste
streams in UK (DEFRA, 2009).
 Solid refuse fuel (SRF), which is a standardised solid fuel pre-
pared from non-hazardous waste meeting specific require-
ments in terms of thermal value, chlorine content and
mercury content (DEFRA, 2013).
 Refuse derived fuel (RDF), similar to the SRF but with no strict
composition range.
 Biomass (wood chips).
 Commercial and industrial waste (C&I).
Table 1 reports the composition of the feedstocks assumed in
this study and their ultimate analysis, which derives from samples
of feedstocks collected in different part of the UK (APP, 2013;
DEFRA, 2009).
Individual LCA models were built for each feedstock. All require
pre-treatment (i.e. separation of metals, shredding and drying),
except for RDF (which requires separation of metals and drying,
but not shredding), biomass (which require drying only) and SRF,
which is assumed to arrive at the plant already pre-treated. In fact,
waste derived fuel needs to undergo a deep screening process in

Foreground
Feedstock system

Emission to
Primary air
Energy Extraction and water
Solid fuel Disposal of
processing of preparation Metals waste materials soil
materials

Plasmarok Syngas Generator

Water Reprocessing of
Energy and
Syngas Refining recovered Waste materials
chemicals
production materials

Power production
Virgin metals
and other
materials
Electricity

Average Primary Average Electricity Metals

Aggregates production production
production
Background
system
Environment

Fig. 1. System boundary.

488 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496

Table 1 The measurement unit of abiotic depletion is MJ as the majority

Feedstocks composition, as received basis and ultimate analysis (APP, 2013). of non-renewable resources represent energy sources. The
Waste fractions (% as MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF/ eutrophication potential includes all pollutants that promote
received) SRF microbiological growth leading to oxygen consumption. Nitrogen
Paper and card board 22.7 10 22.4 34.5 58 and phosphorus are the two main nutrients implicated in eutroph-
Wood 3.7 2 7 11.5 100 5 ication. Those components can determine shifts of species compo-
Metals 4.3 7 7 4.1 sition and increased biological productivity. The photochemical
Glass 6.6 6 3.5 1.8
Textile 2.8 7 0 0.5 15
ozone creation potential is an indicator of potential to create tropo-
WEEE 2.2 5 3.5 4.9 20 spheric ozone, expressed in equivalents to ethene as the reference
Plastics 10 35 14 24.7 species. Ecotoxicity impact category considers emissions of toxic
Inert/aggregates/solid 5.3 22 28 13.9 substances that have an effect on the ecosystem. Freshwater aqua-
Organic fines 35.3 0 3.5 1.9
tic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) assesses the toxic effects of pollut-
Miscellaneous 7.1 6 11.1 2.2 2
ing compounds to water life, while the indicator terrestrial
Ultimate analysis
ecotoxicity potential (TETP) is related to land based ecosystems.
Ash content (%) 12.5 9.2 11.3 11.4 7.5 0.4
% C (Dry Ash Free basis 17.9 34.7 26.4 26.6 0 18.9 The Human Toxicity Potential reflects instead the potential harm
(DAF)) fossil of chemical species released into the environment, based on both
% C (DAF) biogenic 31.8 14.8 39.6 24.5 53.7 32.3 the inherent toxicity of a compound and the potential human
% H (DAF) 6.1 6.1 4 3.5 7 6.2 exposure. Finally, Ozone Depletion Potential is a measure of the
% O (DAF) 42 43.2 29.4 44.3 37 42.2
destructive effects of gases on the ozone layer.
% N (DAF) 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.2
% S (DAF) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1
% Cl (DAF) 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1
3. Life cycle inventory
order to be classified as SRF. For this reason, only drying is required
at the gasification and plasma plant, to meet the moisture content In this analysis, the mass and energy balances of the two-stage
of the inlet feedstock required by the gasifier (12%). For all other thermochemical process analysed is based on a set of input data
feedstocks (i.e. MSW, C&I and RDF), ferrous and non-ferrous metal which was generated from the process plant design using Aspen
is recovered in the Solid Fuel Preparation unit. Plus software and validated through several experimental results
by the industrial developer (APP, 2013). Four distinct units of the
analysed process were identified: Solid Fuel Preparation; Syngas
2.3. Life cycle impact categories generator; Syngas refining; and Power production.
Fig. 2 shows the main flows between the units as well as the
In the Impact Assessment phase, the emissions and inputs allocation of the avoided burdens between electricity production,
quantified in the Inventory phase are translated into a smaller metals recycling and Plasmarok. The received waste is usually
number of impacts. The study focuses on nine impact categories – pre-treated. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are recovered in the
showed in Table 2 – which are considered most significant for solid fuel preparation section, except for biomass and the solid
the purpose of this paper (ILCD, 2011). refuse-derived fuel which are only dried before entering the gasifi-
The GWP characterises and calculates the impact of greenhouse cation unit without metals’ recovery. Unlike common incineration
gases based on the extent to which these gases enhance radiative plants that produce bottom ash which must be stabilised before
forcing. GWP values for specific gases, developed by the use or disposal, a two-stage gasification and plasma process pro-
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), express the duces a vitrified and stabilized product (Plasmarok). Steam is then
cumulative radiative forcing over a given time period following a recovered in the syngas refining section during the cooling of the
pulse emission in terms of the quantity of carbon dioxide giving syngas after the plasma treatment and it is assumed to be
the same effect (IPCC, 2007). Following common convention, for re-used within the process; no export of steam is accounted for.
example in the Kyoto Protocol, the 100-year values have been used Electricity is generated using a gas engine and a steam turbine
here. The acidification potential indicator quantifies the impact of and is exported to the grid. The steam produced by flue gas cooling
acid substances and precursors such as SO2, NOx, and HCl. Rain, is fed to the steam turbine of the power production unit. All energy
fog and snow trap the atmospheric pollutants and lead to environ- and chemical consumptions have been taken into account to calcu-
mental damage such as fish mortality, leaching of toxic metals late the indirect environmental burdens. The energy required for
from soil and rocks, and damage to forests and to buildings and the start-up of the process has been considered negligible as it con-
monuments. The Abiotic Depletion addresses the environmental tributes less than 0.1% to the total energy requirement. An inven-
problem of the diminishing pool of resources. It focuses on the tory table of the process analysed is available as Supplementary
depletion of non-living resources such as iron ore, and crude oil. Information.

