Downloaded from orbit.dtu.

dk on: Oct 18, 2023

Climate change impacts of introducing carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) in waste
incineration

Christensen, Thomas H.; Bisinella, Valentina

Published in:
Waste Management

Link to article, DOI:

10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.046

Publication date:
2021

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):
Christensen, T. H., & Bisinella, V. (2021). Climate change impacts of introducing carbon capture and utilisation
(CCU) in waste incineration. Waste Management, 126, 754-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.046

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
 You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS OF INTRODUCING CARBON CAPTURE
AND UTILISATION (CCU) IN WASTE INCINERATION
Thomas H. Christensen and Valentina Bisinella

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 115,

DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

Abstract

Amending municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) with carbon capture and utilisation (CCU)
can simultaneously lower the climate change impacts of incineration and supply carbon for a range
of uses. However, life cycle assessment (LCA) shows that technology choices and the benefits of
CCU applied to MSWI depend on the energy system in which the MSWI operates throughout its
lifetime, and on the markets for the CCU products. Carbon capture reduces up to 50% of the energy
recovery of MSWI. We assessed different energy system scenarios, ranging from fossil- to non-
fossil based. Direct utilisation of the captured CO2 is beneficial only on a local basis when
substituting fossil-based CO2 (-700 kg CO2-eq/tonne waste), with benefits similar to carbon capture
and storage. Hydrogenation of CO2 with the purpose of producing feedstock chemicals or fuels such
as methane, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME) and formic acid provides much higher benefits (-2000
kg CO2-eq/tonne waste), but only in non-fossil-based energy systems, due to the dramatically high
consumption of electricity (more than 6000 kWh/tonne waste). Use as feedstock chemicals provides
more benefits than use as fuels, and CCU solutions focusing on methanol and DME are the most
promising technologies. Although built on scarce and early-development data, the analysis
highlights current crucial issues, at both the technological and system levels, for the future
introduction of CCU in MSWI.

List of abbreviations

CC carbon capture

CCU carbon capture and utilisation

CO2-eq carbon dioxide equivalents

DME dimethyl ether

LCA life cycle assessment

LUC land use change

1
MEA mono ethanol amine

MSW municipal solid waste

MSWI municipal solid waste incineration

Keywords

Waste incineration; climate change; carbon capture; carbon utilisation; LCA

1. INTRODUCTION

Municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) is a major waste treatment technology in Europe, where
nearly 500 plants treat around 100 million tonnes of waste per year (CEWEP 2020; Stengler, 2019).
MSWI is a robust technology that provides two important services: (i) the treatment of residual
waste not suited for recycling thereby ensuring hygienic conditions, the destruction of organic
pollutants, the recovery of iron and aluminum and the safe concentration of inorganic pollutants
into air-pollution-control residues, and (ii) the provision of energy in terms of electricity and heat.
However, MSWI contributes to climate change, due to the unavoidable fossil carbon present in the
residual waste (such as non-recyclable plastic and synthetic textiles), which is combusted and
emitted through the stack as CO2. The climate change impacts of MSWI are reduced when the
energy recovered from incineration substitutes for the production of fossil-based energy (e.g. Astrup
et al., 2009). However, the transition of European energy systems to non-fossil-based energy will in
the future significantly reduce the CO2 savings obtained by energy recovered from waste
incineration (e.g. Andreasi Bassi et al., 2017).

Carbon capture (CC) applied to MSWI is thus gaining interest in Europe as a way to reduce
its climate change impacts. Amending MSWI with carbon capture (CC) not only reduces fossil CO2
emissions, but it also provides significant savings in terms of climate change impacts, due to the
avoided CO2 emissions originating from biogenic carbon in the waste (Christensen et al., 2009).
Bisinella et al. (2020) showed that amending MSWI with carbon capture and storage (CCS) leads to
a reduction in climate change impacts of around 700 kg CO2-eq per tonne of incinerated waste
despite the energy used by the capture unit. This conclusion is valid for different MSWI
technologies, also when the energy system becomes less fossil-based and when the waste
composition changes due to increased source segregation and recycling. The captured CO2 is stored
underground, thus removing it from the carbon cycle.

However, the captured CO2 can constitute a source of recycled carbon, and carbon capture
and utilization (CCU) technologies may provide further services and larger climate change savings

2
than capturing and storing the CO2 underground. The potential for utilising CO2 from MSWI was
first addressed by Bringezu (2014). In a post-fossil future, where land-use will aim at balancing
food, fodder, timber and biofibre production while preserving natural reserves for ensuring
biodiversity and recreational services, carbon may become a valuable resource.

