ArticlePDF Available

Waste-to-Energy in China: Key Challenges and Opportunities

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

China-the largest developing country in the world-is experiencing both rapid economic maturation and large-scale urbanization. These situations have led to waste disposal problems, and the need to identify alternative energy sources. Waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion processes, a source of renewable energy, are expected to play an increasingly important role in China's sustainable management of municipal solid waste (MSW). The purpose of this research is to investigate the key problems and opportunities associated with WTE, to provide recommendations for the government. This paper begins by describing China's current MSW management situation and analyzing its waste disposal problems. The major challenges associated with China's WTE incineration are then discussed from economic, environmental and social points of view. These include the high costs associated with constructing necessary facilities, the susceptibility of facilities to corrosion, the lower heating value of China's MSW, air pollutant emissions and especially public opposition to WTE incineration. Since discarded waste can be used to produce energy for electricity and heat-thus reducing its volume and the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-with government policies and financial incentives, the use of WTE incineration as a renewable energy source and part of a sustainable waste management strategy will be of increasing importance in the future. The paper concludes by summarizing the management, economic and social benefits that could be derived from developing the country's domestic capacity for producing the needed incineration equipment, improving source separation capabilities, standardizing regulatory and legal responsibilities and undertaking more effective public consultation processes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Waste-to-Energy in China: Key Challenges
and Opportunities
Dongliang Zhang
1,2
, Guangqing Huang
1,
*, Yimin Xu
3
and Qinghua Gong
1
Received: 15 September 2015; Accepted: 8 December 2015; Published: 16 December 2015
Academic Editor: Ling Bing Kong
1
Guangzhou Institute of Geography, Guangzhou 510070, China; andy-zdl@163.com (D.Z.);
gqh100608@163.com (Q.G.)
2
Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
3
South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China;
yimin2007@126.com
* Correspondence: hgq@gdas.ac.cn; Tel./Fax: +86-20-8768-5006
Abstract: China—the largest developing country in the world—is experiencing both rapid economic
maturation and large-scale urbanization. These situations have led to waste disposal problems,
and the need to identify alternative energy sources. Waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion processes,
a source of renewable energy, are expected to play an increasingly important role in China’s
sustainable management of municipal solid waste (MSW). The purpose of this research is to
investigate the key problems and opportunities associated with WTE, to provide recommendations
for the government. This paper begins by describing China’s current MSW management situation
and analyzing its waste disposal problems. The major challenges associated with China’s WTE
incineration are then discussed from economic, environmental and social points of view. These
include the high costs associated with constructing necessary facilities, the susceptibility of facilities
to corrosion, the lower heating value of China’s MSW, air pollutant emissions and especially public
opposition to WTE incineration. Since discarded waste can be used to produce energy for electricity
and heat—thus reducing its volume and the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—with
government policies and financial incentives, the use of WTE incineration as a renewable energy
source and part of a sustainable waste management strategy will be of increasing importance in
the future. The paper concludes by summarizing the management, economic and social benefits
that could be derived from developing the country’s domestic capacity for producing the needed
incineration equipment, improving source separation capabilities, standardizing regulatory and
legal responsibilities and undertaking more effective public consultation processes.
Keywords: waste-to-energy (WTE); incineration; renewable energy; municipal solid waste (MSW);
sustainable waste management
1. Introduction
Minimizing the environmental impacts of waste management is key to sustainable use of the
ecological environment. Recovery is one aspect of sustainable waste management that is based
on the well-known hierarchy of “prevention” “reuse”, “recycling”, “recovery” and “disposal”.
Waste-to-energy (WTE) refers to the recovery of heat and power from waste, and in particular
non-recyclable waste [1]. Traditionally, renewable energy has referred to resources that are
replaceable or inexhaustible in nature, such as hydro, solar, and wind energy, as well as bioenergy.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) designates the collection and disposal of urban waste, including most
of that produced by households, businesses, and local authorities. MSW consists mainly of paper,
food, wood, garden, cotton, and leather waste, as well some fossil fuel materials, such as plastics
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196; doi:10.3390/en81212422 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
and fabrics. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has listed MSW as a renewable
energy source [2]. WTE may be directly realized by combustion (such as by incineration, pyrolysis,
and gasification), or by generating combustible components (such as in anaerobic digestion and
mechanical biological treatments), thereby producing methane, hydrogen, and other synthetic fuels.
Incineration and gasification are the key WTE technologies currently used in many countries. Many
studies have focused on WTE in Western countries [36].
It is predicted that 77%–81% of China’s population (about 1.1–1.2 billion people) will live in
urban areas by 2050 [7]. Significant population growth and the improvement of living standards will
lead to the rapid growth of MSW. Increasing MSW generation puts pressure on existing landfills, and
also leads to environmental degradation. Thus, the government faces a huge challenge in disposing
of this waste [8]. At the same time, China, the world’s second largest energy consumer and largest
oil-importing country, also requires an enormous quantity of energy to support its economic growth.
With the global need to reduce carbon emissions, MSW can be used as a source of electricity [9]; thus,
WTE technology is a good means for disposing of China’s MSW. The WTE approach is growing
rapidly in China, mainly because it can dramatically reduce the demand for landfills and their
encroachment on land resources [10]; moreover, WTE can also lessen the country’s dependence on
fossil fuels, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [36]. WTE also has a significantly positive
impact on economic growth [11].
A number of researchers have studied China’s WTE processes. Most of them focus on
technological developments and environmental influences [8,1218], some focus on renewable energy
policies in China [10,1921], and some papers review the current and likely future practices of WTE
in China [22,23]. However, little research has focused on the impacts of inefficient government
management and public opposition on WTE development in China. Social factors such as public
opposition are becoming serious obstacles to the construction of WTE facilities in China. The objective
of this paper is to investigate the status of WTE incineration as part of China’s sustainable waste
management strategy, and to identify key problems and opportunities associated with this strategy.
This paper summarizes China’s current MSW management practices, and considers the further
development of WTE in China. It discusses the main challenges facing the WTE industry, and the
prospects for developing MSW as a source of renewable energy. The paper is organized into parts,
each of which addresses one of the following four questions:
(a) What is the status of MSW management in China?
(b) What are the main challenges facing the WTE industry in China?
(c) What are the advantages of developing the WTE industry in China?
(d) How should the government respond to these challenges?
The data used for this study was taken from annual Chinese statistical yearbooks on the
environment, and official documents published by the Chinese Government.
2. China’s Urbanization and Management of Municipal Solid Waste
2.1. China’s Urbanization and the Generation of Municipal Solid Waste
One characteristic of urbanization is the flocking of rural populations to cities. Figure 1 shows
China’s urbanization trend over the past two decades. The data reveals that China’s urban population
reached 731.1 million in 2013, and that the urbanization rate was 53.73%, which is close to that of a
middle-income country [24].
Due to rapid urbanization, China’s MSW has also been markedly augmented, and it now ranks
high in the world in terms of quantity. In 2013, China’s MSW totaled 172.39 million tons, and it has
been increasing at an annual rate of 8%–10% [17]. It is estimated that it will total 323 million tons by
2020, and 480 million tons by 2030 [25]. At present, the per capita production of MSW is 1.12 kg in
China’s cities [20], but it may be more in large cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.
14183
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
More than 400 large and medium cities, some of which have no suitable places for landfills, are
confronting the problem of waste siege, which has led to the serious pollution of surface and
underground water, soil contamination, and environmental destruction [26]. Since the management
of MSW impacts the environment and public health, the Chinese government has devoted increasing
attention to this issue.
Energies2015,8,page–page
3
are confronting the problem of waste siege, which has led to the serious pollution of surface and
undergroundwater,soilcontamination,andenvironmentaldestruction[26].Sincethemanagement
ofMSWimpactstheenvironmentandpublichealth,theChinesegovernme nt hasdevotedincreasing
attentiontothisissue.
Figure1.TheurbanizationtrendofChinaoverthepasttwodecades[24].
ThemanagementofMSWin volve ssystem atic engineering,includingthecollection,transportation,
recycling, treatment, and disposal of waste. Figure 2 shows the trends of MSW management in
Chinafrom1980to2013.ItcanbeobservedthatMSWmanagementdevelopedrapidlyinprevious
decades.ThemanagementofMSWbeganinthe1980s,
whenwastemanagementwasdominatedby
opendumping;thewastedisposalrate,whichwaslessthan2%before1990,graduallyincreasedin
the1990s,andreached49.1%in1998,and89.3%in2013.
Figure2.Municipalsolidwaste(MSW)managementinChinafrom1980to2013[24].
2.2.MunicipalSolidWast eManagementinChina
InChina,mostrecyclingtasksarecompletedbyinformalcollectorswhospecializeindifferent
kinds of refuse—rubber, aluminum, tin, plastic, and paper—who either collect these material s by
Figure 1. The urbanization trend of China over the past two decades [24].
The management of MSW involves systematic engineering, including the collection, transportation,
recycling, treatment, and disposal of waste. Figure 2 shows the trends of MSW management in
China from 1980 to 2013. It can be observed that MSW management developed rapidly in previous
decades. The management of MSW began in the 1980s, when waste management was dominated by
open dumping; the waste disposal rate, which was less than 2% before 1990, gradually increased in
the 1990s, and reached 49.1% in 1998, and 89.3% in 2013.
Energies2015,8,page–page
3
are confronting the problem of waste siege, which has led to the serious pollution of surface and
undergroundwater,soilcontamination,andenvironmentaldestruction[26].Sincethemanagement
ofMSWimpactstheenvironmentandpublichealth,theChinesegovernme nt hasdevotedincreasing
attentiontothisissue.
