Energy 34 (2009) 21162123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies:

Landlling, sorting plant and incineration
Francesco Cherubini a, *, Silvia Bargigli b, Sergio Ulgiati c
a
Joanneum Research, Elisabethstrae 5, 8010 Graz, Austria
b
` degli Studi di Siena, Via Aldo Moro 2, 53100 Siena, Italy
Universita
c
` degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope, Dipartimento di Scienze per lAmbiente, Centro Direzionale, Isola C4, 80133 Napoli, Italy
Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper focuses on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of four waste management strategies: landll
Received 16 January 2008 without biogas utilization; landll with biogas combustion to generate electricity; sorting plant which
Available online 1 November 2008 splits the inorganic waste fraction (used to produce electricity via Refuse Derived Fuels, RDF) from the
organic waste fraction (used to produce biogas via anaerobic digestion); direct incineration of waste.
Keywords: These scenarios are applied to the waste amount and composition of the Municipality of Roma (Italy) and
LCA
are evaluated under different points of view: global and local emissions, total material demands, total
Waste management
energy requirements and ecological footprints. Results, reliable for most of the European big cities, show
Landll
MSW sorting plant landll systems as the worst waste management options and signicant environmental savings at global
MSW incineration scale are achieved from undertaking energy recycling. Furthermore, waste treatments nalized to energy
recovery provide an energy output that, in the best case, is able to meet the 15% of Roma electricity
consumption.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strategies, and makes possible to compare the potential environ-

In most developed and developing countries with increasing
population, prosperity and urbanization, one of the major chal-
lenges for municipalities is to collect, recycle, treat and dispose of
increasing quantities of solid waste and wastewater.
A cornerstone of sustainable development is the establishment
of affordable, effective and truly sustainable waste management. It
must be emphasized that multiple public health, safety and envi-
ronmental cobenets accrue from effective waste management
practices which concurrently reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and improve the quality of life, promote public health,
prevent water and soil contamination, conserve natural resources
and provide renewable energy benets.
For all these reasons, there is an increasing interest in the
several options for management of resources and waste in order to
design strategies for integrated, sustainable resource and waste
management policies.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies can be used in this
context as an input to decision-making regarding the choice of
waste management systems, or strategic decisions concerning
resource use priority. In fact, a LCA is able to provide an overview of
the environmental aspects of different waste management
mental impacts of these options.
The present paper focuses on the LCA of alternative urban solid
waste management strategies that could be applied in large
municipality, where a signicant critical mass of waste is present.
The assessment is assumed to be applied to the waste stream of the
biggest Italian city, Roma, but the nal results can be considered
reliable for most of the European cities, which have a similar
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) composition [1]. The city of Roma
has an area of 1.29E09 m2, 2.81E06 inhabitants and a production
of MSW equal to 1.46E06 ton per year (recycled wastes not
included). These materials are to date sent to the landll of Mala-
grotta (Roma), where a partial landll gas recovery for electricity
generation takes place.
The aim of this study is to compare selected waste disposal
alternatives in a Life cycle perspective, considering both landll
systems, where no recycle takes place, and systems which are able
to minimize the amount of landlled waste while maximizing
material and energy recovery.
2. Methods
2.1. The LCA

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 433168761327; fax: 433168761330. A LCA study is a tool able to evaluate environmental burdens
E-mail address: cherufra@yahoo.it (F. Cherubini). associated with a product, process, or service by identifying energy