The feasibility of carbon supply as the third service benefit of MSWI is in its early
development stages, and only a few utilisations have been demonstrated in the case of CO2 captured
at MSWI plants. At the Twence Plant in Hengelo, The Netherlands, captured CO2 reacts with
NaOH to form baking powder, which is used in the MSW incineration plant for flue gas cleaning.
The additional uptake of CO2 creates stable carbonates that can be landfilled. In another example, at
a plant in Saga City, Japan, captured CO2 is used in a glass-covered algae farm to produce algal
biomass, which is harvested and extracted for cosmetics. At the AVR-plant in Duiven, The
Netherlands, captured CO2 is used for growth enhancement in greenhouses during summer.

Technologies for utilising captured CO2 from MSWI could potentially be plentiful,
including both CO2 “direct utilisation” and, as we term it here, “hydrogenated utilisation,” whereby
CO2 reacts with hydrogen to generate organic chemicals or fuels. However, capturing and
converting CO2 into a product significantly affects the energy budget and climate impact of the
MSWI plant, and thus it must be balanced by the climate change benefits from employing CCU
products. The climate change benefits of CCU depend on the product obtained (CO2, chemicals or
fuels) and what it substitutes (fossil or biogenic carbon-based products), both in the current market
and in future markets, corresponding to the lifetime of the CCU technology investment. In this
context, life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO 2006a, ISO 2006b, Christensen et al., 2020) can offer a
robust overview of utilisation options before actual experiences are available, thereby providing a
systematic assessment of the climate change impacts connected to provision of the materials and
energy for the technology, as well as evaluating the benefits of avoiding the production of the
substituted products. Although a few studies have assessed the environmental sustainability of CCU
technologies for the chemical industry (e.g. Thonemann and Pizzol, 2019), no analysis has so far
provided a transparent quantification of the climate change impacts and benefits of carbon capture
and utilisation from MSWI.

The purpose of this study is therefore to provide an early and stringent quantification of the
climate change impacts of CCU applied to MSWI. We identify a number of potential CCU options
and amend them to two representative MSWI technologies. The study provides climate change
results for each CCU option assessed, in view of potential developments in the energy system.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section details the method used for assessing the climate change impacts of CCU applied to
MSWI as a post-treatment technology. First, we provide a description of the MSWI and CC
technologies, and then we provide a thorough overview of CO2 utilisation options and the criteria

3
used for modelling CCU. Finally, we describe a range of energy system scenarios used to model
potential conditions in which MSWI with CCU may operate.

2.1 Assessment method

The study utilises LCA principles for systematically modelling and assessing CCU options for
MSWI. We quantify the potential climate change impacts connected to two representative MSWI
plants (two levels) within different energy development scenarios (five levels) with 14 levels for
utilising CO2 (one level without CCU, five levels for direct utilisation, eight levels for hydrogenated
utilisation); in total, 140 scenarios.

The functional unit is the incineration of one tonne (1000 kg) of wet municipal solid waste
(MSW; details in 2.2), with the aim of capturing and utilizing CO2 from the flue gas. The time
scope of the study is 2020-2030, the time horizon for the climate change impacts is 100 years. The
system boundaries include energy and materials for operating the technologies, CO2 emissions,
recovered energy and materials, carbon utilisation products and by-products. The modelling
approach is consequential, and so the consequences of introducing different CCU options are
included with system expansion. This means that we credit the MSWI for delivering energy,
materials and products in addition to the main function of treating the waste. The specific system
boundaries for each CCU option are described below. Transportation of the waste, as well as the
climate change impacts of buildings and equipment, is not included.

The assessment is carried out with the EASETECH model (Clavreul et al., 2014), and the
data used for the assessment follow the consequential approach (Ecoinvent 3.6, Wernet et al.,
2016). Climate change impacts are quantified according to the following characterisation factors
(Christensen et al., 2009): (i) 0 kg CO2-eq/kg CO2 for biogenic CO2 emissions (e.g. from food
waste); (ii) 1 kg CO2-eq/kg CO2 for fossil CO2 emissions (e.g. non-recyclable plastic and synthetic
textiles); (iii) -1 kg CO2-eq/kg CO2 for avoided emission of biogenic CO2 and (iv) 0 kg CO2-eq/kg
CO2 for avoided emissions of fossil CO2.