Figure1.TheurbanizationtrendofChinaoverthepasttwodecades[24].
ThemanagementofMSWin volve ssystem atic engineering,includingthecollection,transportation,
recycling, treatment, and disposal of waste. Figure 2 shows the trends of MSW management in
Chinafrom1980to2013.ItcanbeobservedthatMSWmanagementdevelopedrapidlyinprevious
decades.ThemanagementofMSWbeganinthe1980s,
whenwastemanagementwasdominatedby
opendumping;thewastedisposalrate,whichwaslessthan2%before1990,graduallyincreasedin
the1990s,andreached49.1%in1998,and89.3%in2013.
Figure2.Municipalsolidwaste(MSW)managementinChinafrom1980to2013[24].
2.2.MunicipalSolidWast eManagementinChina
InChina,mostrecyclingtasksarecompletedbyinformalcollectorswhospecializeindifferent
kinds of refuse—rubber, aluminum, tin, plastic, and paper—who either collect these material s by
Figure 2. Municipal solid waste (MSW) management in China from 1980 to 2013 [24].
14184
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
2.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management in China
In China, most recycling tasks are completed by informal collectors who specialize in different
kinds of refuse—rubber, aluminum, tin, plastic, and paper—who either collect these materials by
going house to house or by sorting through the garbage [27]. Precise data on MSW recycling in
China remain elusive. Xu [28] estimated that recyclable wastes accounted for 37.3% and 42.7% of the
total amount of MSW generated in Guangzhou and Beijing, respectively. After being recycled and
collected by the environmental sanitation department, some of the MSW is treated by the residents or
communities, and the remaining MSW is neither treated nor collected. By the end of 2013, China
had the largest waste output in the world, producing more than seven billion tons of untreated
MSW, which occupied over three billion square meters of land, and many cities were struggling with
garbage disposal problems. Of 668 cities in China, two-thirds are surrounded by garbage [29]. In
one-fourth of these cities, garbage has to be transported to nearby rural areas; the grim situation of
“waste siege” has already caused serious pollution in surface and underground water, and in the soil,
thus destroying the environment [26].
In China, household waste is mainly deposited in landfills or incinerated. Table 1 summarizes
the amount of waste processed using different technologies, from 2003 to 2013. Landfills are the main
means of MSW disposal in China; at the end of 2013, almost 70% of household waste was being
deposited in landfills. The landfill approach not only consumes extensive tracts of land, but also
results in secondary pollution. Various state departments’ investigations of waste disposal in 47 key
cities in China revealed that national landfills are commonly subjected to leakage, and their operating
conditions and secondary emissions do not meet national standards [30].
Table 1. The status of MSW disposal in China from 2003 to 2013 [24].
Year
Landfill Composting Incineration
Number
of Plants
Treatment
Capacity
(million
tons/year)
Ratio *
(%)
Number
of Plants
Treatment
Capacity
(million
tons/year)
Ratio *
(%)
Number
of Plants
Treatment
Capacity
(million
tons/year)
Ratio *
(%)
2003 457 64.04 85.49 70 7.17 9.57 47 3.70 4.94
2004 444 68.89 85.39 61 7.30 5.57 54 4.49 9.05
2005 356 68.57 85.79 46 3.45 4.32 67 7.91 9.90
2006 324 64.08 81.80 20 2.88 3.68 69 11.38 14.53
2007 366 76.33 81.92 17 2.50 2.68 66 14.35 15.40
2008 407 84.24 82.85 14 1.74 1.71 74 15.70 15.44
2009 447 88.99 80.17 16 1.79 1.61 93 20.22 18.22
2010 498 95.98 79.35 11 1.81 1.50 104 23.17 19.16
2011 547 100.64 76.88 - - 3.26 ** 109 25.99 19.85
2012 540 105.13 72.55 - - 2.71 ** 138 35.84 24.73
2013 580 104.93 68.16 - - 1.74 ** 166 46.34 30.10
* Ratio = capacity of a specific waste treatment type/capacity of all waste treatment types. ** Since
2012, the term “other treatment” has been used in the China Statistical Yearbook [24] instead of the term
“composting treatment”.
Waste incineration technology was introduced in China in the late 1980s, and it developed
rapidly in the 1990s. More than 30 large and medium-sized cities operate, or are building, waste
incineration plants [31]. Over the past decade, the number of incineration plants has risen markedly.
In 2003, there were only 47 incineration plants, with a total capacity of 3.7 million tons a year in the
whole country; ten years later, in 2013, there were 166 plants, with a total capacity of 46.3 million tons
a year [32].
MSW incineration has many advantages over using landfills, such as effecting significant volume
reductions (approximately 90%), complete disinfection, and energy recovery [15]. It is becoming an
important means of waste disposal in big cities, where space for landfills may be limited. Studies
have been conducted of the current MSW incineration status of China’s cities [12,13,33]. In most of
these cities, it is still difficult to fully incinerate waste and control secondary pollutants, because of the
14185
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
waste’s high moisture content, high inorganic composition, high degree of heterogeneity, and the low
heat value of household waste; therefore, improving the quality of the waste that is fed into furnaces
is crucial to achieving safe incineration.
3. Challenges Facing the Waste-to-Energy Industry in China
China’s WTE industry is largely based on power generation by waste incineration, which relies
on a technology that is, comparatively speaking, more mature and simpler than other alternatives.
WTE incineration of MSW is in the initial stages of renewable energy production in China. In 2014,
power generation by WTE incineration was 18.7 billion KWh, accounting for 1.2% of total “new and
renewable” energy production [34]. Driven by national policy and its low-carbon objectives, China’s
household waste incineration industry has developed quickly. In 1988, China established the first
incineration plant; more such facilities followed, and the processing capacity of each grew. Table 2
lists China’s significant incineration power plants. In the coming years, generating power through
waste incineration will also be China’s main means of waste disposal. Since problems associated with
waste incineration involve not only the technology, but also environmental, social, public health, and
many other aspects, China is now facing many problems with regard to the construction of WTE
incineration facilities.
Table 2. Significant MSW incineration power plants in China [20].
Year
Constructed
Name
Incineration
Capacity (tons/day)
Generating Capacity
(million kWh)
Investment
(million USD)
1988
Shenzhen Qingshui river
MSW incineration plant
300 - -
2002
Shanghai Pudong MSW
incineration plant
1000 100 110
2005
Shanghai Jiangqiao waste
incineration power plant
1500 180 144
2011
Shandong Jinan second
MSW incineration plant
2000 270 147
2013
Guangzhou Likeng second
MSW incineration plant
2250 290 152
2013
Beijing Lujiashan MSW
incineration plant
3000 310 329
3.1. Facilities’ High Cost and Susceptibility to Corrosion
Compared with other MSW treatment technologies, WTE involves a large capital investment
and high operating costs. As the core of the WTE incineration facilities, the incinerator accounts for
approximately 50% of the cost of investing in a WTE plant [20]. Imported incineration equipment
is very expensive. For example, as shown in Table 2, the Shanghai Pudong Waste Incineration
Power Plant, which utilizes Alstom equipment and technology, cost nearly 110 million USD, and
the Shanghai Jiangqiao Waste Incineration Power Plant, which employs Seeger equipment, required
an investment of 144 million USD [35]. These costs are not sustainable for most Chinese cities,
so the majority of WTE plants in China are located in the most economically developed urban
centers [20]. Although private capital investment is increasing, local governments are still the main
funding sources.
Corrosion problems are often associated with WTE incineration [36]. The combustion gases
that contain various impurities (especially HCl and chloride salts) result in much higher corrosion
rates of boiler tubes [37]. Chlorine and sulfur have been considered key elements in the corrosion
process [38,39]. Because of China’s poor performance with regard to waste classification, the high
moisture content of waste and its tendency to generate HCl and SO
2
and other acid gases after
oxidation may erode WTE facilities [40].
14186
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
3.2. The Low Heat of Municipal Solid Waste
While recycling is a standard practice in the West, China’s MSW management is still mired in
the stage of waste separation, which is poorly executed [41]. In comparison with developed countries
that have sophisticated approaches to the classification of waste, China’s MSW classification system
is less well developed. Its MSW has a lower heat value because of its relatively higher organic
composition and moisture content, so it achieves lower energy efficiencies when incinerated [42].
The average heat value of MSW in China’s waste incineration plants is 3–6.7 MJ/kg, which is far
lower than the 8.4–17 MJ/kg in developed countries [43,44]. Table 3 summarizes the composition
of the MSW of some of China’s cities. Because this waste contains many organic substances and
nutrients, the renewable resources it contains may be destroyed in the incineration process; it is
difficult to recycle the heat generated in the incineration process; about 30% of the generated heat
may be lost as smoke, which itself requires purification.
Table 3. The composition of MSW in some of Chinas’ cities [31].
City
Organic
Matter (%)
Inorganic
Matter (%)
Paper
(%)
Fiber
(%)
Plastic
(%)
Glass
(%)
Metal
(%)
Moisture
(%)
Heating Value
(kJ/kg)
Changzhou 44.4 34.6 3.6 3.2 8.0 3.5 1.0 48.5 2998
Hangzhou 58.2 24.0 3.68 2.23 6.6 2.1 1.0 53.6 4439
Wenzhou 44.7 17.9 7.7 1.7 23.9 1.3 1.0 52.0 6710
Guangzhou 60.2 17.1 5.4 3.4 9.0 3.4 0.5 50.1 4399
Shenzhen 40.0 15.0 17.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 3.0 45 5639
3.3. Air Pollutant Emissions and Fly Ash Management
In environmental impact reports, many Chinese WTE operators have declared that they employ
advanced technologies, yet, of these, a large number refrain from providing detailed data to
substantiate their claims.