0360-5442/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023
 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123
and materials used and emissions released to the environment;
moreover it allows also an identication of opportunities for
environmental improvements [24].
LCA methodology is the internationally standardized method
that is considered one of the most effective management tools for
identifying and assessing the environmental impacts related with
waste management options [58]. In particular, the broad
perspective of LCA makes possible to take into account the signi-
cant environmental benets that can be obtained through different
waste management processes. For instance, waste incineration with
energy recovery reduces the need for other energy sources, material
from recycling processes replaces production of virgin material and
biological treatment may reduce the need for production of articial
fertilisers and transportation fuel [9]. Some models, which are able
to perform LCA of waste management systems also exist, with the
purpose of speed up the analysis and allow the analysts to know
how the changes in the system affect the environmental impacts
through scenario analysis [10].
The methodological framework used in this paper is the LCA as
dened by ISO standards (International Standard Organization, ISO
14040:14043), with several methods jointly applied in order to
investigate system performances under different points of view,
such as material and energy requirements, environmental impacts
and ecological footprint. Such approach is applied because the LCA
of a product or service should be the assessment of the product with
regard to its impacts on the environment and on human health, and
should aim to be an overall ecological assessment. Therefore, a range
of specic and selected environmental impacts is assessed, but other
aspects such as economic and social factors are not considered.
A typical LCA study consists of the following stages: goal and
scope denition; life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, with compila-
tion of data both about energy and material ows and on emissions
to the environment, throughout the life cycle of the case study (ISO
14041); assessment of the potential impacts (Life Cycle Impact
Assessment, LCIA) associated with the identied forms of resource
use and environmental emissions (ISO 14042); interpretation of the
results from the previous phases of the study in relation to the
objectives of the study (ISO 14043).
The goal of this study is to provide a transparent and compre-
hensive environmental evaluation of a range of waste management
strategies for dealing with mixed waste fractions of a city waste
stream (Roma in this work). However, even if the impacts of these
systems are very dependent on local, regional and national condi-
tions, including consumer habits, transport means, generation of
by-products and energy, or the local energy supply systems (fossil
fuels, biomass, hydropower, nuclear), the results can be interpreted
as signicant in a general framework.
The denition of the functional unit, that is the focus of the
study, is a special issue for LCA studies of waste management
options, since LCA for waste management differs from product LCA.
In a product LCA the functional unit is usually dened in terms of
the systems output, i.e. the product (for example, per MJ or km of
transportation biofuels, or per number of mobile phones
produced). In an LCA for waste management the functional unit
must be dened in terms of systems input, i.e. the waste. The
management of the quantity of specic waste, or the waste of one
household, or the total waste of a dened geographical region in
a given time (e.g. 1 year) can be chosen as the functional unit. In this
study, the functional unit to which the results are referred is the
amount of waste produced in a year (2003), by the city of Roma
(geographical system boundary), which must be disposed of:
1460 kton of wastes contained in the so-called black sacks (i.e.
pre-sorted and recycled wastes not included).
Regarding the scope of the assessment, four different waste
management strategies are investigated (the collection is not
investigated because it is assumed to be the same for all scenarios):
2117
 Scenario 0: wastes are delivered to landll without any further
treatment;
 Scenario 1: part of the biogas naturally released by the landll is
collected, treated and burnt to produce electricity;
 Scenario 2: a sorting plant is present at landll site for sepa-
ration of the organic and inorganic fractions and for ferrous
metal recovery. Electricity, biogas and compost are then
produced on site;
 Scenario 3: wastes are directly incinerated to produce
electricity.
For each scenario, a detailed LCI, containing the mass and energy
ows directly and indirectly involved in urban waste system, is
compiled (see Table 1). Results from LCI are then used for the
upstream and downstream characterization of impacts (LCIA
phase). Liquid, solid and gaseous emissions are carefully evaluated
and classied into impact categories in order to estimate indicators
such as Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidication Potential
(AP) and Eutrophication Potential (EP); local emissions are evalu-
ated as well. The GHGs considered as potential contributors to
global warming are CO2, CH4, N2O; gases responsible of rain acid-
ication are SO2, NOx, HCl, H2S, and HF; chemical compounds that
contribute to aquatic system eutrophication are total-N and total-P
(equivalency factors for each impact category are available in [4]).
Furthermore, the assessment also includes indicators of resource
depletion such as Material Intensities (MIs) (derived from the
Material Flow Accounting, MFA) and Gross Energy Requirements
(GERs), and of ecological footprint such as the Sustainable Process
Index (SPI).
Several assessment methods were chosen because a single
method cannot be sufcient, in any circumstances, to provide
comprehensive information on environmental impact assessment.
In fact, LCAs based on only one approach invariably lead to partial,
and sometimes even worthless, indications. A complete LCA should
carefully rely on a selection of impact assessment methods, which
account for both the upstream and the downstream categories1.
Early efforts of the scientic community in this direction can be
recognised in the scientic literature [1113]. A short description of
these assessment methods is provided in the following section.
2.2. The assessment methods
The MFA method aims at evaluating the environmental distur-
bance associated with the withdrawal or diversion of material ows
from their natural ecosystemic pathways [1416]. In this method,
appropriate MI factors (g/unit) are multiplied by each input,
respectively, accounting for the total amount of abiotic matter,
water, air and biotic matter directly or indirectly required to
provide that very same input to the system. The resulting MIs of the
individual inputs are then summed together for each environ-
mental compartment (again: abiotic matter, water, air and biotic
matter), and assigned to the systems output as a quantitative
measure of its cumulative environmental burden from that
compartment.
The GER is an indicator coming from the Embodied Energy
Analysis method, which deals with the GER (direct and indirect) of
the analysed system, and offers useful insight on the rst-law
1
All impact assessment methods can be divided in two broad categories: those
that focus on the amount of resources used per unit of product (upstream
methods), and those that deal with the fate of system emissions (downstream
methods). The former can provide invaluable insights into the hidden environ-
mental costs and inherent (un)sustainability of systems (even when they seem
clean). On the other hand, downstream methods are often more closely related to
the impact immediately perceived on the local ecosystem, and can unveil large
differences between systems with similar upstream performance.
2118 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123

Table 1
LCI of the main input ows to waste management options; amounts are normalized per g of waste

Input ow (per g of waste) Unit Scenario

0 Ref 1 Ref 2 Ref 3 Ref

1 Water from wells g 0.10 [32][36] 0.16 [36]
2 Natural gas g 1.98E-03 [35][36] 6.01E-05 [1]
3 Electricitya kW h 9.63E-07 [23] 5.31E-07 [23][31] 8.16E-05 [32][35] 6.68E-05 [1]
4 Diesel g 6.24E-04 [23] 6.24E-04 [23] 3.79E-04 [35] 1.57E-04 [36]
5 HDPE (pipes) g 1.25E-04 [1] 1.25E-04 [1]
6 HDPE (landll walls) g 6.06E-05 [1] 6.06E-05 [1] 9.83E-06 [1] 1.33E-05 [1]
7 Clay (landll walls) g 4.47E-02 [1] 4.47E-02 [1] 7.26E-03 [1] 9.80E-03 [1]
8 Concrete g 6.83E-03 [34][42] 6.87E-04 [34]
9 Steel g 4.20E-07 [1] 1.77E-03 [34][42] 5.62E-04 [34]
10 PVC reactors (H2S removal) g 1.45E-08 [1]
11 Iron sponge (H2S removal) g 4.89E-07 [31]
12 Copper cables g 1.76E-05 [36][42]
13 Polyethylene lm g 1.60E-04 [36]
14 Urea (NH2CONH2) g 6.44E-04 [36] 3.00E-03 [36]
15 Activated carbon g 1.34E-03 [36] 2.50E-03 [36]
16 Ca(OH)2 g 1.72E-03 [36] 3.20E-03 [36]
17 CaO g 1.34E-02 [36] 2.50E-02 [36]
18 Cement g 7.25E-04 [36] 1.35E-02 [36]
19 Sodium silicate g 8.05E-04 [36] 1.50E-03 [36]

Useful output
20 Electricitya
gross kW h 8.05E-05 7.67E-04 6.61E-04
net kW h 8.00E-05 6.85E-04 5.94E-04
21 Upgraded biogas J 2.55E03
22 Compostable matter (d.m.) g 0.12
23 Ferrous metals g 2.80E-02

