Mostrar el registro sencillo

dc.contributor.authorMargallo Blanco, María 
dc.contributor.authorCobo Gutiérrez, Selene 
dc.contributor.authorLaso Cortabitarte, Jara 
dc.contributor.authorFernández Alonso, Ángela
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz Valencia, Ester
dc.contributor.authorSantos Santamaría, Esther 
dc.contributor.authorAldaco García, Rubén 
dc.contributor.authorIrabien Gulías, Ángel 
dc.contributor.otherUniversidad de Cantabriaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-02T12:56:46Z
dc.date.available2021-09-30T02:45:21Z
dc.date.issued2019-09-10
dc.identifier.issn0959-6526
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10902/16391
dc.description.abstractIncineration has been adopted by many developed countries as an alternative to treat municipal solid waste due to its capacity to reduce the amount of waste and recover energy. Waste to energy plants produce two waste streams: bottom ashes and fly ashes (FA). FA are classified as hazardous waste, and they cannot be utilised or landfilled without prior treatment. Stabilisation with cement solidification is the most used method to treat FA because it achieves the immobilisation of pollutants at a relatively low cost. However, the accelerated carbonation of FA, which allows the encapsulation of certain mobile metals under alkaline conditions, has recently been proposed as an alternative to the solidification/stabilisation process. To determine the environmental performance of FA stabilisation and carbonation, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted. The LCA results of the carbonation and stabilisation processes were compared, and multiple carbonation scenarios were analysed: carbonation with different CO2sources (incineration flue gas and flue gas from the combustion of natural gas), and different pressures (1–5 bar) and percentages of CO2 excess (10%, 55% and 100%) in the flue gas stream. Stabilisation had higher environmental impacts than carbonation due mainly to cement production and consumption. The best operating conditions of the carbonation process were found at flue gas pressures between 3 and 5 bar, since the total energy consumption decreases as the pressure increases. Moreover, the environmental benefits associated with the substitution of electricity from the grid mix made the scenarios based on the combustion of natural gas perform better than those that use the incineration gases as a CO2 source.es_ES
dc.format.extent36 p.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rights© 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 licensees_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.sourceJournal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 231, 1016-1026es_ES
dc.subject.otherCarbonationes_ES
dc.subject.otherFly ashes_ES
dc.subject.otherIncinerationes_ES
dc.subject.otherLife cycle assessmentes_ES
dc.subject.otherMunicipal solid wastees_ES
dc.titleEnvironmental performance of alternatives to treat fly ash from a waste to energy plantes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherVersionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.279es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.DOI10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.279
dc.type.versionacceptedVersiones_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo

© 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseExcepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license