Table 2
Impact categories and indicators used in this study.

Impact categories Impact indicator Acronym Characterisation model Units

Climate change Global warming potential GWP CML 2001 baseline (IPCC, 2007) kg CO2eq
Acidification Acidification potential AP CML 2001 baseline (Hauschild and Wenzel, 1998) kg SO2eq
Resources depletion (fossil) Abiotic depletion AD CML 2001 baseline (Guinée et al., 2001) MJ
Eutrophication Eutrophication potential EP CML 2001 baseline (Hauschild and Wenzel, 1998) kg phosphate eq
Photochemical ozone formation Photochemical ozone creation potential POCP CML 2001 baseline (Jenkin and Hayman, 1999) kg ethane eq
Ecotoxicity (freshwater) Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential FAETP USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al., 2008) kg DCBa eq
Ecotoxicity (terrestrial) Terrestric ecotoxicity potential TETP USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al., 2008) kg DCB eq
Human toxicity Human toxicity potential HTP USEtox model (Rosenbaum et al., 2008) kg DCB eq
Ozone depletion Ozone layer depletion potential OLDP CML 2001 baseline (WMO, 2003) kg R11b eq
a
DCB: dichlorobenzenes.
b
R11: trichlorofluoromethane.
 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496 489

Fig. 2. High level diagram of the two-stage gasification and plasma process (G–Pl). The four main sections of the process are highlighted in bold. System expansion is
represented by rhombus.

3.1. Solid fuel preparation unit 3.2. Syngas generator unit

In the solid fuel preparation unit, the received waste is
pre-treated and transformed to a refuse derive fuel (RDF), through
a shredding and drying process. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals
are recovered for future reprocessing by a mechanical sorting pro-
cess, to be finally sold as recycled metals. Table 3 shows the quan-
tity of ferrous and non-ferrous metals recycled in the G–Pl process
for the different waste streams considered. The electricity required
for pre-treatment includes consumption in the conveyors, shred-
ders, fans, pumps and separator. The steam required by the drier
is internally supplied by the waste heat boiler in the syngas refin-
ing unit which recovers the high thermal energy content of the
syngas at the plasma’s exit, reducing the moisture content of the
feedstock from 40% to 12%.
In the syngas generator unit, the waste is thermally treated to
produce a high temperature syngas. RDF is thermally decomposed
in a bubbling fluidised bed gasifier and transformed into a raw syn-
gas. Oxygen and steam are used as oxidising agents. Their flows are
controlled to maintain the bed temperature (850 °C) and the
required syngas quality and an inert gas (nitrogen) is supplied to
the gasifier as a purge gas. Two main streams are distinguished
going from the gasifier to the plasma converter: raw syngas and
ash. The raw gas produced in the gasifier still contains entrained
ash particles, unconverted char and residual tars and therefore a
further processing stage in the plasma converter is required (Ray
et al., 2012). This unit produces a high purity syngas due to the
cracking of the tars exposed to the high plasma temperature.

Table 3
Key parameters for the seven waste streams analysed per ton of waste received at the plant.

