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

net/publication/260759239

Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste management

Article  in  Waste Management · March 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.003

CITATIONS READS
240 1,343

2 authors:

Paul H. Brunner Helmut Rechberger

TU Wien TU Wien
585 PUBLICATIONS   6,554 CITATIONS    178 PUBLICATIONS   5,198 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Infrastructure Guidelines for Railway Infrastructure View project

Sustainable strategies of phosphorus management in Austria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul H. Brunner on 19 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Waste Management
Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number:

Title: Waste to Energy - key element for sustainable waste management

Article Type: SI: Waste to Energy

Keywords: waste to energy; air pollution control; metal recovery; bottom ash; waste analysis; biogenic
carbon.

Corresponding Author: Prof. Paul H. Brunner,

Corresponding Author's Institution:

First Author: Paul H Brunner, o.Univ.Prof.Dr.Dipl.Sc.Nat.

Order of Authors: Paul H Brunner, o.Univ.Prof.Dr.Dipl.Sc.Nat.; Helmut Rechberger, Prof. Dr. Dipl. Ing

Abstract: Human activities inevitably result in wastes. The higher the material turnover, and the more
complex and divers the materials produced, the more challenging it is for waste management to reach
the goals of "protection of men and environment" and "resource conservation". Waste incineration,
introduced originally for volume reduction and hygienic reasons, went through a long and intense
development. Together with prevention and recycling measures, waste to energy (WTE) facilities
contribute significantly to reaching the goals of waste management. Sophisticated air pollution control
(APC) devices ensure that emissions are environmentally safe. Incinerators are crucial and unique for
the complete destruction of hazardous organic materials, to reduce risks due to pathogenic
microorganisms and viruses, and for concentrating valuable as well as toxic metals in certain fractions.
Bottom ash and APC residues have become new sources of secondary metals, hence incineration has
become a materials recycling facility, too. WTE plants are supporting decisions about waste and
environmental management: They can routinely and cost effectively supply information about
chemical waste composition as well as about the ratio of biogenic to fossil carbon in MSW and off-gas.

Suggested Reviewers: Leo Morf Dr. Dipl. Ing.

leo.morf@bd.zh.ch
incineration expert

Franz Winter Prof. Dr. Dipl. Ing.

franz.winter@tuwien.ac.at
incineration expert and process engineer

Juergen Vehlow Dr. Dipl. Ing.

juergen.vehlow@kit.edu
senior expert in thermal waste treatment
Cover Letter

Andermatt, december 20, 2013

Dear Umberto,

here comes my homework, I hope it fits your purpose. I am looking forward tot he reviews.

With best regards

Paul
Highlights

Highlights:

 First and only paper adressing the development and importance of incineration from a
anthropogenic metabolism point of view
 Comprehensive and detailed introduction and reasoning why thermal processing of waste is
necessary for sustainable waste management
 Historical and technical overview of 100 years development of MSW incineration
Figures

Figures

Figure 1: Typical mass flows through a waste to energy facility equipped with dry (ESP) and
wet air pollution control systems, in kg per kg of MSW. In addition to the flows presented in
this figure, about 5 kg of air are required for combustion, increasing the amount of flue gas
by the same extent.
Figure 2: Heating value and Cd content of combustible wastes in Austria (Fehringer et al.
1997). A: sludge, uncontaminated wood, bark, paper; B: waste oil, chipboard wood, coal
dust, screenings, rejects, etc.; C: bulky waste, end-of-life tires, adhesive, rubber, solvents,
dyes; D: MSW; E: various plastics.
Figure 3: Occurrence of selected metals in different fractions of MSW bottom ash after
magnetic removal of iron (Skutan & Rechberger 2007).
Figure 4: Typical energy balances of WTE facilities. Case A: maximum electricity production;
Case B: heat-power coupling (ÖWAV 2013).
Figure 5: Monthly and daily mean values of specific fossil CO2 emissions from a WTE plant
and the resulting annual average of biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions (Obermoser et al.
2009).
Tables