Substandard incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems trigger a series of environmental
pollution problems, and pollutants are generated in the process of incineration; in particular, emitted
dioxins cause serious air pollution. Ni et al. [16] measured dioxin emissions in 19 WTE incineration
plants in China, and found a value of between 0.042 ng TEQ N¨ m
´3
and 2.461 ng TEQ N¨ m
´3
;
the average level was 0.423 ng TEQ N¨ m
´3
; 16% of the incineration plants do not meet national
standards (1.0 ng TEQ N¨ m
´3
), and 78% do not meet EU standards (0.1 ng TEQ N¨ m
´3
). The
problem of dioxin emissions is one of the main reasons there is public opposition to the construction
of waste incineration plants in the vicinity of residences. Therefore, WTE enterprises must improve
the standards and practices of their incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems, to reduce
the discharge of various pollutants, and so to protect public health.
Management of the fly ash generated during waste incineration—that leads to secondary
pollution—has not been addressed in China. Although the volume of waste decreases rapidly during
incineration, some residues remain, such as bottom and fly ash. After a stabilization treatment,
bottom ash is used as a building material. In contrast, fly ash is a hazardous waste that contains
dioxin and has heavy metal content; therefore, it must be specially treated [45]. As a requirement, the
fly ash should first be stabilized by cement solidification or other pretreatment technologies, and then
be disposed of in a special landfill. However, few cities possess special venues for dealing with the
fly ash, and instead it has often been reported that it is being deposited in open dumps (see Figure 3).
14187
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
Energies2015,8,page–page
6
higher organic composition and moisture content, so it achieves lower energy efficiencies when
incinerated[42].TheaverageheatvalueofMSWinChina’swasteincinerationplantsis3–6.7MJ/kg,
which is far lower than the 8.4–17 MJ/kg in developed countries [43,44]. Table 3 summarizes the
composition of the MSW of some
of China’s cities. Because this waste contains many organic
substancesandnutrients,therenewableresourcesitcontainsmaybedestroyedintheincineration
process; it is difficult to recycle the heat generated in the incineration process; about 30% of the
generatedheatmaybelostassmoke,whichitselfrequires
purification.
Table3.ThecompositionofMSWinsomeofChinas’cities[31].
City
Organic
Matter(%)
Inorganic
Matter(%)
Paper
(%)
Fiber
(%)
Plastic
(%)
Glass
(%)
Metal
(%)
Moisture
(%)
Heating
Value(kJ/kg)
Changzhou 44.4 34.6 3.6 3.2 8.0 3.5 1.0 48.5 2998
Hangzhou 58.2 24.0 3.68 2.23 6.6 2.1 1.0 53.6 4439
Wenzhou 44.7 17.9 7.7 1.7 23.9 1.3 1.0 52.0 6710
Guangzhou 60.2 17.1 5.4 3.4 9.0 3.4 0.5 50.1 4399
Shenzhen 40.0 15.0 17.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 3.0 45 5639
3.3.AirPollutantEmissionsandFlyAshManagement
Inenvironmentalimpactreports,manyChineseWTEoperatorshavedeclaredthattheyemploy
advanced technologies, yet, of these, a large number refrain from providing detailed data to
substantiatetheirclaims.
Substandard incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems trigger a series of
environmental
pollution problems, and pollutants are generated in the process of incineration; in
particular, emitted dioxins cause serious air pollution. Nietal. [16] measured dioxin emissions in
19WTEincinerationplantsinChina,andfoundavalueofbetween0.042ngTEQNm
3
and2.461ng
TEQNm
3
;the averagelevelwas0.423ngTEQNm
3
;16%of the incinerationplants donotmeet
nationalstandards(1.0ngTEQNm
3
),and78%donotmeetEUstandards(0.1ngTEQNm
3
).The
problemofdioxinemissionsisoneofthemainreasonsthereispublicoppositiontotheconstruction
ofwasteincinerationplantsinthevicinityofresidences.Therefore,WTEenterprisesmustimprove
thestandardsandpracticesoftheirincinerationfacilitiesandfluegaspurificationsystems,toreduce
thedischargeof
variouspollutants,andsotoprotectpublichealth.
Management of the fly ash generated during waste incineration—that leads to secondary
pollution—has not been addressed in China. Although the volume of waste decreases rapidly
during incineration, some residues remain, such as bottom and fly ash. After a stabilization
treatment,bottomash
isusedasabuilding material.Incontrast,flyashisa hazardouswastethat
contains dioxin and has heavy metal content; therefore, it must be specially treated [45]. As a
requirement, the fly ash should first be stabilized by cement solidificati on or other pretreatment
technologies,andthenbedisposedof
inaspeciallandfill.However,fewcitiespossessspecialvenues
fordealingwiththeflyash,andinsteadithasoftenbeenreported thatitisbeingdepositedinopen
dumps(seeFigure3).
(a) (b)
Figure3.(a)Flyashintheopenareaofawastetoenergy(WTE)incinerationplantand(b)Flyash
dumpsopenwithoutcuring.(Photossource:[13,46]).
Figure 3. (a) Fly ash in the open area of a waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration plant and (b) Fly ash
dumps open without curing. (Photos source: [13,46]).
3.4. Public Opposition to Waste-to-Energy Incineration
With growing awareness of the need for environmental protection, public opposition has become
the main obstacle to China’s WTE incineration program. This public opposition has three main
causes. First is the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon that has spread between cities.
Inappropriate site selections for MSW incineration plants are the main reason for NIMBY sentiments.
MSW incineration plants have been constructed too close to residential areas (Figure 4) and even
schools, and a few plants have been built near lakes or rivers that provide drinking water sources
for residents. In addition, some mainstream media report that MSW incineration power plants are
potential sources of air pollution linked to cancer, and imply that security cannot be guaranteed, even
though these plants supposedly meet EU standards. Due to the negative publicity of mainstream
media and other factors, public opposition to the construction of MSW incineration plants has
occurred in cities including Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Shandong [4749]. Village demonstrations,
student strikes, and other protests affect social stability (Figure 5). These disturbances cause panic
among members of the public.
Figure 4. A WTE incineration plant near residential buildings (photos source: [50]).
14188
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
Energies2015,8,page–page
7
3.4.PublicOppositiontoWastetoEnergyIncineration
With growing awareness of the need for environmental protection, public opposition has
becomethemain obstacle to China’s WTE incinerationprogram. This public opposition has three
maincauses.FirstistheNotInMyBackYard(NIMBY)phenomenonthathasspreadbetweencities.
Inappropriate site selections for MSW incineration plants are the main reason for NIMBY
sentiments.MSWincinerationplantshavebeenconstructedtooclosetoresidentialareas(Figure4)
andevenschools,andafewplantshavebeenbuiltnearlakesorriversthatprovidedrinkingwater
sources for residents. In addition,
some mainstream media report that MSW incineration power
plants are potential sources of air pollution linked to cancer, and imply that security cannot be
guaranteed,eventhoughtheseplantssupposedlymeetEUstandards.Duetothenegativepublicity
ofmainstreammediaandotherfactors,publicoppositiontotheconstructionofMSW
incinerati onplants
hasoccurredincitiesincludingGuangdong,Zhejiang,andShandong[47–49].Villagedemonstrations,
studentstrikes,andotherprotestsaffectsocialstability(Figure 5). These disturbances cause panic
amongmembersofthepublic.
Figure4.AWTEincinerationplantnearresidentialbuildings(photossource:[50]).
Figure5.ProtestsagainstWTEincinerationinChina(photossource:[49]).
The second reason for opposition to the WTE incineration program is the lack of public
participation. Sheery [51] concluded that public participation could be divided into eight levels
(Figure 6). There was no public participation when the WTE incineration plants were first
developedinChina.Ascitizens’environmentalconsciousnessisbeing
awakened,thereisgrowing
concern about the construction of WTE incineration plants. Since 2010, there have been some
demonstrations against the construction of WTE incineration plants that have attracted the
attentionofthegovernment.Consequently,somepublicconsultationshavebeenconductedpriorto
initiating construction of WTE facilities, but the
public participation processes are regarded as
tokenism,whichisfarremovedfrominvolvementatthelevelofcitizenpower.
Figure 5. Protests against WTE incineration in China (photos source: [49]).
The second reason for opposition to the WTE incineration program is the lack of public
participation. Sheery [51] concluded that public participation could be divided into eight levels
(Figure 6). There was no public participation when the WTE incineration plants were first
developed in China. As citizens’ environmental consciousness is being awakened, there is growing
concern about the construction of WTE incineration plants. Since 2010, there have been some
demonstrations against the construction of WTE incineration plants that have attracted the attention
of the government. Consequently, some public consultations have been conducted prior to initiating
construction of WTE facilities, but the public participation processes are regarded as tokenism, which
is far removed from involvement at the level of citizen power.
Energies2015,8,page–page
8
Figure6.TheeightrungsoftheLadderofcitizenparticipation[51].
Acredibilitygapdevelopingbetweenthegovernmentandthepublicwasthethirdreasonfor
public opposition to the WTE incineration program. Many large and medium cities, especially
coastal cities, already have WTE incineration plants. However, because of the large capital
investmentsneededforwasteincinerationfacilities,andthesmalleconomic
gainsthatresultfrom
them, private capital shuns involvement in them unless subsidies are offered by the state. Thus,
ChineseWTEincinerationplantstaketheformofpublicprivatepartnerships,whichtendtoleadto
fraudulent conduct, since government construction contracts, franchises, and operating subsidies
areeasilyobtainedthroughbribery.