2.2 MSWI plants

The study focuses on two MSWI technologies (“MSWI A” and “MSWI B”) considered relevant for
most of Europe, albeit significant variations are expected among the nearly 500 European plants
(Stengler; 2019). Both MSWI plants have typical grate furnace technology, as well as advanced flue
gas cleaning and energy recovery, but different energy outputs prior to the introduction of CCU.
The plants are identical to two technologies presented in Bisinella et al. (2020). Table 1 reports the
key data.

4
 MSWI A represents semi-dry air pollution control (APC) and power production, whilst
MSWI B represents wet APC with flue gas condensation and combined power and heat production.
MSWI A may be a plant in southern Europe with no market for heat, while MSWI B may be a
northern European plant connected to a large district heating system. Figure 1 shows the modelling
of the two plants from a life cycle perspective. System boundaries include energy use in the MSWI
configuration, CO2 emissions in the flue gas and recovered energy. Electricity use at the plants is
for equipment, fans and blowers. We have not considered the use of auxiliary fuels or any metals
recovered from bottom or fly ashes, and we have excluded the management of residues and
wastewater. These contributions are relatively small with respect to climate change and are not
significantly affected by the introduction of CCU, and thus they are identical in all scenarios.

The MSW has a fixed waste composition with a lower heating value of 9.9 MJ/kg wet waste
and releases 374 kg fossil and 594 kg biogenic CO2 per tonne incinerated (see Bisinella et al.,
2020).

Table 1. Inventory of two generic MSWI plants with different energy recovery systems (partly
based on Bisinella et al., 2020).

MSWI A MSWI B
Flows for incineration of (LHV: 9.9 MJ/kg) (LHV: 9.9 MJ/kg)
1000 kg wet MSW Electricity recovery: Very high Electricity recovery: High
Heat recovery: None Heat recovery: Very high
Input
MSW (kg) 1000 1000
Electricity (kWh) 90 100
Output
CO2 – fossil (kg) 374 374
CO2 – biogenic (kg) 594 594
Electricity (kWh) 829 718
Heat/steam (GJ) 0 7.86

5
 MSWI A: Semi-dry APC, no flue gas condensation, power only

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Avoided burden
Waste
MSWI plant

MSWI

Energy

MSWI B: Wet APC, flue gas condensation, combined heat and power

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Heat Heat production

Waste Avoided burden
MSWI plant

MSWI

Energy

Figure 1. MSWI technologies included in the assessment and later amended with CCU. System
boundaries for the assessment include energy requirements, flue gas emissions in terms of CO2 and
the production of energy, which substitutes energy production.

2.3 CO2 capture

CO2 is captured from MSWI flue gas prior to any utilisation. Several CC technologies are described
in the literature (e.g. Oreggioni et al. 2017), but only MEA technology is used in the modelling,
since it is the only technology that has been applied to MSWI on a technical scale. CO2 can be
captured in post-treatment, after traditional cleaning and cooling of the flue gas from the MSWI
plant. Bisinella et al. (2020) showed how the introduction of a post-combustion MEA unit affects
MSWI plants with different flue gas cleaning technologies. Herein, we consider an MEA
technology added after flue gas condensation.

In a scrubber unit or an absorption column, a 30% MEA (monoethanolamine) solution

absorbs the CO2 at typically 1 bar and 25-50°C with an efficiency of 85-95% (Reiter and Lindorfer,
2017; Tang and You, 2018). The process is exothermal. The CO2-rich solution is heated afterwards
to 100-140°C at 1 bar, and in a stripper the CO2 desorbs from the MEA and then leaves saturated
with water. The water is condensed from the gas stream, and the CO2 is compressed to around 150
bar for storage and/or transport. The recovered MEA is reused in the plant (Pour et al., 2018). The

6
inventory is shown in Table 2. We ignore any by-product and waste that may be produced (e.g.
acetaldehyde and reclaimer waste).

Table 2. Inventory of the MEA technology for CO2 capture (from Bisinella et al., 2020, based on
Reiter and Lindorfer, 2017; Tang and You, 2018).