Waste to landll
24 Untreated waste g 1.00 1.00
25 Heavy wastes g 3.73E-02
26 Ashes g 0.12 0.22
a
A fraction of the electricity produced in the Scenario is used to meet the landll/plant energy needs.

energy efciency of the analysed system on the global scale, taking
into consideration all the employed commercial energy supplies
[17,18]. In this method, all the material and energy inputs to the
analysed system are multiplied by appropriate oil equivalent
factors (goil/unit), and the cumulative embodied energy require-
ment of system output is then computed as the sum of the indi-
vidual oil equivalents of the inputs, which can be converted to
energy units by multiplying by the standard crude oil equivalency
factor of 41.860 J/g. The chosen cumulative indicator is the so-called
GER, expressing the total commercial energy requirement of 1 unit
of output in terms of equivalent Joules of petroleum oil.
The SPI, a member of the ecological footprint family, relies on
a method that converts mass and energy ows used and produced
by the process into area [1921]. The sum of all areas results in
a highly aggregated number, an ecological footprint. As area is
denitely a limited source, competitiveness with respect to
sustainability can be assessed and processes can be compared
easily. The concept of the SPI measures the potential impact
(pressure) of processes (or, more generally, activities) on the
ecosphere. The SPI compares mass and energy ows induced by
human activities with natural ows. As natural ows are always
linked to area (examples are the growth of biomass, precipitation
and, most importantly, solar radiation) the basic unit of the SPI is
area: it is the total surface area that is required by any activity that
exchanges material with the environment to be sustainably
embedded into the ecosphere (environment). Thus, the lower
the requirement of area for a given activity is, the lesser is the
impact of this activity on the environment; the SPI concept allows
a quick and reliable evaluation of very diverse processes according
to their environmental impact from a sustainable development
point of view [22]. The software tool able to calculate the ecological
footprint of a process from a set of input/output data (an LCI) can be
downloaded from the SPIonExcel homepage (www.SPIonExcel.
tugraz.at) for free. Also available are additional databases contain-
ing detailed data for a wide range of processes.
3. Description of the scenarios
The MSW elementary composition (i.e. the fraction of C, H, N, S
and O) assumed for the assessment is derived from Ref. [1], while
the waste type abundance in the total waste mass (i.e. the % of
kitchen garbage, paper, plastics.) comes from the environmental
report of AMA, the company in charge of waste disposal in Roma
[23]. These results, shown in Table 2, can be considered typical for
most of European cities.
The scenarios investigated in this paper are based on the
following assumptions: since the output of a scenario is usually
composed of one or two energy types (electricity and/or biogas),
we consider that part of this amount is used as a feedback for
internal energy consumption within the landlling/waste treat-
ment facility (as a consequence, the quantities of the nal outputs
are net); if a scenario has an energy output which provides
environmental benets, both gross and net impact indicators (e.g.
GWP and AP) are shown; environmental benets derived from
recycled material (ferrous metals and compostable matter) are not
accounted for, due to uncertainty of available data; if a process step
has two or more co-products (i.e. the organic and inorganic waste
fraction, as well as ferrous metals, which come out from the sorting
plant of Scenario 2), an allocation of material and energy ows
based on exergy content of the different outputs is applied.
3.1. Scenario 0: the landll
Wastes are buried in a monitored landll. For more information
about a landll system see Refs. [1,24,25]. In this system, the
organic fraction of wastes undergoes decomposition in anaerobic
 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123 2119

Table 2
MSW composition

Component wt(%) Moisture (%) Ash (%) C (%) H (%) N (%) S (%) O (%)
Kitchen garbage 49.5 70.0 5.0 48.0 6.4 2.6 0.4 37.6
Paper 12.0 10.2 6.0 43.5 6.0 0.3 0.2 44.0
Cardboard 6.8 5.2 5.0 44.0 5.9 0.3 0.2 44.6
Plastics 22.9 0.2 10.0 60.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 22.8
Textiles 2.4 10.0 2.5 55.0 6.6 4.6 0.2 31.2
Rubber 0.3 10.0 78.0 10.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Leather 0.3 10.0 60.0 8.0 10.0 0.4 11.6 10.0
Wood 1.3 1.5 2.4 49.4 5.7 0.2 0.0 42.3
Glass 1.5 2.0 98.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4
Ferrous metalsa 1.9 2.0 90.5 4.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 4.3
Aluminiuma 0.9 2.0 90.5 4.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 4.3
Other 0.2 3.2 68.0 26.3 3.0 0.5 0.2 2.0
a
Organic content is from coatings, labels, and other attached materials.