ThisisthemainreasonthatsomeWTEincinerationplantsdonot
meetnationalemission standards,anddonotdiscloseenvironmentalmonitoring information[16].
A survey conducted by two environmental nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in 2014 shows
that it is difficult to get access to information from the government. Researchers approached
160
WTEoperatingincinerationplantswith the request that theydisclosetheirpollutionemission
data, and only 65 of them responded, often with incomplete monitoring information, and only
rarelyincludingkeydataondioxinsandflyash[52].Theimplementationandmonitoringofpublic
utilities requires genuine transparency, but when governments
are both investors and regulators,
the general public finds it hard to obtain lucid information from state agencies, which in turn
deepenspublicdistrust.
4.ProspectsfortheWastetoEnergyIndustryinChina
4.1.PolicySupport
ReliableandeffectivepolicyisregardedasthesolidfoundationofMSWconversiontoenergy.
China’sgovernmenthasgivenspecialsupporttothedevelopmentofrenewableenergy.
According to the “Twelfth FiveYear Plan” of the national MSW harmless disposal facilities,
theinvestmentinWTEincinerationisabout12.3billiondollars,
whichaccountsfor56%ofthetotal
investment. Stimulated by the national plan of waste management, WTE incineration projects are
plannedinmoreprovinces[10].
In terms of its funding policy for largeenvironmental protection projects, the state generally
requiresthatinvestorscontribute30%ofthecapitalinvestmentrequiredfor
aproject,theremainder
of which can be raised by national subsidies or commercial bank loans. Further, according to the
Ministry of Finance and State Administration of Taxation, WTE incineration plants are exempted
Figure 6. The eight rungs of the Ladder of citizen participation [51].
A credibility gap developing between the government and the public was the third reason for
public opposition to the WTE incineration program. Many large and medium cities, especially coastal
cities, already have WTE incineration plants. However, because of the large capital investments
needed for waste incineration facilities, and the small economic gains that result from them, private
capital shuns involvement in them unless subsidies are offered by the state. Thus, Chinese WTE
14189
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
incineration plants take the form of public-private partnerships, which tend to lead to fraudulent
conduct, since government construction contracts, franchises, and operating subsidies are easily
obtained through bribery. This is the main reason that some WTE incineration plants do not meet
national emission standards, and do not disclose environmental monitoring information [16]. A
survey conducted by two environmental nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in 2014 shows that
it is difficult to get access to information from the government. Researchers approached 160 WTE
operating incineration plants with the request that they disclose their pollution emission data, and
only 65 of them responded, often with incomplete monitoring information, and only rarely including
key data on dioxins and fly ash [52]. The implementation and monitoring of public utilities requires
genuine transparency, but when governments are both investors and regulators, the general public
finds it hard to obtain lucid information from state agencies, which in turn deepens public distrust.
4. Prospects for the Waste-to-Energy Industry in China
4.1. Policy Support
Reliable and effective policy is regarded as the solid foundation of MSW conversion to energy.
China’s government has given special support to the development of renewable energy.
According to the “Twelfth Five-Year Plan” of the national MSW harmless disposal facilities, the
investment in WTE incineration is about 12.3 billion dollars, which accounts for 56% of the total
investment. Stimulated by the national plan of waste management, WTE incineration projects are
planned in more provinces [10].
In terms of its funding policy for large environmental protection projects, the state generally
requires that investors contribute 30% of the capital investment required for a project, the remainder
of which can be raised by national subsidies or commercial bank loans. Further, according to the
Ministry of Finance and State Administration of Taxation, WTE incineration plants are exempted
from 5% of the income tax. The power supply authority will sign a grid-connection agreement with
a WTE incineration plant that meets grid-connection conditions, and the authority will give priority
to purchasing approved, on-grid energy, from the plant. According to the Development and Reform
Commission, the purchase price can be offset by the feed-in tariff of 0.04 USD/kWh. In addition,
local governments will subsidize WTE incineration, with subsidy standards from 9.3 dollars/ton to
14.3 dollars/ton [10]. WTE incineration plants that rely on tariff revenue can basically break even.
Waste disposal fee subsidies granted by the local government become the corporate profits.
MSW incineration is a technology intensive industry, which also demands advanced technologies.
Technology policies for China’s WTE incineration industry are mainly focused on technical
specifications and technical support [10]. MSW incineration plants constructed using advanced
environmental technologies can effectively protect the environment and achieve the comprehensive
utilization of resources. They have great significance for the economic development of cities and,
consequently, are supported by national industrial policy, which provides an important guarantee
for the further rapid development of waste incineration projects in the future [21].
4.2. Great Market Potential
In many Chinese cities, given their high population densities and shortage of land resources, it
is extremely difficult to select suitable landfill sites. Incineration can reduce the volume of garbage by
90%. A WTE incineration plant with the capacity to incinerate 1000 tons per day only requires an area
of 16.5 acres. As WTE incineration can lead to the substantial conservation of land resources, it will
become the main disposal mode in China’s future MSW management. If waste can be converted into
energy, the nation’s shortage of energy will be somewhat alleviated. At this time, the output of global
household waste is increasing at an annual rate of 8.42%, and that of China by over 10%. Currently,
the amount of global household waste produced annually is nearly 490 million tons, of which more
than 30% is created in China. At present, China’s WTE incineration rate is just 30%, which means
14190
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
that 2800 megawatts of electricity are wasted each year, and that the discarded “renewable waste” is
worth up to 3.9 billion USD [53].
The collected MSW of China in 2013 was about 172 million tons. It had increased by 11.2%,
compared to 2004, and untreated MSW accumulated in the past year was more than seven billion tons.
A large historical inventory and the continued increase in waste generation together provide a solid
material foundation for the development of a waste disposal industry. The government will invest
41.3 billion USD on WTE incineration facilities during the “Thirteenth Five-Year Plan” (2006–2020).
From a market perspective, WTE enterprises have a promising future [54].
4.3. Waste-to-Energy Incineration to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
On one hand, WTE incineration can replace fossil fuel generation, and achieve a reduction in the
GHG emissions that were formerly created by the energy sources replaced; on the other hand, it can
also avoid the discharge of landfill gases from waste in landfills, and therefore, it has dual reduction
effects (Table 4). As a result of the high food waste content in China’s MSW, WTE incineration plants
were a main source of the country’s GHGs. Reducing the food waste content in MSW by half will
significantly reduce the nation’s GHG emissions, and such a reduction will convert WTE incineration
plants in some cities from GHG sources to GHG sinks. In other words, enhancing the separation
of wastes at the source will improve the combustion efficiency of MSW, and, consequently, WTE
incineration in China has a huge potential for reducing GHG emissions.
Table 4. Carbon reductions of each MSW treatment method in China [55].
Disposal Methods Composting Incineration Landfill
Quantity of MSW (million tons) 181 2317 9598
Carbon reduction (million tons) 9 102 ´4340
CO
2
reduction (million tons) 33 374 ´15,913
Carbon reduction factor (t/t) 0.051 0.044 ´0.45
4.4. Waste-to-Energy Incineration for Environmental Protection and Economic Benefits
WTE incineration greatly reduces the harmful components of MSW. After the process of high
temperature (850–1100
˝
C) incineration, in addition to the heavy metals, the harmful components of
MSW are fully decomposed, and a large number of bacteria and other pathogens can be completely
eliminated. This process results in a less hazardous amount of waste. The gas and residue that
incineration produces, such as slag and ash, is odorless. Most of the foul gases are decomposed at
high temperatures, so incineration is the most effective way of dealing with combustible carcinogens,
viral pollutants, and highly toxic organic compounds. WTE incineration has the positive potential
for improving a city’s health environment. Waste incineration technology can effectively prevent
the pollution of underground water and air by landfills. In addition, it can reduce the consumption
of land resources. WTE incineration can also effectively decrease the pollution caused by coal-fired
power generation. Thus, it can create a high-quality energy supply, realize energy diversification, and
ensure energy security, while yielding good economic benefits.
Psomopoulos et al. [11] examined the contribution of WTE implementation to economic growth
in Greece. He found that WTE incineration can reduce the need for oil, electrical, and other types
of energy imports, and that energy recovery from MSW can produce good economic returns. It can
also reduce GHG emissions, and lessen the economic investment that would otherwise be required
for purposes of environmental protection. Moreover, WTE has a smaller footprint, in relation to
the extent of valuable land required for this process, and, consequently, additional land resources
that become available can be used to produce greater economic benefits. Furthermore, the services
required to operate WTE facilities promote local employment.
14191
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
With a large population, accelerated urbanization, and economic development, China’s living
standard is gradually improving. Its growing capacity for MSW reflects these changes. China’s MSW
is currently being achieved using landfills; however, this approach is unsustainable, so the adoption
of WTE technology is crucial to effect sustainable MSW management. WTE incineration, which also
brings with it certain problems, is in a marked ascent. The following recommendations are offered to
government as guidelines for future decision-making.
