Abstract
Abstract This paper applies the Life Cycle Assessment methodology to develop a simple method to calculate the carbon footprint of the municipal solid waste treatment stage. This simple and structured methodological procedure takes into account: i) direct greenhouse gas emissions produced in waste treatment, taking place within the city boundary (scope 1 of international carbon footprint standards); ii) indirect greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of grid-supplied electricity, as well as fuel production and distribution (scopes 2 and 3 emissions as per international carbon footprint standards); and iii) avoided greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the products obtained (if any) that can replace other products or the raw materials used to produce them. Madrid City (a representative European city), the capital of Spain, was used as a case study to prove the validity and usefulness of the proposed methodology. In this city, 344 kg of municipal solid wastes were produced per inhabitant in 2013. These wastes were collected separately in different fractions (packaging, glass, paper/cardboard and mixed waste, including organic material). Mixed waste and packaging fractions were processed at the Valdemingomez Technology Park. The current treatment stage was compared with several alternative scenarios which describe hypothetical management routes for the different waste fractions. The carbon footprint for the current situation is equal to 224 kg CO2 eq/twaste. In comparison to the worst situation, corresponding to the scenario in which municipal wastes were landfilled without energy recovery, the current scenario reduces its carbon footprint by 1597 kg CO2 eq/twaste (a reduction of 88%). Improvements in the material separation and recovery processes, along with the implementation of biological treatments for the organic fraction, clearly contribute to reducing the carbon footprint of the municipal solid wastes handled in the city of Madrid. According to the obtained results, the scenarios based on a total recovery of valuable materials and waste-to-energy or anaerobic digestion treatments present the lowest carbon footprint because burden avoided is more important than direct and indirect emissions from treatments. In addition, the consumption of electricity and the emissions derived from its generation (mix of generation), can increase the carbon footprint of power-intensive treatments.
Full Text
Topics from this Paper
Municipal Wastes
Indirect Emissions
Waste Fractions
Carbon Footprint
Avoided Greenhouse Gas Emissions
+ Show 5 more
Create a personalized feed of these topics
Get StartedTalk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Ecological Economics
Aug 1, 2014
Annals of Internal Medicine
Oct 25, 2022
Sustainability
Nov 8, 2016
Science of The Total Environment
Nov 1, 2021
Nov 3, 2021
iScience
Feb 1, 2023
Environmental Science & Technology
Jun 14, 2018
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2019
Energies
Aug 18, 2020
Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente
Dec 1, 2020
Journal of Cleaner Production
Sep 1, 2015
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
Dec 19, 2022
Zeszyty Naukowe SGGW w Warszawie - Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego
Jun 30, 2017
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023
Journal of Cleaner Production
Dec 1, 2023