conditions, releasing the so-called landll (bio-)gas. This is
mainly composed of CH4 (58%) and CO2 (41%), but it may also
contain traces of H2S, HCl, HF and other chemical compounds. On
a yearly basis, a methane production rate of 140 Nm3 per ton of
landlled waste is estimated [1]. A fraction of 50% of biogas is
assumed to be collected by pipes and burnt in ares to convert CH4
to the less impacting CO2 (mainly). Such a CO2 emission from
landll gas aring is quantied but it is not accounted for in the
GWP because it has not a fossil origin (it comes from organic
fraction, because plastic does not decompose); the remaining 50%
of landll gas is assumed to be directly released to the atmosphere.
Other basic assumptions regarding landll activities (valid both
for Scenarios 0 and 1) are the following: 3% of the total Sulphur
disposed of to landll in one year is released to atmosphere as H2S
[26]; the main emissions released from biogas combustion in ares
are CO, NO2, HCl, HF (emission factors: 800, 100, 12 and 0.02 mg/m3,
respectively [27]) and dioxins (emission factors from [28]); the
main emissions freely released from the landll together with
biogas (i.e. CH4 and CO2) are CO, HCl and HF (emission factors: 13,
65 and 13 mg/m3 respectively [27]); heavy metals released to
atmosphere are only Mercury (Hg) and Cadmium (Cd), the most
volatiles [1]; leachate emission (and its composition) is averaged
from several data reported in [29].
According to such assumptions, the airborne emissions due to
combustion processes directly or indirectly involved in the system
are also evaluated, together with (as well as for Scenarios 1, 2, 3):
emissions from spontaneous landll res (CO2, CO, NOx, dioxins
among others [1])2, from combustion of fossil fuels such as natural
gas and diesel (CO2, CO, NOx, PM10, SO2, CH4, N2O [30] and dioxins
[28]), from electricity consumption (according to the Italian electric
supply mix, made of coal 14.2%, oil 30.8%, natural gas 34.8%, hydro
16.6%, other renewable 3.6%) and from production and deliver of
the input ows required by the system.
All dioxin and furan emissions are referred to g of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
with apposite equivalence factors [28]. In this scenario, the most
relevant input ows are clay and earth for landll walls (Table 1).
3.2. Scenario 1: landll with biogas recovery
The biogas naturally released from landll is collected (about
50% of the total), treated and burnt (in situ) in order to produce
electricity. The other part of the biogas is burnt in ares (25%) or
released to the atmosphere (remaining 25%). As mentioned in the
previous section, the CO2 released by biogas combustion is not
accounted for in the GWP but it is included among the local
emissions. The estimated energy content of the collected biogas is
3.12E09 MJ, thanks to a biogas lower heating value of 17.73 MJ/m3
[31]. The biogas is thus burnt in turbines at 28% efciency to
produce 2.43E08 kW h of electricity per year. Airborne emissions
from combustion are calculated according to Ref. [31]. Material
inputs for biogas collection and use are to be considered negligible
in terms of mass contribution compared to the clay and earth for
landll walls (see Table 1).
3.3. Scenario 2: MSW sorting plant
This scenario (see Fig. 1) is based on a sorting plant (for infor-
mation on sorting plant see [3234]) that is able to split the waste
into several components: the organic from the inorganic part (the
main ows), as well as ferrous metals from lighter materials and
the heavy fraction of the waste. The organic fraction is essentially
made of kitchen garbage (about 50% of the original MSW weight)
while mainly plastics, paper and cardboard, wood, textiles and
rubber constitute the inorganic fraction3. After the MSW sorting
phase, an allocation, based on the exergy content of the products, is
applied to the different outputs. This results in a share of the
environmental burdens equal to 79% to the inorganic fraction, 19%
to the organic fraction and 2% to ferrous metals. The landlled
heavy waste is not a product and therefore it is not accounted for.
After this step, all the ows are independently treated and no
further allocation is needed (biogas is assumed as the main product
of the anaerobic digestion step and no burdens are assigned to the
compostable matter, as well as electricity is the main product of the
combustion step and ashes are landlled).
The organic part is then delivered to another plant in which it
undergoes anaerobic digestion in order to produce biogas (70% CH4
and 30% CO2), with an average biogas yield of 3.74E03 MJ/ton of
organic waste [35]. This results in a total biogas production of
2.19E09 MJ. Afterwards, the biogas is upgraded, in order to
remove H2S (with a dry sorption process, through its reaction with
a recyclable metal oxide such as iron sponge to form a metal sulde
compound) and other impurities, with an increase of the
percentage of CH4 up to 97%. The energy demand of this step is
equal to the 11% of the energy content of the biogas [35]. The
digestate, i.e. the residue of the anaerobic digestion that remains
inside the reactor, can be treated and used as fertilizer.
The inorganic part of the waste is delivered to a Refuse Derived
Fuel (RDF) production plant. The RDF bricks are then burnt in an
incineration plant to generate electricity. Generally, it is preferable

