Alternative scenarios to meet the demands of sustainable waste management

被引:73
作者
Bovea, MD
Powell, JC
机构
[1] Univ Jaume 1, Dept Mech Engn & Construct, E-12071 Castellon de La Plana, Spain
[2] Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, CSERGE, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England
关键词
sustainable waste management; life cycle assessment; LCA;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.005
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper analyses different alternatives for solid waste management that can be implemented to enable the targets required by the European Landfill and Packaging and Packaging Waste Directives to be achieved in the Valencian Community, on the east coast of Spain. The methodology applied to evaluate the environmental performance of each alternative is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The analysis has been performed at two levels; first, the emissions accounted for in the inventory stage have been arranged into impact categories to obtain an indicator for each category; and secondly, the weighting of environmental data to a single unit has been applied. Despite quantitative differences between the results obtained with four alternative impact assessment methods, the same preference ranking has been established: scenarios with energy recovery (1v and 2v) achieve major improvements compared to baseline, with scenario I v being better than 2v for all impact assessment methods except for the EPS'00 method, which obtains better results for scenario 2v. Sensitivity analysis has been used to test some of the assumptions used in the initial life cycle inventory model but none have a significant effect on the overall results. As a result, the best alternative to the existing waste management system can be identified. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 132
页数:18
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, 14042 ISO
[2]  
[Anonymous], [No title captured]
[3]  
[Anonymous], INT J LIFE CYCLE ASS, DOI [10.1007/BF02979496, DOI 10.1007/BF02979496]
[4]  
[Anonymous], LIF CYCL INV PACK
[5]  
BALDASANO JM, 2002, RESIDUOS, V12, P92
[6]  
Baumann H., 1994, Journal of Cleaner Production, V2, P13, DOI DOI 10.1016/0959-6526(94)90020-5
[7]  
BJORKLUND A, 2003, 184 ENV STRAT RES GR
[8]  
*BUWAL, 1998, LIF CYCL INV PACK, V1
[9]  
*DELFT U TECHN, 1996, ID DAT SECT ENV PROD
[10]   Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 - Does it matter which one you choose? [J].
Dreyer, LC ;
Niemann, AL ;
Hauschild, MZ .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2003, 8 (04) :191-200