Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical Report; Available at http://sites.bu.edu/cfb/OVERVIEW: For many people, their most perceptible interaction with their environmental footprint is through the waste that they generate. On a daily basis people have numerous opportunities to decide whether to recycle, compost or throwaway. In many cases, such options may not be present or apparent. Even when such options are available, many lack the knowledge of how to correctly dispose of their waste, leading to contamination of valuable recycling or compost streams. Once collected, people give little thought to how their waste is treated. For Boston’s waste, plastic in the disposal stream acts becomes a fossil fuel used to generate electricity. Organics in the waste stream have the potential to be used to generate valuable renewable energy, while metals and electronics can be recycled to offset virgin materials. However, challenges in global recycling markets are burdening municipalities, which are experiencing higher costs to maintain their recycling. The disposal of solid waste and wastewater both account for a large and visible anthropogenic impact on human health and the environment. In terms of climate change, landfilling of solid waste and wastewater treatment generated emissions of 131.5 Mt CO2e in 2016 or about two percent of total United States GHG emissions that year. The combustion of solid waste contributed an additional 11.0 Mt CO2e, over half of which (5.9 Mt CO2e) is attributable to the combustion of plastic [1]. In Massachusetts, the GHG emissions from landfills (0.4 Mt CO2e), waste combustion (1.2 Mt CO2e), and wastewater (0.5 Mt CO2e) accounted for about 2.7 percent of the state’s gross GHG emissions in 2014 [2]. The City of Boston has begun exploring pathways to Zero Waste, a goal that seeks to systematically redesign our waste management system that can simultaneously lead to a drastic reduction in emissions from waste. The easiest way to achieve zero waste is to not generate it in the first place. This can start at the source with the decision whether or not to consume a product. This is the intent behind banning disposable items such as plastic bags that have more sustainable substitutes. When consumption occurs, products must be designed in such a way that their lifecycle impacts and waste footprint are considered. This includes making durable products, limiting the use of packaging or using organic packaging materials, taking back goods at the end of their life, and designing products to ensure compatibility with recycling systems. When reducing waste is unavoidable, efforts to increase recycling and organics diversion becomes essential for achieving zero waste. [TRUNCATED]Published versio

WoodCircus, Underpinning the vital role of the forest-based sector in the Circular Bioeconomy. D2.2 Resource Efficiency, Side Streams and Value Chain Analysis – WP2 Final Report

202

The environmental and financial benefits of recovering plastics From residual municipal waste before energy recovery

A life cycle assessment was carried out to investigate the environmental benefits of removing dense plastics from household waste before burning the waste in an energy from waste (EfW) facility. Such a process was found to improve the climate change and non-renewable resource depletion impacts of the waste management system. A preliminary financial assessment suggests that the value of the plastics recovered in this way would be less than the reduction in electricity income for the EfW. However, if the plastics were separated by the householders and collected in a kerbside recycling scheme, the greater price commanded by the higher-quality reclaimed plastics means that the operation would financially viable Further work is required to assess the effectiveness of using both kerbside collections and mechanical recovery to reduce the plastics content and carbon intensity of EfW feeds

Bioenergy for Electricity Generation

Energy from biological materials addresses a number of key energy and environmental issues, including climate change, energy security, and replacement of carbon-intensive energy sources. This thesis assesses the feasibility of using three types of biological material for U.S. electricity generation: wood chips, biofuels, and organic waste. To evaluate economic feasibility, this paper examines system design, feedstock availability, and other advantages and disadvantages of alternative biological feedstocks. It also discusses three cost-benefit studies evaluating wood chips, biofuels, and waste-to-energy. This thesis recommends that the U.S. electricity sector consider investing in additional use of wood chips and organic waste and continue developing research for next-generation biofuel. Wood chips can cost less than heating oil. Municipal solid waste as a fuel could manage and reduce carbon. Although next-generation biofuels are more expensive in terms of capital and operating costs than conventional biofuel and fossil fuels, their use could mitigate food security and environmental concerns. All three technologies are used globally, proving technical feasibility. The availability of wood and waste in the U.S. offers another incentive for feedstock. Additional funding and research remain challenges for next-generation biofuel. Future research in bioenergy could include cost-benefit and carbon emission analyses that incorporate additional production pathways, comparisons to current renewable feedstocks, and recommended sites for the three technologies this paper addresses.Polymathic Scholar

Toward an overall analytical framework for the integrated sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers

The sustainable production and supply of raw materials (nonenergy raw materials) and primary energy carriers (energy raw materials) is a core element of many policies. The natural resource base for their production and supply, and the access thereto, are limited. Moreover, raw material supply is high on environmental and social impact agendas as well. A broad, quantitative framework that supports decision makers is recommended so as to make use of raw materials and primary energy carriers more sustainably. First, this article proposes a holistic classification of raw materials and primary energy carriers. This is an essential prerequisite for developing an integrated sustainability assessment framework (ISAF). Indeed, frequently, only a subset of raw materials and primary energy carriers are considered in terms of their source, sector, or final application. Here, 85 raw materials and 30 primary energy carriers overall are identified and grouped into seven and five subgroups, respectively. Next, this article proposes a quantitative ISAF for the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers, covering all the sustainability pillars. With the goal of comprehensiveness, the proposed ISAF integrates sustainability issues that have been covered and modeled in quite different quantitative frameworks: ecosystem services; classical life cycle assessment (LCA); social LCA; resource criticality assessment; and particular international concerns (e.g., conflict minerals assessment). The resulting four areas of concerns (i.e., environmental, technical, economic, and social/societal) are grouped into ten specific sustainability concerns. Finally, these concerns are quantified through 15 indicators, enabling the quantitative sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers

Review of the Literature on the Economics of Central Anaerobic Digesters

Minnesota can improve the utilization of manure and organic wastes via the production of biogas that can be used to produce heat and electricity. Denmark serves as a role model for Minnesota in the number of central anaerobic digesters that it supports. During anaerobic digestion methane is produced when naturally occurring anaerobic bacteria decompose organic matter in the absence of oxygen. This process produces what is called biogas, which usually is a mixture of 55 – 65 percent methane plus carbon dioxide with trace gases such as hydrogen sulfide. Co-generation using manure and other feedstocks can produce more energy than manure alone. Central digesters are more likely to process wastes from food processing plants and other sources resulting in the need for more specialized unloading facilities and larger storage spaces. Digesters can be owned by farmers or consumers cooperatives, third party/non-farming investor(s), state or municipal government, or established as a cooperative or limited liability corporation. Problems associated with centralized digester operation include capital constraints, low profitability, lower-than-expected waste availability, electricity connection and pricing, and waste disposal constraints.Livestock Production/Industries, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Logistics issues of biomass : the storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain

Biomass is a renewable energy source with increasing importance. The larger fraction of cost in biomass energy generation originates from the logistics operations. A major issue concerning biomass logistics is its storage, especially when it is characterized by seasonal availability. The biomass energy exploitation literature has rarely investigated the issue of biomass storage. Rather, researchers usually choose arbitrarily the lowest cost storage method available, ignoring the effects this choice may have on the total system efficiency. In this work, the three most frequently used biomass storage methods are analyzed and are applied to a case study to come up with tangible comparative results. Furthermore, the issue of combining multiple biomass supply chains, aiming at reducing the storage space requirements, is introduced. An application of this innovative concept is also performed for the case study examined. The most important results of the case study are that the lowest cost storage method indeed constitutes the system-wide most efficient solution, and that the multi-biomass approach is more advantageous when combined with relatively expensive storage methods. However, low cost biomass storage methods bear increased health, safety and technological risks that should always be taken into account. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Waste management companies in Europe 2009

This paper examines the ownership, employment and finances of the major waste companies in Europe, and recent developments in ownership

EFFICACY OF ELECTRON BEAM IRRADIATION OF PROCESSED PORK PRODUCTS

The research reported on in this paper was conducted as part of a larger project. That project is on-going and is focused on ascertaining if irradiation of processed meats would be effective and economical. It involved the examination, through modeling, of the irradiation of one of many currently produced ready-to-eat (RTE) convenience-oriented, value-added pork products, sliced boneless ham. The results and findings reported in this paper represent the initial estimates of the cost and potential profitability or economic viability of irradiation of processed meats. The results and findings in this paper should be considered preliminary with extension and verification to be reported in a later paper by the authors. The objective of the portion of that project reported on in this paper was to conduct cost analysis of alternative irradiation methods and to ascertain the cost of each of those methods. Three scenarios were considered for cost analysis. The first scenario was the installation of an X-ray irradiator at an existing meat processing plant. The second scenario was the installation of a Cobalt-60 irradiator at an existing meat processing plant. The third scenario assumed that the meat processor contracted for irradiation services from an off-site company providing such service to a number of clients. For purposes of this study it was assumed that irradiation of sliced boneless ham would result in either a $.06/pound reduction in costs from processor to consumer, a$.06/pound increase in willingness to pay [price] or an equivalent combination of reduced costs and increased price. Total cost per pound for the irradiation process applied to sliced boneless ham ranged from $0.008, at the 200 million pound annual throughput rate using Cobalt-60 irradiation, to$0.069 at the 50 million pound annual throughput rate when contracting with an off-site company.Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

Evaluation of Corporate Sustainability

As a consequence of an increasing demand in sustainable development for business organizations, the evaluation of corporate sustainability has become a topic intensively focused by academic researchers and business practitioners. Several techniques in the context of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been suggested to facilitate the evaluation and the analysis of sustainability performance. However, due to the complexity of evaluation, such as a compilation of quantitative and qualitative measures, interrelationships among various sustainability criteria, the assessor’s hesitation in scoring, or incomplete information, simple techniques may not be able to generate reliable results which can reflect the overall sustainability performance of a company. This paper proposes a series of mathematical formulations based upon the evidential reasoning (ER) approach which can be used to aggregate results from qualitative judgments with quantitative measurements under various types of complex and uncertain situations. The evaluation of corporate sustainability through the ER model is demonstrated using actual data generated from three sugar manufacturing companies in Thailand. The proposed model facilitates managers in analysing the performance and identifying improvement plans and goals. It also simplifies decision making related to sustainable development initiatives. The model can be generalized to a wider area of performance assessment, as well as to any cases of multiple criteria analysis