Flows for capturing 1000 kg of CO2 CC (MEA process)

Inputs
CO2 (kg) 1175
H2O (kg) 840
Activated carbon (kg) 0.07
MEA (kg) 1.5
NaOH (kg) 0.12
Electricity (kWh) 100
Heat/steam (GJ) 3.7
Outputs
CO2 (kg) (pressurised) 1000
CO2 (kg) (stack exhaust air) 175
NH3 (kg) 0.15

2.4 Direct CO2 utilisation

CO2 can be used directly in a range of processes and products as follows (partly based on Leung et
al., 2014). (i) Enhancement of plant production: CO2 is added to intensive horticulture
(greenhouses) to improve plant growth, in particular during summer when light intensities are high
and CO2 could be a limiting factor. (ii) Algae farming: the farming of algae may have the potential
to produce biomass for the feed, food or biochemical industries, but often the levels of CO2 are a
limiting factor and can be remediated by increased CO2 input. (iii) Concrete: CO2 can be used for
creating pore volume in light concrete materials and structures (4-5% CO2 added). CO2 will
enhance the hardening process, which could potentially decrease cement demand for concrete,
which is traditionally very climate change-intensive. (iv) Conservation: food can be conserved by
using CO2 to expel oxygen from packages of easily degradable food items. (v) Beverages: CO2 is
added to a range of beverages, in particular soft drinks and water. (vi) Refrigerants: CO2 is used as a
coolant in industrial refrigerators and cooling facilities, or as dry ice for a range of specific
purposes. (vii) Fire extinguishing gas used in portable cylinders. (viii) Enhanced oil recovery
(EOR): CO2 is used to enhance the extraction of oil from oil fields. (ix) Mineralisation: CO2 can be
utilised for stabilising thermal ashes and slags through mineralisation, a process based on the
accelerated reaction of CO2 with Mg/Ca salts or silicate rich in Mg/Ca.

Many of the utilisations above are well established and have been on the market for decades,
using CO2 industrially produced or as a by-product from other chemical production units, such as
ammonia fertiliser production.

7
 The critical issues in directly utilising CO2 from MSWI are purity, market size and
availability, and perhaps its image in the product market. Direct utilisation will require different
ways of cleaning the captured CO2. In terms of the climate change impacts related to direct CO2
utilisation, it is crucial to determine the final fate of the gas, and the origin of the CO2 that is
displaced by the captured CO2 from the MSWI.

Due to the large variety of processes and products available for direct CO2 utilisation, as
well as to the importance of local conditions (e.g. for growth enhancement in greenhouses during
summer), we do not model direct CO2 utilisation based on specific utilisation options, as choosing
these would require building individual inventories, both for the utilisation technology and for the
product avoided. Such results would be very specific and less representative of direct CO2
utilisation from MSWI in general, but moreover, the investment in capturing CO2 at an MSWI plant
would likely have a lifetime of at least 30 years, and a reliable CO2 market analysis for products for
such a long period is not feasible. We therefore chose a simplified approach based on scenarios
representing different generic substitutions. The approach encompasses all direct utilisation options
and is informative, regardless of the specific conditions in which the MSWI operates.
Captured CO2 can have a specific local use or be made available on the general market. In
the first case, CO2 usage is limited to local (or seasonal) applications, where CO2 captured from
MSWI substitutes for the gas produced on purpose for a specific use. This could be a scenario
where captured CO2 is used, without any significant distribution losses, in greenhouses or algal
farms for growth enhancement instead of producing it, for example by burning natural gas of fossil
origin (this assumes that natural gas burning does not provide heat used for warming the growth
facilities). In such a case, a specific assessment must be done, in order to quantify how much CO2
the captured gas substitutes, and whether the substituted CO2 is of fossil or biogenic origin. In many
climates, it may not be possible to support such consumption year round, in which case the long-
term substitution is then less than 100%. The second case occurs in a scenario where captured CO2
from MSWI enters the CO2 market and competes with by-products from industrial processes, such
as ammonia and hydrogen production (from fossil carbon sources), or fermentation and bioenergy
production (from biogenic carbon sources) (Thonemann and Pizzol, 2019).
The modelling of direct CO2 utilisation is shown in Figure 2. MSWI is amended with CC as
described in 2.3, and it includes the use of materials and energy as well as recovery of energy.
Capturing CO2 reduces the net energy recovery of the MSWI plant, since the capture unit itself uses
energy. We assumed that all the utilised CO2 is ultimately released into the atmosphere within the
time scope of the study. Two local use and three market use cases are considered in this study,
whilst accounting for CO2 emissions differs according to the origin of the avoided CO2 product.

8
 Direct utilization of CO2: local use

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Heat Heat production

Waste Avoided burden
MSWI plant CC

MSWI with CCU, direct utilization CO2

CO2

Energy Materials (MEA) CO2 production, local

Avoided burden

Direct utilization of CO2: market

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Heat Heat production

Waste Avoided burden
MSWI plant CC

MSWI with CCU, direct utilization CO2

CC

CO2 capture, industry

Energy Materials (MEA) Avoided burden

CO2 by-product

Industry Product

Figure 2. Conceptual modelling of direct CO2 utilisation used in this study. The upper part of the
figure represents local CO2 use; the lower part shows market use of CO2. MSWI is amended with
CC, and captured CO2 may avoid conventional CC. In local use, the provision of fuel and the
production of CO2 are avoided; in the market use, the industry releases the non-captured CO2 into
the air. Heat is recovered only in MSWI B.

When MSWI-captured CO2 is utilised locally (upper part of Figure 2), the two cases are the avoided
provision and combustion of (i) fossil or (ii) biogenic carbon for CO2 production. The first case
happens, for example, when the captured CO2 substitutes the local burning of fossil fuels during
summer for enhancing plant growth in a greenhouse. Utilising captured CO2 from MSWI saves the
provision of fossil fuel (assumed fossil natural gas) and fossil CO2 emissions from combustion. In
the second case, the captured CO2 substitutes CO2 produced from biomass (assumed wood pellets),
thereby saving the provision of biomass (assumed wood pellets, and including land use change

9
(LUC) according to Faraca et al. 2019). In both instances, the fossil part of the MSWI-captured CO2
ultimately released into the atmosphere contributes to climate change impacts.
When MSWI-captured CO2 is utilised in the market (lower part of Figure 2), it
competes with CO2 produced as a by-product from another industrial process. Since such an
industrial process follows its own market demand, we assume that the MSWI-captured CO2 avoids
only the capture of CO2 at an industrial facility and induces the release of the CO2 by-product into
the atmosphere. Industrial carbon capture was modelled according to Thonemann and Pizzol (2019)
at an average 0.3 kg CO2-eq/kg captured CO2. Carbon accounting differs according to the nature of
the carbon used in the industrial process (and released into the atmosphere as CO2) and the presence
of CC at the industrial plant. We distinguished three cases. The industrial process has CC and
utilises (i) fossil carbon or (ii) biogenic carbon. If the MSWI-captured CO2 substitutes in the market
for CO2 delivered as a by-product from an industrial process, the only saving from the substitution
is the avoided capture, since the industry will still release its CO2, which can be either fossil or
biogenic, and again the fossil part of MSWI-captured CO2 will contribute to climate change
impacts. (iii) The industrial process has no CC and utilises biogenic carbon. For example, if the
MSWI-captured CO2 substitutes the biogenic CO2 originating from a fermentation process, there
are no savings from the substitution, since the fermenter instead releases its concentrated flow of
biogenic CO2, and the fossil part of MSWI-captured CO2 contributes to climate change impacts.
Table S1 in the Supplementary Material (SM) shows examples of calculations of the substitutional
value of captured CO2 in a range of direct utilisations presented separately for fossil-based and
biogenic CO2 captured by the MSWI. For a specific MSWI, with a known content of fossil and
biogenic carbon in the waste, the actual substitutional value of CCU products originating from 1
tonne of waste can be determined by combining the two columns proportional to the carbon
contents per tonne of waste.

2.5 Hydrogenated CO2 utilisation

CO2, as a source of carbon, has the potential to be used as a raw material in the production of a wide
range of chemical products and fuels (e.g. Baena-Moreno et al., 2019; Thonemann and Pizzol,
2019). Large-scale operations exist within the chemical industry to produce chemicals from
captured CO2; for example, Assen and Bardow (2014) describe the production of
polyethercarbonate polyols used in making polyurethane foam. However, no examples have been
reported about the utilisation of CO2 from MSWI in producing chemicals.

The production of a chemical, in particular of a polymer and other more complex organic
chemicals, demands specific knowledge and elaborate skills in industrial chemical engineering.
Producing a chemical as an amendment to an MSWI plant will likely involve, in addition to a CC
unit, a facility to clean the CO2 to feedstock quality, an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen and finally
a synthesis plant to produce and separate the chemical. The most attractive way to utilise the

10
captured CO2 for chemical synthesis could be transporting it to a nearby chemical industrial plant;
however, this option is very rare.

