IdeaWazaWiki - User contributions [en]

List of computer vision conferences

2008-08-15T20:48:05Z

128.100.5.116: 3DIM added

This is a list of the most prominent conferences within the field of [[Computer vision]], [[Pattern recognition]] and to some extent [[image processing]].

== Computer vision conferences ==
* IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
** ICCV 2011 Barcelona, Spain.
** [http://www.iccv2009.org/ ICCV 2009 Kyoto], Japan.
** [http://iccv2007.rutgers.edu/ ICCV 2007 Rio de Janeiro], Brazil. October 14-21
** [http://research.microsoft.com/iccv2005/ ICCV 2005 Beijing], China. October 15-21
** [http://lear.inrialpes.fr/people/triggs/events/iccv03/ ICCV 2003 Nice], France. October 13-16
** [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/conferences/ICCV/ ICCV 2001 Vancouver], Canada. July 9-12
** [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/iccv99/ ICCV 1999, Kerkyra (Corfu)], Greece. September 20-25
** [http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/users/lsd/iccv/ ICCV 1998, Bombay], India. January 4-7
** ICCV 1995, Boston, MA, USA. June 20-23, 1995
** ICCV 1993, Berlin, Germany
** ICCV 1990, Osaka, Japan
** ICCV 1988, Florida, USA
** ICCV 1987, London, UK

* International Confernce on Computer Vision Systems (ICVS)
** ICVS 2009, Liege, Belgium. October
** [http://icvs2008.info ICVS 2008 Santorini], Greece. May 12-15
** [http://www.icvs2007.org/index.php ICVS 2007, Bielefeld], Germany. March 21-24
** [http://www.cs.colostate.edu/icvs06/ICVS06.htm ICVS 2006, New York], NY, USA. January 5-7
** [http://dib.joanneum.at/ICVS03/grund.htm ICVS 2003, Graz], Austria. April 1-3
** ICVS 2001, Vancouver, Canada. June 7-8
** [http://gias720.dis.ulpgc.es/ICVS/mainpage.html ICVS 1999, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria], Spain, January 13 - 15

* European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)
** ECCV 2010 Heraklion, Crete. September
** [http://eccv2008.inrialpes.fr/ ECCV 2008 Marseille], France. October 12 - 18
** [http://eccv2006.tugraz.at/ ECCV 2006 Graz], Austria. May 7 - 13
** [http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/eccv2004/ ECCV 2004 Prague], Czech Republic. May 11-14
** [http://www.itu.dk/events/eccv02/ ECCV 2002 Copenhagen], Denmark. May 27 - June 2.

* Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV)
** [http://www.am.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp/ACCV2007/ ACCV 2007 Tokyo], Japan. November 18-22
** [http://www.iiit.ac.in/ACCV2006/ ACCV 2006 Hyderabad], India. January 13-16
** ACCV 2004, Korea
** [http://batman.eng.monash.edu.au/accv_2002/accv_2002.htm ACCV 2002 Melbourne], Australia. January 22-25

* IEEE Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology (PSIVT)
** [http://www.psivt.org/ PSIVT 2009 Tokyo], Japan, January 13-16
** [http://www.psivt.org/ PSIVT 2007 Santiago], Chile, December 17-19
** [http://psivt2006.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ PSIVT 2006 Hsinchu], Taiwan, December 11-13

* IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
** [http://www.cvpr.org/ CVPR] main homepage
** CVPR 2010 San Francisco, USA.
** [http://www.cvpr2009.org/ CVPR 2009 Miami], USA. June
** [http://www.cvpr.org/2008/ CVPR 2008 Anchorage], USA. June 24-26
** [http://www.cvpr.org/2007/ CVPR 2007 Minneapolis], USA. June 18-23
** [http://www.cvpr.org/2006/ CVPR 2006 New York], USA. June 17-22
** [http://www.cs.duke.edu/cvpr2005/ CVPR 2005 San Diego], USA. June 20-25
** [http://cvl.umiacs.umd.edu/conferences/cvpr2004/ CVPR 2004 Washington DC], USA. June 27-July 2
** [http://www.cs.toronto.edu/cvpr2003/ CVPR 2003 Madison], USA June 16-22
** [http://vision.cse.psu.edu/cvpr2001/ CVPR 2001 Kauai], USA Dec 9-14
** [http://cvpr2000.cs.uiuc.edu/ CVPR 2000 Hilton Head], USA June 13-15
** CVPR 1999 Ft. Collins, USA June June 23-25
** CVPR 1999 Santa Barbara, USA June June 23-25
** CVPR 1997 San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 17-19
** CVPR 1996 San Francisco, CA, USA June 18-20
** CVPR 1994 Seattle, WA, USA

* IEEE Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC)
** [http://www.laval-virtual.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=111 IEEE VRIC] main homepage. Collaboration with IEEE France and ACM SIGGRAPH
** IEEE VRIC 2009, Laval Virtual, France, 2009 April 22-26
** IEEE VRIC 2008, Laval Virtual, France, 2008 April 9-13

* International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)
** [http://www.icpr2008.org/ ICPR 2008 Tampa], USA. December 8-11
** [http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~icpr06/ ICPR 2006 Hong Kong], China. August 20-24
** [http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/icpr2004/ ICPR 2004 Cambridge], UK. August 23-26
** [http://icpr2002.gel.ulaval.ca/ ICPR 2002 Québec], Canada. August 11-15

* [http://www.3dimconference.org/ 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling]
** [http://www.3dimconference.org/3DIM2007/ 3DIM 2007], Montreal, Canada, August 21-23
** [http://www.3dimconference.org/3DIM2005/ 3DIM 2005], Ottawa, Canada, June 13-16
** [http://www.3dimconference.org/3DIM2003/ 3DIM 2003],Banff, Canada October 6-10
** [http://www.3dimconference.org/3DIM2001/ 3DIM 2001], Quebec City, Canada May 28 - June 1
** [http://www.3dimconference.org/3DIM99/ 3DIM 1999], Ottawa, Canada Oct 4-8
** 3DIM 1997, Ottawa, Canada, May12-15

== Closely related conferences ==
* IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP)
** [http://www.icip2010.org/ ICIP 2010 Hong Kong]. September 12-15
** ICIP 2009 Cairo, Egypt. September
** [http://www.icip08.org/ ICIP 2008 San Diego], USA. October 12-15
** [http://www.icip2007.org/ ICIP 2007 San Antonio],USA. September 16-19
** [http://www.icip2006.org/ ICIP 2006 Atlanta], USA. October 8-11
** [http://www.icip05.org/welcome.htm ICIP 2005 Genova], Italy. September 11-14

* IEEE International Conference Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualization (CGIV)
** [http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/cgiv08/ CGIV 2008 Penang], Malaysia, August 25-28
** [http://www.graphicslink.co.uk/cgiv07/ CGIV 2007 Bangkok], Thailand, August 14-17
** [http://www.computer.org/portal/site/store/menuitem.41cf17dc879177c86ee948ce8bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pName=store_level1&path=store/P2006&file=p2606.xml&xsl=generic.xsl& CGIV 2006 Sydney], Australia, July 26-28
** [http://www.computer.org/portal/site/store/menuitem.41cf17dc879177c86ee948ce8bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pName=store_level1&path=store/p2005&file=p2392.xml&xsl=generic.xsl& CGIV 2005 Beijing], China, July 26-29

* Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns (CAIP)
** [http://caip.eu.org/ CAIP] main homepage
** [http://cvpr.uni-muenster.de/CAIP2009/ CAIP 2009 Münster], Germany, September 2-4
** [http://www.prip.tuwien.ac.at/caip07/ CAIP 2007 Vienna], Austria, August 27-29
** [http://acivs.org/caip2005/ CAIP 2005 Paris], France, September 5-8
** [http://caip.cs.rug.nl/ CAIP 2003 Groningen], The Netherlands, August 25-27
** CAIP 2001 Warsaw, Poland, Sep 5-7 (LNCS 2124)
** CAIP 1999 Ljubljana, Slovenia, Sep 1-3 (LNCS 1689)
** CAIP 1997 Kiel, Germany, Sep 10-12 (LNCS 1296)
** CAIP 1995 Prague, Czech Republic, Sep 6-8 (LNCS 970)
** CAIP 1993 Budapest, Hungary, Sep 13-15 (LNCS 719)
** CAIP 1991 Dresden, Germany, Sep 17-19
** CAIP 1989 Leipzig, Germany, Sep 8-10
** CAIP 1987 Wismar, Germany, Sep 2-4
** CAIP 1985 Berlin, Germany, Oct 17-18

* International Workshop on Advanced Image Technology (IWAIT)
** [http://iwait2008.cs.nctu.edu.tw/page_welcome.html IWAIT 2008 Hsinchu], Taiwan January 7-8
** [http://www.conferencealerts.com/seeconf.mv?q=ca1amh8m IWAIT 2007 Bangkok], Thailand January 8-9
** [http://viplab.eng.niigata-u.ac.jp/iwait2006/ IWAIT 2006 Okinawa], Japan January 9-10
** [http://mccb.icu.ac.kr/iwait2005/iwait2005.htm IWAIT 2005 Jeju], Korea January 10-11
** [http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~iwait/ IWAIT 2004 NUS], Singapore January 12-13
** [http://www.ieice.org/~ie/iwait2003.html IWAIT 2003 Nagasaki], Japan January 21-22
** IWAIT 2002 Hualien, Taiwan January 16-19
** IWAIT 2001 Taejon, Korea February
** IWAIT 2000 Fujisawa, Japan January
** IWAIT 1999, Taiwan January 20-21
** IWAIT 1998, Korea

* Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing (ICVGIP)
** [http://www.icvgip.org ICVGIP] main homepage
** [http://conf05.iitkgp.ac.in/icvgip08/ ICVGIP 2008] Bhubaneswar, December 16-19
** [http://www.icvgip.org/icvgip2006/ ICVGIP 2006] Madurai, December 13-16
** [http://www.icvgip.org/icvgip2004/index.shtml ICVGIP 2004] Calcutta, December 16-18
** [http://www.icvgip.org/icvgip2002/index.htm ICVGIP 2002] Ahmedabad, December 16-18

* [[GraphiCon]] — International Conference on Computer Graphics & Vision
** [http://www.graphicon.ru/ GraphiCon] main homepage
** [http://www.graphicon.ru/2008/ GraphiCon 2008] Moscow, June 23-27
** [http://www.graphicon.ru/2007/ GraphiCon 2007] Moscow, June 23-27

== External links ==
* [http://iris.usc.edu/Information/Iris-Conferences.html Computer Vision Conference Listing], University of Southern California, and the Official Mirror [http://conferences.visionbib.com/Iris-Conferences.html Computer Vision Conference Listing]
* [http://www.prip.tuwien.ac.at/~sab/conf.html Upcoming Computer Vision Conferences], Vienna University of Technology
* [http://www.isi.uu.nl/Conferences/ Conferences Medical Imaging and Computer Vision], Image Sciences Institute
* [http://www.brl.ntt.co.jp/people/akisato/conference.html Conference Schedules: Computer Vision, Image Processing, Multimedia etc.]

[[Category:Computer vision]]
[[Category:Computer lists|Computer vision conferences]]
[[Category:Computer vision publications]]

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-09T02:12:38Z

128.100.37.167: /* Highlights and Recommendations */

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.
[[Image:Landfill Hawaii.jpg|500px|right]]

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==
The process steps of the baseline alternative(landfill) and the two diversion alternatives (incineration and plasma arc gasification) are deatialed in this section. Since the process of landfilling waste is simply tipping it into the constructed landfill, the steps of construction are described. For incineration and plasma arc gasification however, steps describing the process by which waste is treated.
====Landfill====

The steps to construct a landfill are: <ref> MSW management, Landfill economics by Daniel P. Duffy, [Accessed: Feb 17, 2008] Available at: http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/mw_0507_landfill2.html</ref>:

* Scientific Research about location of the site, geology, underground water level, location of the bodies of the water such as river and the density of the waste.
* Clearing the landfill site from ground cover.
* Excavation of the ground (the volume of the excavation depends on the results of the first step).
* Construction of the berm all around the landfill site.
* Construction of the liner and leachate management system.
* Construction of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) which avoids leachate to escape into the environment from the landfill.
* Installation of the leachate and methane extraction pipe.
* Installation of the leachate tank for each landfill cell.
* Installation of power plant generator and flaring system (for generating electricity) or compressor station (for selling methane itself)<ref>Results of the EI Trebol Landfill feasibililty study by Brian Guzzone, [Accessed: March 10, 2008] Available at: www.epa.gov/lmop/int/pre_feasibility_study.pdf
</ref>.

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref> http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8186</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
[[Image:Slca_scores.PNG|right|425px]]
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>http://www.umuc.edu/ade/bp/envm/02-constr/html/build.html#phase1</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis'''
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right|500px]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)'''
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that process implementation for a landfill releases lower levels of criteria air contaminants. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001245468 </ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===
To be a feasible solution for handling the City of Toronto's municipal solid waste stream, each alternative must be able to satisfy the following functional requirements:

*Capacity to handle Toronto's large mass of waste now (currently ~700000 tonnes per year<ref>www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm</ref>), and in the future considering population growth.
*Minimal impact on human health and the environment.
*Economically viable in terms of both capital investment, and operating costs.
*Reliability.
*Acceptability to society (including traffic density, noise, aesthetic concerns, odours, etc.).

Both landfilling and incineration are well proven technologies that are known to be able to meet Toronto's capacity and reliability requirements. Plasma arc gasification and vitrification has primarily been implemented in limited scale plants. Plasco Energy Group's facility in Ottawa is currently the only plasma arc facility in Canada intended for processing municipal solid waste. It is only a demonstration plant at the moment, designed for a capacity of 100 tonnes per day(~5% of Toronto's requiremwnt), but currently holds approval for only 85 tonnes per day, and to date has only processed 10 tonnes per day. It is currently operating under a special regulation, providing exemption from full Environmental Assessment Act requirements for a two year trial period. As such, it is still only in a beta testing stage, so there is considerable uncertainty regarding it's feasibility. While other plasma arc plants have been constructed in other locations around the world, they have generally proved costly, and unsuccessful as net generators of electricity<ref>http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/csd/publiccom/honnews04/plasmaarcrecommendations.htm</ref>. The Plasco facility does however incorporate some proprietary technological advances, which are claimed to significantly improve performance relative to existing facilities. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the technology is capable of achieving the performance claimed by Plasco Energy Group.

Other functional requirements are assesed in the relevant sections of this article.

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill.

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>Wikipedia, Site Construction Requirements, [Accessed: Feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option.

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[Trail road landfill, [Accessed: feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[Lay field, PVC liner Landfill cap Rehabilitation, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>Oxford Plastic Inc. Landfill Gas Pipe, [Accessed: March 7, 2008], Available at: http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building. 

==== Plasma Arc Gasification versus Landfill====

Although the secondary process operation of plasma arc gasification(the energy generation process)has a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc gasification technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment are minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc gasification process, a large amount of sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal has a higher carbon dioxide emission rate than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In landfills, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is 23 times more potent than the other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. 

Every year 40-60 Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emissions are generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. 