Unit MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF

LHV GJ/ton 9 13 14.7 11 16.9 16 16
Total Net electricity produced MWhe/ton waste as input 0.84 0.88 1.43 1.02 1.49 0.89 1.52
Total Plasmarok produced kg Plasmarok/ton waste as input 79 30 50 72 3 89 65
Total ferrous material recovered kg/ton waste as input 29 47 47 28 0 12 0
Total non ferrous material recovered kg/ton waste as input 10 16 16 8 0 38 0
Total oxygen demand at gasifier kg/ton waste as input 201 226 312 268 436 238 342
Total oxygen demand at plasma kg/ton waste as input 35 41 51 46 69 32 62
Total waste input Ktpaa 259 244 140 216 122 247 135
a
kilo tonnes per year for 20 MWe electrical output.
490 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496
Particles entrained in the gas are captured in the plasma convertor
and together with the ash coming from the gasifier, they are vitri-
fied into the Plasmarok. This is a stabilised product which can
directly be used as an aggregate material in road construction,
without further reprocessing.
3.3. Syngas refining unit
The syngas is then cooled and cleaned in the syngas refining
unit. The finest ash which is still contained in the syngas is col-
lected and removed in the dry filter; thereafter the syngas is fur-
ther cleaned in the scrubbers where air pollution control (APC)
residues are produced. Based on Astrup (2008), we assume a
physico-chemical treatment with acidic wastes in order to partially
stabilise the APC residues. The energy required for this process is
based on Fruergaard et al. (2010): 0.6 l of diesel and 13 kWhe
(46.8 MJ) per tonne of APC residue.
Further cooling is achieved in the quench and in the water
scrubbing systems (such as acid and alkali scrubbers) used to
remove contaminant compounds, i.e. phenol, sulphur dioxide,
hydrogen sulphide, ammonia. The European Waste Incineration
Directive – which includes gasification plant such as the
two-stage G–Pl – reports the acceptable amounts of polluting spe-
cies in aqueous effluents that can be discharged without further
treatment to the public sewer system (European Commission,
2008; UK Government, 2003). However, these limits can be further
constrained by local discharge limits embedded in Discharge
Consents. In this model we assume that effluents from the quench
and scrubber units are treated in standard waste water treatment
plants.
3.4. Power production unit
Finally, the last section includes the generation of electricity
using a gas engine and the cleaning of the flue gas. The steam pro-
duced by cooling the flue gas is fed to a steam turbine to produce
an additional 0.5 MWe of electricity. In this study, the electrical
efficiency of the gas engine based on the manufacturer’s data is
assumed to be 39–41% (Taylor et al., 2013; MWM, 2015). The oxi-
dising agent used is air. The catalytic reactor cleans the flue gas
coming out from the gas engine decreasing the amount of carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides emitted to atmosphere. Then, the
exhaust gas is released to the atmosphere through a stack at
almost 200 °C.
3.5. Metal recovery, Plasmarok production and oxygen production
processes
The assumptions made in the baseline model concerning: recy-
cling of recovered metals, oxygen production technology and the
use of Plasmarok are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4
Description of the scenarios analysed as part of the scenario analysis (main changes in each scenario are highlighted in italic).
Scenarios Process for ferrous materials
Two-stage gasification and Steel plate production process,
plasma process: Baseline substitution ratio:1:1
Scenario 1: ferrous 1:0.51-non- Number 1 Steel (2 foot) steel scrap
ferrous 1:0.6 process, substitution ratio 1:0.51
Scenario 2 – ferrous 1:0.51- Number 1 Steel (2 foot) steel scrap
non-ferrous 1:1.01 process, substitution ratio 1:0.51
Scenario 3 – UK based-PSA Steel plate production process,
process substitution ratio 1:1
Scenario 4 – primary Steel plate production process,
aggregates from marine substitution ratio 1:1
sands
There is no general consensus in the waste management sector
on which specific process should be offset by the recovery of met-
als from the waste and therefore how the avoided burdens should
be evaluated. This depends on several factors: the quality of the
collected MSW, the collection method, the separation method used
at the waste treatment facility and the reprocessing route used to
treat the recovered metal. For this reason we decide to perform a
scenario analysis based on the substituted process for
metal/non-metal production and the substitution ratio.
In this study, we define the recycling rate as ‘‘the ratio between
the amount of metal scrap ready for use in conventional metal pro-
duction processes and the metals recovered from the waste’’; i.e.
the efficiency of reprocessing of metals recovered from the waste
into metal scrap ready for use in conventional metal production.
The approach used to estimate the avoided burdens is that
described by PE International as the ‘‘value of scrap approach’’
(PE International, 2013): per unit quantity of material recycled,
the avoided burdens are those arising from primary production
minus the burdens from the recycling process. Moreover, we define
a substitution ratio which represents the amount of recycled mate-
rials which are supposed to replace a defined quantity of virgin
materials with the same quality (Gala et al., 2015).
The assumptions adopted in the baseline scenario for the sub-
stituted processes for metal production and substitution ratios are:
 ferrous material is assumed to be substituted at a 1–1 rate, thus
no changes occur in the inherent proprieties of the recycled
material (Rigamonti et al., 2009) Recovered ferrous material is
assumed to be recycled by electric furnace processing, as
reported in the GaBi database (PE International, 2013) and
taken from the Worldsteel LCA Methodology report (World
Steel Association, 2011).
 non-ferrous material is assumed to be substituted at a 1–1 rate
(Rigamonti et al., 2009). The recovered aluminium is assumed
to be recycled by clean scrap melting and casting, as reported
in the GaBi database (PE International, 2013) and taken from
the Environmental profile report for the Aluminium Industry
(European Aluminium Association, 2013).
Plasmarok production is assumed to avoid the production of
crushed rock for the primary aggregate industry on a mass basis,
as suggested by Mankelow et al. (2008) and based on the process
burdens reported by Korre and Durucan, 2009.
Finally, the oxygen supplied to the process is assumed to be
produced through cryogenic separation of air; this is likely to be
the process used for a 20 MWe plant although a pressure swing
adsorption (PSA) technology would be used at a smaller scale, such
as a demonstration plant. An average UK cryogenic process is con-
sidered, based on GaBi database.
Process for non-ferrous materials Process for oxygen Process for primary
production aggregates production
Aluminium clean scrap melting and casting UK based – Primary aggregates from
process, substitution ratio 1:0.99 cryogenic process crushed rock
Aluminium foil production process, substitution UK based – Primary aggregates from
ratio 1:0.6 cryogenic process crushed rock
Paper-backed aluminium foil production process, UK based – Primary aggregates from
substitution ratio 1:0.1 cryogenic process crushed rock
Aluminium clean scrap melting and casting UK based-PSA Primary aggregates from
process, substitution ratio 1:0.99 process crushed rock
Aluminium clean scrap melting and casting UK based – Primary aggregates from
process, substitution ratio 1:0.99 cryogenic process marine sand
 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496 491

3.6. Scenario analysis
A scenario analysis on some key operations was undertaken for
the baseline waste stream (MSW1). Four different scenarios were
identified (see Table 4):
 Scenario 1. This scenario explored the effect of employing differ-
ent processes to recycle the recovered metals and assumes dif-
ferent substitution ratio. In this scenario, substitution ratio of
0.51 and 0.6 were chosen for ferrous and non-ferrous material
respectively, based on the economic value of end-of-life scrap
in the scrap commodity market in 2013, i.e. the exchange of
end-of-life scrap for value, such that the material may be used
in a secondary life (GaBi, 2013). For ferrous material, the pro-
cess substituted is the same as used in the baseline scenario,
whereas for non-ferrous material, production of aluminium foil
is assumed to be substituted (GaBi, 2013). All other parameters
are the same as the baseline scenario. This scenario is later
referred to as ferrous 1:0.51-non-ferrous 1:0.6.
 Scenario 2. In this scenario all parameters are the same as the
baseline scenario except for metal recycling; the rates chosen
were 0.51 for ferrous and 0.1 for non-ferrous metal. The pro-
cesses avoided in this case are the same as the baseline sce-
nario for ferrous material, with paper-backed aluminium foil
production for non-ferrous metal (GaBi, 2013). This scenario
is later referred to as ferrous 1:0.51-non-ferrous 1:1.01.
 Scenario 3. Figures for PSA rather than cryogenic air separation
for oxygen production were adopted in this scenario. The data
for the electricity consumption were based on APP (2013). All
other parameters were assumed to be the same as the baseline
scenario. This scenario is later referred to as UK based – PSA
process.
 Scenario 4. The production of Plasmarok was assumed to replace
extraction of marine and sand gravel for primary aggregate
(Korre and Durucan, 2009). All other parameters were assumed
to be the same as in the baseline scenario. This scenario is later
referred to as primary aggregates from marine sands.
The efficiency of the gasification reactor and plasma converter
has not been taken into account in the scenario analysis, because
this parameter is not considered to vary during the operation of
the plant. In fact, as demonstrated by Materazzi et al. (2013), the
presence of the plasma and its variable power during plant opera-
tions allows the process to self-compensate any parameter varia-
tions (in terms of temperature or oxygen/steam supply) which
can occur in the reactor.
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 3 shows a comparison of the environmental impacts associ-
ated with the two-stage gasification and plasma process with the
seven different feedstocks specified in Table 1. The assumptions
concerning recycling of recovered metals, oxygen production tech-
nology and the use of Plasmarok were based on the baseline sce-
nario (Table 4). Only significant results are shown here, although
the analysis was performed for more indicators as shown in
Table 5 where normalised results are presented.