2
Regarding the dioxins, PAH and PCB emissions, only 35% of their amount is
treated as airborne emission, since they are mostly absorbed to the particle matters
and fall down to the ground close to the point from where they are emitted.
3
Cellulosic material is not an inorganic matter, but since they cannot be fer-
mented (cellulose and hemicellulose do not depolymerize in the anaerobic condi-
tion required for biogas production) they are stored with the inorganic fraction of
the waste to be burnt (via RDF).
2120 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123
Ferrous metals
to recycling
production
Inorganic
Fraction
MSW sorting
MSW collection
phase
Organic
Fraction
digestion and
Heavy wastes
to landfill
Fig. 1. Diagram of the main steps involved in Scenario 2.
to burn RDF than untreated wastes. In fact, RDF has a higher heating
value, a more homogeneous chemical composition, an easier
storage and handling ability and less emission factors. The
combustion of RDF bricks, having a lower heating value of 17 MJ/kg
[36], delivers 1.33E16 J of energy that is converted (with an ef-
ciency of 30%) to 1.11E09 kW h of electricity. The emission factors
for RDF brick combustion can be found in Ref. [34].
Finally, the heavy waste fraction and the ashes (as a residue of
combustion as well as of the ue gas treatment) from RDF
combustion are sent to landll, while ferrous metals are recovered.
In this scenario, the most relevant ows are the equipment for ue
gas cleaning system (urea, activated carbon, CaO, Ca(OH)2) and the
energy for biogas enrichment (see Table 1).
3.4. Scenario 3: incineration
Waste is directly transported to the incineration plant in order
to recover electricity through combustion (further information
about incineration plant in Refs. [3739]). The non-differentiated
waste fraction has an LHV of 8.85 MJ/kg [36] and can generate
1.29E10 J of energy. This energy is converted to 9.67E08 kW h of
electricity at 27% efciency. Emission factors for MSW incineration
come from Ref. [1]. Bottom ashes and ue gas treatment ashes are
delivered to landll. According to Table 1, the most relevant inputs
are the equipment for ue gas cleaning system (urea, activated
carbon, CaO, Ca(OH)2).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. MFA
Table 3 shows the main product outputs of each scenario (waste
disposed of, electricity, upgraded biogas or ferrous metals) in the
second column, their abiotic MI in the fourth column and their
water MI in the fth column.
Table 3 can be read as follows: to dispose of 1 g of waste with, for
example, Scenario 2, 0.3 g of abiotic materials must be altered
(extracted, moved, used.). This means that the disposal of 1 g of
waste in the city of Roma requires the production, somewhere else
in the world, of 0.3 g of further waste. This is a sort of cycle of waste
production that can be broken only by means of waste prevention
policies. Similarly, the water MIs represent the water demand of
each process, i.e. the amount of water that is altered (moved,
heated, deviated and so on) to feed the process.
Among the investigated strategies, Scenarios 0 and 1 show
similar results for the abiotic MIs, while Scenarios 2 and 3 have the
highest values.
Concerning the MIs for electricity production, 334 g of abiotic
matter are required to produce 1 kW h of electric energy in
Scenario 2 (and 552 gab for Scenario 3). These values are lower than
those for electricity from coal, 5137 gab, and comparable, at least in
Electricity
RDF
Combustion of
RDF
plant
Ashes Landfill
Biogas
Anaerobic
upgrading
Compostable
matter
Scenario 2, to electricity from oil and natural gas, respectively 349
and 274 gab [15]. Even the MI of enriched biogas (97.3% CH4) is very
close to that of natural gas, 1.22 gab [15]. In Scenario 1, the water MI
for electricity production is lower than other scenarios because
both Scenarios 2 and 3 are affected by an elevated water
consumption at the treatment plants and by a high demand of CaO
and urea (which have high water factors). In fact, their contribu-
tions to the total water MI are, in Scenario 3, 20%, 35% and 13%,
respectively. Scenario 1 does not have such inputs (see Table 1)
because it just involves the combustion of collected biogas.
However, water MIs of Scenarios 2 and 3 for electricity generation
are in line with those of electricity produced from conventional
fossil sources.
Finally, a comparison among the nal amounts of waste sent to
landll by each scenario can be done. The quantities of nal waste
landlled are the following: 100% for Scenarios 0 and 1, 15% for 2
and 20% for 3. Despite none of them is able to avoid landlling, in
Scenarios 2 and 3 there is a strong mass reduction (up to 80% less
waste to nal disposal) and a change in waste composition and
reactivity. In fact, they are made of inert or burnt materials, which
do not undergo decomposition (with no release of CH4 and other
landll gas to the atmosphere), although they are still responsible
for the presence of heavy metals in the leachate.
4.2. GER
The GERs of the analysed scenarios are compared in Table 4,
while Table 5 shows the possible contribution of each scenarios
energy output to the energy demand of Roma (city energy
requirement: electricity 2.91E16 J/year, natural gas 4.51E16
J/year, energy for transports 1.38E17 J/year; source: [40]).
The fourth column in Table 4 indicates that about 53.5 J of
energy must be used up to dispose of 1 g of waste within Scenario 0.
In Scenario 2, this value rises up to 9.7 kJ, while approximately
14 MJ of energy must be invested in order to generate 1 kW h of
electricity, also including as input energy the energy content of
waste itself (RDF, in this case). If wastes were not included as an
energy cost, since they can be assumed as a renewable source, these
gures would decrease to 66.8 J per g of waste disposed of and to
0.5 MJ per kW h of electricity produced (fth column of Table 4).
Thus, Scenario 1 requires less energy per g of waste than Scenario
0 thanks to the feedback of electricity produced from collected
biogas. These indicators also point out that Scenario 2 requires
about 20% more non-renewable energy (mainly fossil) than
Scenario 0 for providing the same service, i.e. the waste disposal;
however, it is also able to release 5 kJ of energy (electricity and
biogas) per g of waste treated, which can replace an equivalent
amount of fossil energy. Therefore, it is important to relate the
invested energy with the energy output delivered by the system
(the parameter energy output Jout/gwaste treated of Table 4), by
means of an energy recovering efciency index (the ratio between
 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123 2121

Table 3
Performance indicators according to MFA method

Process Producta Unit MFA

Abiotic MI (gab/unit) Water MI (gwt/unit)

Scenario 0 Landlled waste g 0.24 0.03

Scenario 1 Landlled waste g 0.24 0.02

Electricity kW h 1899 0.82

Scenario 2 Landlled waste g 0.30 2.09

Electricity kW h 334 2398
Biogas (>97% CH4) g 1.14 8.06
Ferrous metals g 0.13 1.00

Scenario 3 Landlled waste g 0.36 1.04

Electricity kW h 552 1578
a
Total amount of product is not indicated, because focus is on input material ows per unit of output. In each scenario, the amount of landlled waste as well as its physical
chemical state can be different.