Therefore, the mass of methane produced and released into the atmosphere by landfills has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide released in the energy generation stage for plasma arc gasification process. 

===Cost Analysis===
[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
Societal issues are one of the most sensitive and most weighed factors when deciding which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables. This is because public acceptance is important when politicians decide which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables [www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]. However, since each alternatives vary in the amount of land used, noise pollution, emitted toxins and the interference with aesthetics, the extent to how sensitive this analysis is varies for each alternative. Note that because certain aspects are controversial, some sources portray aspects that are a matter of opinion rather than facts.

'''Landfill''' 
One of the greatest societal concerns regarding landfills is related to residential areas that are three to five miles away. Those living three to five miles away from a landfill face diseases, such as congenital abnormalities [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340], due to air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S].
As a result, politicians are using micro-organism technologies to reduce the toxins and odour being released [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. Noise pollution is another issue when considering this alternative as almost 60db of noise comes from the transport trucks [www.co.solano.ca.us/resources/ResourceManagement/4.7%20Noise.pdf]. This is a major residential effect as the large number of trucks can cause loss of hearing and disruptions to the community. Although with respect to other alternatives, a landfill does not have as great of an effect as incineration.

'''Incineration''' 
Societal concerns relating to incinerators include noise pollution and mainly the amount of dioxins and furans released. Note however, although depletion of land is a factor, it does not weigh as heavily as the other previously mentioned issues for incinerator plants. Incineration is the most sensitive and controversial alternatives since there are a lot of protest against it from groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Global Anti-Incineration Alliance.
Such groups claim that incinerators are the number one source of dioxins and furans and harmful toxins are released from the solid waste when being burned [. The controversial aspect of this issue is that the definition of an incinerator can be skewed. Since the definition of an incinerator is… a cigarette can be thought of an incinerator and thus the facts collected by anti-incinerators may not be accurate. Pro-incineration groups, on the other hand, will present theories such a bonfire emits more dioxins and furans than an incinerator plant [http://www.e4s.org.uk/biffa/problem/w_opt4.html]. Another major movement is created from the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement which minimizes the amount of land allowed for incineration facilities [www.academon.com/lib/essay/halton-incineration-proposal.html].
Noise pollution is another societal issue because it concerns those working in the incineration plant. Hearing loss is a concern as almost 85 db of noise is generated from the incinerator furnace and boilers [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16865343]. However, it should be noted that facilities which generated a lot noise now install wall insulation along with new building design structures that may reduce noise [http://www.tccip.com.tw/e/03.htm].

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-09T02:09:32Z

128.100.37.167: /* Functional Analysis */

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.
[[Image:Landfill Hawaii.jpg|500px|right]]

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==
The process steps of the baseline alternative(landfill) and the two diversion alternatives (incineration and plasma arc gasification) are deatialed in this section. Since the process of landfilling waste is simply tipping it into the constructed landfill, the steps of construction are described. For incineration and plasma arc gasification however, steps describing the process by which waste is treated.
====Landfill====

The steps to construct a landfill are: <ref> MSW management, Landfill economics by Daniel P. Duffy, [Accessed: Feb 17, 2008] Available at: http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/mw_0507_landfill2.html</ref>:

* Scientific Research about location of the site, geology, underground water level, location of the bodies of the water such as river and the density of the waste.
* Clearing the landfill site from ground cover.
* Excavation of the ground (the volume of the excavation depends on the results of the first step).
* Construction of the berm all around the landfill site.
* Construction of the liner and leachate management system.
* Construction of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) which avoids leachate to escape into the environment from the landfill.
* Installation of the leachate and methane extraction pipe.
* Installation of the leachate tank for each landfill cell.
* Installation of power plant generator and flaring system (for generating electricity) or compressor station (for selling methane itself)<ref>Results of the EI Trebol Landfill feasibililty study by Brian Guzzone, [Accessed: March 10, 2008] Available at: www.epa.gov/lmop/int/pre_feasibility_study.pdf
</ref>.

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref> http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8186</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
[[Image:Slca_scores.PNG|right|425px]]
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>http://www.umuc.edu/ade/bp/envm/02-constr/html/build.html#phase1</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis'''
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right|500px]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)'''
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001245468 </ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===
To be a feasible solution for handling the City of Toronto's municipal solid waste stream, each alternative must be able to satisfy the following functional requirements:

*Capacity to handle Toronto's large mass of waste now (currently ~700000 tonnes per year<ref>www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm</ref>), and in the future considering population growth.
*Minimal impact on human health and the environment.
*Economically viable in terms of both capital investment, and operating costs.
*Reliability.
*Acceptability to society (including traffic density, noise, aesthetic concerns, odours, etc.).

Both landfilling and incineration are well proven technologies that are known to be able to meet Toronto's capacity and reliability requirements. Plasma arc gasification and vitrification has primarily been implemented in limited scale plants. Plasco Energy Group's facility in Ottawa is currently the only plasma arc facility in Canada intended for processing municipal solid waste. It is only a demonstration plant at the moment, designed for a capacity of 100 tonnes per day(~5% of Toronto's requiremwnt), but currently holds approval for only 85 tonnes per day, and to date has only processed 10 tonnes per day. It is currently operating under a special regulation, providing exemption from full Environmental Assessment Act requirements for a two year trial period. As such, it is still only in a beta testing stage, so there is considerable uncertainty regarding it's feasibility. While other plasma arc plants have been constructed in other locations around the world, they have generally proved costly, and unsuccessful as net generators of electricity<ref>http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/csd/publiccom/honnews04/plasmaarcrecommendations.htm</ref>. The Plasco facility does however incorporate some proprietary technological advances, which are claimed to significantly improve performance relative to existing facilities. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the technology is capable of achieving the performance claimed by Plasco Energy Group.

Other functional requirements are assesed in the relevant sections of this article.

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill.

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>Wikipedia, Site Construction Requirements, [Accessed: Feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option.

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[Trail road landfill, [Accessed: feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[Lay field, PVC liner Landfill cap Rehabilitation, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>Oxford Plastic Inc. Landfill Gas Pipe, [Accessed: March 7, 2008], Available at: http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building. 

==== Plasma Arc Gasification versus Landfill====

Although the secondary process operation of plasma arc gasification(the energy generation process)has a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc gasification technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment are minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc gasification process, a large amount of sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal has a higher carbon dioxide emission rate than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In landfills, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is 23 times more potent than the other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. 

Every year 40-60 Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emissions are generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. 

Therefore, the mass of methane produced and released into the atmosphere by landfills has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide released in the energy generation stage for plasma arc gasification process. 

===Cost Analysis===
[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
Societal issues are one of the most sensitive and most weighed factors when deciding which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables. This is because public acceptance is important when politicians decide which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables [www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]. However, since each alternatives vary in the amount of land used, noise pollution, emitted toxins and the interference with aesthetics, the extent to how sensitive this analysis is varies for each alternative. Note that because certain aspects are controversial, some sources portray aspects that are a matter of opinion rather than facts.

'''Landfill''' 
One of the greatest societal concerns regarding landfills is related to residential areas that are three to five miles away. Those living three to five miles away from a landfill face diseases, such as congenital abnormalities [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340], due to air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S].
As a result, politicians are using micro-organism technologies to reduce the toxins and odour being released [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. Noise pollution is another issue when considering this alternative as almost 60db of noise comes from the transport trucks [www.co.solano.ca.us/resources/ResourceManagement/4.7%20Noise.pdf]. This is a major residential effect as the large number of trucks can cause loss of hearing and disruptions to the community. Although with respect to other alternatives, a landfill does not have as great of an effect as incineration.