We suggest addressing the following issues from technical, economic and environmental
points of view, in order to choose the chemical product for MSWI-captured CO2. The chemical
should have a large, versatile and growing market. Preferably, such a chemical should be feedstock
in the chemical industry, as well as possibly a fuel. The dual uses would reduce the risk of market
failure or early saturation with non-fossil products, which in turn would diminish the substitutional
value of the product produced by the MSWI. Moreover, the production process should be relatively
simple, manageable and flexible, and preferably make only one main product, because doing this in
large volume means that production and quality are easier to control and document, and it is simpler
to obtain stable deliveries and potentially long-term customers. As hydrogen production is likely to
be environmentally demanding, due to its energy consumption (see later), the chemical production
should demand as little input of other chemicals. Finally, chemical production can be very energy-
intensive, and special attention should thus be paid to the link between it and the steam-heat cycle
of the MSWI, in order to optimise the overall electricity and heat production of the combined plant.

For these reasons, we suggest that CO2 at MSWI plants should primarily be used in relation
to one of the following chemicals: methane, methanol, dimethyl ether (DME) or formic acid. Table
3 presents the basic characteristics of these four chemicals; processes and inventories for their
production from CO2 are described later.

The use of CO2 in the production of urea, CO(NH2)2, is currently not considered a relevant
option: ammonia (NH3) and CO2 produce at 180-210°C and 150 bar a mixture containing ammonia,
ammonium carbamate and urea, which stepwise is cleaned into an urea salt and a residue stream of
ammonia and CO2, which is recycled back into the reactor. Urea is the final product and is used as
fertiliser. The ammonia used in urea production usually is produced from fossil fuels in the same
facility, simultaneously generating the energy needed and large amounts of CO2, which is used in
urea production. As long as ammonia is produced from fossil fuel, it makes no sense to use CO2
from MSWI to produce urea, as it will only force the ammonia producer to release its CO2. Thus,
currently, we do not consider the use of MSWI-CO2 in urea production a viable solution from a
climate change perspective.

11
Table 3. Characteristics of methane, methanol, DME and formic acid

CH4 CH3OH DME HCOOH

Names Methane Methanol Dimethyl Ether Formic Acid
Methyl Hydride Methylalcohol Methoxymethane Methanoic Acid
Chemical composition CH4 CH3OH CH3OCH3 HCOOH
CH4O C2H6O CH2O2
H/C ratio in production 8 6 6 4
process including H2O
formation
Molar mass, g/mol 16.04 32.04 46.07 46.03
Heat of combustion, 890 726 1455 255
kJ/mol
Heat of combustion, 55.5 22.7 31.6 5.5
kJ/g
Boiling point, °C -164 65 -24 101
Melting point, °C -182 -98 -141 8
Density (liquid), kg/l 0.42 0.73 1.97 1.22
Liquefaction Liquid below Liquid at ambient Liquid at ambient Liquid at ambient
-150°C at temperature and temperature at pressures temperature and
pressures above pressure above 6 bar pressure
46 bar
Storage and transport Like natural gas Like alcohol Like propane gas Like weak acid
Used as baseline Yes Yes Yes Yes
chemical
Used as fuel Yes, Yes Yes Yes,
in combustion in fuel cells
Other uses Anti-freeze Leather industry
Dyeing
Rubber industry
Food and fodder
Climate change
characterisation factor if
28 None None None
released into the
atmosphere, kg CO2-eq/
kg product
Carbon footprint of
common production
0.5 1.1 2.1 4.3
method,
kg CO2-eq/ kg product

12
2.5.1 Modelling hydrogenated CO2 utilisation

Modelling hydrogenated CO2 utilisation in this study takes into account using the products
described in Table 3, both as chemicals and as fuels. Figure 3 provides a representation of our
modelling. As in direct utilisation, the amendment of MSWI with CC reduces the net energy
recovery of the plant. The production of chemicals requires further amendment with chemical
production units. Sections 2.5.2-2.5.5 provide descriptions, inventories and energy requirements of
the chemical production units for methane, methanol, DME and formic acid. Moreover, the
production of methane, methanol and DME requires a unit producing hydrogen as described in
2.5.6.