5.1. Product Equipment: Combine Foreign Advanced Technologies and Domestic Technologies
On the one hand, foreign equipment is very expensive. The required capital investment coupled
with the costs of operating and maintaining domestic WTE equipment are equivalent to about
one-third to one-half the cost of imported technologies [8]. An imported 600 ton/day WTE facility
costs 70.6–78.5 million USD. In contrast, a comparable domestic facility with equipment designed by
Tsinghua University costs only 28.2–31.4 million USD, and the costs of operating and maintaining
domestic equipment ranges from 11 USD/ton to 12.6 USD/ton, which is much lower than the costs
associated with imported ones that range from 48.6 USD/ton to 53.4 USD/ton [56]. On the other
hand, MSW in China shows high moisture levels and low heat contents, and foreign advanced
equipment cannot provide the best performance. A good example comes from the first modernized
WTE plant (Shenzhen, Guangdong) in Guangdong province. The incinerators were imported from
Japan in the late 1980s. To adequately incinerate the local MSW, they were operated with prolonged
drying and incineration times, and suffered from problems, such as grate blockages. The need
to add supplementary fuel also substantially increased the operating costs, and the power output
was limited. In 1996, another incinerator, which had been built with over 80% parts manufactured
domestically and the modification of imported incinerators, generated approximately 200 kWh
electricity with each ton of local MSW [23].
China must recognize that current domestic WTE technology is not competitive with foreign
technologies, because it is based on lower environmental standards. The average level of dioxin
emissions was about 0.2 ng TEQ Nm
´ 3
in Tsinghua WTE plants in 2007. This met China’s standards
at that time (1 ng TEQ Nm
´ 3
). In 2014, China’s standards were raised to allow emissions of only
0.1 ng TEQ Nm
´ 3
, which was consistent with international standards. However, it is unacceptable
by today’s standards, and technical improvements are needed to meet the more stringent foreign
standards for emissions. China should acquire sufficient knowledge of foreign advanced technologies
to be able to design and invest in the research and development of incineration technologies
and equipment domestically—and especially of large-capacity incinerators—thereby making WTE
incineration more affordable for municipalities across the country.
5.2. Enhancing Source Separation and Pretreatment to Increase Waste-to-Energy Efficiency
Waste separation is a precondition of WTE incineration. Due to poor waste classification, China’s
MSW has a high organic waste composition and moisture content, which results in lower heat values,
low incineration efficiency, and the production of secondary pollution, such as dioxins. Therefore,
waste classification must be aggressively promoted through recycling. In doing so, the heat value of
incinerated waste will improve. Waste classification can also be improved through campaigns that
emphasize the moral obligations of citizens to separate household wastes. Such campaigns should
seek to improve the environmental knowledge and waste separation abilities of individuals [41]. At
the same time, the government should promote waste separation though marketing operations, to
encourage more enterprises to engage in waste separation, recycling, and reuse.
Given the high moisture content of China’s MSW, it has to be pretreated prior to WTE
incineration. The mechanical-biological treatment before WTE incineration can be a good way of
separating the organic putrescent fraction and the inert fraction from the high-energy content fraction.
14192
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
Mechanical-biological treatments not only reduce the erosion of WTE facilities, but also improve the
efficiency of energy production [57].
5.3. Standardize the Waste-to-Energy Market and Upgrade Existing Plants
The WTE industry has expanded quickly in China, and the Chinese government has formulated
many standards, including standards with regard to the location of WTE sites and allowable pollutant
emission levels. However, there is a significant gap between China’s waste management practices
and those in developed countries. Thus, it is important to learn from the developed countries,
and further improve WTE technologies, to guide, and standardize the WTE market. Government
supervision could be strengthened by adopting the following three strategies: First, establish
specialized regulatory agencies to supervise the construction and operation of WTE incineration
plants, to be responsible for the daily monitoring, examination, and annual inspection of WTE
incineration instruments, and to track and investigate the leachate, fly ash, and slag from the
plants. Second, assign clear legal responsibility for ensuring that WTE incineration enterprises meet
acceptable standards for pollutant emissions, hold officials accountable for substandard pollutant
emissions, and increase the penalties imposed in these instances. Third, conduct regular monitoring
of waste incineration plants’ impacts on the environment.
Only 65 of the 160 WTE operational incineration plants investigated by researchers disclosed
their pollution emission data, and 45 of them cannot meet China’s new national standard. To correct
these deficiencies, it will be necessary to increase government investments, upgrade existing WTE
incineration plants, improve operational supervision, and control flue gas emissions using the most
advanced technologies available, coupled with the application of stringent standards, to ensure
environmental safety.
5.4. Increase Public Participation to Improve Public Understanding
WTE is a controversial issue in China; thus, it is unsurprising that the public doubts its safety;
however, the government must face the challenge of bringing forward sufficient evidence and
supportive measures to overcome this suspicion. Before putting a WTE project into operation, public
opinion must be surveyed through visits, symposia, and other means. In this way, official decisions
will reflect the feelings of the people. It will be necessary to establish mechanisms for the effective
participation of, and supervision by, members of the public, whose interests relate to issues that
were identified after the WTE incineration facilities were constructed. Government supervision is
typically temporary, and is neither timely nor reliable. If public participation satisfies the expectations
associated with the third stage of the Ladder of Citizen Power Theory (Figure 6), the outcome is likely
to be greater public understanding, and the following approach would be useful. First, residents near
the WTE incineration plant must be offered a certain number of job opportunities at the plant, and
be assured that the incineration is always under supervision. Second, large-scale WTE incineration
projects should be constructed to ensure environmental protection, and this concern for safety should
be made public and be demonstrated. Informing the public about MSW treatment-related knowledge
on an on-going basis will gradually help the public understand that MSW incineration is harmless.
Moreover, the government should regularly publish user-friendly information, and establish clear
operational guidelines, policies, and regulations for urban public utilities. Risk perception and
previous experiences with stench influenced the decision to protest [58]. Therefore, introducing
third-party regulatory agencies that include those who reside near WTE plants, and publishing
coherent real-time information regarding the plants’ pollutant emissions would also help to dispel
public doubts. In addition, no matter how advanced the technology of waste incineration plants
is, the government should not expect citizens to voluntarily sacrifice their own interests. Thus, the
government should compensate residents near incineration plants, either by giving them money, or
by providing them with heat and electricity at discounted prices.
14193
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
Acknowledgments: This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41271029)
and the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province (2015B070701020, 2013B070104012).
The authors acknowledge Haixian Xiong, Xiaoling Yin, and Jun Wang for their assistance with this study.
Author Contributions: Dongliang Zhang and Yimin Xu contributed to designing, collecting, and analyzing the
data. Guangqing Huang made substantial contributions to the paper’s design, and made critical revisions to the
work of Dongliang Zhang. Qinghua Gong contributed to the data analysis and revisions to the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ryu, C.; Shin, D. Combined Heat and Power from Municipal Solid Waste: Current Status and Issues in
South Korea. Energies 2013, 6, 45–57. [CrossRef]
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste: Electricity from Municipal Solid
Waste. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html
(accessed on 7 May 2015).
3. Psomopoulos, C.S.; Bourka, A.; Themelis, N.J. Waste-to-Energy: A Review of the Status and Benefits in
USA. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1718–1724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Psomopoulos, C.S.; Stavrouiakis, C.; Stavropoulos, V.; Themelis, N.J. Greenhouse Gasses Emission
Reduction Potential in Greece by Implementing WTE Facilities in Strategically Selected Urban Areas.
Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2013, 22, 2042–2047.
5. Consonni, S.; Viganò, F. Material and Energy Recovery in Integrated Waste Management Systems: The
Potential for Energy Recovery. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2074–2084. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Sverige, A. Energy from Waste—An International Perspective, RAPPORT U2009:05, ISSN 1103-4092.
Available online: http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_463/403_U2009-05.pdf (accessed
on 21 October 2015).
7. United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Available online: http://esa.un.org/
unpd/wpp/ (accessed on 7 May 2015).
8. Cheng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, A.; Li, Q. Municipal Solid Waste Fueled Power Generation in China: A Case
Study of Waste-to-Energy in Changchun City. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7509–7515. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
9. Kaplan, P.O.; Decarolis, J.; Thorneloe, S. Is It Better To Burn or Bury Waste for Clean Electricity Generation?
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1711–1717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Li, Y.; Li, X. Waste Incineration Industry and Development Policies in China. Waste Manag.
2015, 46, 234–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Psomopoulos, C.S.; Venetis, I.; Themelis, N.J. The Impact from the Implementation of “Waste to Energy” to
the Economy. A Macroeconomic Approach for the Trade Balance of Greece. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2014,
23, 2735–2741.
12. Liu, G.; Yang, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhang, Y.; Su, M.; Zhang, L. Emergy Evaluation of the Urban Solid Waste
Handling in Liaoning Province, China. Energies 2013, 6, 5486–5506. [CrossRef]
13. Hu, H.; Li, X.; Nguyen, A.; Kavan, P. A Critical Evaluation of Waste Incineration Plants in Wuhan (China)
Based on Site Selection, Environmental Influence, Public Health and Public Participation. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 7593–7614. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Zhang, G.; Hai, J.; Cheng, J. Characterization and mass balance of dioxin from a large-scale municipal solid
waste incinerator in China. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1156–1162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Li, M.; Hu, S.; Xiang, J.; Sun, L.; Li, P.; Su, S.; Sun, X. Characterization of Fly Ashes from Two Chinese
Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. Energy Fuel 2003, 17, 1487–1491. [CrossRef]
16. Ni, Y.; Zhang, H.; Fan, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, J. Emissions of PCDD/Fs from municipal solid waste
incinerators in China. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 1153–1158. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Yang, N.; Zhang, H.; Chen, M.; Shao, L.; He, P. Greenhouse gas emissions from MSW incineration in
China: Impacts of waste characteristics and energy recovery. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2552–2560. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18. Wang, Y.; Yan, Y.; Chen, G.; Zuo, J.; Du, H. Effective Approaches to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
From Waste to Energy Process: A China Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 104, 103–108. [CrossRef]
14194
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
19. Lo, K. A critical review of China's rapidly developing renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 508–516. [CrossRef]
20. Zheng, L.; Song, J.; Li, C.; Gao, Y.; Geng, P.; Qu, B.; Lin, L. Preferential policies promote municipal solid
waste (MSW) to energy in China: Current status and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 36,
135–148. [CrossRef]
21. Zeng, M.; Li, C.; Zhou, L. Progress and prospective on the police system of renewable energy in China.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 36–44. [CrossRef]
22. Nie, Y. Development and prospects of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration in China. Front. Environ.