the energy output and the total energy input, Eout/Ein). Based on contribution from hydroelectricity). If only transport sector is
above data, it is possible to state that Scenario 2 appears as the best considered, its renewable energy fraction could be equal to 5.3%,
waste management option: it produces more than twice the energy very close to the EU target of 5.75%, which should be achieved by
output of Scenario 3 and has the highest energy recovery efciency. the year 2010.
The explanation for such a striking result is that this is the only
scenario which takes into account both components of waste, the 4.3. Ecological footprint
organic one, to produce biogas, and the inorganic one, to produce
electricity via RDF combustion. Instead, Scenario 1 only exploits the The ecological footprint of each scenario has been determined
organic part (landll gas) and Scenario 3 the inorganic part (direct using the software tool SPIonexcel and the results are shown in
combustion). Fig. 2. A distinction is made between the gross and the net
A comparison among the energy demand for the production of ecological footprint. The gross ecological footprint is the total area
1 kW h of electricity from different sources can also be performed. required by each scenario to absorb or neutralize its emissions into
The energy requirements per kW h of electricity produced from the ecosphere and provides its inputs from the environment (the
Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are shown in the fourth and fth columns of resources exploited), without considering the benets of co-prod-
Table 4; these values are comparable with the energy demand for ucts. Landll scenarios (0 and 1) have the lowest values because
electricity production by conventional sources, such as oil they require no signicant inputs and their ecological footprint is
(1.24E07 J/kW h), coal (1.21E07 J/kW h), natural gas (9.50E06 mainly constituted by landll methane emission (around 85% of the
J/kW h) and hydro (4.72E06 J/kW h) [41]. total ecological footprint). In particular, Scenario 1 requires
Table 5 shows that Scenario 2 could meet an important fraction a smaller area than 0 thanks to the electricity feedback produced by
of Roma energy demand (15.47% of electricity and 8.24% of natural biogas combustion. Instead, Scenarios 2 and 3 show higher values,
gas) and would contribute to reach a target of 6.22% of renewable since the combustion step strongly affects nal results: CO2 from
sources in the total city energy consumption (also including the fossil carbon (mainly coming from the plastic waste fraction) and
NOx emissions are responsible for about 70% and 10%, respectively,
of the total area required by Scenarios 2 and 3; an important role is
Table 4 also played by the provision of lime (CaO), used in ue gas cleaning
Performance indicators according to GER method system, which is responsible for about 7% of their total ecological
Process Producta Unit GER
footprint.
The net ecological footprint has been calculated by including
Energyc (J/unit) Energyd (J/unit)
co-products in the evaluation. In fact, Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 also
b
Scenario 0 Landlled waste g 53.51 co-produce energy outputs (80 kW he/tonwaste for Scenario 1,
Scenario 1 Landlled wasteb g 2.15E03 12.67 685 kW he/tonwaste and 52 kgbiogas/tonwaste for Scenario 2,
Electricity kW h 2.67E07 871.08 594 kW he/tonwaste for Scenario 3) that are able to replace an
Energy output: 288 J/gwaste treated
equivalent energy amount coming from conventional processes:
Energy efciency (Eout/Ein): 13%
Italian electric mix for electricity, having a specic footprint factor
Scenario 2 Landlled wasteb g 9.71E03 66.80 of 238.8 m2/kW h and natural gas instead of biogas, having
Electricity kW h 1.38E07 5.06E05
a specic footprint factor of 40,008 m2/ton. The resulting land-
Biogas (>97%CH4) g 3.79E03
Ferrous metals g 2.06E01 benets can thus be subtracted from the gross results. For example,
Energy output: 5014 J/gwaste treated
Energy efciency (Eout/Ein): 52%
Table 5
Scenario 3 Landlled wasteb g 9.52E03 673.94 Energy output and Rome energy demand
Electricity kW h 1.60E07 1.13E06
Energy output: 2140 J/gwaste treated Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Energy efciency (Eout/Ein): 22% Electricity produced (kW h) 1.17E08 9.98E08 8.67E08
a Biogas produced (J) 3.72E15
Total amount of product is not indicated, because focus is placed on input
Electricity out/electrical demand of Romaa 1.81% 15.47% 13.44%
energy per unit of product and output energy per unit of waste treated.
b Biogas (97% CH4) out/gas demand of Roma 8.24%
In each scenario, the amount of landlled waste as well as its physicalchemical
Achievable quota of renewable energy in Romab 2.97% 6.22% 4.24%
state can be different.
c Energy out/energy for transport in Roma 0.30% 5.30% 2.26%
Including the energy content of the waste.
d a
Without the energy content of the waste (for biogas the energy content of the Electricity from hydroelectric plants and other renewable energies not included.
b
waste is not yet exploited). Including electricity from hydroelectric plants and other renewable sources.
2122 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123

Table 7
6 Comparison among airborne emissions at a local scale (expressed in g)

Species (g) Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

3
CO2 3.15E11 3.95E11 6.51E11 1.44E12
0 CO 1.60E08 7.38E07 3.92E07 2.11E09
ha/t waste

NOx 2.45E07 6.27E07 5.43E08 1.09E09

-3 PM10 1.13E05 5.02E05 7.83E06 2.60E07
SO2 1.13E08 1.14E08 3.13E07 8.10E08
-6 CH4 7.55E10 3.78E10 1.30E05 2.01E04
Gross N2O n.a. 5.27E03 2.35E07 1.17E08
-9 HCl 4.80E07 2.75E07 2.74E07 1.61E08
Net HF 4.58E06 8.10E05 2.74E06 n.a.
-12 H2S 1.60E08 8.02E07 n.a. n.a.
Hg 2.81E01 2.81E01 3.92E04 1.46E06
-15 Pb 5.54E02 5.54E02 3.88E05 7.81E04
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Cd 3.51E00 3.51E00 3.92E04 4.81E05
Cu 3.53E02 3.53E02 n.a. 4.81E04
Fig. 2. Comparison among the gross and net areas (in hectares) required by each
Zn 9.07E02 9.07E02 n.a. 1.24E05
scenario to dispose of 1 ton of waste.
Ni 3.87E01 3.87E01 n.a. 4.90E03
Cr 1.00E02 1.00E02 n.a. 1.31E04
TCDDeq 0.24 0.35 0.19 1.38
Scenario 1 has a gross ecological footprint of 0.65 ha/tonwaste, but PAH 1.01E02 1.01E02 n.a. 1.38E04
thanks to its electricity output can replace 80 kW he/tonwaste of
conventional electricity, which would require 1.9 ha: the net
ecological footprint of Scenario 1 is thus 1.3 ha/tonwaste. decomposition of landlled organic waste. The GWP of landll
Fig. 2 shows that despite of Scenario 2 requires more area than scenarios is even higher than the impact of Scenario 3 (direct
landll scenarios, it is able to provide energy benets that can incineration). Therefore, from a GW point of view, burning is better
replace products (conventional electricity and natural gas) having than burying. The critical point of a landll is that it is not an iso-
a signicant land pressure: this brings to the highest negative lated system and it is not inert at all: it can be considered as
ecological footprint, which means that Scenario 2 sets free about a chemical reactor which remains active for thousands of years. All
15 ha of area per ton of waste treated. the out coming chemicals will inevitably pass the landll system
and will undergo to environmental fate. In order to avoid/minimize
4.4. Emissions at global and local scale the environmental impact, a landll needs to be monitored for
centuries.
The environmental performances of each scenario (expressed as Furthermore, Table 6 highlights that Scenario 2 is the best waste
GWP, AP, EP and dioxin emission) are depicted in Table 6. These management option since it has negative values for GWP, AP and
values refer to the larger global scale, while Table 7 shows the dioxin emissions. Its implementation would therefore help
estimated airborne emissions at plant local scale. reducing GHG effect, acid rain deposition and dioxin emissions. The
Global impacts are reported both as gross and net impacts. The difference in dioxin emissions between Scenarios 2 and 3 is due to
gross impact refers to the effective emissions released by each the fact that in Scenario 3 there is a co-ring of inorganic materials
scenario during its life cycle, without considering the environ- (including Cl-rich plastics) with organic matter. This condition
mental benets coming from energy outputs. Instead, the net favours the formation of dioxins (instead, in Scenario 2, only the
impact refers to the Total emission for each scenario minus inorganic fraction of the waste is burnt).
Avoided emissions thanks to the energy output of each scenario. Despite these global performances, the change from global to
For Scenario 0, net and gross emissions coincide because no useful local scale gives rise to different results. In fact, in Table 7, the main
outputs are provided. If electricity is produced, we consider that it local airborne emissions are listed; they were calculated consid-
replaces the electricity derived from the Italian electric grid, while ering the emissions at local scale, i.e. direct combustion in plant or
biogas substitutes natural gas. landll site, excluding the electricity required to feed the scenarios
Impacts of Scenarios 0 and 1 are strongly affected by landll gas and the emissions for auxiliary material supply.
emissions such as CH4 (equal to 90% of GWP for the rst case and Results show that landll options have lowest values except for
about 30% for the second), H2S, HCl and others, due to the anaerobic those of CH4 and H2S, while Scenarios 2 and 3 have more relevant
emissions because of their combustion steps. Thus, there is
a conict between the global and local results: what is positive at
Table 6 global scale (Scenario 2) it is not at local scale.
Impact categories of the investigated scenarios