Chemicals produced from CO2 from MSWI are assumed to substitute the same conventional
chemicals in the market. For all chemicals produced, we assume that they are of market quality after
separation from water and by-products. Climate change accounting credits the system for the
avoided production of conventional chemicals, as quantified for industrial processes using market
datasets from the Ecoinvent database. The avoided industrial processes in this case are primarily
fossil-based. We assume that the CO2 used in the chemical product is ultimately released into the
atmosphere within the period of the study. Therefore, we not only credit the CCU-based chemical
with avoided fossil emissions from the substituted chemical, but we also consider the load to
climate change from the fossil part of the CCU-based chemical. We assume that output water can
be discharged or reused in other parts of the integrated plant after minor treatment (treatment is not
included in the inventories). The oxygen produced as by-product can be sold on the market and
substitute for commercially produced oxygen. We assume that 60% of the heat generated during
both chemical and hydrogen production is used in other processes or made available for district
heating.

When utilised as fuels, the chemicals produced are combusted and CO2 is emitted into the
air. Climate change accounting credits the system for the avoided production and combustion of
fossil fuel (assumed natural gas), based on the energy content of the chemical. As part of the CCU-
based fuels relates to captured fossil CO2, the emission of the fossil CO2 from the CCU fuels is
considered a load in terms of climate change.

13
 Hydrogenated utilization of CO2: chemicals

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Heat Heat production

Waste
Avoided burden

MSWI plant CC H2 Synth

Materials
Material production
(by-products)
Chemical
MSWI with CCU, hydrogenated use Chemical production
(product)
Avoided burden

Energy Materials

Hydrogenated utilization of CO2: fuels

Flue gas

Electricity Electricity production

Heat Heat production

Waste
Avoided burden

MSWI plant CC H2 Synth

Materials
Materials production
(by-products)
Chemical Avoided burden
MSWI with CCU, hydrogenated use (fuel)

Energy Materials
Combustion

Combustion

Fuel
Avoided burden

Figure 3. Conceptual modelling of hydrogenated CO2 utilisation used in this study. The upper part
of the figure represents the use of products as chemicals; the lower part shows their use as fuels.
MSWI is amended with CC, chemical (“synth”) and hydrogen (H2) production units. Chemical
production avoids the conventional production of the same chemicals in the market (methane,
methanol, DME and formic acid). Materials are by-products as hydrogen, oxygen and water. Fuel
production avoids provision, combustion and air emissions from fossil fuels. Heat is recovered only
in MSWI B.

14
2.5.2 Methane production

Methane is produced from H2 and CO2 by the Sabatier reaction (4 H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2 H2O) via
heterogeneous catalysis, usually involving nickel (Reiter and Lindorfer, 2015). The process often
takes place at 6-7 bar and 180-350°C (Reiter and Lindorfer, 2015), and the overall process is
exothermic (∆Ho298K = -165 kJ/mol, Bahari et al., 2019). The inventory is shown in Table 4. The
stoichiometric ratio of CO2 to methane in the Sabatier reaction is 2750 kg CO2 per 1000 kg methane
produced, and thus an approximate 8% loss of CO2. We account for the fossil part of this loss. Since
methane is a very strong greenhouse gas, losses in the process could make a strong contribution to
climate change impacts. We assume that any loss of methane is negligible since we have no specific
data.

2.5.3 Methanol production

Methanol is produced from CO2 and H2 by a catalytic process (CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH + H2O).
Some of the CO2 is reduced by H2 to CO, which is fed back to the reactor after methanol
condensation and subsequently reacts with H2 to form CH3OH. The reactor (BASF FlexSynthesis)
is operated with a catalyst (Cu/ZnO/Al2O3) at 235°C and 40-80 bars in multiple cycles to ensure full
CO2 conversion (≈ 95%) (Schweitzer et al., 2019). Other catalysts have also been suggested
(Alvarez et al., 2017). The overall reaction is exothermic (∆Ho298K = -49.5 kJ/mol, Alvarez et al.,
2017). The inventory is shown in Table 4. We neglect any by-products that may be produced (e.g.
ethanol).

2.5.4 DME production

DME is produced by dehydrating methanol over a solid acid catalyst (2 CH3OH → CH3OCH3 +
H2O; Al2O3 catalyst), and thus also from CO2 and H2 according to the overall reaction 2 CO2 + 6 H2
→ CH3OCH3 + 3H2O. Several catalysts have been investigated for the overall process (Alvarez et
al., 2017). The overall reaction is exothermic (∆Ho298K = -123.0 kJ/mol). The inventory is shown in
Table 4.