1200
MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF
0.00
1000
GWP (kg CO2eq)

800 - 0.50
AP (kg SO2eq)

600 - 1.00

400 - 1.50
200
- 2.00
a 0 b
MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF - 2.50

MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF
0 0
POCP (kg ethene eq)

-2000
- 0.05
-4000
AD (MJ)

-6000 - 0.1

-8000
- 0.15
-10000

c -12000 d - 0.2

MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SRF

0
-0.02
EP (kg phosphate eq)

-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
e -0.18

Fig. 3. Environmental impacts for the seven feedstocks analysed for the treatment in the two-stage gasification and plasma process, for 1 ton of waste received at the plant:
GWP (a); AP (b); AD (c); POCP (d); and EP (e).
492 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496

Table 5
Normalized results. The normalisation is done based on CML, IPCC, ReCiPe (person equivalents), EU25 + 3, year 2000 (PE International, 2013).

Normalised results MSW1 MSW2 MSW3 C&I Biomass RDF SFR

Abiotic depletion 1.82E 10 1.58E 10 3.02E 10 2.01E 10 3.16E 10 1.75E 10 2.93E 10
Acidification potential 5.77E 11 6.94E 11 1.34E 10 7.45E 11 1.20E 10 5.96E 11 7.47E 11
Eutrophication potential 1.97E 12 2.81E 12 8.77E 12 3.42E 12 7.77E 12 2.40E 12 1.47E 12
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity pot. 1.96E 11 1.10E 11 5.58E 12 1.58E 11 1.71E 12 1.26E 11 6.64E 11
Global warming potential 8.79E 11 9.53E 11 1.38E 10 1.53E 10 1.84E 10 4.21E 11 1.52E 10
Human toxicity potential 6.69E 11 8.30E 11 1.68E 10 8.99E 13 1.70E 10 7.43E 11 1.16E 10
Ozone layer depletion potential 1.17E 13 6.85E 14 2.47E 14 1.07E 13 6.48E 14 3.68E 14 2.98E 13
Photochem. ozone creation potential 4.98E 11 6.44E 11 1.02E 10 5.79E 11 6.74E 11 4.19E 11 4.48E 11
Terrestric ecotoxicity potential 4.58E 10 4.90E 10 8.16E 10 5.63E 10 8.71E 10 4.79E 10 8.50E 10

The GWP impacts (Fig. 3a) reflect the carbon content of the (MSW3) and 0.97 kg of SO2 eq (MSW1). The result obtained for
waste offset by the avoided burdens. They range between 220 kg MSW3 is mainly due to the low sulphur content of this waste, as
of CO2 eq (RDF) and 960 kg of CO2 eq (wood biomass) with the shown in the ultimate analysis in Table 1. The ADP for all the seven
value for the baseline waste composition, MSW1, in the middle feedstocks is also negative (see Fig. 3c); MSW3, Biomass and SRF
of this range. Although both the woody biomass and SRF have show the best environmental performance thanks to a higher net
the highest calorific values compared with the other feedstocks, electricity production (see Table 3). As shown in Fig. 3d and e,
their GWP is the highest, while treating RDF in a two-stage gasifi- the MSW3 performs better regarding the POCP and the EP thanks
cation and plasma plant gives the lowest impact. It is worth noting to the higher amount of metals recovered from the front end sec-
that the results shown in Fig. 3 include the biogenic and tion and to the higher electricity produced by the plant. As shown
non-biogenic carbon contributions to the environmental impact, in Table 5 for the toxicity categories, the impacts are negative for
which increases the global warming of the biomass scenario. The the terrestric and human effects, whereas the freshwater toxicity
GWP impact excluding biogenic carbon is later shown in Fig. 11. potential shows positive impact for all waste streams, except for
Moreover the avoided burdens associated with the Solid Fuel MSW3 and biomass thanks to the lower amount of sodium
Preparation unit are not significant for biomass and SRF: no metals hypochlorite requested by these two feedstocks in the alkali scrub-
are recovered from these two feedstocks as it is assumed that the ber to clean the syngas.
biomass and the SRF arrive at the plant already sorted and are sim- Overall, the results show that the environmental impact of the
ply dried before being fed to the gasifier. Hence, they receive no feedstock evaluated depends on the category analysed, rather than
credits for metals recovery. For all feedstocks, the AP indicator identifying a single waste stream which is the best for all the
shows negative values as a result of the electricity production impacts. In general, MSW1 shows an average impacts amongst
(see Fig. 3b), with values ranging between 2.26 kg of SO2 eq

Avoided activities Direct contributions

1.00
Indirect activities
1,200
AP (kg SO2eq)
GWP (kg CO2eq)

0.50
1,000
800 0.00
600
400 -0.50
200
0 -1.00
-200
-400 -1.50
-600
-800 -2.00
Solid Fuel Syngas Syngas Power Total
a Preparation Generator Refining Production
b Solid Fuel Syngas Syngas Power Total
Preparation Generator Refining Production

