FINAL CHECK TO TURNITIN THEN REPHRASE

introduction

Increasing global consumerism and population has led to an increase in the levels of
waste produced. These waste are either landfilled, incinerated, recycled or composted.
Following the waste treatment hierarchy, waste should undergo energy recovery before
disposal. In the article “Is it better to burn or bury waste for clean electricity generation?” the use
of municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate electricity through landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE)
and waste-to-energy (WTE) was compared as to which one is better in generating electricity.
Thesis statement clean el gen? burn burry?

The author claimed that the said article is the first to present a comprehensive set of life-
cycle emission factors per unit of electricity generated for these energy recovery options. To
quantify the variability in the resultant life-cycle emissions estimates, the author conducted on
key inputs sensitivity analysis (e.g., efficiency of the WTE plant, landfill gas management
schedules, oxidation rate, and waste composition).

The purpose of the article was clearly cited which is to present a comprehensive set of
life cycle emission factors per unit of electricity generated for LFGTE and WTE in which these
emission factors are referenced to baseline scenarios without energy recovery to enable
comparison of the emissions of LFGTE and WTE to those other energy sources.
BLAAABLAAABLAAA

In the article, the author compared two options for generating electricity from MSW. One
method, referred to as landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE), involves the collection of landfill gas
(LFG) (50% CH4 and 50% CO2), which is generated through the anaerobic decomposition of
MSW in landfills. The collected LFG is then combusted in an engine or a turbine to generate
electricity. A second method, referred to as waste-to-energy (WTE) involves the direct
combustion of MSW, where the resultant steam is used to run a turbine and electric generator.
 The author has mentioned that LFGTE AND WTE are renewable sources of electricity. It
is not that easy to identify which ones are renewable energy and which ones are not. Some
people believe renewables should only be defined as coming from natural resources. Others
think that renewable means any resource that can be replenished as it is being used. For
example, some people don’t consider landfill gas to be renewable. Landfill gas only lasts so
long, maybe 20 or 30 years depending on the site. Strictly speaking, this resource is not
renewable. But looking at the broader picture, we’re always going to be producing waste in
some form. We’ll be able to use this resource for as long as we’re throwing things in landfills. I’d
say that’s renewable. Recycling and reducing excessive consumption should be our first
priorities. But if we’re going to keep producing trash, generating energy should be an important
part of any waste management strategy. INTRODUCE DUHA THEN DEFINE GAMAY THEN
WHICH IS BETTER?

Recently in the U.S. WTE has been deemed a Renewable Energy source. According to
the EPA the definition of Renewable Energy – “Renewable Energy is energy obtained from
sources that are essentially inexhaustible, unlike natural gas, coal and oil, of which there is a
finite supply.” According to the Department of Energy (DOE) – “Renewable energy sources
include: wood and other biomass, solar (Photovoltaic and Thermal), wind, geothermal, wastes
[Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF), Landfill Gas (LFG)] and any other
sources that are naturally or continually replenished.” By definition, the DOE describes
renewable energy as a “non-deplete-able source of energy.”

SUGGEST COMMENT RECOMMEND

It was not clearly mentioned in the article the definition and how does LFGTE and WTE
works. Furthermore, it lacks some discussion as to what are their similarities and differences.
According to balbla definition each
-It is a nice point that the author also compared the LCI emissions resulting from generation of 1
MW h of electricity not just coming from LFGTE and WTE but also from coal, natural gas, oil
and nuclear power for comparative purposes. ADDDD

The author have provided sufficient data on the emissions to support its claims. As
shown on the article’s figures 2 to 4, CO2 emissions, SOx emissions and NOx emissions of
vent, flare, LFGTE, WTE, coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear were graphically cited. According to
_________ These figures are of great help in understanding the emission results. However, the
figures were not further discussed by the author.

As stated, since landfills are a major source of methane (CH4) emissions, CO2e
emissions from landfills are significantly high. This is true because methane and carbon
dioxide make up 90 to 98% of landfill gas. The remaining 2 to 10% includes nitrogen, oxygen,
ammonia, sulfides, hydrogen and various other gases (Meyer 2019). Figure 1 was not explained
in the article but it shows the annual landfill gas management schedule assumed for alternative
scenarios. The author has mentioned that the magnitude of CH4 emissions depends on the time
of installation of LFG collection system and and the length of time the ICE is used.

According to the author, Sox emissions from the landfills is a product of the usage of
LFG control during operation, closure and postclosure of the landfill while Sox emissions from
WTE facilities occur during combustion process. As a result, it was stated that the Sox
emissions from LFTGE and WTE are much lower than the Sox emissions from coal and oil fired
power plant. To support this claim, the author presented Figure 3 which is a very good point
since it comes from a reliable source and the details are presented clearly.

Another point is that according to the author, NOx emissions from WTE and LFGTE are
lower than NOx emissions froma coal fired power plant. The author again did a great job since it
presented in Figure 4 of the article a well presented graph on NOx emissions from different
electricity generating technologies. Explain Nox emissions

-HERE PARAGRAPH INSERT HOW BIG BLABLA

-The composition blabla

-100 years blabla

I greatly agree on the authors conclusion that WTE is a better option than LFGTE.

I greatly agree on the

The author notes that

To support this claim the author uses the example o

To such a complicated issue the author sums the research up well by saying that there are
times when a public administrator has to vio
. Overall it is a good, well-written article with an important message for public administrators and
organizations. The piece, when taken as a whole, is relevant and very convincing in theory but
starts slow and never lays out a concrete way of approaching this complex problem.

This was a very in-depth research project, particularly for a journal article. For the most part,
it was well written and well organized. There was a definite need for a short review of
literature to develop the situation. The article did get a little complicated in the reporting of
data due to the complicated statistical procedures used. Overall, it was a very interesting,
significant contribution to the field of research.

- WALA na further explain ila comparison , definition how it works blabla

-(positive) WHY CO2, NOX, SOX RA? SUGGESTION , it should have included others blabla

- what does these numbers mean, wala gi explain.

- unsay effect co, nox,sox

- wala na tarong og enterpret ang graph, not further explained

- expl each para result and disc

- approve na wte is better : sox, nox, co2, ch4, elec genreration, RESULT AND DISCUSSION