In Europe, about 20% of municipal solid waste is incinerated. Large differences can be found between northern and southern Europe regarding energy recovery efficiencies, flue gas cleaning technologies and residue management. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of waste incineration often provides contradictory results if these local conditions are not properly accounted for. The importance of regional differences and site-specific data, and choice of LCA model itself, was evaluated by assessment of two waste incinerators representing northern and southern Europe (Denmark and Italy) based on two different LCA models (SimaPro and EASEWASTE). The results showed that assumptions and modelling approaches regarding energy recovery/substitution and direct air emissions were most critical. Differences in model design and model databases mainly had consequences for the toxicity-related impact categories. The overall environmental performance of the Danish system was better than the Italian, mainly because of higher heat recovery at the Danish plant. Flue gas cleaning at the Italian plant was, however, preferable to the Danish, indicating that efficient flue gas cleaning may provide significant benefits. Differences in waste composition between the two countries mainly affected global warming and human toxicity via water. Overall, SimaPro and EASEWASTE provided consistent ranking of the individual scenarios. However, important differences in results from the two models were related to differences in the databases and modelling approaches, in particular the possibility for modelling of waste-specific emissions affected the toxicity-related impact categories. The results clearly showed that the use of site-specific data was essential for the results.
AstrupTMøllerJFruergaardT (2009) Incineration and co-combustion of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming. Waste Management and Research27: 789–799.
4.
ConsonniSGiuglianoMGrossoM (2005) Alternative strategies for energy recovery from municipal solid waste. Part A: mass and energy balances. Waste Management25: 123–135.
5.
DamgaardARiberCFruergaardTHulgaardTChristensenTH (2010) Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration. Waste Management30: 1244–1250.
6.
DonesRBauerCBolligerRBurgerBFaist EmmeneggerMFrischknechtR (2007) Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and other UCTE Countries. DübendorfSwitzerland: Paul Scherrer Institut Villigen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Ecoinvent report No. 5.
EmeryADaviesAGriffithsAWilliamsK (2007) Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resources, Conservation and Recycling49: 244–263.
FinnvedenGEkvallT (1998) Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support tool—the case of recycling versus incineration of paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling24: 235–256.
12.
FinnvedenGJohanssonJLindPMobergÅ (2005) Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste – part 1: general methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production13: 213–229.
13.
FinnvedenGHauschildMZEkvallTGuinéeJHeijungsRHellwegS (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessments. Journal of Environmental Management91: 1–21.
14.
FrischknechtRRebitzerG (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. Journal of Cleaner Production13: 1337–1343.
15.
FruergaardTEkvallTAstrupT (2009) Energy use and recovery in waste management and implications for accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management and Research27: 724–737.
16.
FruergaardTAstrupT (2011) Optimal utilization of waste to energy in an LCA perspective. Waste Management31: 572–582.
17.
FruergaardTChristensenTHAstrupT (2010a) Energy recovery from waste incineration: Assessing the importance of district heating networks. Waste Management30: 1264–1272.
18.
FruergaardTHyksJAstrupT (2010b) Life-cycle assessment of selected management options for air pollution control residues from waste incineration. Science of the Total Environment408: 4672–4680.
19.
GrossoMMottaARigamontiL (2010) Efficiency of energy recovery from waste incineration, in the light of the new Waste Framework Directive. Waste Management30: 1238–1243.
20.
HauschildMOlsenSHansenESchmidtA (2008) Gone… but not away - addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA. International Journal of LCA13: 547–554.
21.
IPCC (ed.) (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Working Group 1. International Panel on Climate Change IPCC Geneva Switzerland.
22.
IPPC (ed.) (2001) Best Available Techniques Reference Document in the Non Ferrous Metal Industries. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain.
23.
IPPC (ed.) (2009) Best Available Techniques Reference Document for Production of Iron and Steel (Draft). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain.
24.
KirkebyJTHansenTLBirgisdóttirHBhanderGSHauschildMZChristensenTH (2006) Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Management & Research24: 3–15.
LiamsanguanCGheewalaSH (2007) Environmental assessment of energy production from municipal solid waste incineration. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment12: 529–536.
27.
MendesMRAramakiTHanakiK (2004) Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling41: 47–63.
Pré Consultants (ed.) (2008) SimaPro 7.1. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Pré Consultants. Retrieved from http://www.pre.nl/simapro/ (accessed July 2010).
30.
Regione Lombardia (ed.) (2004) Bollettino Ufficiale. Secondo supplemento straordinario al n. 22; 27 maggio 2004. Regione Lombardia, Italy (in Italian).
RiberCBhanderSGChristensenTH (2008) Environmental assessment of waste incineration in a life-cycle-perspective (EASEWASTE). Waste Management and Research26: 96–103.
33.
RigamontiLGrossoMGiuglianoM (2009) Life cycle assessment for optimising the level of separated collection in integrated MSW management systems. Waste Management29: 934–944.
34.
SchmidtJHHolmPMerrildAChristensenP (2007) Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy – A Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Management27: 1519–1530.
35.
Stranddorf HK, Hoffmann L and Schmidt A (2005) Impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA, Updated on selected EDIP97-data. Environmental News No. 995 2005. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Ministry oftheEnvironment. Retrieved from http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-570-0/pdf/87-7614-571-9.pdf (accessed September 2010).
36.
WenzelHHauschildMAltingL (1997) Environmental assessment of products, vol.1: Methodology, tools and case studies. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37.
WinklerJBilitewskiB (2007) Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Management27: 1021–1031.