'''Incineration''' 
Societal concerns relating to incinerators include noise pollution and mainly the amount of dioxins and furans released. Note however, although depletion of land is a factor, it does not weigh as heavily as the other previously mentioned issues for incinerator plants. Incineration is the most sensitive and controversial alternatives since there are a lot of protest against it from groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Global Anti-Incineration Alliance.
Such groups claim that incinerators are the number one source of dioxins and furans and harmful toxins are released from the solid waste when being burned [. The controversial aspect of this issue is that the definition of an incinerator can be skewed. Since the definition of an incinerator is… a cigarette can be thought of an incinerator and thus the facts collected by anti-incinerators may not be accurate. Pro-incineration groups, on the other hand, will present theories such a bonfire emits more dioxins and furans than an incinerator plant [http://www.e4s.org.uk/biffa/problem/w_opt4.html]. Another major movement is created from the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement which minimizes the amount of land allowed for incineration facilities [www.academon.com/lib/essay/halton-incineration-proposal.html].
Noise pollution is another societal issue because it concerns those working in the incineration plant. Hearing loss is a concern as almost 85 db of noise is generated from the incinerator furnace and boilers [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16865343]. However, it should be noted that facilities which generated a lot noise now install wall insulation along with new building design structures that may reduce noise [http://www.tccip.com.tw/e/03.htm].

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-09T02:05:55Z

128.100.37.167: /* Functional Analysis */

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.
[[Image:Landfill Hawaii.jpg|500px|right]]

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==
The process steps of the baseline alternative(landfill) and the two diversion alternatives (incineration and plasma arc gasification) are deatialed in this section. Since the process of landfilling waste is simply tipping it into the constructed landfill, the steps of construction are described. For incineration and plasma arc gasification however, steps describing the process by which waste is treated.
====Landfill====

The steps to construct a landfill are: <ref> MSW management, Landfill economics by Daniel P. Duffy, [Accessed: Feb 17, 2008] Available at: http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/mw_0507_landfill2.html</ref>:

* Scientific Research about location of the site, geology, underground water level, location of the bodies of the water such as river and the density of the waste.
* Clearing the landfill site from ground cover.
* Excavation of the ground (the volume of the excavation depends on the results of the first step).
* Construction of the berm all around the landfill site.
* Construction of the liner and leachate management system.
* Construction of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) which avoids leachate to escape into the environment from the landfill.
* Installation of the leachate and methane extraction pipe.
* Installation of the leachate tank for each landfill cell.
* Installation of power plant generator and flaring system (for generating electricity) or compressor station (for selling methane itself)<ref>Results of the EI Trebol Landfill feasibililty study by Brian Guzzone, [Accessed: March 10, 2008] Available at: www.epa.gov/lmop/int/pre_feasibility_study.pdf
</ref>.

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref> http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8186</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
[[Image:Slca_scores.PNG|right|425px]]
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>http://www.umuc.edu/ade/bp/envm/02-constr/html/build.html#phase1</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis'''
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right|500px]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)'''
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001245468 </ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===
To be a feasible solution for handling the City of Toronto's municipal solid waste stream, each alternative must be able to satisfy the following functional requirements:

*Capacity to handle Toronto's large mass of waste now (currently ~700000 tonnes per year<ref>www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm</ref>), and in the future considering population growth.
*Minimal impact on human health and the environment.
*Economically viable in terms of both capital investment, and operating costs.
*Reliability.
*Acceptability to society (including traffic density, noise, aesthetic concerns, odours, etc.).

Both landfilling and incineration are well proven technologies that are known to be able to meet Toronto's capacity requirements. Plasma arc gasification and vitrification has primarily been implemented in limited scale plants. Plasco Energy Group's facility in Ottawa is currently the only plasma arc facility in Canada intended for processing municipal solid waste. It is only a demonstration plant at the moment, designed for a capacity of 100 tonnes per day(~5% of Toronto's requiremwnt), but currently holds approval for only 85 tonnes per day, and to date has only processed 10 tonnes per day. It is currently operating under a special regulation, providing exemption from full Environmental Assessment Act requirements for a two year trial period. As such, it is still only in a beta testing stage, so there is considerable uncertainty regarding it's feasibility. While other plasma arc plants have been constructed in other locations around the world, they have generally proved costly, and unsuccessful as net generators of electricity<ref>http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/csd/publiccom/honnews04/plasmaarcrecommendations.htm</ref>. The Plasco facility does however incorporate some proprietary technological advances, which are claimed to significantly improve performance relative to existing facilities. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the technology is capable of achieving the performance claimed by Plasco Energy Group.

Other functional requirements are assesed in the relevant sections of this article.

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill.

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>Wikipedia, Site Construction Requirements, [Accessed: Feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option.

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[Trail road landfill, [Accessed: feb 10, 2008], Available at: http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>Introcution to the facilities of Hiroshima city, Hiroshima city Naka Incineration plant, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[Lay field, PVC liner Landfill cap Rehabilitation, [Accessed: March 12, 2008], Available at: http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>Oxford Plastic Inc. Landfill Gas Pipe, [Accessed: March 7, 2008], Available at: http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building. 

==== Plasma Arc Gasification versus Landfill====

Although the secondary process operation of plasma arc gasification(the energy generation process)has a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc gasification technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment are minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc gasification process, a large amount of sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal has a higher carbon dioxide emission rate than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In landfills, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is 23 times more potent than the other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. 

Every year 40-60 Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emissions are generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. 

Therefore, the mass of methane produced and released into the atmosphere by landfills has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide released in the energy generation stage for plasma arc gasification process. 

===Cost Analysis===
[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
Societal issues are one of the most sensitive and most weighed factors when deciding which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables. This is because public acceptance is important when politicians decide which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables [www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]. However, since each alternatives vary in the amount of land used, noise pollution, emitted toxins and the interference with aesthetics, the extent to how sensitive this analysis is varies for each alternative. Note that because certain aspects are controversial, some sources portray aspects that are a matter of opinion rather than facts.

'''Landfill''' 
One of the greatest societal concerns regarding landfills is related to residential areas that are three to five miles away. Those living three to five miles away from a landfill face diseases, such as congenital abnormalities [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340], due to air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S].
As a result, politicians are using micro-organism technologies to reduce the toxins and odour being released [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. Noise pollution is another issue when considering this alternative as almost 60db of noise comes from the transport trucks [www.co.solano.ca.us/resources/ResourceManagement/4.7%20Noise.pdf]. This is a major residential effect as the large number of trucks can cause loss of hearing and disruptions to the community. Although with respect to other alternatives, a landfill does not have as great of an effect as incineration.

'''Incineration''' 
Societal concerns relating to incinerators include noise pollution and mainly the amount of dioxins and furans released. Note however, although depletion of land is a factor, it does not weigh as heavily as the other previously mentioned issues for incinerator plants. Incineration is the most sensitive and controversial alternatives since there are a lot of protest against it from groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Global Anti-Incineration Alliance.
Such groups claim that incinerators are the number one source of dioxins and furans and harmful toxins are released from the solid waste when being burned [. The controversial aspect of this issue is that the definition of an incinerator can be skewed. Since the definition of an incinerator is… a cigarette can be thought of an incinerator and thus the facts collected by anti-incinerators may not be accurate. Pro-incineration groups, on the other hand, will present theories such a bonfire emits more dioxins and furans than an incinerator plant [http://www.e4s.org.uk/biffa/problem/w_opt4.html]. Another major movement is created from the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement which minimizes the amount of land allowed for incineration facilities [www.academon.com/lib/essay/halton-incineration-proposal.html].
Noise pollution is another societal issue because it concerns those working in the incineration plant. Hearing loss is a concern as almost 85 db of noise is generated from the incinerator furnace and boilers [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16865343]. However, it should be noted that facilities which generated a lot noise now install wall insulation along with new building design structures that may reduce noise [http://www.tccip.com.tw/e/03.htm].

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-09T01:02:38Z

128.100.37.167:

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.
[[Image:Landfill Hawaii.jpg|500px|right]]

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==
====Landfill:====

The steps to construct a landfill are the following <ref>[http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/mw_0507_landfill2.html]</ref>:

* Scientific Research about location of the site, geology, underground water level, location of the bodies of the water such as river and the density of the waste.
* Clearing the landfill site from ground cover.
* Excavation of the ground (the volume of the excavation depends on the results of the first step).
* Construction of the berm all around the landfill site.
* Construction of the liner and leachate management system.
* Construction of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) which avoids leachate to escape into the environment from the landfill.
* Installation of the leachate and methane extraction pipe.
* Installation of the leachate tank for each landfill cell.
* Installation of power plant generator and flaring system (for generating electricity) or compressor station (for selling methane itself)<ref>www.epa.gov/lmop/int/pre_feasibility_study.pdf</ref>.

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref> http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8186</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
[[Image:Slca_scores.PNG|right|425px]]
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>http://www.umuc.edu/ade/bp/envm/02-constr/html/build.html#phase1</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right|500px]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001245468 </ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill. 

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost]</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option. 

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case]</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building. 
==== Plasma Arc Gasification versus Landfill====

Alhtough the secondary process operation of plasma arc gasification(the energy generation process)has a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc gasification technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment are minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc gasification process, a large amount of sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal has a higher carbon dioxide emission rate than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In landfills, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is 23 times more potent than the other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. 

Every year 40-60 Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emissions are generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. 

Therefore, the mass of methane produced and released into the atmosphere by landfills has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide released in the energy generation stage for plasma arc gasification process. 

===Cost Analysis===
[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
Societal issues are one of the most sensitive and most weighed factors when deciding which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables. This is because public acceptance is important when politicians decide which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables [www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]. However, since each alternatives vary in the amount of land used, noise pollution, emitted toxins and the interference with aesthetics, the extent to how sensitive this analysis is varies for each alternative. Note that because certain aspects are controversial, some sources portray aspects that are a matter of opinion rather than facts.

'''Landfill''' 
One of the greatest societal concerns regarding landfills is related to residential areas that are three to five miles away. Those living three to five miles away from a landfill face diseases, such as congenital abnormalities [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340], due to air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S].
As a result, politicians are using micro-organism technologies to reduce the toxins and odour being released [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. Noise pollution is another issue when considering this alternative as almost 60db of noise comes from the transport trucks [www.co.solano.ca.us/resources/ResourceManagement/4.7%20Noise.pdf]. This is a major residential effect as the large number of trucks can cause loss of hearing and disruptions to the community. Although with respect to other alternatives, a landfill does not have as great of an effect as incineration.

'''Incineration''' 
Societal concerns relating to incinerators include noise pollution and mainly the amount of dioxins and furans released. Note however, although depletion of land is a factor, it does not weigh as heavily as the other previously mentioned issues for incinerator plants. Incineration is the most sensitive and controversial alternatives since there are a lot of protest against it from groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Global Anti-Incineration Alliance.
Such groups claim that incinerators are the number one source of dioxins and furans and harmful toxins are released from the solid waste when being burned [. The controversial aspect of this issue is that the definition of an incinerator can be skewed. Since the definition of an incinerator is… a cigarette can be thought of an incinerator and thus the facts collected by anti-incinerators may not be accurate. Pro-incineration groups, on the other hand, will present theories such a bonfire emits more dioxins and furans than an incinerator plant [http://www.e4s.org.uk/biffa/problem/w_opt4.html]. Another major movement is created from the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement which minimizes the amount of land allowed for incineration facilities [www.academon.com/lib/essay/halton-incineration-proposal.html].
Noise pollution is another societal issue because it concerns those working in the incineration plant. Hearing loss is a concern as almost 85 db of noise is generated from the incinerator furnace and boilers [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16865343]. However, it should be noted that facilities which generated a lot noise now install wall insulation along with new building design structures that may reduce noise [http://www.tccip.com.tw/e/03.htm].

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T23:57:05Z

128.100.37.169:

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill. 

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost]</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option. 

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case]</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building.
==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>.Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>.

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water <ref>[http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html]</ref>, when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>.
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range <ref>[http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]</ref>. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released <ref>[http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
Societal issues are one of the most sensitive and most weighed factors when deciding which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables. This is because public acceptance is important when politicians decide which process to implement for the disposal of non-recyclables [www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]. However, since each alternative vary in the amount of land used, noise pollution, emitted toxins and the interference with asthetics, each alternative carries its own burden of societal issues which are important to discuss. Note that because certain aspects are controversial, some sources portray aspects that are a matter of opinion rather than facts.

'''Landfill''' 
One of the greatest societal concerns regarding landfills is related to residential areas that are three to five miles away. Those living three to five miles away from a landfill face diseases, such as congenital abnormalities [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340], due to air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S].
As a result, politicians are using micro-organism technologies to reduce the toxins and odour being released [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. Noise pollution is another issue when considering this alternative as almost 60db of noise comes from the transport trucks [www.co.solano.ca.us/resources/ResourceManagement/4.7%20Noise.pdf]. This is a major residential effect as the large number of trucks can cause loss of hearing and disruptions to the community.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T23:56:18Z

128.100.37.167: /* Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification */

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill. 

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost]</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option. 

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case]</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building.
==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>.Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>.

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water <ref>[http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html]</ref>, when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>.
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range <ref>[http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]</ref>. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released <ref>[http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed on process equipment however. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
====Landfill====
In result of research, residents living within 3-5 miles away from the landfill are facing diseases caused by air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S]. In this research it’s shown that the threat of congenital abnormalities increases within the residents living up to 3 miles away from the landfill [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340]. Government officials decided to use micro-organism technology in order to reduce the bad odour around the landfill because the residents living close to the landfill are suffering from the bad smell caused by the waste [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. In addition, the residents around the landfill suffer from heavy traffic and the noises caused by waste dump which is one of the main issues the government is trying to solve.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T23:55:09Z

128.100.37.167: /* EIOLCA */

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are qualitatively estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the life cycle assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from the SLCA differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the SLCA is not an efficient tool to compare these three alternatives. The economic input-output life cycle assessment and cost analysis was performed to compare the three alternatives.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The life stages of the three alternatives is divided into five steps. The process implementation step is studied to compare the difference between incineration and landfill. 

Once the site survey is carried out, the process of construction starts <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost]</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavating the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however this is not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keeping in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, it is a greener option. 

The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan handles approximately 14000 tonnes/day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with the incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 3.44288221 acres <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the incineration process building and the landfill site is assumed to be equal since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that a landfill site covers 145 times more land than an incineration process building, more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land. Although constructing the incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site requires construction work such as PVC layering <ref>[http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case]</ref> of the walls and installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. To conclude, it is a certain that the construction of a landfill uses more energy than that of an incineration process building.
==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>.Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>.

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water <ref>[http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html]</ref>, when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>.
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range <ref>[http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]</ref>. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released <ref>[http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. When the plant is operating, fossil fuels are used to sustain combustion of waste, with larger amounts necessary for waste with low energy content or high moisture content. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance must also be performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. During the operating phase, no external energy input other than the waste itself is required to sustain operation. Some periodic maintenance must be performed though. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

All three alternatives considered generate electricity. Landfill gas capture can generate MWH per tonne solid waste over the life of a landfill, while incineration produces MWH per tonne, and plasma gasification produces a net gain of about 1.15 MWH per tonne of waste processed. For this analysis, it was assumed that the electricity produced would otherwise be generated at Nanticoke Generating Station (a coal fired power plant) for the purpose of calculating offset credits. While electricity in Ontario is generated from a variety of sources, a detailed analysis of power generation was beyond the scope of this assessment. By providing data for gross emissions with no offset credits, and for offsets based on 100% coal fired power, both the worst and best case scenarios are covered.

===Societal Analysis===
====Landfill====
In result of research, residents living within 3-5 miles away from the landfill are facing diseases caused by air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S]. In this research it’s shown that the threat of congenital abnormalities increases within the residents living up to 3 miles away from the landfill [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340]. Government officials decided to use micro-organism technology in order to reduce the bad odour around the landfill because the residents living close to the landfill are suffering from the bad smell caused by the waste [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. In addition, the residents around the landfill suffer from heavy traffic and the noises caused by waste dump which is one of the main issues the government is trying to solve.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T23:23:57Z

128.100.37.156:

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
[[Image:Cost_analysis.PNG|right]]
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxide sulphur dioxide (SO2)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide carbon monoxide (CO)] and gases that cause an increased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential global warming potential (GWP)]. Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead lead(Pb)] emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the Life cycle Assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment is not a great tool to compare these three alternatives. The Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment and Cost analysis was performed to find out which alternative is ranked the best.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The implementation process is one of the five life stages which stands in second place after recourse provision, which is the start of the construction of the project. Once the site survey is done, the process of construction starts <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost]</ref> by clearing the land from any plants and excavation of the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however that’s not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keep in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, therefore it’s much more environmental friendly. The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan that disposes approximately 14000 Tons/Day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site <ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf]</ref> which is 145 times bigger in comparison with an Incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 13932.85 m^2<ref>[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]</ref>. The depth that is excavated in order to build the building or the site is assumed to be equivalent since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that the Landfill site covers 145 times more land, it’s a fact that more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land; therefore more trucks are used to evacuate the land. With all that in mind, it is a certain fact that the landfill uses more energy to be built than the incineration process site. Although constructing the Incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site also has construction work such as the PVC layering <ref>[http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case]</ref> of the walls and the installation of the methane and leachate extraction system<ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. In conclusion, the Landfill site still requires more energy to be built in comparison with the Incineration process building.

==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation <ref>[http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]</ref>. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas <ref>[[w:Coal]]</ref>.
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose <ref>[http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706]</ref> and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide <ref>[www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>.Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites <ref>[http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016]</ref>. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment <ref>[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]</ref>.

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water <ref>[http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html]</ref>, when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc <ref>[http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]</ref>; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc <ref>[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]</ref>.
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range <ref>[http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]</ref>. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released <ref>[http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]</ref>. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance is performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

===Societal Analysis===
====Landfill====
In result of research, residents living within 3-5 miles away from the landfill are facing diseases caused by air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S]. In this research it’s shown that the threat of congenital abnormalities increases within the residents living up to 3 miles away from the landfill [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340]. Government officials decided to use micro-organism technology in order to reduce the bad odour around the landfill because the residents living close to the landfill are suffering from the bad smell caused by the waste [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. In addition, the residents around the landfill suffer from heavy traffic and the noises caused by waste dump which is one of the main issues the government is trying to solve.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T22:29:23Z

128.100.37.156: aligned charts

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG|right]]
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of SO2,CO and gases that cause an increased global warming potential (GWP). Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of lead(Pb) emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the Life cycle Assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment is not a great tool to compare these three alternatives. The Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment and Cost analysis was performed to find out which alternative is ranked the best.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The implementation process is one of the five life stages which stands in second place after recourse provision, which is the start of the construction of the project. Once the site survey is done, the process of construction starts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost
] by clearing the land from any plants and excavation of the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however that’s not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keep in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, therefore it’s much more environmental friendly. The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan that disposes approximately 14000 Tons/Day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site [http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers [http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf] which is 145 times bigger in comparison with an Incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 13932.85 m^2[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]. The depth that is excavated in order to build the building or the site is assumed to be equivalent since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that the Landfill site covers 145 times more land, it’s a fact that more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land; therefore more trucks are used to evacuate the land. With all that in mind, it is a certain fact that the landfill uses more energy to be built than the incineration process site. Although constructing the Incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site also has construction work such as the PVC layering [http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case] of the walls and the installation of the methane and leachate extraction system[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]. In conclusion, the Landfill site still requires more energy to be built in comparison with the Incineration process building.

==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned [http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation [http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal].
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706] and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide [www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf
].Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world [http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016
]. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites [http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016
]. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment [http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment [http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm].

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water [http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html], when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc [http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html].
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range [http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released [http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance is performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG|right]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

===Societal Analysis===
====Landfill====
In result of research, residents living within 3-5 miles away from the landfill are facing diseases caused by air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S]. In this research it’s shown that the threat of congenital abnormalities increases within the residents living up to 3 miles away from the landfill [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340]. Government officials decided to use micro-organism technology in order to reduce the bad odour around the landfill because the residents living close to the landfill are suffering from the bad smell caused by the waste [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. In addition, the residents around the landfill suffer from heavy traffic and the noises caused by waste dump which is one of the main issues the government is trying to solve.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Archive:Disposal of Non-Recyclables in an Environmentally Conscious Way

2008-04-08T22:17:57Z

128.100.37.156:

Waste management systems have evolved from the simple transportation of waste out of residential settlements to recently introduced more complex processes like plasma arc incineration. Only after the 1960s municipal waste management started to improve. Shifting from a purely economic stand-point while planning waste treatment technologies, municipalities started to evaluate the environmental impacts of their choices. This change was brought about by the large environmental damage caused by landfills which could not be overlooked. Some improvements involved the installation of base liner systems in landfills to collect leachate, the development of flue gas scrubbing technology for MSWI (municipal solid waste incinerators), etc. For the first time the aspect of using waste as a resource to make energy was taken into consideration. 
Over the past few years, waste management strategies have been greatly supplemented by product related regulation. For example, regulations on packaging, end-of-life treatments and electrical equipment have made the producer responsible for the entire life cycle of the products. Therefore, forecasting the consequences of waste management strategies (environmental, economic and social) has become a highly sophisticated task.
The proper disposal of non-recyclable substances is vital to the environment as well as the society. Environmental protection has aroused world wide concern since the end of the 1990s. Political authorities have amended their environmental protection norms and industrial producers are re-designing their manufacturing plants to avoid, collect, sort and recycle waste. Consumers have become selective in choosing environmentally friendly products. 
This report will study the waste management strategies based on the statistics for the [http://www.toronto.ca City of Toronto]. Recently, the City has been firmly focussed on diverting waste sent to Michigan landfills to a method that takes environmental, societal and economic aspects into consideration. This is in lieu of the [http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm Toronto-Michigan Contract]expiring at the end of 2010. The alternatives evaluated were landfilling of waste in Michigan, incineration, and plasma arc gasification and vitrification.