4,000 0.10
POCP (kg ethene eq)

2,000
0.05
0
AD (MJ)

-2,000 0.00
-4,000 -0.05
-6,000
-0.10
-8,000
-10,000 -0.15
Solid Fuel Syngas Syngas Power Total Solid Fuel Syngas Syngas Power Total
c Preparation Generator Refining Production d Preparation Generator Refining Production

0.15
EP (kg phosphate eq)

0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
Solid Fuel Syngas Syngas Power Total
e Preparation Generator Refining Production

Fig. 4. Hot spot analysis for the four main sections of the two-stage gasification and plasma process treating MSW1. Impacts are per ton of waste received at the plant. (a)
GWP, (b) AP, (c) AD, (d) POCP and (e) EP.
 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496 493

the waste streams analysed, giving the lowest impact in the cli- 7%
Solid Fuel Preparation unit
2%
mate change category. Gasifier (SGU)

Oxygen production (SGU)

11%
Plasma (SGU)
4.1. MSW1: Hot spot analysis
Waste heat boiler (SRU)
39% Dry filter (SRU)
A ‘‘hot spot’’ analysis has been carried out to show how the four
ID Fan1 (SRU)
main sections of the two-stage gasification and plasma process
Quench (SRU)
contribute to the environmental impacts.
16%
The results for the baseline feedstock, i.e. MSW1, are shown in Acid Scrubber (SRU)

Fig. 4. Negative impacts refer to the avoided burdens, while posi- Alkali Scrubber (SRU)

tive impacts referred to direct and indirect burdens. The greatest ID Fan2 (PPU)

avoided burdens are associated with the Power Production unit
(accounting for 86% of the total avoided burdens for the GWP)
and the Solid fuel Preparation unit where the metals are recovered
from the MSW (accounting for 13% of the total GWP avoided bur-
dens). Plasmarok production and substitution as secondary aggre-
gates contributes less than 1% to the avoided burdens when
crushed rocks are assumed to be substituted (see Table 4).
Despite the avoided burdens associated with the electricity gener-
ated and exported to the grid, the contribution of the Power
Production unit to the total GWP is still positive – thus negative
for the environment, because of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere
in the flue gas.
Fig. 5 shows the detailed hot spot analysis for the GWP impact
indicator when only direct and indirect burdens are considered. As
already stated, the main impact is due to the flue gas released to
the atmosphere at the stack (88%), while the oxygen supplied
to the gasifier and the plasma accounts for less than 3%.
Although electricity is required by the plasma torch in the second
stage of the process, this contributes only for 4% to the GWP, being
a fundamental step in the removal of the tars from the syngas. In
fact, energy requirement for the plasma torch accounts for
70 kWhe/ton of RDF entering the gasifier. Bosmans et al. (2013)
reported electricity requirements for plasma gasification of MSW
between 400 and 845 kWhe/ton wastes. This was however referred
to a single-stage plasma gasification process, where the gasifica-
tion is sustained by applying thermal plasma directly onto the
waste material, with all of the energy required for decomposition
coming from the plasma (Materazzi et al., 2013). In a two stage
gasification and plasma process, such as the one presented here,
the plasma arch is applied to fuel gas and carbonaceous particles,
both produced in the gasifier and this limits the energy required
by the plasma itself.
Fig. 6 shows a detailed hot spot analysis for the acidification
category, as an example of a regional impact category, considering
3% 4% 1%
Solid Fuel Preparation unit
Gas Engine (PPU)
10%
3% Catalytic reaction (PPU)
2%
1%
6% 2% Exhausted waste heat boiler (PPU)
1%
Flue gas to environment (PPU)
Fig. 6. Detailed hot spot analysis for the AP.
direct and indirect burdens. The main contribution again arises
from the flue gas but with a lower percentage (39%) compared to
GWP, followed by the electricity supplied to the plasma (16%), oxy-
gen production (11%) and finally production of sodium bicarbonate
for gas cleaning (9%).
Fig. 7 shows the detailed hot spot analysis for the fresh water
aquatic ecotoxicity potential. One of the main contributions to
water pollution is the sodium hypochlorite production supplied
to the alkali scrubber which represents 81% of the total FAETP
impact. This is due to the chloride emissions to fresh water
involved in the production process of this chemical which is
needed to obtain a low sulphur content syngas as requested by
the gas engine (Swiss Centre, 2014).
4.2. Scenarios analysis
The results based on the scenarios presented in Table 4 are
shown in this section.
4.2.1. Metal recovery process
Fig. 8 shows the results of the scenario analysis for the metals
recovery processes. The results refer to the total impacts per ton
of MSW1 treated at the plant. The variation compared with the
baseline scenario is different for the impact categories analysed.
For the climate change indicator (i.e. GWP) only ±6% is observed
when the type of process and the recycling rate are changed.
However, a more significant variation is obtained for the AP – i.e.
a 30% reduction of the impact, when it is assumed that the
non-ferrous material is made by aluminium foil. The highest

1% Gasifier (SGU)
1%
Oxygen production (SGU) 1% 1% Solid Fuel Preparation unit
1%
Plasma (SGU) 3% Gasifier (SGU)
1% 10% 3%
Oxygen production (SGU)
Waste heat boiler (SRU)
Plasma (SGU)
Dry filter (SRU)
Waste heat boiler (SRU)
ID Fan1 (SRU)
Dry filter (SRU)
Quench (SRU) ID Fan1 (SRU)
Acid Scrubber (SRU) Quench (SRU)
Alkali Scrubber (SRU) Acid Scrubber (SRU)

ID Fan2 (PPU) Alkali Scrubber (SRU)

88%
SGU: Syngas Generator Unit
SRU: Syngas Refining Unit
PPU: Power Production Unit
ID Fan2 (PPU)
Gas Engine (PPU)
Gas Engine (PPU)
Catalytic reaction (PPU)
Catalytic reaction (PPU)
Exhausted waste heat boiler (PPU) Exhausted waste heat boiler (PPU)
Flue gas to environment (PPU) Flue gas to environment (PPU)
81%

