Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Systems analysis of technology chains for energy recovery from waste
KTH, School of Chemical Science and Engineering (CHE), Chemical Engineering and Technology.
2006 (English)In: WMSCI 2006: 10TH WORLD MULTI-CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL VII, PROCEEDINGS / [ed] Callaos N; Lesso W; Tremante A; Baralt J; Rebielak J, ORLANDO: INT INST INFORMATICS & SYSTEMICS , 2006, 183-188 p.Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This contribution is based on the result of a project entitled "Systems Analysis: Energy Recovery from waste, catalytic combustion in comparison with fuel cells and incineration" is financed by The Swedish National Energy Administration. The aim of the project was to assess the energy turnover as well as the potential environmental impacts of biomass/waste-to-energy technologies. Four technology scenarios are be studied: (1) Gasification followed by low temperature fuel cells (i.e. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells) (2) Gasification followed by high temperature fuel cells (i.e. Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFC)) (3) Gasification followed by catalytic combustion (CC) and (4) Incineration with energy recovery. Looking at the result of the four technology chains in terms of the impact categories considered with impact per GWh electricity produced as a unit of comparison and from the perspective of the rank each scenario has in all the four impact categories, SOFC appears to be the winner technology followed by PEM and CC as second and third best respectively with incinerations as the least of all. On other hand, looking at the three important emissions (CO,. NOx and SOx) from the total systems (include both the core system and the external system), SOFC is the best technology equally followed PEM and CC as the second best. A comparison of the same emissions from the core systems places CC on equal level with SOFC as the best technologies with PEM as the second best.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ORLANDO: INT INST INFORMATICS & SYSTEMICS , 2006. 183-188 p.
National Category
Other Environmental Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-24922ISI: 000251939800035Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84867259031ISBN: 978-980-6560-72-7 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-24922DiVA: diva2:354373
Conference
10th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics/12th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis
Note
QC 20101001Available from: 2010-10-01 Created: 2010-10-01 Last updated: 2010-10-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Scopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Assefa, Getachew
By organisation
Chemical Engineering and Technology
Other Environmental Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 92 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf