Baixe o app para aproveitar ainda mais
Prévia do material em texto
Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Conversion and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /enconman Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012 0196-8904/� 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: federica.cucchiella@univaq.it (F. Cucchiella), idiano.dadamo@ univaq.it (I. D’Adamo), massimo.gastaldi@univaq.it (M. Gastaldi). Federica Cucchiella, Idiano D’Adamo ⇑, Massimo Gastaldi Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila, Via G. Gronchi 18, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 17 June 2016 Received in revised form 3 November 2016 Accepted 5 November 2016 Available online 11 November 2016 Keywords: Environmental analysis Financial analysis Social analysis Sustainability Waste to energy a b s t r a c t The management of municipal solid waste (MSW) has been identified as one of the global challenges that must be carefully faced in order to achieve sustainability goals. European Union (EU) has defined as Waste to Energy (WTE) technology is able to create synergies with EU energy and climate policy, without compromising the achievement of higher reuse and recycling rates. The methodology used in this paper is based on two levels. A strategy analysis defines the amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery considering different approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled waste and separated collection rate, respectively. Consequently, it is evaluated the sustainability of a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill for a specific area. Two indicators are used: the Reduction of the Emissions of equivalent Carbon Dioxide (ERCO2eq) and Financial Net Present Value (FNPV). Furthermore, a social analysis is conducted through interviews to identify the most critical elements determining the aversion toward the WTE realization. The obtained results show the opportunity to realize a 150 kt plant in the only electrical configuration. In fact, the cogenerative configuration reaches better environmental performances, but it is not profitable for this size. Profits are equal to 25.4 € per kiloton of treated waste and 370 kgCO2eq per ton of treated waste are avoided using a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill. In this way, the percentage of energy recovery ranges from 21% to 25% in examined scenarios and disposal waste is minimised in order to pre- serve resources for the future. � 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Sustainability is a cross-disciplinary topic that is analysed by researchers, policy makers and community members. Protection of people and the environment and conservation of resources are the goals of waste management [1–3]. In the context of sustainable waste management (SWM), sustainability is defined the assess- ment of environmental, economic, and social impacts of available waste treatment options [4]. SWM is tangible when the generation of waste and harmful substances is minimised, the reused (using materials repeatedly), recycled (using materials to make new prod- ucts) or recovered (producing energy from waste) materials are maximised, and disposal waste is minimised in order to preserve resources for the future [5–7]. The European Commission adopted a Circular Economy Pack- age, in which the proposed actions can contribute to closing loop of product lifecycles [8]. Several works have defined that the mate- rials in informal waste dumps or in structured landfills is the oppo- site of a closed loop system [9,10]. The opportunity to valorise, as materials (Waste to Product (WTP)) and/or as energy (WTE), cer- tain waste streams is strategic for public health and environmental protection [11,12]. Several methods have been proposed to evaluate SWM, e.g. exergy analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), exergetic life cycle assessment (ELCA), analytical hierarchical process (AHP), life cycle costing (LCC) and discounted cash flow (DCF) [13,14]. Many works have reviewed the sustainability ofWTE technologies. They defined it as an opportunity for a sustainable production of energy [15], giv- ing a contribution for supplying renewable energy [16] and for tack- ling climate change [17]. Consequently, WTE plant provides a method of simultaneously addressing the problems of energy demand,wastemanagement and greenhouse (GHG) emissions [18]. Energy, economic and environmental (3E) impacts of WTE for MSW management are evaluated by [19], considering several WTE technologies including the landfill gas recovery system, incin- eration, anaerobic digestion (AD) and gasification. The 3E results indicate incineration as the best solution, when combined heat and power (CHP) is considered. Instead, AD is more favourable, when only electricity is produced. Other comparisons are proposed in literature: e.g. WTE present the best performing technology in http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012&domain=pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012 mailto:federica.cucchiella@univaq.it mailto:idiano.dadamo@univaq.it mailto:idiano.dadamo@univaq.it mailto:massimo.gastaldi@univaq.it http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01968904 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 19 comparison to mechanical biological treatment (anaerobic and aer- obic) in according to environmental, economic and social criteria [20] and WTE plants present economic and financial benefits, new employment opportunities and the reduction of GHG emis- sions as alternative to landfill use [21]. The literature review reveals that a work that analyses together environmental, economic, and social impacts of WTE plant in a specific area as an alternative to landfill use is absent in literature. This paper attempts to fill this gap by evaluating the sustainability of this technology. A case study of an Italian region (called Abruzzo) is conducted. A strategic analysis is proposed as the ini- tial step of a decision-making process. It defines the amount of waste to send to incineration based on energy recovery. Three dif- ferent approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled waste and separated collection rate are used to define the amount of recov- ered waste and furthermore, two kinds of energy recovery (CHP and only electrical configuration) are analysed to evaluate environ- mental and economic performances. The remainder paper is organized as follows: initially, the liter- ature preview is described in Section 2 and data and methods of waste management in Europe and Italy are presented in Section 3. Subsequently, methodology and input data are illustrated in Sec- tion 4. Obtained results are subdivided into two parts: a strategy analysis is presented in Section 5 and financial, environmental and social assessments are proposed in Section 6. Conclusions and some general considerations are presented in Section 7. 2. Literature review The EU waste hierarchy Directive 2008/98/EC defines the prior- ities in waste management: it gives preference to waste prevention and minimization, then to reuse and recycling, then to energy recovery and finally to disposal (landfill) – Fig. 1. A WTE technology is a treatment process of recovering energy in a form of heat, electricity or transport fuels from a waste source [23]. Mass-burn incineration (MBI) is the most commonly used WTE technology. This type of incineration includes large-scale combustion of waste in a single-stage chamber unit where com- plete combustion or oxidation occurs, characterized by high oper- ating temperatures [26]. The last generation of WTE plant is characterized by an improvement concerning the performance of the chemical conversion process, but also by advanced technolo- gies for pollution control systems[24]. Consequently, today it can be seen as efficient industrial unit for destroying hazardous Fig. 1. Waste managem organic substances, recovering energy and materials, and saving landfill space [25]. Non-combustible materials, e.g. glass, metals, inert waste and the organic fraction of waste (e.g. food waste, agricultural) are basically eliminated before proceeding to incineration [27]. It trea- ted several types of waste such as solid, liquid (e.g. domestic sew- age) and gaseous (e.g. refinery gases). However, municipal solid waste (MSW) represents the most common application [28]. Six categories of MSW are examined by [29]. This work has shown that the best practice is to recycle paper, wood, and plastics, to anaero- bically digest food and yard waste, and to incinerate textile. Environmental impacts of MSW management have been stud- ied extensively, including a number of LCA studies [30]. The dis- posal of waste in landfills presents serious and dangerous effects on the ecosystem [31] and incineration with energy recovery achieved better environmental performances than recovery of bio- gas from landfill across all impact categories, except for human toxicity [32]. Environmental improvements concerning the com- bustion WTE unit can be achieved sending a larger percentage of bottom ashes to an up-to-date process for recovery of materials [33]. WTE plants are able to destroy completely hazardous organic materials, to reduce risks due to pathogenic microorganisms and viruses and to concentrate valuable as well as toxic metals in cer- tain fractions [34]. A comparison between two kinds of energy recovery is proposed by [35]: the environmental convenience cor- responds to the cogenerative configuration, while the economic advantages are linked to the only electrical one. Some successful aspects of applying WTE techniques are: (i) green fuel pellets utilized for heating supply; (ii) paper and pulping industry wastes utilized for CHP plant; (iii) animal residues utilized for biogas production and (iv) MSW/wastewater treatment plant utilized as a district energy supply centre [18]. Furthermore, the presence of a low share of biowaste in mixed MSW decreases the moisture content of the waste, increasing the heating value. Besides of this, authors have highlighted as a high share of plastic increases the heating value and the non-renewable share of energy in the waste material. Also, an high presence of paper and card- board produce the same effect, although they are characterized by a lower heating value [36]. WTE can play a key-role in SWM, without compromising the achievement of higher reuse and recycling rates [37]. In fact, this technology is able to create synergies with EU energy and climate policy [38] guided by the principles of the EU waste hierarchy [8]. ent hierarchy [22]. 20 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 3. Current status in Europe The latest data available in Eurostat database highlight that the municipal wastes are treated in different ways in the EU 28 in 2014 [39]: 28.2% are recycled, 16.1% are composted (Eurostat shows it as biological treatment), 27.3% are incinerated (total incineration including energy recovery) and 28.4% are landfilled. Furthermore, treatment methods differ substantially among the member states: on one hand, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria have a share of landfilled waste below 4% and, on the other hand, it is greater than 50% in thirteen countries – Fig. 2. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the Italian situation requires urgent actions because 34% of MSW was conferred into landfills in 2014 and recently the Government has proposed to develop an inte- grated system of WTE plants. Based on ISPRA data [40], Italian waste generation amounted to 29,655 kt in 2014 (+0.3% compared with 2013) and separated collection rate was equal to 45.2% (+2.9% compared with 2013), reaching the target set by the legislation for 2008 after six years. Consequently, this value is very far from the European target of 65% fixed for 2012, only Veneto (67.6%) and Trentino Alto Adige (67.0%) have reached this goal – Fig. 3. Eleven regions have a value greater than Italian average and three regions (Piemonte, Valle d’Aosta and Sicilia) present a reduction of separated collection rate in 2014 than the previous year. In Italy, there are regional differ- ences in the waste management approaches adopted. A sustainable approach is followed by Veneto, Trentino Alto Adige and Friuli Venezia Giulia, that recycle great quantities of MSW, and by Lom- bardia, that, as well as several virtuous European Countries (Fig. 2), minimizes the quantities of MSW conferred into landfills, by using both recycling and energy recovery [22]. The amount of waste recovered by WTE plants has increased from 5815 kt to 6279 kt (+8%) in 2013–2014 period. It depends on the amount of special waste (+558 kt), whereas the quantities of urban waste have decreased from 5396 kt to 5302 kt. The per- centage distribution is in 2014: unsorted waste (43%), dry fraction from mechanical biological treatment (27%), secondary solid fuels (14%) and special waste (16%). A great amount of waste is treated in the northern regions (e.g. Lombardia 39%, Emilia Romagna 17%, Piemonte 11%) and a portion of waste is conferred into foreign WTE plants (e.g. Germany) with related costs [40]. In this paper Abruzzo, an Italian region located in the centre of the Country, is proposed as case study – Fig. 4. Recycling and 47 34 33 27 24 26 31 18 28 22 28 28 28 49 3 17 21 16 17 27 32 6 15 18 17 17 16 18 12 6 35 44 50 54 48 38 56 50 35 35 27 27 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 17 18 26 28 28 34 39 4 Recycled (%) Composted (%) Fig. 2. Municipal waste treated composting activities have been launched, while energy recovery is not used. The principle of territorial self-sufficiency, which rep- resents a key-element of EU waste policy, cannot be reached due to waste that are conferred into landfills. In this direction, Govern- ment has proposed the installation of a WTE plant in Abruzzo. 4. Materials and methods The methodology used in this paper is based on two levels. In the first one, a strategic analysis is proposed (Section 4.1), while in the second, input data useful to a sustainable analysis are described (in Sections 4.2–4.4). The definition of the amount of waste valorisation with energy recovery for a specific area is nec- essary to quantify the plant size, in order to evaluate environmen- tal, economic (and/or financial) and social performance. 4.1. The amount of waste valorisation The amount of waste, that cannot be recycled or composted, has two options: (i) energy recovery or (ii) landfill. Several papers cited in Sections 1 and 2, indicated WTE plants as preferable over land- filling. The proposed strategic analysis quantifies the amount of waste to be incinerated with energy recovery. This value depends on two sets of data: (1) the generated waste amount and (2) the MSW strategy adopted by decision-maker [41]. It can be calculated through several approaches depending on the following reference variables: � Unsorted waste. � Landfilled waste. � Separated collection rate. There is a clear relationship among these three variables and this paper evaluates the final choice. For example, a strategy anal- ysis is proposed in Fig. 5 considering values proposed in Fig. 4. It is based on four steps: (1) inputs are defined in according to statisti- cal data of the specific area and (2) flows of waste are calculated considering these values. The amount of treated waste is not directly comparable with those on waste generation due to imported and/or exported waste. For this reason, this work hypothesizes that these values are the same. The amount of sorted waste is obtained multiplying separated collection rate and the 4 16 21 16 23 25 21 23 13 6 16 5 15 8 3 14 11 17 3 6 10 2 12 6 4 11 2 4 5 8 21 15 12 19 10 9 2 12 2 2 49 53 55 56 59 60 74 75 76 81 82 83 88 92 Incinerated(%) Landfilled (%) in 2014 in the EU 28 [39]. Vitor Monteiro Destacar 67.6 67.0 60.4 57.6 56.3 55.2 54.3 53.0 48.9 47.6 46.1 45.2 44.3 42.9 34.6 32.7 27.6 25.9 22.3 18.6 12.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Year 2014 (%) Year 2013 (%) Fig. 3. Separated waste collection rate in the Italian regions [40]. 662 627 600 593 2011 2012 2013 2014 Generated waste (kt) 33.0 37.9 42.9 46.1 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sorted waste (%) 440 387 342 319 2011 2012 2013 2014 Unsorted waste (kt) 248 118 93 78 2011 2012 2013 2014 Landfilled waste (kt) Fig. 4. Statistical data in Abruzzo [40]. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Extra Scenario - Unsorted waste Base Scenario - Unsorted waste Extra Scenario - Landfilled waste Base Scenario - Landfilled waste Extra Scenario - Separated collection rate Base Scenario - Separated collection rate Fig. 5. The amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery (kt) – an example. F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 21 amount of treated waste and consequently, the remaining amount is called unsorted waste. Landfilled waste is typically a share of unsorted waste, that it is not sent to incineration based on energy recovery. Subsequently, (3) decision-makers can choose to use as variable of reference or the amount of unsorted waste, or the amount of landfilled waste, or the level of separated collection rate. 22 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 For each variable of reference, two levels of analysis (Base and Extra) are proposed and the criteria used for each scenario is func- tional to the goal to be achieved (minimise the landfill use). For example, the amount of treated waste in a WTE plant can be choose equal to the maximum amount of reference variable in Extra scenario, while it is equal to the half of previous value in Base one. Considering, the value in landfill equal to 78 kt (see Fig. 4) the valorised amount is equal to 78 kt and 39 kt in Extra and Base sce- narios, respectively. Finally, (4) decision-makers choose the amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery in according to values previously obtained that range from 39 kt to 319 kt. Given the amount of waste to be incinerated with energy recov- ery, future scenarios can be evaluated considering (1) the gener- ated waste amount that ranges during the years and (2) the target to reach in terms of mix of MSW management. Furthermore, it is possible to analyse: (i) the comparison between centralized or decentralized solution and (ii) the plant size. The choice concerns the decision to locate one (centralized solution) or more (decen- tralized solution) WTE plants in a given geographical area (e.g. regional or provincial) is strictly linked to the overall quantities of waste to treat and it also depends on political intentions. In fact, the principle of territorial self-sufficiency can be applied specifi- cally to provincial or regional areas. However, it is appropriate to satisfy the principle of proximity, under which waste should be disposed as close as possible to their source of production. The plant size is a direct consequence of the centralized or decentral- ized solution [42]. 4.2. Environmental inputs WTE plants, as several industrial activities characterized by a combustion process, produce emissions and consequently there are health risks for the population living nearby and the deteriora- tion of air quality in the zone near the plant [43]. For this reason, the localization of plants should be far from the urban context. There are studies, in which is demonstrated that these risks can be minimised [44] and remarkable external benefits can be obtained [45]. The technological development has permitted to construct modern WTE plants with a significantly better environmental impact than those in the past [46]. Modern multi-stage filter sys- tems do not only eliminate the bulk of the fly ash, but they are also capable of removing fine particulates. As consequence, the fly ash content of flue gas was continuously reduced from >150 mg/N m3 to <5 mg/N m3. Furthermore, there is more than thousand fold decrease in emissions of lead and cadmium [34]. Air pollution con- trol systems conducted in WTE units confirm the production of toxic and hazardous flue gases after the high-temperature inciner- ation [47]. Consequently, each existing plant requires efficient and rigorous controls [48]. Environmental assessments are evaluated in terms of sustain- ability in waste sector considering the land, waterways or air pol- lution and the GHG emissions capture [5]. This paper does not propose a new LCA, but it is based on literature values. The goal is to quantify the emissions of kg of CO2eq avoided by incinerating a ton of waste with energy recovery instead of placing it in a land- fill. The indicator used is ERCO2eq (also known as ERcd): ERCO2eq�unit ¼ ECO2eqðLNDÞunit � ECO2eqðWTEÞunit ð1Þ ERCO2eq ¼ ERCO2eq�unit � QW ð2Þ where ERCO2eq-unit is the unitary reduction of the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent using a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill; ECO2eq(LND)unit is theunitary amountof the emissions of carbondiox- ide equivalent released by a landfill; ECO2eq(WTE)unit is the unitary amount of the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent released by a WTE plant and QW is the amount of treated waste. Literature values (see Sections 1 and 2), Directive 2008/98/EC and the experience of several European countries (see Fig. 2) high- light as energy recovery can contribute a significant reduction of pollutant emissions in comparison to landfill use. The CO2 emis- sions derive from the landfilling option mainly due to the combus- tion of methane, while the amount emitted by a WTE plant result from the combustion of plastics [49]. From one side, emissions from WTE plant and from the other side, avoided emissions from landfill elimination also from substi- tuted thermal and electric plants, are characterized by a high uncertain due to specific operative conditions. In fact, concerning the landfill there are several configurations as (i) open dumpsites, (ii) sanitary landfill with no provision for landfill gas capture, (iii) effective landfill gas collection and flaring and (iv) production of biogas and its utilization for electricity production. The value of emissions (ECO2eq(LND)unit) varies in a wide range from 0.09 to 1.2 tCO2eq per ton of waste [50]. Concerning WTE plant, the emis- sions (ECO2eq(WTE)unit) released depends on: (i) waste feed compo- sition and different waste collection schemes (189–598 kg fossil CO2 per ton of waste) [51], and (ii) the characteristics of the com- bustion process (359–769 kgCO2eq per ton of waste) [52]. Given the uncertain of operative conditions of both WTE plant and landfill, in this paper is chosen to follow the approach used in other works. It is based directly on the unitary amount of avoided emissions by a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill. In particular, these values are referred as cogenerative configuration: � ERCO2eq-unit between 430 and 480 kgCO2eq per ton of waste in function of national energetic mix [53]. � ERCO2eq-unit between 360 and 500 kgCO2eq per ton of waste in function of characteristics of landfill [54]. � A review on this topic has fixed an average ERCO2eq-unit equal to 500 kgCO2eq/t waste [21]. This paper evaluates two configurations of WTE plant (cogener- ative and electrical) in according to study proposed by [55]. Envi- ronmental performances for a plant that treated 421,000 t/y are proposed in Fig. 6. From one side there is an increase in CO2 and SOX as a consequence of the activation of the plant and from the other side there is a decrease in NOX and dust (PM10). 4.3. Financial inputs Economic assessments are evaluated in terms of sustainability in waste sector considering the development of new enterprises and new jobs, affordable access to energy with low level of carbon, the gain of economic value from materials otherwise considered waste,and cost savings minimising the amount of residual waste [5]. The main purpose of the financial analysis is to use the project cash flow forecasts, whereas the economic analysis is based on accounting the prices that allow to modify market price distortions and to consider the externalities which are able to generate social costs and benefits [56]. The relationship between profitability and plant size is verified in several works presented below. Economic Net Present Value (ENPV) is positive also for small plants and economic results have higher values than financial ones due to two aspects: (i) the conversion factors have a direct impact especially on the investment items, determining a reduction of their weight and (ii) the positive value of social cost of carbon, that is the estimated price of the economic damages caused by each addition ton of pollutant emissions released into the atmosphere [21]. Instead, financial results define as: (i) the minimum sizing for a positive FNPV is 300 kt; (ii) the profitability is strictly linked Vitor Monteiro Destacar 90,000 25 -20 -110 140,000 20 -140 -180 CO2 SOX NOX PM10 Cogenerative configuration Electrical configuration Fig. 6. Emissions released in a WTE plant (t/y) [55]. F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 23 to the subsidies; (iii) larger plants are characterized by very consis- tent profits; (iv) a low reduction in the degree of saturation of the plant can cause relevant losses and (v) investment costs produce the most significant changes among all critical variables [57]. Other works highlight as the profitability of WTE plants can be verified also for 270 kt plant under specific operative conditions [58] and the discount rate influences significantly Net Present Value (NPV) between �2.1 million $ and 7.4 million $ [59]. In this paper DCF methodology is used and FNPV, Financial Rate of Return (FRR) and Financial Discounted Payback Period (FDPP) are selected as reference indexes. The financial model is reported below [57]: FNPV ¼ Xn t¼0 ðIt � OtÞ=ð1þ rÞt ð3Þ XFDPP t¼0 ðIt � OtÞ=ð1þ rÞt ¼ 0 ð4Þ Xn t¼0 ðIt � OtÞ=ð1þ FRRÞt ð5Þ It ¼ RUW;t þ ROW;t þ RS;t þ RSPE;t þ RSHE;t ð6Þ Ot ¼ CLCS;t þ CLIS;t þ CLS;t þ CLNS;t þ CGA;t þ CEN;t þ CWA;t þ CRW;t þ CISG;t þ CEASW;t þ CR;t þ CRD;t � RV;t � Ctax;t ð7Þ QW ¼ QUW � pUW þ QOW � pOW ð8Þ RUW;t ¼ RuUW;t � QUW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð9Þ RuUW;tþ1 ¼ RuUW;t � ð1þ rWÞ ð10Þ ROW;t ¼ RuOW;t � QOW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð11Þ RuOW;tþ1 ¼ RuOW;t � ð1þ rWÞ ð12Þ RS;t ¼ RuGC � QW � pEL � pBF 8t ¼ ncons::ncons þ nsub � 1 ð13Þ RSPE;t ¼ RuSPE;t � QW � pEL � pNBF 8t ¼ ncons::ncons þ nsub � 1 ð14Þ RSPE;t ¼ RuSPE;t � QW � pEL 8t ¼ ncons þ nsub::n� 1 ð15Þ RuSPE;tþ1 ¼ RuSPE;t � ð1þ rELÞ ð16Þ RSHE;t ¼ RuSHE � QW � pHE 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð17Þ RuSHE;tþ1 ¼ RuSHE;t � ð1þ rHEÞ ð18Þ CLCS;t ¼ CINV=Ndebt 8t ¼ 0::ndebt � 1 ð19Þ CLIS;t ¼ ðCINV � CLCS;tÞ � rD 8t ¼ 0::ndebt � 1 ð20Þ CLS;t ¼ CuLS;t � QW quLS �� � 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð21Þ CuLS;tþ1 ¼ CuLS;t � ð1þ rLÞ ð22Þ CLNS;t ¼ CuLNS;t � QW=quLNS � � 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð23Þ CuLNS;tþ1 ¼ CuLNS;t � ð1þ rLÞ ð24Þ CGA;t ¼ CuGA;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð25Þ CuGA;tþ1 ¼ CuGA;t � ð1þ rGAÞ ð26Þ CEN;t ¼ CuEN;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð27Þ CuEN;tþ1 ¼ CuEN;t � ð1þ rENÞ ð28Þ CWA;t ¼ CuWA;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð29Þ CuWA;tþ1 ¼ CuWA;t � ð1þ rWAÞ ð30Þ CRW;t ¼ CuRW;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð31Þ CuRW;tþ1 ¼ CuRW;t � ð1þ infÞ ð32Þ CISG;t ¼ CuISG;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð33Þ CuISG;tþ1 ¼ CuISG;t � ð1þ infÞ ð34Þ CEASW;t ¼ CuEASW;t � QW 8t ¼ ncons::n� 1 ð35Þ CuEASW;tþ1 ¼ CuEASW;t � ð1þ infÞ ð36Þ CR;t ¼ pR � CE;t 8t ¼ ncons þ nr ð37Þ CE;t ¼ pE � CINV ð38Þ CRD;t ¼ pRD � CINV 8t ¼ n� 1 ð39Þ RV;t ¼ pLLP � ðCINV � 0:5� CE;tÞ þ pSLP � CE;t 8t ¼ n� 1 ð40Þ 24 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 Ctax;t ¼ putax � ebt with ebt > 0 8t ¼ 0::n� 1 ð41Þ Economic nomenclature CE equipment cost pEL % of produced electricity CEASW cost of elimination of ash and slag waste pHE % of produced heat CEN consumed electricity cost pLLP % of long life parts CGA consumed gas cost pNBF % of non biodegradable fraction CINV investment cost pOW % of other waste CISG cost of intermediate services and goods pR % of replacement cost CLCS loan capital share cost pRD % of remediation & decontamination cost CLIS loan interest share cost pSLP % of short life parts CLS labour cost (skilled) pUW % of urban waste CLNS labour cost (unskilled) putax % of taxes cost CR replacement cost QW quantities of waste CRD remediation and decontamination cost QOW quantities of other waste CRW raw materials cost QUW quantities of urban waste Ctax taxes cost quLS quantity of waste for employee (skilled) CWA consumed water cost quLNS quantity of waste for employee (unskilled) CLCS loan capital share cost r opportunity cost CuEASW unitary cost of elimination of ash & slag waste rD interest rate on loan CuEN unitary cost of consumed electricity rEL electricity growth rate CuGA unitary cost of consumed gas rEN consumed electricity growth rate CuISG Table 1 Input definition [22,57]. unitary cost of intermediate services & goods rHE heat growth rate Variable Value Variable Value CuLS CuEASW 8.99 €/t pR 25% unitary cost of labour (skilled) rGA consumed gas growth rate CuEN 1.43 €/t pRD 17.14% C u LNS CuGA 0.62 €/t pSLP 1.7% unitary cost of labour (unskilled) rL labour cost growth rate CINV 38 k€ (50 kt); 58 k€ (100 kt); 80 k€ (150 kt); 94 k€ (200 kt); CuRW 118 k€ (250 kt); 144 k€ (300 kt) u unitary cost of raw materials rW waste treatment decreasing real rate CISG 4.33 €/t pUW 95% CuLS 36,000 €/y p u tax 36% CuWA Cu 21,600 €/y quLS 25,000 t/employee unitary cost of consumed water rWA consumed water growth rate LNS CuRW;t 0.87 €/t q u LNS 5000 t/employee ebt earnings before taxes ROW CuWA 0.02 €/t r 5% revenues by other waste treatment inf 1.5% rD 3% It n 30 y rEL 1% discounted cash inflows RS revenues by subsidies ndebt 15 y rEN 0.9% inf rate of inflation RSHE ncons 3 y rGA 1.1% nr 15 y rHE 1% revenues by heat selling nsub 15 y rL 0.4% n lifetime of investment RSPE pBF 51% rW �0.5% revenues by electricity selling pE 55% rWA 0.5% u ndebt period of loan RUW pEL 60% ROW 18 €/t p 40% u 86 €/t revenues by urban waste treatment HE RGC p 3.1% Ru 30 €/t ncons period of construction LLP RuGC SHE pNBF 49% RuSPE 37 €/t unitary revenue by green certificates pOW 5% RuUW 12 €/t nr period of replacement RuOW QW 50 kt; 100 kt; 150 kt; 200 kt; 250 kt; 300 kt unitary revenue by other waste treatment nsub period of subsidies RuSHE unitary price of heat selling Ot discounted cash outflows RuSPE unitary price of electricity selling pBF % of biodegradable fraction RuUW unitary revenue of urban waste treatment pE % of equipment cost t time of the cash flow Economic and technical inputs data used in this analysis are defined in Table 1. Plant size ranges from 50 kt to 300 kt. This choice depends by: (i) the minimum sizing for a positive FNPV in CHP con- figuration is equal to 300 kt [57]; (ii) the economic result in the only electric configuration is greater than CHP one [35] and (iii) multi- plies of 50 kt are chosen in according to the approach used by [21]. Given the FNPV obtained in cogenerative configuration in a pre- vious work [57], this model is used to calculate financial results in the only electrical configuration (Fig. 7). It is assumed that there are no variations of investment costs [35], but however this limit will be exceeded in sensitivity analysis. The minimum sizing for a positive FNPV become about 150 kt. 4.4. Social inputs This topic is rarely analysed in literature [60]. The social accep- tance of WTE plant requires the involvement of all stakeholders in order to reduce phenomena that hinder their realization, as Not-In- My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) and Not-In-My-Term-of-Office (NIMTO) [61]. They have caused intense debates among public opinion, environmental associationsand political groups. Their objections towards these projects have led to major delays or also to their withdrawal [62]. Three ‘‘assumptions” are typically used against the realization of the project: (i) the emissions released by the combustion pro- cess of a WTE plant are more pollutant in comparison to the methane and other harmful substances released by a landfill; (ii) -14,875 -14,895 -15,414 -13,371 -10,515 1202 50kt 100kt 150kt 200kt 250kt 300kt Cogenerative configuration -8584 -2083 3803 12,253 21,514 39,532 50kt 100kt 150kt 200kt 250kt 300kt Electrical configuration Fig. 7. FNPV (k€) based on the plant size [57] and self-made analysis. F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 25 a WTE plant reduces recycling activities and it is not seen, instead, as an alternative to the landfill and (iii) a WTE plant is able to pro- duce energy, that is also partially renewable, and consequently there is a great difference with the incinerator [63]. It is opportune to highlight that when a project is useful to citizens and it is prof- itable, its delay causes economic losses [64]. Social assessments are evaluated in terms of sustainability in waste sector considering that minimum social conditions are met, such as safe working conditions for employees and also the health and safety levels for the community [5]. This paper proposes the results of a simple questionnaire where are defined the most critical issues that determining the aversion towards a WTE plant construction in a specific area. Face-to-face interviews are used and this method is preferred to telephone interviews, mailed and web-based questionnaires [65]. The questionnaire was submitted to people of all ages and levels of education. Five hundred valid replies were collected by using the stratified sampling method and interviews were carried out in universities, public parks, squares and shopping centres. 5. A strategic analysis The aim of this section is to compute the quantity of waste val- orisation in according to approach defined in Section 4.1 consider- ing values proposed in Fig. 4. Three different approaches are used in this paper – Fig. 8. � A previous work has considered several levels of WTE strategy basing on bottom-up approach considering unsorted waste [22]. The values obtained were equal to 400 kt, 250 kt (Extra WTE - Unsorted waste) and 150 kt (Base WTE - Unsorted waste). The amount of waste has considerably decreased over the past three years (from 440 kt in 2011 to 319 kt in 2014). Consequently, 400 kt scenario is not realistic, because it can reduce the recycling activities. 150 kt 100 kt 150 kt 250 kt 150 kt 200 kt Unsorted waste Landfilled waste Separated collection rate Base WTE Scenario Extra WTE Scenario Fig. 8. A strategic analysis – plant size. � Landfilled waste is equal to about 25% of the unsorted waste. Historical data highlight its decrease during the last three years (from 248 kt in 2011 to 78 kt in 2014). Considering that 50 kt is a lower value than 78 kt, this size must be discarded. Conse- quently, 100 kt (Base WTE – Landfilled waste) and 150 kt (Extra WTE – Landfilled waste) are proposed in this work. Also, Italian Government has proposed for Abruzzo region a plant size that varies from 100 kt to 150 kt. � Separated collection rate is equal to 46.1% in 2014, but European target of 65% was fixed for 2012. Considering this last input, the generated waste equal to 593 kt and an up-bottom approach, it is obtained a value equal to 200 kt (Extra WTE – Separated col- lection rate). If the separated collection rate increases to 70% or 80%, consequently new values are obtained and they are equal to 180 kt and 120 kt, respectively. Their intermediate value is 150 kt (Base WTE – Separated collection rate). Values varies from 100 kt to 250 kt and consequently, the cogenerative configuration is discarded. In fact, financial results proposed in Fig. 5 indicate that the minimum size with positive FNPV is the 300 kt plant considering CHP configuration, while it is equal to 150 kt plant considering the only electrical configura- tion. Furthermore, the assessment of single values highlights that: � 100 kt plant is unprofitable. � 150 kt plant is the same result of Base WTE – Unsorted waste, Extra WTE – Landfilled waste and Base WTE – Separated collec- tion rate scenarios. � 200 kt is not ambitious, considering that the separated collec- tion rate has already exceeded the 65% in Veneto and Trentino Alto Adige. For the same reason, also 250 kt cannot be consid- ered an adequate solution. Results of this analysis define that the plant size is 150 kt in the only electrical configuration. This paper proposes for Abruzzo region a centralized solution, in which a single facility provides the service to the whole region. Given this value, the percentage of energy recovery within the mix of MSW can be calculated (Fig. 9). For this goal, two variables are defined as follows: � The amount of generated waste. It is equal to 590 kt in the year 2014 (Fig. 4). In recent years there has been a decline not only due to consumers’ good habits, but also to economic crisis. However, waste generated in Italy in 2014 (29,655 kt) has marked a turnaround with an increase than 2013 (29,573 kt). So, also the value of 620 kt (obtained as the average of what generated in the 2011–2014 period, and higher than 30 kt compared to that of 2014) have been proposed together with a reduction of the same value, thus obtaining a generated quantity equal to 560 kt. 54,000 64,500 75,000 46,500 55,500 64,500 ERlow ERavg ERhigh Cogenerative configuration Electrical configuration Fig. 10. Environmental results (tCO2eq avoided per year) for a 150 kt plant. 25% 24% 23%23% 22% 21% 560 kt 590 kt 620 kt Special waste = 5% Total Special waste = 15% Total Fig. 9. Percentage of energy recovery in municipal waste treatment considering a 150 kt plant. 26 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 � The amount of special waste to treated in the WTE plant. It ranges from 7% to 16% in the 2011–2014 period. Consequently, two percentage weights equal to 5% and 15% are analysed. In this way, the amount of treated municipal waste is equal to 142.5 kt and 127.5 kt respectively (considering a 150 kt plant). For example, the weight of energy recovery is equal to 24% in MSW mix considering a production of waste equal to 590 kt with a share of special waste equal to 5%. It is obtained dividing 142.5 kt by 590 kt. The share of the energy recovery varies from 21% to 25% and it is an ambitious goal. In fact, virtuous European countries present the following values (Fig. 2): Germany 35%, Austria 38%, Belgium 44%, Netherlands 48%, Sweden 50% and Denmark 54%. 6. Sustainability analysis The aim of this paper is to evaluate the sustainability of a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill. It is referred to the assessment of environmental (Section 6.1), financial (Section 6.2), and social (Sec- tion 6.3) impacts. 6.1. Environmental results The results of this sub-section are based on the data in the lit- erature proposed in Section 4.2 that show how the construction of a WTE plant collides with the waste hierarchy, if it is realized in place of the recycling and composting activities. When, instead, the energy recovery is an alternative to landfills, an environmental damage is avoided. However, WTE plant can be not defined as a complete alternative to the landfill due to its final residues. In order to calculate ERCO2eq, it is necessary to multiply the vol- ume of the treated waste for the unit value of environmental sav- ings (Eq. (2)). This method is based on the assumption that all waste covered in this plant would have otherwise been sent in landfill. Values found in the literature have proposed a range of 360–500 kgCO2eq per ton of waste treated in CHP configuration. Its average value, equal to 430 kgCO2eq/t waste, can be used as ref- erence value. The comparison betweenCHP and electrical configuration is analysed. It is possible to calculate GHG emissions released by a WTE plant in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. The corrective coefficients (1 for CO2 and 310 for NOX), proposed by the IPCC Sec- ond Assessment Report, are used. This tool not analyses SOX and PM10 emissions, but the role of CO2 in these plants is determinant [66]. It is calculated as follows: 90;000� 1� 20� 310 ¼ 83;800 t=y in CHP configuration ð42Þ 140;000� 1� 140� 310 ¼ 96;600 t=y in electrical configuration ð43Þ The only electrical configuration produces an amount of emissions greater of 14% than cogenerative one. Considering this input data and given the initial value of 430 kgCO2eq per ton of waste treated in CHP configuration, the unitary value of environmental savings (ERCO2eq-unit) is equal to 370 kgCO2eq/t waste (obtained by multi- plying 430 by 0.86 – Scenario ERavg) in the only electrical configura- tion. ERCO2eq is equal to 55,500 tCO2eq per year considering a 150 kt plant in the only electrical configuration. While, it would have amounted to 64,500 tCO2eq per year in CHP configuration – Fig. 10. The cogenerative configuration leads to lower impact on the local air quality, lower contribution to GHG formation and fur- thermore, another environmental advantage is obtained by the domestic boilers that are turned off. In order to give solidity to results obtained, alternative scenar- ios can be evaluated (Fig. 10). ERCO2eq-unit ranges from 310 (obtained by multiplying 360 by 0.86 – Scenario ERlow) to 430 kgCO2eq per ton of treated waste (obtained by multiplying 500 by 0.86 - Scenario ERhigh) in the only electrical configuration. 6.2. Financial results The results obtained in this part of the work are based on the input data proposed in Section 4.3. Also in this case it is proposed a comparison between two configurations, but it is not analysed the same size. In fact, 150 kt plant in CHP configuration has a neg- ative FNPV (Fig. 7). The profitability of 150 kt plant in electrical configuration is greater than one obtained by a 300 kt plant in cogenerative configuration (Fig. 11). The difference is very signifi- cant: the first plant reaches a FNPV equal to 25.4 € per kiloton of treated waste, while the second is only 4.0 € per kiloton of treated waste. FRR and FDPP provide results that are coherent with FNPV: the first is slightly higher (6.3% and 5.2%, respectively) than the risk free value (5%, see Table 1) and the second is lower (22 y and 26 y, respectively) than the period lifetime (30 y, see Table 1). Subsidies are the variable that most affects the distribution of revenues, followed by the sale of electricity. On the side of the cash outflows, investment costs have a percentage weight greater than 50% and the treatment of ash and slag waste are the main operative costs (Fig. 12). In order to give solidity to results obtained a sensitivity analysis is proposed (Fig. 13). The critical variables are been defined in a previous work [57]: selling price of electricity, subsidies, invest- ment cost, cost of ash and slag waste elimination, degree of satura- tion, risk free and lower heating value. The profitability is verified in baseline scenario, while FNPV is positive only in 48% of scenarios evaluated in sensitivity analysis. The maximum value is obtained considering a reduction of 20% of investment costs (19,638 k€), while the minimum value is veri- fied with a degree of saturation equal to 80% (�12,793 k€). The reduction of the grade of saturation and the decrease of subsidies cause the unprofitability of project. From one side, WTE plant is 31 44 28 4023 18 16 300 kt - Cogenerative configuration 150 kt - Electrical configuration Discounted cash inflows Subsidies Selling electricity Selling heat Other revenues 54 53 18 16 28 31 300 kt - Cogenerative configuration 150 kt - Electrical configuration Discounted cash outflows Investment Treatment of ash & slag waste Other costs Fig. 12. Distribution of cash flows (in percentage). 1202 3803 300 kt - Cogenerative configuration 150 kt - Electrical configuration FNPV (k€) 5.2 6.3 300 kt - Cogenerative configuration 150 kt - Electrical configuration FRR (%) 26 22 300 kt - Cogenerative configuration 150 kt - Electrical configuration FDPP (y) Fig. 11. Financial results. F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 27 able to reduce the amount of waste conferred in landfill. However, when an oversized plant is chosen, there is the risk of not having enough waste to treat and/or the reduction of recycling and com- posting activities. From the other side, the decrease of subsidies is been applied to renewables during the last years. 6.3. Social results On the basis of Section 4.4, the results obtained from the admin- istered questionnaire in the Abruzzo region are reported below (Table 2). The results of this analysis show that more than half of the peo- ple being interviewed believe that recycling cannot be the only method of waste treatment. Despite that, as shown by the waste hierarchy, landfill and WTE are placed on the same level (question 1). A role is played by the NIMBY phenomenon: the majority of cit- izens support the construction of a WTE plant if the plant is built within the region. When, instead, WTE plant site selection falls within their city, a landfill is preferred (questions 2 and 3). There is still an unclear perception of what makes a WTE plant. In fact, only half of the interviewed people know it as a technology, in which the combustion process is followed by the energy produc- tion (question 4). The reduction of emissions is the main critical factor in the original design of a WTE plant, but also the opportu- nity to handle a variety of waste is defined interesting (question 5). Concerning this last aspect, it is widely considered as unsorted waste and secondary solid fuels are the potential inputs of a WTE plant. Instead, the recovery of both special waste and residues of other treatment methods are not taken into consideration (question 6). The people’s concern does not stem from reasons related to a non-confidence with this technology, but it is connected to lack of control. In fact, in a scenario characterized by a release of emis- sions higher than legal limits, there is the feeling that this would not be pursued. This aspect is, also, coupled with the common con- sideration that the emissions from combustion process can be much more harmful to those emitted by landfills (question 7). A further important finding is related to the contribution of WTE plant to sustainability. This concept is present only in a third of the interviewed people. They see as the first impact the emissions released by a WTE plant on local population (question 8). People are responsible for waste production, but they could play a relevant role with good practices, as an adequate separate collection. Unlike what occurs, this effect should be detectable in bills. On the contrary, 90% of the interviewed people have noticed an excessive cost growth (question 9). So, it is therefore necessary: � to identify more direct communication, for example, how many kilograms of plastic and glass have been recovered from the recycling and what was done subsequently with these materials. � to reduce costs sustained by people, when performance results are achieved. Half of the interviewed people have defined as a project must be realized not only to contrast the climatic change, but also to pro- duce profits (question 10). A slight majority of adverse answers is obtained considering the question of whether they agree or not with the construction of a WTE plant in a region. However, people in favour do not support this choice because can be sustain- able, but only to reduce the electrical and thermal energy costs -5364 -780 8387 12,970 29.6 €/t 33.3 €/t 40.7 €/t 44.4 €/t Selling price of electricity (37 €/t) -8585 -5488 -2391 706 68.8 €/t 73.1 €/t 77.4 €/t 81.7€/t Subsidies (86 €/t) -12,032 -4114 11,721 19,638 96 k€ 88 k€ 72 k€ 64 k€ Investment cost (80 k€) -27 1888 5718 7633 10.8 €/t 9.9 €/t 8.1 €/t 7.2 €/t Cost of elimination of ash & slage waste (9 €/t) - 12,793 -8644 -4495 -346 80% 85% 90% 95% Degree of saturation (100 %) -1679 824 7359 11,614 7% 6% 4% 3% Risk free (5%) 2662 5081 6609 9.2 MJ/kg 10.9 MJ/kg 12.6 MJ/kg Lower heating value (10.4 MJ/kg) Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis – FNPV (k€). 28 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 (question 11). Delays in the development of these technologies are due mainly to political reluctance (such as NIMTO or aversion for long-term choices), but other aspects that affect these choices are the lack of information (for example, that a landfill is more pollu- tant than a WTE plant), the defence of ecosystems and the capacity of local authorities to protect their territories from projects believed unsuitable (question 12). 7. Conclusions Waste management is a topic characterized by intense public debate, in which fear of pollution is very high. Information regard- ing the waste stream is not always known and often is not clear at the final destination. The transfer of waste products towards other countries is not an optimal solution; on the contrary, it is neces- sary to encourage the short chain and the disposal of waste as close as possible to the place of production. The opportunity to valorise it, as materials and/or as energy, is applied by several countries. This paper proposes a comparison between WTE plant and landfill. There is a tendency to hinder the construction of a WTE plant based on the argument that it produces pollution. A share of consumed products cannot be separated and also, this amount of waste must be treated in a sustainable way. The results of this work, in line with the others proposed by both European Commis- sion and literature, confirm that WTE plant is a reasonable and sus- tainable alternative technology to landfill without compromising reuse and recycling rates. Table 2 Statistical analysis of survey results. 1. Which of these treatment methods is correct? Recycling 25% Recycling + Waste to energy 35% Recycling + landfill 30% Waste to energy 2% Landfill 5% Indifferent 3% 2. Do you prefer a Waste to energy plant or a landfill in your town? Waste to energy plant 40% Landfill 60% 3. Do you prefer a Waste to energy plant or a landfill in your region? Waste to energy plant 65% Landfill 35% 4. What is a Waste to energy plant? A combustion process of waste with energy recovery 50% A combustion process of waste 45% I do not know about 5% 5. What factors do you consider most critical in the original design of a WTE plant? Ability to manage more waste 26% Ability to produce more energy 14% Emissions of air pollutants 54% Aesthetic of plant 2% Local traffic burden 2% Job creation 2% 6. What are the inputs of a WTE plant? You can choose one or more answers. Unsorted waste 97% Dry fraction from mechanical biological treatment 44% Secondary solid fuels 76% Special waste 25% I do not know about 2% 7. How safe do you feel with the technological development of a WTE plant? Not at all, since controls will be weak 25% Not at all, since technologies will be not adequate 3% Enough, if heavy fines will be imposed 21% Not at all, for reasons of corruption in the control phase 30% Enough, if monitoring will be intense 18% I feel very safe 3% 8. The emissions released by a WTE facility affect . . . Present generations 8% Present and future generations 30% Local population 58% National population 4% 9. What is the effect of waste treatment (separate collection, recycling, WTE) on bill’s cost? Substantial reduction 3% Minimum reduction 5% Minimum increase 40% Substantial increase 52% 10. In your opinion a WTE plant must be realized if . . . It is profitable 32% It is green and also profitable 48% It is green, but is not profitable 5% Its benefits are greater than its costs 15% 11. Are you agree or disagree, if a WTE plant is built in your region? I agree since electricity and heating costs are reduced 43% I agree because it is a sustainable choice 4% I disagree since it degrades the aesthetic 14% I disagree because it is dangerous to local public health 28% I disagree because there are other sustainable strategies 11% 12. What are the main reasons for delays in the development of WTE plants? You can choose more answers Incomplete legal framework 5% Political reluctance 31% Lack of information 24% Local authorities strong 19% Opposition of public opinion 12% Increased costs 6% Increased environmental burden 22% Technological constraints 3% F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 29 30 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 A case study is analysed in this paper and proposes a WTE plant to achieve the goal of SWM in Abruzzo region. The amount of waste, to valorize through the production of energy, is determined by three different approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled waste and separated collection rate, respectively. The choice size is 150 kt in the only electrical configuration. In fact, the cogenera- tive configuration is not profitable for this size and, consequently the maximization of both environmental and economic perfor- mances is not possible. The percentage of energy recovery in municipal waste treatment ranges from 21% to 25% representing a very ambitious goal obtained in the virtuous European countries. The implementation of this project is characterized by a FNPV equal to 3803 k€ and ERCO2eq equal to 55,500 tCO2 per year. Fur- thermore, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to give solidity to results obtained. From a social perspective, the reduction of costs in waste bills and a rigid and continuous control on emissions are able to support the realization of new plants. However, their implementation requires the approval of public. References [1] Brunner P. Clean cycles and safe final sinks. Waste Manage Res 2010;28:575. [2] Stanisavljevic N, Vujovic S, Zivancev M, Batinic B, Tot B, Ubavin D. Application of MFA as a decision support tool for waste management in small municipalities – case study of Serbia. Waste Manage Res 2015;33:550–60. [3] Stanisavljevic N, Brunner PH. Combination of material flow analysis and substance flow analysis: a powerful approach for decision support in waste management. Waste Manage Res 2014;32(8):733–44. [4] Soltani A, Sadiq R, Hewage K. Selecting sustainable waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste treatment: a game theory approach for group decision-making. J Cleaner Prod 2016;113:388–99. [5] International solid waste association. Sustainable solid waste management and the green economy; 2013. [6] Tot B, Srdević B, Vujić B, Russo MAT, Vujić G. Evaluation of key driver categories influencing sustainable waste management development with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): Serbia example. Waste Manage Res 2016;34 (8):740–7. [7] Singh J, Ordoñez I. Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J Cleaner Prod 2016;134(Part A):342–53. [8] European commission. Circular economy package: question & answers. Brussels; 2015. [9] Bosmans A, Vanderreydt I, Geysen D, Helsen L. The crucial role of waste-to- energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J Cleaner Prod 2013;55:10–23. [10] Jones PT, Geysen D, Tielemans Y, Van Passel S, Pontikes Y, Blanpain B, et al. Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a critical review. J Cleaner Prod 2013;55:45–55. [11] Song J, Yang W, Li Z, Higano Y, Wang Xe. Discovering the energy, economic and environmental potentials of urban wastes: an input–output model for a metropolis case. Energy Convers Manage 2016;114:168–79. [12] Van Passel S, Dubois M, Eyckmans J, de Gheldere S, Ang F, Tom Jones P, et al. The economics of enhanced landfill mining: private andsocietal performance drivers. J Cleaner Prod 2013;55:92–102. [13] Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga RAF, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;87:57–64. [14] Soltani A, Hewage K, Reza B, Sadiq R. Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a review. Waste Manage 2015;35:318–28. [15] Tozlu A, Özahi E, Abus�oğlu A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:809–15. [16] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3816–24. [17] Udomsri S, Petrov MP, Martin AR, Fransson TH. Clean energy conversion from municipal solid waste and climate change mitigation in Thailand: waste management and thermodynamic evaluation. Energy Sustain Develop 2011;15:355–64. [18] Pan S-Y, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang P-C. Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Cleaner Prod 2015;108(Part A):409–21. [19] Tan ST, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT, Taib MR, Ho CS. Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers Manage 2015;102:111–20. [20] Antonopoulos IS, Perkoulidis G, Logothetis D, Karkanias C. Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;86:149–59. [21] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Sustainable management of waste-to- energy facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:719–28. [22] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Strategic municipal solid waste management: a quantitative model for Italian regions. Energy Convers Manage 2014;77:709–20. [23] Luz FC, Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Andrade RV, Leme MMV, et al. Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:321–37. [24] Arena U, Di Gregorio F. Element partitioning in combustion- and gasification- based waste-to-energy units. Waste Manage 2013;33:1142–50. [25] Vehlow J. Air pollution control systems in WtE units: an overview. Waste Manage 2015;37:58–74. [26] Papageorgiou A, Barton JR, Karagiannidis A. Assessment of the greenhouse effect impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste: a case for England. J Environ Manage 2009;90:2999–3012. [27] Solheimslid T, Harneshaug HK, Lümmen N. Calculation of first-law and second-law-efficiency of a Norwegian combined heat and power facility driven by municipal waste incineration – a case study. Energy Convers Manage 2015;95:149–59. [28] Fazeli A, Bakhtvar F, Jahanshaloo L, Che Sidik NA, Bayat AE. Malaysia0s stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:1007–16. [29] Arafat HA, Jijakli K, Ahsan A. Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J Cleaner Prod 2015;105:233–40. [30] Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, et al. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage 2014;34:589–606. [31] Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Gallardo A, Colomer-Mendoza FJ. Environmental assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A Spanish case study. Waste Manage 2010;30:2383–95. [32] Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. Assessing the environmental sustainability of energy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK. Waste Manage 2016;50:346–63. [33] Arena U, Ardolino F, Di Gregorio F. A life cycle assessment of environmental performances of two combustion- and gasification-based waste-to-energy technologies. Waste Manage 2015;41:60–74. [34] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Manage 2015;37:3–12. [35] Panepinto D, Senor A, Genon G. Energy recovery from waste incineration: economic aspects. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2015;18:517–27. [36] Horttanainen M, Teirasvuo N, Kapustina V, Hupponen M, Luoranen M. The composition, heating value and renewable share of the energy content of mixed municipal solid waste in Finland. Waste Manage 2013;33:2680–6. [37] Ng WPQ, Lam HL, Varbanov PS, Klemeš JJ. Waste-to-energy (WTE) network synthesis for municipal solid waste (MSW). Energy Convers Manage 2014;85:866–74. [38] D’Adamo I, Rosa P. Current state of renewable energies performances in the European Union: a new reference framework. Energy Convers Manage 2016;121:84–92. [39] Eurostat. Statistics database. Eurostat Luxembourg; 2016. [40] ISPRA. Municipal waste report; 2015. [41] Ouda OKM, Raza SA, Nizami AS, Rehan M, Al-Waked R, Korres NE. Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:328–40. [42] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Municipal waste management and energy recovery in an Italian region. Waste Manage Res 2012;30:1290–8. [43] Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Clift R, Lettieri P, Taylor R, Chapman C. Life cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste technologies for municipal solid waste treatment. J Cleaner Prod 2015;100:212–23. [44] Ragazzi M, Tirler W, Angelucci G, Zardi D, Rada EC. Management of atmospheric pollutants from waste incineration processes: the case of Bozen. Waste Manage Res 2013;31:235–40. [45] Lim S-Y, Lim K-M, Yoo S-H. External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: a choice experiment study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:588–95. [46] Tabasová A, Kropáč J, Kermes V, Nemet A, Stehlík P. Waste-to-energy technologies: impact on environment. Energy 2012;44:146–55. [47] Astrup TF, Tonini D, Turconi R, Boldrin A. Life cycle assessment of thermal waste-to-energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manage 2015;37:104–15. [48] Sciubba E, Tocci L, Toro C. Thermodynamic analysis of a Rankine dual loop waste thermal energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage 2016;122:109–18. [49] Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manage 2012;32:1019–30. [50] Barton JR, Issaias I, Stentiford EI. Carbon – making the right choice for waste management in developing countries. Waste Manage 2008;28:690–8. [51] Schwarzböck T, Rechberger H, Cencic O, Fellner J. Determining national greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy using the balance method. Waste Manage 2016;49:263–71. [52] Astrup T, Møller J, Fruergaard T. Incineration and co-combustion of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage Res 2009;27:789–99. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0005 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0010 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0015 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0020 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0030 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0035 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0045 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0050 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0055 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0060 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0080 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0085 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0090 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0095 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0105 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0110 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0115 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0120 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0125 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0130 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0135 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0140 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0145 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0150 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0155 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0160 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0165 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0170 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0175 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0180 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0185 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0190 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0205 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0210 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0215 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0220 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0225 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0230 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0235 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0240 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0245 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0250 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0255 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0260 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0260 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 31 [53] Fruergaard T, Christensen TH, Astrup T. Energy recovery from waste incineration: assessing the importance of district heating networks. Waste Manage 2010;30:1264–72. [54] De Stefanis P, Coronidi M, Iaboni V. Municipal waste management: technical and environmental effects. Energ ambiente innovazione 2006;52: 29–40. [55] Panepinto D, Genon G. Environmental evaluation of the electric and cogenerative configurations for the energy recovery of the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant. Waste Manage Res 2014;32(7):670–80. [56] European commission. Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects; 2008. [57] Cucchiella F, D0Adamo I. Waste to energy plant as an energy renewable source: financial feasibility. JP J Heat Mass Transf 2016;13:93–117. [58] Inglezakis VJ, Rojas-Solórzano L, Kim J, Aitbekova A, Ismailova A. Comparison between landfill gas and waste incineration for power generation in Astana, Kazakhstan. Waste Manage Res 2015;33:486–94. [59] Xin-gang Z, Gui-wu J, Ang L, Yun L. Technology, cost, a performance of waste- to-energy incineration industry in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:115–30. [60] Chong YT, Teo KM, Tang LC. A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator framework for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:797–809. [61] Gu B, Wang H, Chen Z, Jiang S, Zhu W, Liu M, et al. Characterization, quantificationand management of household solid waste: a case study in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 2015;98:67–75. [62] Kikuchi R, Gerardo R. More than a decade of conflict between hazardous waste management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in Souselas (Portugal). J Hazard Mater 2009;172:1681–5. [63] Cucchiella F, D0Adamo I, Rosa P. Urban waste to energy (WTE) plants: a social analysis. JP J Heat Mass Transf 2016;13:421–44. [64] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. A multi-objective optimization strategy for energy plants in Italy. Sci Total Environ 2013;443:955–64. [65] Achillas C, Vlachokostas C, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G, Kafetzopoulos G, Karagiannidis A. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resour Conserv Recycl 2011;55:857–63. [66] Fuglsang K, Pedersen NH, Larsen AW, Astrup TF. Long-term sampling of CO2 from waste-to-energy plants: 14C determination methodology, data variation and uncertainty. Waste Manage Res 2014;32:115–23. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0265 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0270 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0275 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0285 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0290 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0295 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0300 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0300 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0300 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0305 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0305 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0305 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0310 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0315 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0315 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0315 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0320 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0320 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0325 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0325 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0325 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0330 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0330 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-8904(16)31007-X/h0330 Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill 1 Introduction 2 Literature review 3 Current status in Europe 4 Materials and methods 4.1 The amount of waste valorisation 4.2 Environmental inputs 4.3 Financial inputs 4.4 Social inputs 5 A strategic analysis 6 Sustainability analysis 6.1 Environmental results 6.2 Financial results 6.3 Social results 7 Conclusions References
Compartilhar