Sci. Eng. China 2008, 2, 1–7. [CrossRef]
23. Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: Current and future
practices in China. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3816–3824. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2014.
25. CBI China. China Waste to Energy Outlook 2011. Updating Technology and Management, Powering Up the
Low-Carbon Economy. Available online: http://events.cbichina.com/con/wte2011/index.html (accessed
on 7 May 2015).
26. Dorn, T.; Nelles, M.; Flamme, S.; Jinming, C. Waste disposal technology transfer matching requirement
clusters for waste disposal facilities in China. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2177–2184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Garbage and Recycling in China. Available online: http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item1111.
html (accessed on 3 December 2015).
28. Xu, H. Comprehensive Consideration of Waste Recycling Rate. Available online: http://www.cnues.com/
zixun/30822.html (accessed on 3 December 2015).
29. Research Report on China's Waste Incineration for Power Generation Industry, 2014–2018. Available online:
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/xdnjr7/research_report (accessed on 18 June 2015).
30. Jing, L.; Qiang, L. Effect and treatment of the landfill leachate pollution to the ecological environment.
North. Environ. 2012, 1, 88–89. (In Chinese).
31. Liu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Li, X. Status and prospect of the application of municipal solid waste incineration in China.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 1193–1197. [CrossRef]
32. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook on the Environment; Chinese Statistics Press:
Beijing, China, 2014.
33. Wan, Z.; Chen, J.; Craig, B. Lessons learned from Huizhou, China's unsuccessful waste-to-energy
incinerator project: Assessment and policy recommendations. Util. Policy 2015, 33, 63–68. [CrossRef]
34. China's Total Power Generation Will Ranked First in the World in the Next 16 Years. Available online:
http://www.cpnn.com.cn/zdzgtt/201505/t20150528_803590.html (accessed on 4 December 2015).
35. Huang, S.; Zhou, J. Application and Prospects for Municipal Waste-to-Energy Power Generation
Technology. Appl. Energy Technol. 2007, 3, 42–45. (In Chinese).
36. Persson, K.; Broström, M.; Carlsson, J.; Nordin, A.; Backman, R. High Temperature Corrosion in a 65 MW
Waste to Energy Plant. Fuel Process. Technol. 2007, 88, 1178–1182. [CrossRef]
37. Lee, S.; Themelis, N.J.; Castaldi, M.J. High-Temperature Corrosion in Waste-to-Energy Boilers. J. Therm.
Spray Technol. 2007, 16, 104–110. [CrossRef]
38. Vainikka, P.; Bankiewicz, D.; Frantsi, A.; Silvennoinen, J.; Hannula, J.; Yrjas, P.; Hupa, M. High Temperature
Corrosion of Boiler Waterwalls Induced by Chlorides and Bromides. Part 1: Occurrence of the Corrosive
Ash Forming Elements in a Fluidised Bed Boiler Co-Firing Solid Recovered Fuel. Fuel 2011, 90, 2055–2063.
[CrossRef]
39. Bankiewicz, D.; Vainikka, P.; Lindberg, D.; Frantsi, A.; Silvennoinen, J.; Yrjas, P.; Hupa, M. High
Temperature Corrosion of Boiler Waterwalls Induced by Chlorides and Bromides—Part 2: Lab-Scale
Corrosion Tests and Thermodynamic Equilibrium Modeling of Ash and Gaseous Species. Fuel 2012, 94,
240–250. [CrossRef]
40. Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Meng, A.; Li, Q.; Cheng, H. Experimental and thermodynamic investigation on transfer
of cadmium influenced by sulfur and chlorine during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2008, 153, 309–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Zhang, D.; Huang, G.; Yin, X.; Gong, Q. Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviors at the Source: Using SEM
with the Theory of Planned Behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12,
9475–9491. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14195
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196
42. Zhang, D.; Tan, S.; Gersberg, R. Municipal solid waste management in China: Status, problems and
challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1623–1633. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Thipse, S.S.; Sheng, C.; Booty, M.R.; Magee, R.S.; Dreizin, E.L. Synthetic fuel for imitation of municipal solid
waste in experimental studies of waste incineration. Chemosphere 2001, 44, 1071–1077. [CrossRef]
44. Patumsawad, S.; Cliffe, K.R. Experimental study on fluidised bed combustion of high moisture municipal
solid waste. Energy Conver. Manag. 2002, 43, 2329–2340. [CrossRef]
45. Yan, J.H.; Chen, T.; Li, X.D.; Zhang, J.; Lu, S.Y.; Ni, M.J.; Cen, K.F. Evaluation of PCDD/Fs emission from
fluidized bed incinerators co-firing MSW with coal in China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 135, 47–51. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
46. Fly ash dumps open without curing. Available online: http://www.yjgz.org/?58 (accessed on 6
November 2015).
47. Xu, H. CCTV Contributed to the Opposed to Construction of Waste Incineration plants in many cities.
Available online: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_43b5618f0101g94u.html (accessed on 18 June 2015).
48. The Incineration Plant Involving Illegal Operation in Wuhan, Hubei Province. Available online:
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_43b5618f0101g94u.html (accessed on 8 June 2015).
49. Jennifer, B. 20,000 Protest Waste Incinerator Project in China. Available online: http://revolution-news.
com/20000-protest-waste-incinerator-project-china (accessed on 18 October 2015).
50. A WTE incineration plant near residential buildings. Available online: http://news.china.com/hd/
11127798/20150115/19210771_3.html (accessed on 15 December 2015).
51. Sheery, R.A. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224.
52. Wuhu Ecology Center; Friends of Nature. Report About 160 WTE Incineration Plants in Running
to Disclose the Pollution Emission Data. Available online: http://www.instrument.com.cn/news/
20150522/161390.shtml (accessed on 10 November 2015).
53. Hao, L. Waste to energy under rewarded. New Financ. 2012, 24, 96–97. (In Chinese).
54. The Government will Invest 41.3 Billion USD on WTE Incineration Facility during the 13th Five-Year.
Available online: http://www.dy88.cn/news/201507/Contents19786.html (accessed on 10 November 2015).
55. Yan, M.; Xiong, Z.; Li, X.; Hu, Y. Development trend and present status of municipal solid waste incineration
in China and the US. Environ. Eng. 2014, 3, 87–91. (In Chinese).
56. Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Novel Incineration Technology Integrated with Drying, Pyrolysis, Gasification, and
Combustion of MSW and Ashes Vitrification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 3855–3863. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
57. Cimpan, C.; Wenzel, H. Energy Implications of Mechanical and Mechanical-Biological Treatment
Compared to Direct Waste-to-Energy. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1648–1658. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Ren, X.; Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Tao, Y. Risk Perception and Public Acceptance toward a Highly Protested
Waste-to-Energy Facility. Waste Manag. 2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by
Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
14196
... The rapid increase in urbanization is intensifying consumption and waste generation in China [125,126]. In 2019, the meeting of State Council executives was held where they implemented the revised draft of Solid Waste Pollution Prevention Law of People's Republic of China" [88]. ...
... Chloride and sulfur gases released during combustion cause corrosion of boiler tubes, thus affecting the susceptibility of the incineration process [141][142][143]. Furthermore, the pollutants dioxins and fly ash released from plants cause serious air pollution problems, and due to this, there is public opposition to the construction of plants in residential areas [125,144]. Lack of technical expertise, knowledge and awareness obstructs the pace of waste-to-resources processing [2,145,146]. The quality and quantity of MSW also affects its waste-to-energy incineration. ...
Article
To realize the management of municipal solid waste (MSW), China uses MSW conversion technology to generate fuel and other byproducts through which the operating costs (e.g., capital and operational) are maintained to some extent. The amount of MSW produced per capita in China is a serious problem. Therefore, a circular economy method was investigated that can not only manage MSW safely but also convert MSW into energy to meet the growing energy demand. This study summarized the current status of MSW treatment and gives an overview of several waste-to-energy conversion technologies by describing their possible and existing situation in China and identifying related challenges. Currently, none of the single technologies can effectively realize waste-to-energy conversion. Only in this way can waste-to-energy technology achieve commercial success and community preparedness.
... Additionally, WTE plants in developing countries typically used older technology and had waste with a higher moisture content, which affected several costs and benefits. This increased maintenance costs because waste with high moisture content generates more corrosive by-products that damage boiler tubes (Zhang et al., 2015). Indirect and nonmonetary costs were also higher because both older technology and high-moisture-content waste produced more air pollution and greenhouse gasses (Lombardi et al., 2015;Yang et al., 2012). ...
... Indirect and nonmonetary costs were also higher because both older technology and high-moisture-content waste produced more air pollution and greenhouse gasses (Lombardi et al., 2015;Yang et al., 2012). Increased rates of groundwater contamination further elevated these costs because toxic ash must be put in a landfill (Kaza et al., 2018) and landfill leakage rates were generally higher in developing countries (Zhang et al., 2015). Finally, plants in developing countries produced less energy, which decreased recovered costs (Lombardi et al., 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Marine plastic pollution has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time. Although there has been a surge in global investment for implementing interventions to mitigate plastic pollution, there has been little attention given to the cost of these interventions. We developed a decision support framework to identify the economic, social, and ecological costs and benefits of plastic pollution interventions for different sectors and stakeholders. We calculated net cost as a function of six cost and benefit categories with the following equation: cost of implementing an intervention (direct, indirect, and nonmonetary costs) minus recovered costs and benefits (monetary and nonmonetary) produced by the interventions. We applied our framework to two quantitative case studies (a solid waste management plan and a trash interceptor) and four comparative case studies, evaluating the costs of beach cleanups and waste-to-energy plants in various contexts, to identify factors that influence the costs of plastic pollution interventions. The socioeconomic context of implementation, the spatial scale of implementation, and the time scale of evaluation all influence costs and the distribution of costs across stakeholders. Our framework provides an approach to estimate and compare the costs of a range of interventions across sociopolitical and economic contexts.
... The utilization of energy produced from waste, and waste-to-energy (WtE), has become increasingly significant in recent times (Leckner, 2015) as waste to energy (WTE) has become an important strategy in waste treatment (Zhang et al., 2015). Indeed, the conversion of waste into energy has become one of the most effective tools in waste management and energy generation in recent times (A hmadi et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Underpinned by an in-depth qualitative instrumental case study research approach, this paper reviews the waste-to-energy (WtE) system at London Gatwick Airport. The airport opened its waste-to-energy (WtE) plant in 2016 and London Gatwick Airport was the first airport in the world to covert wastes to energy onsite. Category 1 and other types of organic waste are converted into biomass fuel that is used to power the processing plant and provide heating for the airport's North Terminal. The waste plant also provides power to the site's water recovery system. London Gatwick Airport's waste-to-energy plant generates 1MW of renewable energy and can generate 22,500kW of heat each day. The environmental-related benefits from this system include a reduction in truck vehicle journeys to external waste plants, which has resulted in lower vehicle-related carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions, lower vehicle noise levels, and less vehicle congestion. The water recovered from the waste-drying stage is also used to clean waste bins located throughout the airport. This re-use of water has enabled the airport to reduce its annual water consumption by 2 million litres per annum. The ash recovered from the system's biomass boiler can be used to make low carbon concrete thereby reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. Importantly, since 2016, no wastes have been disposed to landfill thereby mitigating the environmental impacts associated with landfill wastes. London Gatwick Airport has applied the circular economy principles to its waste management. As such, the airport aims to re-use and recycle waste wherever possible and those wastes that are unsuitable or not permitted for re-use or recycling are recovered for energy. Since Gatwick Airport's waste-to-energy plant (WtE) became operational in 2016, the annual volumes of wastes recovered for energy were 5,677 tonnes in 2016, 5,509.6 tonnes in 2017, 4,939.9 tonnes in 2018, 3,930.5 tonnes in 2019, and 1,243.6 tonnes in 2020, respectively.
... This problem arises due to the lack of applicable technologies to valorize food waste efficiently and adequately. Statistics show that almost half of the MSW generated daily is from food waste in Asian countries such as China, Singapore, and Malaysia (Leckner, 2015;Rahman, 2013;Zhang et al., 2015a;2015b). FW has high water content and low heating value, and it is also mixed with other wastes in the landfill so much that it is hard to be separated (Tong et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study highlights the leaching process of biomass and food waste (FW), which reduces potassium and sodium content to more than 80% and improves its quality to be used as fuel. Alternative fuels with high water content, especially from FW and the palm oil industry, represent the majority of alternative resources in Malaysia. However, the combustion of these fuels often causes more ash-related problems such as fouling, slagging, and higher particle emissions compared to other fuel types. Water leaching is a pre-treatment process that has a great potential to alleviate the deposition problems caused by the thermal and chemical reactions of the biomass and FW elements during its combustion and thus increase their value. This study compared the fuel characteristics and water leaching effect to the selected fuels with specific water ratios for 5 minutes. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) was used to determine water leaching effectiveness to compare the relative fuel composition after leaching. Leaching results were simulated using FactSage software to predict slag formation in treated and untreated samples during combustion at 650, 800, and 950°C. Simulated results show significant slagging formation reduction following the water leaching process onto the samples. Simulating the particulate and ash compositions paves the path to formulating strategic assessment techniques to reduce their emissions and slagging tendencies.
... Abdallah et al., (2019) evaluated various WTE scenarios in several developing countries, and found that the annual carbon footprint reduction could range between 1800 and 30,700 Gg CO 2 e. In China, multiple waste incineration plants producing heat or energy were constructed in recent years which had led to GHG reductions in about 374 million ton CO 2 e (Zhang et al., 2015). Another study held in the United Stated found that implementing WTE facilitites would reduce GHG emissions by around 65% compared to conventional waste landfilling (Chandel et al., 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sustainable development systems (SDSs) contribute greatly to the global efforts toward climate change mitigation. The strategic planning and prioritization of various SDSs require multi-sectoral integrated assessment to ensure sustainability goals are effectively met. This research establishes a systematic integrated framework to assess selected state-of-the-art SDSs in three carbon-intensive sectors: transportation, waste management, and energy production. Multiple sustainable development scenarios were included based on: (1) electrified/intelligent transportation (EV/ITS), (2) waste-to-energy (WTE), and (3) renewable energy sources (RES). The proposed cost-integrated environmental assessment was applied on the case of Dubai which has some of the world highest per capita records of carbon footprint, energy demand, and waste generation. It was found that WTE systems were the most economically viable with required investments of around 8–20 USD/tCO2e-reduced, compared to 50–600 and 600–1500 USD/tCO2e-reduced with RES and EV/ITS strategies, respectively. The implementation of the optimum multi-sectoral plan, comprising autonomous vehicles, waste incineration, and concentrated solar towers, would achieve around 38% of the national target for carbon reduction in Dubai. The proposed methodology is applicable to other metropolises, particularly where there is limited local data and previous experiences with such sustainable systems.
Article
The development of renewable energy resources is strongly associated to recoup the shortage of fossil-based energy and its associated pollution issues. Energy production from carbohydrate materials has recently been of great interest due to the availability, reliability, and abundance of carbohydrate sources. Significantly, the catalytic transformation of waste carbohydrates into furan-based biofuels, specifically 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), appears to be an attractive solution to the aforementioned energy and environmental issues. The potential of DMF as a renewable fuel is prospective, with its physicochemical properties that are similar to those of fossil fuels. Therefore, the current work focuses on the production of DMF, with the important aspects for enhanced DMF yield being summarized herein. Notably, the significant catalysts derived from zeolite, noble-metal, non-noble-metal, metal−organic framework, and electrocatalytic materials are discussed, alongside their effects in deriving carbohydrates to DMF. Furthermore, the mechanisms of DMF production were too, followed by the scrutinization of the effects from reaction conditions, solvents, and hydrogen donors onto the MF yield. Finally, the process, commercialization potential, and economic feasibility of DMF production were incorporated too, with insightful future directions being identified at the end of our review. This review is expected to advocate DMF production from carbohydrate materials, which could alleviate the energy and environmental problems encountered presently.
Article
Full-text available
RESUMO Os estudos de viabilidade técnico econômica são elementos primordiais para a viabilização de projetos de saneamento, inclusive de incineração de resíduo sólido urbano com recuperação energética. O artigo teve como base os padrões para estudos de viabilidade técnico econômica conforme Portaria n° 557 do Ministério das Cidades, previstos na lei n° 11.445 que estabelece diretrizes nacionais para o saneamento básico. Foram realizadas visitas técnicas em quatro incineradores em operação na Suíça e dois em Portugal, com o objetivo de estabelecer um benchmarking para referenciar a análise da aplicação da Portaria, a identificação dos fatores críticos que dificultam a adoção dessa tecnologia no Brasil, assim como as ações necessárias para a viabilidade técnico-econômica do incinerador. Os principais fatores críticos identificados foram a localização da planta, o efeito Not in My Backyard, a concepção de conflito entre reciclagem e incineração, o elevado investimento inicial, o risco de adoção de tecnologias já superadas, a falta de experiência e mão de obra capacitada local, a variação e sazonalidade na alimentação de resíduo sólido urbano, a volatilidade do preço da energia no mercado, as receitas mínimas para viabilidade financeira, a adequação do arcabouço legal e a seleção de modelo de negócio adequado.
Article
Mortar made from concrete slurry waste (CSW) and municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash (MSWIBA) could be recycled into cold bonded lightweight aggregates (CBLA). However, the mechanism by which the CSW-MSWIBA mortar hardened and developed strength remains unexplored. Furthermore, the investigation in the previous study was limited to using the CBLA for wet precast lightweight concrete (LWC). Understanding the characteristic of CSW-MSWIBA mortar and exploring a new application of CBLA can promote the larger-scale recycling of CSW and MSWIBA. Herein, an investigation was performed on assessing the multi-component characteristics of CSW-MSWIBA mortar. The results showed that using MSWIBA (i.e., as compared to river sand) in CSW was advantageous for lower density and higher compressive strength of the mortar. The strength development of hardening CSW-MSWIBA mortar could largely be ascribed to the continuous cement hydration of CSW and the pozzolanic reaction between MSWIBA and CSW providing a better bonding at the CSW-MSWIBA interface. Following a pelletization process, the CSW-MSWIBA mortar was turned into cold bonded lightweight aggregates (CBLA). Through a trial of industrial-scale production, the CBLA were then used to fabricate semi-dry precast LWC, which met the LWC and masonry unit requirements as per BS EN 206 or JGJ/T 12 and BS 8103, respectively.
Chapter
For the purposes of environmental protection, resource efficiency and to foster a sustainable development it is advisable to recycle also slightly contaminated CDW and keep it from ending up in landfills. A high-quality option is the use as aggregate for concretes (RCA). In doing so, it must be guaranteed, that no harms for health and environment are caused by potential emissions. The use of crushed demolition waste as a concrete aggregate is technically state-of-the-art. Investigations on the leaching behaviour of recycled concrete showed a good integration of inorganic contaminants. However, PAH were found to be leached in noticeable amounts even for moderately contaminated CDW, complying with the German threshold of 25 mg/kg for RCA. For this contribution different test specimens, containing moderately PAH-contaminated aggregates, were tested in leaching tests following DIN CEN/TS 16637-2. The results were evaluated according to the current German evaluation procedure and compared to limit values for PAH in groundwater. PAH leaching from concrete proved to be a relevant issue, the permitted release of 0.22 mg/m² and therefore the threshold for groundwater was exceeded in many cases. The PAH content of the recycled aggregate was no suitable indicator for an environmental compatible concrete, the most determining factor, besides the total aggregate amount added, is the contaminated fines share.
Article
Full-text available
As a way of disposing municipal solid waste (MSW), waste-to-energy (WtE) not only generates energy but also reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper analyzes two WtE options, i.e. incineration with energy recovery (electricity and heat) (Incineration E hereafter), and landfill with landfill gas (LFG) utilization (Landfill E hereafter). It is imperative to investigate which approach is more effective in terms of GHG emission reduction in different climatic conditions. Two typical northern and southern cities in China, i.e. Tianjin in North China and Xiamen in South China are selected in this study. GHG accounting was undertaken per ton of waste received at the waste plant while GHG contributions were categorized as indirect emissions, direct emissions, substituted fossil fuel emissions and avoided emissions. The results show that North China should adopt Incineration E, while Landfill E is the better choice for South China. This study also benchmarks the waste management practices in these two cities to international practices in Europe in terms of the avoided emissions from both Incineration E and Landfill E approaches. The findings indicate that the energy recovery efficiency in Europe is higher than that of China, especially for Incineration E. Therefore, more efforts are required in China to enhance the substituted fossil fuel emissions, e.g. improving the energy recovery efficiency.
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the factors that affect residents' waste separation behaviors helps in constructing effective environmental campaigns for a community. Using the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study examines factors associated with waste separation behaviors by analyzing responses to questionnaires distributed in Guangzhou, China. Data drawn from 208 of 1000-field questionnaires were used to assess socio-demographic factors and the TPB constructs (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, and situational factors). The questionnaire data revealed that attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, and situational factors significantly predicted household waste behaviors in Guangzhou, China. Through a structural equation modeling analysis, we concluded that campaigns targeting moral obligations may be particularly effective for increasing the participation rate in waste separation behaviors.
Article
Full-text available
With the rapid development of the waste incineration industry in China, top priority has been given to the problem of pollution caused by waste incineration. This study is the first attempt to assess all the waste incineration plants in Wuhan, the only national key city in central China, in terms of environmental impact, site selection, public health and public participation. By using a multi-criterion assessment model for economic, social, public health and environmental effects, this study indicates these incineration plants are established without much consideration of the local residents' health and environment. A location analysis is also applied and some influences of waste incineration plants are illustrated. This study further introduces a signaling game model to prove that public participation is a necessary condition for improving the environmental impact assessment and increasing total welfare of different interest groups in China. This study finally offers some corresponding recommendations for improving the environmental impact assessments of waste incineration projects.
Article
Full-text available
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important energy resource for combined heat and power (CHP) production. This study summarized an overview of CHP by MSW to energy (WtE) plants in South Korea and discussed the issues related to energy efficiency improvement. Given the dominant housing culture of apartment living in South Korea, the primary energy output of WtE plants has been for district heating. In 2010, approximately half of the 51 large WtE plants were CHP, while the rest produced heat. Power generation in the WtE CHP plants was estimated to be only 3.65% of the thermal input, while heat production was 60.79%. The R1 efficiency when compared to that in Europe was similar for the CHP plants and higher for heat-only plants. Improving power generation efficiency is required for new power plants producing steam at pressures higher than the current level of 20-30 bar. Over ten of the existing plants needed to increase their energy efficiency by installing new equipment such as steam turbines for excess steam. Finally, transboundary centralization of WtE plants between neighboring local authorities is essential for heat utilization since many existing small-scale plants (<50 t/day capacity) do not recover heat.
Article
Full-text available
Waste management is a distinct practice aimed at reducing its effects on health and the environment and increasing energy and material recovery. The urban waste management industry has been slow to adopt new technologies, such as sanitary landfills and incineration, which enable better treatment results. The aim of a thorough ecological-economic evaluation of different treatment technologies is to extract the maximum practical benefits from investments and to ensure the minimum environmental impacts of wastes. This paper compares four garbage treatment systems, including sanitary landfills systems, fluidized bed incineration system, grate type incineration system and the current landfills system in Liaoning Province, China. By considering the economic and environmental impacts of waste treatment and disposal, impact of emissions, and contribution of wastes input, this paper constructed an emergy-based urban solid waste model for evaluating the sustainability of the holistic systems. The results in Liaoning indicate that the human health losses caused by the harmful air emissions are ranked in this order: fluidized bed incineration > grate type incineration > current landfills > sanitary landfills, while the ecosystem losses are ranked: grate type incineration > fluidized bed incineration > sanitary landfills > current landfills. The electricity yield ratios are ranked: grate type incineration > fluidized bed incineration > sanitary landfills > current landfills. Taken together this suggests that in considering the incineration option, decision makers must weigh the benefits of incineration against the significant operating costs, potential environmental impacts, and technical difficulties of operating. Emergy analysis of the urban solid treatment systems can provide a set of useful tools which can be used to compare the comprehensive performances of different waste treatment processes for decision-making and optimizing the whole process.
Article
The application of Waste-to-Energy treatment in Municipal Solid Waste faces strong protest by local communities, especially in cities with high population densities. This study introduces insight into the public awareness, acceptance and risk perception toward Waste-to-Energy through a structured questionnaire survey around a Waste-to-Energy facility in Shanghai, China. The Dichotomous-Choice contingent valuation method was applied to study the willingness to accept of residents as an indicator of risk perception and tolerance. The factors influencing risk perception and the protest response choice were analyzed. The geographical distributions of the acceptance of Waste-to-Energy facility and protest response were explored using geographical information systems. The findings of the research indicated an encouraging vision of promoting Waste-to-Energy, considering its benefits of renewable energy and the conservation of land. A high percentage of protest willingness to accept (50.94%) was highlighted with the effect of income, opinion about Waste-to-Energy, gender and perceived impact. The fuzzy classification among people with different opinions on compensation (valid 0, positive or protest willingness to accept) revealed the existing yet rejected demand of compensation among protesters. Geographical distribution in the public attitude can also be observed. Finally significant statistical relation between knowledge and risk perception indicates the need of risk communication, as well as involving public into whole management process.
Article
The growing pollution from municipal solid waste due to economic growth and urbanization has brought great challenge to China. The main method of waste disposal has gradually changed from landfill to incineration, because of the enormous land occupation by landfills. The paper presents the results of a study of the development status of the upstream and downstream of the waste incineration industry chain in China, reviews the government policies for the waste incineration power industry, and provides a forecast of the development trend of the waste incineration industry. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article
The Chinese government has advocated the use of waste-to-energy (WtE) incinerators to manage waste because of their high efficiency, minimal land requirement, and significant impact in terms of reducing solid mass; however, the use of WtE incinerators has been met with strong public resistance. This policy note describes Huizhou's unsuccessful WtE incinerator project. Three specific problems are discussed. First, the use of public-private partnerships to implement such projects has led to lack of transparency and corruption. Second, Huizhou has an inadequate dioxin-control strategy due to less stringent standards than those in the U.S. and Europe, along with poor monitoring practices. Third, China's buffer zone between WtE incinerators and populated areas is just 300 m, even though health impacts can be detected for distances up to 5 km. The case of Huizhou shows that high levels of investment do not necessarily result in advanced operation and management techniques. The lack of openness and transparency in government decision-making and supervision exacerbates the severity of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) concerns. A number of policy recommendations follow from this case study.
Article
The Renewable Energy Law has been formulated by China government in 2005. During the next few years, there has been dramatic progress in China's renewable energy industries, along with the formation of the policy system of renewable energy in China. It is widely recognized that a reasonable and effective policy system can lay the solid foundation for the development of renewable energy. Regarding the rapid growth of renewable energy With a host of relevant policies issued in China, there is an urgent need to study the policy system of renewable energy in view of the latest situations to further promote the development of renewable energy. This paper is a systematical review about the promotion of China's policy system of renewable energy since Renewable Energy Law issued. Achievements on the policy system of renewable energy in 2011 as of 2005 are discussed. Experiences from recent periods are drawn and factors limiting the policy system of renewable energy are also addressed in details to probe the policy predicament and solutions. The development tendency of renewable energy is presented and the framework is drafted to set the framing constraints for China's policy system of renewable energy. Finally, policy suggestions are proposed for the successful implementation of renewable energy policies within the framing constraints of the policy system and the long-term healthy development of renewable energy in China.