Scenario GWP, kt CO2 AP, t SO2 EP, t NO3 Dioxins, g TCDD 5. Conclusions
Scenario 0
Gross 1914 546 126 0.24 A LCA of different waste disposal strategies, i.e. landlling with
Net
(Scenario 1) and without (Scenario 0) biogas exploitation, sorting
Scenario 1 plant to produce electricity via RDF and biogas via anaerobic
Gross 966 338 126 0.35 digestion (Scenario 2), and nally waste incineration (Scenario 3),
Net 868 186 126 0.29
was performed by means of a multi-method multi-scale approach.
Scenario 2 Results show landll systems (Scenarios 0 and 1) as the worst
Gross 704 852 n.a.a 0.25
waste management options and that signicant environmental
Net 340 441 n.a.a 0.28
savings are achieved from undertaking energy recycling. The higher
Scenario 3 the yields of energy recovered with waste disposal, the greater the
Gross 948 1902 n.a.a 1.38
savings. Results also show that a sorting plant coupled with elec-
Net 224 780 n.a.a 0.92
a
tricity and biogas production (Scenario 2) is very likely to be the
For these scenarios landlled wastes are without a signicant organic content.
best option for waste management, despite the non-negligible
 F. Cherubini et al. / Energy 34 (2009) 21162123
problem of local emissions (NOx, PM10, heavy metals, Polyciclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), among others). Furthermore, within
Scenario 2 and, to a smaller extent, Scenario 3, a non-negligible
amount of energy becomes available while waste residues to be
landlled are minimized and inerted. The energy outputs of
Scenario 2 (i.e. electricity and biogas) are able to replace conven-
tional Italian electric mix and natural gas, thus providing environ-
mental benets at global scale (e.g. GWP, AP) and a reduction of the
ecological footprint. In particular, energy and material input ows
required for the production of electricity within Scenario 2, are
comparable and to some extent competitive with other conven-
tional sources; in other words, an efcient waste-to-energy plant
with extensive emission controls can replace electricity generated
from an environmentally less than optimal power supply system.
Finally, if we have to choose only among the investigated
options, even the incineration alternative (Scenario 3) seems to be
better than landlling (Scenarios 0 and 1), also from an environ-
mental impact point of view.
However, none of the investigated scenarios is completely able to
avoid the landll. This is a second issue (in addition to uncontrolled
local emissions) that urgently calls for a breakthrough improve-
ment: nding a convenient way for reuse of bottom and y ashes
(produced in Scenarios 2 and 3) which are now delivered to landll.
References
[1] Sundqvist JO, Finnveden G, Albertsson AC, Karlsson S, Berendson J,
Hoglund LO. Life cycle assessment and solid waste, AFRReport 173. Stockholm,
Sweden: AFR; 1997.
[2] Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen AA, editors. Guidelines
for life-cycle assessment: a Code of practice. Society of Environmental Toxi-
cology and Chemistry (SETAC); 1993 [SETAC Workshop, Sesimbra, Portugal, 31
March3 April 1993].
[3] Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ,
et al. Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment. Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen:
Nordic Council of Ministers; 1995.
[4] LCA Guide. A guide to approaches, experiences and information source.
Environmental issue series n 6. European Environmental Agency; 1997.
[5] Finnveden G. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated
solid waste management systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
1999;26:17387.
[6] Clift R, Doig A, Finnveden G. The application of life cycle assessment to inte-
grated waste management. Part 1. Methodology, Trans. IchemE
2000;78(B):27987.
[7] Bjarnaddottir HJ, Fridriksson GB, Johnsen T, Sletsen H. Guidelines for the use of
LCA in the waste management sector. Nordtest TR 517. Espoo, Finland: Nordtest,
<http://www.p2pays.org/ref/37/36469.pdf>; 2002 [accessed 09/07/08].
[8] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment of urban waste
management: energy performances and environmental impacts. The case of
Rome, Italy. Waste Management 2008;28:255264.
[9] Ekvall T, Assefa G, Bjorklund A, Eriksson O, Finnveden G. What life-cycle
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Management 2007;27(8):98996.
[10] Winkler J, Bilitewski B. Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models
for solid waste management. Waste Management 2007;27(8):102131.
[11] Ulgiati S. Energy, emergy and embodied exergy: diverging or converging
approaches? In: Proceedings of the rst biennial emergy analysis research
conference, 1532/328, UFL, Gainesville, FL, USA: 2000.
[12] Ulgiati S, Raugei M, Bargigli S. Overcoming the inadequacy of single-criterion
approaches to life cycle assessment. Ecological Modelling 2006;190:43242.
[13] Khan FI, Sadiq R, Husain T. GreenPro-I: a risk-based life cycle assessment and
decision-making. Environmental Modelling and Software 2002;17:66992.
[14] Schmidt-Bleek F. MIPS re-visited. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin
1993;2:40712.