Tables

Table 1: Per capita material flows through private households in affluent societies (based on
data from Baccini and Brunner, 2012)

activity input [t/c.y] output [t/c.y] stock

total water fraction solid waste Sewage off gas [t/c]
to nourish* 5,7 0,7 0,1 0,9 4,7 <0,1
to clean 60 60 0,02 60 0 0,10
to reside 10 0 1,0 0 7,6 120 + 1
to transport 10 0 1,6 0 6,0 280 + 2
total 86 61 2,7 61 19 300 + 3
* including air for breathing
Table 2: The composition of combustible wastes differs from conventional fuels and ranges
from harmless to hazardous (after Fehringer et al., 1997)
C N S Cl Cd Hg Pb Zn
g/kg g/kg g/kg g/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
All combustible wastes
Mean 450 9.1 2.3 4. 3 5.7 0.8 230 520
Min 100 0.20 0.06 0.010 0.01 0.001 <1 1
Max 900 670 17 480 500 10 4000 16 000
Specific combustible wastes and fuels
Sawdust 470 0.3 1.0 0.60 0.8 0.02 3 30
Mixed plastics 640 7.9 0.70 17 73 1.3 390 550
MSW 240 7.0 4.0 8.7 11 2 810 1 100
Coal 850 12.0 10 1.5 1 0.5 80 85
Fuel oil 850 3.0 15 0.010 <1 0.01 10 20
Table 3: Metal content in fly ashes from Swiss WTE facilities (Schlumberger & Bühler 2013)
Concentration Concentration
Substance [mg/kg DS] Substance [mg/kg DS]
Min Max min Max
Aluminum 25 000 45 000 Copper 1 500 5 000
Antimony 700 5 000 Magnesium 6 000 18 000
Arsenic 20 120 Manganese 400 900
Barium 50 200 Sodium 25 000 70 000
Lead 7 000 25 000 Nickel 60 300
Cadmium 150 1 000 Mercury 0 3
Calcium 100 000 250 000 Silver 30 60
Chrome 100 500 Silicon 50 000 100 000
Cobalt 20 100 Titan 2 500 5 000
Iron 18 000 55 000 Zinc 20 000 120 000
Potassium 30 000 60 000 Tin 800 3 000
Table 4: Trends in MSW composition, as measured by balancing incineration products in
Vienna during 200-2004, in (g/kg MSW) (Morf et al. 2005).
Trend 2000-2004
Element 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 MW (00-04)
Significance

C 195 ± 21 198 ± 10 184 ± 10 190 ± 12 185 ± 9 190 ± 5 -

Cl 4,8 ± 0,7 4,9 ± 1 4,6 ± 0,2 4,5 ± 0,2 5,5 ± 0,5 4,9 ± 0,3 not sign.

Fe 28 ± 2 28 ± 2 27 ± 2 29 ± 2 28 ± 3 28 ± 9 -

marginal
Al 10,0 ± 1,2 11.2 ± 1,8 7.5 ± 0.6 11.8 ± 2 11.6 ± 2 10.6 ± 0,8
sign.

Pb 0,24 ± 0,05 0,33 ± 0,06 0,27 ± 0,03 0,26 ± 0,04 0,32 ± 0,08 0,29 ± 0,024 not sign.

Zn 0,57 ± 0,07 0,61 ± 0,06 0,60 ± 0,05 0,52 ± 0,05 0,53 ± 0,05 0,56 ± 0,025 -

Cu 0,24 ± 0,05 0,31 ± 0,07 0,27 ± 0,02 0,29 ± 0,05 0,35 ± 0,07 0,30 ± 0,024 not sign.

0,0071 ± 0,0068 ± 0,0057 ± 0,0049 ± 0,0050 ± 0,0058 ±

Cd sign.
0,0008 0,001 0,0005 0,0004 0,0005 0,00035

0,0011 ± 0,00084 ± 0,00091 ± 0,00097 ± 0,00074 ± 0,00089 ± marginal

Hg
0,0002 0,00011 0,0001 0,0002 0,0001 0,00007 sign.
This is the manuscript
Click here to download LaTeX Source Files: WTE key element for sustainable waste management FINAL.docx

View publication stats