Fig. 5. Detailed hot spot analysis for the GWP of the two-stage gasification and
plasma process treating MSW1. Fig. 7. Detailed hot spot analysis for the FAETP.
494 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496

Primary aggregates from marine sand and gravel

Photochemical ozon depletion potential

Human toxicity potential Photochemical ozon depletion potential

Eutrophication potential
Human toxicity potential

Acidification potential
Eutrophication potential
Global warming potential

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Acidification potential
ferrous 0.51 - non ferrous 0.1 ferrous 0.51- non ferrous 0.6
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0%
Fig. 8. Scenario analysis for the metals recovery process. Results are shown as a
variation compared to the baseline. Fig. 10. Scenario analysis for the aggregates production process.

variation is happening for the human toxicity indicator where the

ferrous 0.51 – non ferrous 0.6 scenario shows an increase of 140%
of the impact because of the assumption made on the kind of alu- GWP (excluding biogenic carbon)
minium which is separated from the waste (i.e. aluminium foil). .
SRF

4.2.2. Oxygen production process
In the baseline scenario the oxygen is assumed to be produced
by a cryogenic process based in the UK, which is the process likely
to be used for an industrial scale plant (20 MWe) although pressure
swing adsorption (PSA) might be more appropriate at smaller
scales.
Fig. 9 shows the results of the scenario analysis for the oxygen
production process. The variation here is even lower compared
with Fig. 8, and only a +2.2% change is observed for the GWP.
The highest variation is obtained for the eutrophication category,
which shows an 8% increase of the impact. This means that the
technology used to produce the oxygen supplied to the gasifier
and plasma has a nugatory effect on the total environmental
impacts of the process, although the electricity consumption asso-
ciated with the oxygen production with PSA technology is higher
compared to a cryogenic process.
4.2.3. Plasmarok production substitution process
Finally, Fig. 10 shows the results for the process substituted by
Plasmarok production. The influence of this variation is negligible
for the GWP, mainly because the amount of Plasmarok produced
is small so that it does not contribute significantly to the total car-
bon footprint of the process. However, the scenario analysis shows
that assuming a primary aggregates production from marine sand
and gravel as substituted process for the Plasmarok production
decreases the eutrophication impact of 20% compared with the
baseline (crushed rock as primary aggregates), and in general is
associated with a reduction of the environmental impact of the
process.
4.3. Accounting for biogenic carbon
RDF
Biomass
C&I
MSW3
MSW2
MSW1
-450% -400% -350% -300% -250% -200% -150% -100% -50% 0%
Fig. 11. GWP excluding biogenic carbon whit a functional unit of 1 ton of feedstock
as received.
in Table 1, based on the specific composition of each feedstock
and on data from Larsen et al. (2013).
Fig. 11 shows the reduction obtained for the GWP when the bio-
genic carbon is excluded. As observed, the impact becomes nega-
tive for the fuels with high biogenic carbon content: MSW1,
biomass, RDF and SRF (i.e. showing a reduction of more than
100%). As expected, biomass and RDF represent the lowest envi-
ronmental impact cases due to the composition of the feedstock
and their calorific values (see Table 1). In general, if biogenic car-
bon is excluded, RDF is again the most environmentally friendly
waste stream for the climate change category.
4.4. Functional unit – GWP based on electricity production
In a LCA study, the choice of the functional unit is fundamental
for the outcomes of the study and it has to reflect the goal and
scope of the LCA. As a comparison, Fig. 12 shows the GWP impacts
when the seven feedstocks are considered as waste stream in a

As stated in Section 2.1, the GWP presented in Fig. 3 includes

9.E-01
the biogenic carbon content of the waste. However, an evaluation
Global Warming Potential

8.E-01
of the expected biogenic content for each feedstock is presented
7.E-01
6.E-01
(kg of CO2eq)