==Project Information==

<center>''Section 1 Group 15'' 
S. Dhamija (Saguna) 
D. Campbell(Dan_Campbell) 
H. Panesar (harpreet) 
S. Shalchian (shervin.shalchian) 
</center>

==Background==

==Highlights and Recommendations==
'''Functional Analysis''' 
Functionally, landfills and incinerators can both be scaled to handle the city of Toronto's waste requirement which is 3,825 tons per day <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification is currently in its preliminary testing stages and most data is based on research scaling estimates. The only plasma arc gasification facility in Canada is run by the [http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Projects Plasco Energy Group] based in Ottawa. It is operating at one tenth its maximum capacity of 100 tonnes per day. Thus it would not be unreasonable to doubt the functionality of scaling the plasma arc gasification model run in Ottawa to meet the city of Toronto's requirements. To asses plasma arc gasification as a viable alternative, it is assumed that such scaling is infact possible. 
'''Streamlined Lifecycle Assessment (SLCA)''' 
The process implementation stage and the primary process operation stage contribute most to the environmental impacts of all the alternatives. The streamlined life cycle assessment (SLCA) demnostrates that incineration has the least impact in the area of material use, energy use, solid waste and gaseous waste. This is because of its relative ease of implementation as compared to landfill where the ecology of the exisiting land has to be destroyed before construction <ref>insert reference here</ref>. Plasma arc gasification's advanced technology is also difficult to implement as compared to incineration. However, in the primary process operation stage, plasma arc gasification proves to be most environmentally friendly due to its maximum energy production and marketable solid outputs. Although plasma arc gasification has a definate advantage during the primary process operation stage, its drawbacks during its impelementation cannot be ignored. 
'''Cost Analysis''' 
The most feasible solution to disposal of Toronto’s non-recyclable waste is landfill. Currently, Toronto pays Michigan $33 per tonne of waste tipped in the Carleton landfill. This cost will decrease further if Toronto's wase is locally landfilled. If an incineration plant is constructed to handle Toronto’s waste, it will cost $80 per tonne of waste whereas, if a plasma arc gasification plant is built it will cost $55 per tonne of waste. The highest contributor to the cost of incineration is the purchase of air purification equipment as well as the maintenance and operational costs. 
'''Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analyses (EIOLCA)''' 
Incineration contributes heavily to the emissions of SO2,CO and gases that cause an increased global warming potential (GWP). Plasma arc gasification also impact the environment with the large about of lead(Pb) emissions. To further explore the impacts of incineration and plasma arc incineration, an in-depth process analysis was carried out. Landfill was not included as a part of this analysis due to the lack of published information on its life long emissions.
The results from this analysis proves plasma arc gasification to be a much cleaner process as compared to incineration. However, comparing landfill and plasma arc gasfication EIO-LCA tables, it can be seen that landfill is a cleaner process. 
'''Societal Analysis''' 
Societal analysis plays a major role in the successful completion of any project. It is clear that all three waste disposal processes cause people living in the vicinity discomfort at different levels but plasma arc incineration seems to have the least resistance from the public. Public is less aware of plasma arc incineration’s new technology and this avoids pre-conceived notions about its negative impacts as in the case of landfills and incineration plants. This leads to the belief that plasma arc incineration technology might face lesser public opposition and hence be easier to implement. It is common belief that landfills are considered to be a waste of arable land<ref>insert reference here</ref>. The use of incinerators is a controvertial because of issues such as emissions of gaseous pollutants and escaping gas particles that may contain small quantities of heavy metals. <ref>insert reference here</ref> Incineration and landfills can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds can be guaranteed. 
[[Image:MSWghg.PNG]]

==Details==

===Functional Analysis===

===Streamlined Lifecycle Analysis (LCA)===
====Background Information====
The environment impacts of a product through out of its life cycle are estimated by using the Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. Although the Life cycle Assessment method gives a precise description of the environment impacts of the product, it is not feasible because of the time it requires and the amount of data that needs to be gathered. A method that can be used to solve the problems mentioned above is Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). This method allows companies to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of their products and compare different alternatives.

{|border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Steamlined Life Cycle Assesment'''
||||||||||||||||||
|-
| ||Material Use||||||Energy use||||||Solid Waste||||||Liquid Waste||||||Gaseous Waste||||||Total||||
|-
| Alternatives||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I||L||I||P.A I
|-
| Resource Acquisition||3||3||2||2||3||3||4||3||2||4||3||3||3||2||2||16||14||12
|-
| Process Implementation||2||3||2||1||3||2||2||3||3||4||4||3||1||3||2||10||16||12
|-
| Primary Process Operation||3||2||3||2||1||4||3||3||4||3||3||3||1||2||2||12||11||16
|-
| Secondary Process Operation||4||3||2||3||3||4||4||3||2||3||4||4||0||3||3||14||16||15
|-
| Refurbishment, Recycle, Disposal||3||1||3||3||2||1||4||2||3||2||4||3||1||3||3||13||12||13
|-
| Total||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||65||69||68
|-
|
|}

The results from Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment differ by a small score count. This is because this analysis deals with scores that are highly subjective and arbitrary. Thus, these scores are relatively the same for all three alternatives. Therefore, the Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment is not a great tool to compare these three alternatives. The Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment and Cost analysis was performed to find out which alternative is ranked the best.

==== Incineration versus Landfill====
The implementation process is one of the five life stages which stands in second place after recourse provision, which is the start of the construction of the project. Once the site survey is done, the process of construction starts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_cost
] by clearing the land from any plants and excavation of the land. In some cases existing industrial buildings are used for the incineration process however that’s not always a possibility and in some cases the building needs to be constructed. Keep in mind that using the existing buildings will result in less heavy machinery use, less emissions and more cost effective, therefore it’s much more environmental friendly. The Hiroshima City Naka Incineration plant in Japan that disposes approximately 14000 Tons/Day of non-recyclable waste is chosen to be compared with the Michigan Landfill site [http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]. The Michigan Landfill site covers an area of 500acers [http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/char/geophys_innovate_b.pdf] which is 145 times bigger in comparison with an Incineration process building in Japan that covers an area of 13932.85 m^2[http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/kokusai/partner/hop6/page3-e.html]. The depth that is excavated in order to build the building or the site is assumed to be equivalent since the area of the landfill site is much greater than the building area of the incinerator. With the knowledge that the Landfill site covers 145 times more land, it’s a fact that more heavy machinery is used to excavate the land; therefore more trucks are used to evacuate the land. With all that in mind, it is a certain fact that the landfill uses more energy to be built than the incineration process site. Although constructing the Incineration process building requires energy, one needs to consider the fact that the landfill site also has construction work such as the PVC layering [http://www.layfieldgroup.com/index_resources.cfm?copyID=18&ID=geo&type=case] of the walls and the installation of the methane and leachate extraction system[http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]. In conclusion, the Landfill site still requires more energy to be built in comparison with the Incineration process building.

==== Plasma Arc versus Landfill====

According to researches, the secondary process of Plasma Arc (the electrical generation process) emits a large volume of gaseous emissions; it still performs well in comparison to the alternatives. The plasma arc technology ensures that all gaseous emissions released to the environment is minimized and cleaned [http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]. In the plasma arc process, high sulphur coal is used as a fuel source for electricity generation [http://dutemp.com/faq/faq.htm]. In addition, the sulphur coal that has a higher carbon dioxide emission than petroleum and produces about twice the carbon dioxide emission in comparison with natural gas [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal].
In the landfill, methane is produced when the organic waste starts to decompose [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17922706] and methane is told to be 23 times more potent than other greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide [www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf
].Which concludes that the mass of methane produced and released into the environment by the landfill has a greater effect on global warming than the carbon dioxide emission in electricity generation in plasma arc process. Every year 40-60Mt of methane is released to the environment from landfills all around the world [http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016
]. The methane emission is mostly generated from landfills that have inappropriate methane extraction systems or from older sites [http://www2.widener.edu/~sxw0004/abstract18.html#anchor281016
]. Although landfill gas collection captures almost all gasses in the system, some of the methane manages to escape. High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) which is joined by heat fusion is used in order to minimize the escape of methane into the environment [http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm]. HDPE is a strong material that can survive under high pressure of methane gas and it is resistive to corrosion and chemical reactions in the environment [http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/landfill.htm].