[15] Hinterberger F, Stiller H. Energy and material ows. In: Ulgiati S, editor.
Advances in energy studies, energy ows in ecology and economy. Roma,
Italy: Musis Publisher; 1998. p. 27586.
[16] Bargigli S, Raugei M, Ulgiati S. Mass ow analysis and mass-based indicators.
In: Jorgensen Sven E, Costanza Robert, Xu Fu-Liu, editors. Handbook of
2123
ecological indicators for assessment of ecosystem health. CRC Press; 2005. p.
35378.
[17] IFIAS. International federation of institutes for advanced study. In: Slesser M,
editor. Energy analysis workshop on methodology and conventions. Report
IFIAS no.89; 1974. Stockholm.
[18] Herendeen RA. Embodied energy, embodied everything.now what? In:
Ulgiati S, editor. Advances in energy studies, energy ows in ecology and
economy. Roma, Italy: Musis Publisher; 1998. p. 27586.
[19] Krotschak C, Narodoslawsky M. The sustainable process index a new
dimension in ecological evaluation. Ecological Engineering 1996;6(4):241.
[20] Narodoslawsky M, Krotschak C. Integrated ecological optimization of
processes with the sustainable process index. Waste Management
2000;20(8):599603.
[21] Sandholzer D, Narodoslawsky M. SPIonExcel fast and easy calculation of the
sustainable process index via computer. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling 2007;50(2):13042.
[22] Krotscheck C. How to measure sustainability? Comparison of ow based
(mass and/or energy) highly aggregated indicators for eco-compatibility.
EnvironMetrics 1997;8:661.
[23] AMA. Environmental report, <http://www.amaroma.it/index.
php?optioncom_content&taskview&id294&Itemid136>; 2003 [in
Italian, accessed 09/07/08].
[24] Erses AS, Onay TT, Yenigun O. Comparison of aerobic and anaerobic degra-
dation of municipal solid waste in bioreactor landlls. Bioresource Technology
2008;99(13):541826.
[25] Obersteiner G, Binner E, Mostbauer P, Salhofer S. Landfill modelling in LCA
a contribution based on empirical data. Waste Management 2007;27(8):
S5874.
[26] Nielsen PH, Hauschild M. Product specic emissions from municipal solid
waste landlls, part I. Landll model. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 1998;3:15868.
[27] White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated solid waste management a life
cycle inventory. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Aspen Publishers Inc.; 1999. New
York: Chapman & Hall.
[28] USEPA. Locating and estimating air emissions from sources of dioxins and
furans. Research Triangle Park, NC: Ofce of Air Quality Planning and
Standards; 1995. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/le/dioxin.pdf> [accessed
09/07/08].
[29] Kylefors K. Evaluation of leachate composition by multivariate data analysis
(MVDA). Journal of Environmental Management 2003;68:36776.
[30] EPA document. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. vol. I, 5th ed,
point sources AP-42. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/> [accessed 09/
07/08].
[31] Conte I. La produzione di energia dal biogas della discarica Basse di Stura,
Energy Manager Amiat S.p.A., Technical Report; 2001 [in Italian] <http://
www.amiat.it/File/abstr3.pdf>[accessed 09/07/08].
[32] Caputo AC, Pelagagge PM. RDF production plants: I. Design and costs. Applied
Thermal Engineering 2002;22:42337.
[33] Chang YH, Chen WC, Chang NB. Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW
incineration. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1998;58(3):3345.
[34] Consonni S, Giugliano M, Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery
from municipal solid waste Part B: emission and cost estimates. Waste
Management 2005;25:13748.
[35] Berglund M, Borjesson P. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle
of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30:25466.
[36] Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F. The environmental performance of
alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study.
Chemical Engineering Journal 2003;96:20722.
[37] Ruth LA. Energy from municipal solid waste: a comparison with coal
combustion technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
1998;24:54564.
[38] Liang L, Sun R, Fei J, Wu S, Liu X, Dai K, et al. Experimental study on effects of
moisture content on combustion characteristics of simulated municipal solid
wastes in a xed bed. Bioresource Technology 2008;99(15):723846.
[39] Chen JC, Huang JS, Chen CM, Guo JS. Emission characteristics of PAHs, benzene
and phenol group hydrocarbons in O2/RFG waste incineration processes. Fuel
2008;87(12):278797.
[40] Statistical yearbook of Rome. [Annuario Statistico di Roma 2003]. Roma:
Department XVII, Statistical Ofce, <www.comune.roma.it/uffstat/>; 2003 [in
Italian, accessed 09/07/08].
[41] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, et al.
Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Final report ecoin-
vent 2007. Duebendorf, CH: Swiss Centre for LCI; 2003. <http://www.
ecoinvent.org/leadmin/documents/en/03_LCIA-Implementation.pdf>
[accessed 09/07/08].
[42] Bjorklund J, Geber U, Rydberg T. Emergy analysis of municipal wastewater
treatment and generation of electricity by digestion of sewage sludge.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;31:293316.