Photochemical ozon depletion potential 5.E-01

Human toxicity potential 4.E-01
3.E-01
Eutrophication potential
PSA 2.E-01
Acidification potential
1.E-01
Abiotic depletion 0.E+00
Global warming potential
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%
Fig. 12. GWP impacts when a functional unit of 1 kWhe of electricity produced at
Fig. 9. Scenario analysis for the oxygen production process. the plant is selected.
 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496
two-stage gasification and plasma process, and when the output of
the plant is selected as functional unit, i.e. 1 kWhe of electricity
produced. This functional unit reflects better the secondary func-
tion of the gasification and plasma plant which is to produce elec-
tricity. RDF is again showing the lowest GWP impact, because of
the high heating value of this waste stream. Overall the trend
amongst the feedstocks does not change from the one shown in
Fig. 3a. MSW1, MSW2, MSW3 and SRF show similar GWP impact,
despite the heating value of the SRF being almost double the
MSW1 heating value.
A comparison of the obtained results with the literature has also
been performed. Nuss et al. (2013) performed a cradle-to-grave
LCA of a plasma gasification process transforming construction
and demolition derived biomass (CDDB) and forest residue into
electricity. Their results showed a slightly higher GWP impact
compared with the findings of our study, i.e. 1.8 kg of CO2 eq per
kWhe produced for biomass in the study of Nuss et al. compared
with 0.6 kg of CO2 eq per kWhe produced obtained in this study.
This is mainly due to the different heating values of the feedstock,
process parameters (electrical consumption) and system bound-
aries assumed in the two studies. Moreover, the two processes
show different characteristics in terms of power generation unit:
in their study, Nuss et al. assumed the combustion of the syngas
with a 10% of oil in a boiler and then the electricity production
in a steam turbine; while we have assumed a gas engine which
directly uses the syngas for power generation.
5. Conclusions
The environmental impact of a two-stage gasification and
plasma plant under development has been evaluated when seven
different waste streams are considered as feedstock. Overall, the
environmental impact changes on the base of the characteristics
of the feedstock treated and it is not possible to identify a single
waste stream which is better than the other for all the impact cat-
egories considered. The GWP varies from 220 (with RDF) to 960
(with biomass) kg of CO2 eq per ton of feedstock treated. RDF treat-
ment shows the lowest impact in terms of GWP, mainly due to the
lower amount of feedstock needed to produce the net power out-
put compared with the other feedstocks. For all the other impact
categories, the two-stage gasification and plasma process shows
a negative environmental impact, mainly because of the avoided
burdens associated with the production of electricity from the
plant.
Based on the biogenic carbon content of each feedstock, the glo-
bal warming potential impact excluding biogenic carbon has been
estimated. On this basis, the GWP becomes negative for MSW1,
biomass, RDF and SRF. As expected, biomass and RDF represent
the most environmentally friendly cases when biogenic carbon is
excluded, due to their composition and calorific values.
Detailed hot spot and scenario analyses have been carried out
for processing a specific feedstock (MSW1). In terms of GWP, car-
bon dioxide in the flue gas contributes more than 88% of the total
CO2eq. The electricity supplied to the plasma torch and the produc-
tion of oxygen for the gasifier and plasma does not contribute sig-
nificantly to the GWP (4% and 2.8% respectively), despite their
main role in the tars removal process. The main component of
the flue gas is CO2, and the amount emitted depends on the carbon
content of the waste rather than the process used to convert the
waste into energy. The performance of the overall system therefore
depends primarily on the avoided burdens, i.e. on net electrical
efficiency and recovery of usable ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
In terms of AP, the flue gas contributes 38% of the total; other
relevant processes are production of electricity for the plasma
torch and oxygen production. The acidification potential of the
495
process could be improved by reducing the amount of chemicals
used in the syngas refining unit for the syngas cleaning. In fact,
production of urea used in the dry filter contributes 9% of the total
AP, while production of sodium hypochlorite for the alkali scrubber
contributes 6%. One of the main contributions to water pollution is
the sodium hypochlorite in the alkali scrubber which contributes
81% of the Freshwater Aquatic Eutrophication Potential. Other
chemicals should be investigated to obtain the same cleaning effect
on the syngas with reduced impacts of production.
The robustness of these conclusions is limited because the gasi-
fication and plasma process is not yet fully commercialised so that
the analysis had to be based on pilot plant results and simulations.
The results of this study should therefore only be seen as a proxy of
the actual emissions and the analysis should be revisited once data
are available from full-scale operating plants.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.05.
037.
References
Al-Salem, S.M., Evangelisti, S., Lettieri, P., 2014. Life cycle assessment of alternative
technologies for municipal solid waste and plastic solid waste management in
the Greater London area. Chem. Eng. J. 244, 391–402.
APP, 2013. Gasplasma: Experimental Results and Mass and Energy Balance for a 20
MWe Plant. Personal Communication.
Arafat, H., Jijakli, K., Ahsan, A., 2013. Environmental performance and energy
recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J.
Cleaner Prod., 1–8
Arena, U., Di Gregorio, F., 2014. Gasification of a solid recovered fuel in a pilot scale
fluidized bed reactor. Fuel 117, 528–536.
Astrup, T., 2008. Management of APC Residues from W-t-E Plants, an Overview of
Management Options and Treatment Methods. Second ed. Produced by
Members of ISWA- WG Thermal Treatment of Waste Subgroup on APC
Residues from W-t-E Plants. ISWA, Copenhagen.
Astrup, T., Tonini, D., Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., 2015. Life cycle assessment of thermal
waste-to-energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manage.
37, 104–115.
Baumann, H., Tillman, A.M., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. Ed.
Studentlitteratur AB. ISBN: 91-44-02364-2.
Bosmans, A., Vanderreydt, I., Geysen, D., Helsen, L., 2013. The crucial role of waste to
energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J. Cleaner
Prod. 55, 10–23.
BSI 2011. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse
GasEmissions of Goods and Services (PAS 2050). British Standards Institution,
London.
Christensen, T.H., Gentil, E., Boldrin, A., et al., 2009. C balance, carbon dioxide
emissions and global warming potentials in LCA-modelling of waste
management systems. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (8), 707–715.
Clift, R., 2006. Sustainable development and its implications for chemical
engineering. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (13), 4179–4187.
Clift, R., 2013. System approaches: life cycle assessment and industrial ecology. In:
Harrison, R.M. (Ed.), Pollution: Causes, Effects and Control, 5th ed., Royal Society
of Chemistry, London (Chapter 17).
Clift, R., Doig, A., Finnveden, G., 2000. The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to
Integrated Solid Waste Management Part 1 – Methodology. Institution of
Chemical Engineers Trans IchemE, 78.
Consonni, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., 2005. Alternative strategies for energy
recovery from municipal solid waste Part B: emission and cost estimates. Waste
Manage. 25, 137–148.
DEFRA, 2009. WR0119 ‘‘Municipal Waste Composition: Review of Municipal Waste
Component Analyses’’ Annex 4 – Analysis of Collated Studies and Updated
Estimates of National Municipal Waste Composition. Final Report. Available at:
<http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&
ProjectID=15133>.
DEFRA, 2013. Advanced Thermal Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste. Available at:
<http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/residual/newtech/documents/
att.pdf>.
Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2001. Allocation in ISO 14041 – a critical review. J. Cleaner
Prod. 9, 197–208.
Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., Borkjolund, A., 2007. Life cycle assessment of
fuels for district heating: a comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and
natural gas combustion. Energy Policy 35 (2), 1346–1362.
European Aluminium Association, 2013. Environmental Profile Report for the