In landfill, electricity is generated from the combustion of methane. Burning methane produces carbon dioxide and water [http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/511natgascombust.html], when carbon dioxide is combined with the methane that escaped it has a greater effect on global warming than releasing all carbon dioxide itself in the plasma arc process. The electricity generation process emits carbon dioxide which is a focused point source emission in plasma arc [http://www.cogeneration.net/plasma_arc.htm]; therefore it will be easier to capture the carbon sequestration. The carbon dioxide is removed from flue gas by using cryogenic separation unite and then by controlling temperature and pressure, the carbon dioxide changes its phase from gas to liquid [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html]. Then the carbon monoxide is created by reaction of the carbon dioxide with carbon in a reactor of plasma arc [http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0231242.html].
Due to the plasma torch technology, the gaseous emissions are minimized; dioxin and furan emissions are under the detectable range [http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/plarctech.htm]. Landfill gasses such as methane can be flared or used for fuel, where a noticeable amount of dioxin and furan emissions are released [http://www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/IV.1GHGs.pdf]. Heavy metal vapour’s, NOx, and SO2 emissions are carefully monitored and processed, where the net releases per kilowatt-hour electricity produced is very much less than coal fired power plants that this process potentially offsets electrical demand from.

===Cost Analysis===

[[Image:CostAnalysis.JPG|thumb|600px|right]]
The cost analysis is a crucial portion since it is the basis to conducting an Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA). This is because the values inputted into the EIO-LCA are those obtained from the cost analysis. These values can be divvied into two separate costs. Direct costs are those expenses that are directly related to the plant or landfill site. Indirect costs are expenses that are related to any other network other than the plant or landfill site (ie. social costs, health care costs etc.). Negative costs are those that generate profit for the company (ie. selling energy). Costs within direct costs are divided into three sections: Capital Costs which are fixed costs, Operational Costs which are costs depended on the life of the plant or site and Refurbishment, Recycling and Disposal Costs which are costs needed once the plant or plant’s major components have completed their service.

====Incineration vs. Landfill====
The constructing, operation, maintenance and other direct costs are about four times greater for an incineration plant than a landfill site. Such a difference is created due to the technology required to run an incineration plant. Because of the pressure build-up from anti-incineration groups, incinerator plants are forced to purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art air filtering system <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref> . This is seen from the air purification equipment and the commercial machinery repair and maintenance costs. Thus it is because of the opposition created from such groups that has increased the large difference in direct costs, this is seen from the table above as excluding the two sectors mentioned would result in a similar amount of direct costs.

Even though landfills do release more furans and dioxins <ref>[http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf]</ref>, the health risks caused by incinerator plants emit a greater amount of sulphuric dioxides which causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses <ref>[http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp]</ref>. Thus, using an incinerator uses a bigger portion of the overall healthcare budget than using a landfill site to dispose the non-recyclable waste.

However, an incinerator plant generates a larger profit than a landfill site. This is mainly because a greater amount of energy is released by burning the waste rather than letting it settle in one spot collecting the methane is emits. Furthermore, a landfill will collect only about 30% of the total methane produced <ref>[http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/eur18717en.pdf]</ref>. However, when comparing to a conventional power plant, incineration is seen as an inefficient way of producing electricity <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/flip/downloads/MSW-factsheet.pdf]</ref>. Despite the greater profit made by an incinerator plant, a landfill site will cost about four times less over a ten year due to its relative inexpensive direct and indirect costs.

====Plasma Arc Incineration (PAI) vs. Landfill====
A plasma arc incineration plant generates about three times the amount of direct costs than a landfill site. This is due to the advanced technology being used for a plasma arc incinerator plant. The manufacturing of such equipment can be expensive and with beta testing and research in progress, direct costs are increased by a substantial amount.

A plasma arc incinerator plant also uses a major portion of the overall health care budget. This is due to the greater amount of SO2 released. Note that even though an EIO-LCA refers back to the cost analysis, this specific indirect cost is dependant on the EIO-LCA as it presents the gaseous fumes released and thus gives an estimate on how big of a roll each alternative respectively plays on respiratory illnesses. Because this is a comparative analysis, this figure is used to show which alternative has a bigger impact on healthcare costs in money value.

A great advantage to using a plasma arc incinerator is the profit it makes from selling generated power. Even though a large portion of the budget is contributed towards the high end technology used for PAI, the income compensates a major portion of its expenses. It is because of this large income that presents PAI as a better solution than incineration according to this analysis. Nonetheless, the total cost for a plasma arc incinerator plant is about three to four times that of a landfill site.

===EIOLCA===
The majority of environmental impacts for the disposal methods explored occur during their use phases. These impacts cannot be tracked well using EIOLCA methods. As such, a hybrid EIOLCA method was employed to compare disposal methods, supplementing available EIOLCA data with data for direct emissions occurring during the use phase. EIOLCA data was found for implementation and disposal costs for each type of facility, and for economic activity during usage phases.

====Landfill====
Before a landfill is constructed, the suitability of a location is evaluated through studies of local geology, transportation costs, and societal factors. Environmental impacts are incurred for these studies primarily through power generation for offices. Land must then be cleared and landscaped before a liner is installed to contain leachate. Machinery for moving and compacting waste in the landfill is then purchased. As waste is added in layers it is covered with soil, and once capacity for a section is reached, wells for landfill gas and leachate are installed. Landfill gas recovery and power generation equipment is then installed. Trucking waste to the Carleton Farms landfill in Michigan creates significant air emissions. Direct air emissions from a landfill are primarily methane and carbon dioxide, the proportion of which varies depending on the efficiency of landfill gas recovery.

====Incineration====
An incineration plant requires a large capital investment in process equipment, including material handling equipment, incineration vessels, flue gas scrubbers, and power generation equipment. Throughout the life of a plant, periodic maintenance is performed.
Decomissioning costs include demolition, recovery of scrap metals and disposal of residual solid wastes.

====Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification====
A plasma arc plant involves an even greater capital investment than incineration for assets of a similar nature. Decommissioning costs similar to incineration are also incurred at the end of plant life. Throughout the life of the plant numerous valuable by-products are sold, including aggregate from slag, and sulphur for fertilizer production.

====Direct Process Emissions====
[[Image:MSWheavymetals.PNG]]
In the case of incineration and plasma arc gasification, direct process emission data were obtained for facilities considered representative of each process. Unfortunately, for landfilling only a limited amount of data was found, as much of landfill releases are fugitive emissions which are not as easily tracked as point source emissions. Data for air contaminants was converted to units of mass per tonne of MSW processed. It was found that use phase emissions greatly outweighed emissions during other life cycle phases. In the case of plasma arc gasification, GHG emissions during the use phase accounted for 98-99% of all GHG emissions. Heavy metal emissions for both incineration and plasma arc gasification were found to be significant. Although directly comparable quantitative data for landfills was not found, it was determined that while Pb and Cd air emissions are insignificant in landfills, Hg emissions are significant owing to there lower vapour pressure, yet rarely tracked and highly variable.

===Societal Analysis===
====Landfill====
In result of research, residents living within 3-5 miles away from the landfill are facing diseases caused by air and water contamination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Impacts_to_people_near_landfills_in_the_U.S]. In this research it’s shown that the threat of congenital abnormalities increases within the residents living up to 3 miles away from the landfill [http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=340]. Government officials decided to use micro-organism technology in order to reduce the bad odour around the landfill because the residents living close to the landfill are suffering from the bad smell caused by the waste [http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/it/newsrel.nsf/0/73573ffaca82f86685256e630062554a?OpenDocument]. In addition, the residents around the landfill suffer from heavy traffic and the noises caused by waste dump which is one of the main issues the government is trying to solve.

==See also==
*[[Design for the Environment]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}