European Aluminium Industry: Life Cycle Inventory Data for Aluminium
496 S. Evangelisti et al. / Waste Management 43 (2015) 485–496
Production and Transformation Process in Europe. Available at: <http://www.
alueurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Environmental-Profile-Report-for-
the-European-Aluminium-Industry-April-2013.pdf>.
European Commission, 1999. Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
Landfill of Waste. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission, 2008. Council Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008
on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. European Commission, Brussels,
Belgium.
Eurostat, 2014. Waste Generated and Treated in Europe. Available at: <http://
appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wastrt&lang=e>
(accessed January 2014).
Evangelisti, S., Lettieri, P., Borello, D., Clift, R., 2014. Life cycle assessment of energy
from waste via anaerobic digestion: a UK case study. Waste Manage. 34, 226–
237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.013.
Evangelisti, S., Taglaferri, C., Clift, R., Lettieri, P., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2015. Life
cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste
technologies for municipal solid waste treatment. J. Cleaner Prod. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.062.
Fruergaard, T., Hyks, J., Astrup, T., 2010. Life-cycle assessment of selected
management options for air pollution control residues from waste
incineration. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (20), 4672–4680.
GaBi, 2013, Modelling Principles, PE International. Available at: <http://www.gabi-
software.com/support/gabi/gabi-modelling-principles/>.
Gala, A.B., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., 2015. Introducing a new method for
calculating the environmental credits of end-of-life material recovery in
attributional LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 645–654. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-015-0861-3.
Guinée, J.B. (final editor), Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., van Oers, L.,
Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment An operational guide to the ISO
standards, vol. 1, 2 en 3. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University,
Leiden, the Netherlands.
Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H., 1998: Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 2:
Scientific Background. Chapman & Hall, London.
Heijungs, R., Guinée, J.B., 2007. Allocation and ‘‘what-if’’ scenarios in life cycle
assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manage. (New York, N.Y.) 27,
997–1005.
ILCD 2010. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for
Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data
System (ILCD) Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment –
Detailed Guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg.
Publications Office of the European Union.
ILCD, 2011. European Commission-Joint Research Centre – Institute for
Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data
System (ILCD) Handbook – Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011. EUR
24571 EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the European Union.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of
working Group I to the fourth assessment. Report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z.,
Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996pp.
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Principles and Framework. Geneva: ISO.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
Jenkin, M.E., Hayman, G.D., 1999. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for
oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitivity to variations in kinetic and
mechanistic parameters. Atmos. Environ. 33, 1775-1293.
Khoo, H., 2009. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion
technologies. Waste Manage. 29, 1892–1900.
Korre, A., Durucan, S., 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Aggregates, Project Report
n.EVA025, WRAP.
Larsen, A.W., Fuglsang, K., Pedersen, N.H., et al., 2013. Biogenic carbon in
combustible waste: waste composition, variability and measurement
uncertainty. Waste Manage. Res. 31 (10), 56–66.
View publication stats
Leckner, B., 2015. Process aspects in combustion and gasification Waste-to-Energy
(WtE) units. Waste Manage. 37, 13–25.
Manfredi, S., Pant, R., 2012. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste
management with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. (Ec 2010).
Mankelow, J.M., Bate, R., Bide, T., Mitchell, C.J., Linley, K., Hannis, S., Cameron, D.,
2008. Aggregate Resource Alternatives: Options for Future Aggregate Minerals
Supply in England. British Geological Survey. Open Report OR/08/025.
Materazzi, M., Lettieri, P., Mazzei, L., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2013. Thermodynamic
modelling and evaluation of a two-stage thermal process for waste gasification.
Fuel 108, 356–369.
Materazzi, M., Lettieri, P., Mazzei, L., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2014. Tar evolution in a
two stage fluid bed-plasma gasification process for waste valorization. Fuel
Process. Technol. 128, 146–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.06.028.
Moberg, G., Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., 2005. Life cycle assessment of
energy from solid waste – Part 2: landfilling compared to other treatment
methods. J. Cleaner Prod. 13, 231–240.
MWM, 2015. Available at: <http://www.mwm.net/mwm-chp-gas-engines-gensets-
cogeneration/gas-engines-power-generators/gas-engine-tcg-2020> (accessed
April, 2015).
Ning, S.K., Chang, N.B., Hung, M.C., 2013. Comparative streamlined life cycle
assessment for two types of municipal solid waste incinerator. J. Cleaner Prod.
53, 56–66.
Nuss, P., Gardner, K.H., Jambeck, J.R., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA)
of construction and demolition (C&D) derived biomass and U.S. northeast forest
residuals gasification for electricity production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (7),
3463–3471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es304312f [Epub 2013 Mar 15].
PE International, 2013. GaBi Sustainability Software, Available on line at: <http://
www.gabi-software.com/uk-ireland/software/gabi-software/> (accessed
5.02.13).
Pressley, P.N., Tarek, N.A., DeCarolin, J.F., et al., 2014. Municipal solid waste
conversion to transportation fuels: a life-cycle estimation of global warming
potential and energy consumption. J. Cleaner Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2014.02.041.
Ray, R., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2012. The deployment of an advanced gasification
technology in the treatment of household and other waste streams. Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 90 (3), 213–220.
Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Sunseri, M.C., 2009. Influence of assumptions about
selection and recycling efficiencies on the LCA of integrated waste management
systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 411–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-009-0095-3.
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Swirsky Gold, L., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O.,
Juraske, R., Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E.,
Payet, J., Schumacher, M., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M., 2008. Usetox – the
UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human
toxicity and fresh water ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. LCA
13, 532–546.
Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2013. Environmental performance of municipal solid waste
strategies based on LCA method: a case study of Macau. J. Cleaner Prod. 57, 92–
100.
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 2014, Ecoinvent: the Life Cycle Inventory
Data, Version 3.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf.
Taylor, R., Ray, R., Chapman, C., 2013. Advanced thermal treatment of auto shredder
residue and refused derived fuel. Fuel 106, 401–409.
UK Government, 2003. Water Act. Stationary Office Limited.
WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 2003: Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 2003. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No.
XX. Geneva.
World Steel Association, 2011. Methodology Report: Life Cycle Inventory Study for
Steel Products. Available at: <https://www.worldsteel.org/dms/
internetDocumentList/bookshop/LCA-Methodology-Report/document/LCA%
20Methodology%20Report.pdf>.
Zaman, A.U., 2013. Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis–gasification as an emerging
municipal solid waste treatment technology. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0230-3.