2.5.5 Formic acid production

Formic acid (HCOOH) or formate (HCOO-) can be obtained from CO2 and H2 via an
electrochemical or a catalytic process, both of which are still under development, primarily in the
laboratory or in pilot tests. A few technologies are at a technology readiness level (TRL) of 3-5,
according to Pérez-Fortes et al. (2016).
In the electrochemical process, CO2 and H2O are fed to the cathode, where CO2 is reduced
to HCOO- (formate) and H2O to OH-. At the anode, H2O is split into O2 and H+. The products
migrate through the membranes to a central compartment, where they form HCOOH (formic acid)
and H2O. The overall reaction is CO2 + 2H2O → HCOOH + O2 + H2 (Rumayor et al., 2018). We

15
neglect any side reactions and assume that, regardless of pH in the half-cells, water is the hydrogen
source and that the electrolytes used are recovered and recycled. Three processes follow: (i)
unreacted CO2 is separated and fed back to the cathode, and H2O formed in the central compartment
is reused, (ii) H2 as well as O2 are liquefied and considered marketable products and (iii) the
HCOOH (10-20% wt) is distillated to 85% wt to match market demands. Heating, cooling,
compression and distillation are part of the process inventory (see inventory for a recirculated
process in Table 4). The lifetime of the electrodes is high enough to ignore their contribution to
climate change (e.g. Rumayor et al., 2019).
For the catalytic process, technologies differ according to the type of catalyst used (Alvarez
et al. (2017), i.e. (i) an unsupported and supported bulk/nanometal catalyst or (ii) a heterogenised
molecular catalyst. The first category primarily uses Pd, Au or Ru as the catalyst, H2 pressures at
10-40 bar, CO2 pressures at 0-20 bar and temperatures in the range 20-100°C. The second category
primarily uses Ru or Ir as the catalyst, H2 pressures at 10-90 bar, CO2 pressures at 10-90 bar and
temperatures in the range 80-120°C. Pérez-Fortes et al. (2016) describe a patented process for the
catalytic manufacture of formate, including the required electrolyzer producing the H2. Rumayor et
al. (2018) used part of this inventory in a comparison with the electrochemical process.
We were not able to create a consistent inventory for the catalytic production of formic acid
from CO2 and H2, and thus we focus on the electrochemical process, in which net water use is 1.32
litres per kg of formic acid produced. We assume that both formic acid and oxygen (by-product)
achieve market quality. The inventory is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Inventory for the production of methane, methanol, DME and formic acid from CO2 (see
text for references)
1000 kg product Methane Methanol DME Formic acid
Inputs
CO2 (kg) 3000 1450 2000 1000
H2 (kg) 500 190 260 0
H2O (kg) 0 0 0 1410
Electricity (kWh) 60a 20a 30a 12000
Steam/heat (GJ) 0 0 0 26
Outputs
Product (kg) 1000 1000 1000 1000
H2O (kg) -reusable 2500 570 1175 180
H2 (kg) – byproduct 0 0 0 92
O2 (kg) -byproduct 0 0 0 1090
CO2 (kg) - loss 250 75 85 40
Heat/steam (GJ) 9.0b 1.4c 2.5d 0
a
Own estimate
b
10.3 based on molecular reaction
c
1.55 based on molecular reaction
d
2.68 based on molecular reaction

16
2.5.6 H2 production

Hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis of water (2 H2O → 2 H2+ O2). Three technologies are
available: alkaline electrolysis (AEC), polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis (PEMEC) and
solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC). The first two technologies are commercially available, while the
SOEC technology is just beginning to enter the market. We use the AEC technology as described
by Reiter and Lindorfer (2015).
The inventory for the AEC technology is shown in Table 5. The AEC operates typically at
1-40 bar and 50-80°C. Deionised water (for example after reverse osmosis) amended with
potassium hydroxide (KOH) is used as the electrolyte (Reiter and Lindorfer, 2015). After separation
from water, hydrogen and oxygen are compressed for storing and further processing. We assume
that oxygen (by-product) achieves market quality. Net water use is approximately 9.6 litres per kg
of hydrogen produced.

Table 5. Inventory for the electrochemical production of hydrogen (based on Reiter and Lindorfer,
2015).

Flows for production of 1000 kg of H2 Hydrogen production (AEC electrolysis)

Inputs
H2O k(g) 16800
Electricity (kWh) 58000
Outputs
H2 (kg) 1000
H2O (kg) 7200
O2 (kg) 8400
Heat/steam (GJ) 62.4

17
2.6 Energy system modelling

The MSWI technology connects closely to the energy system in terms of energy used by the process
and in terms of energy recovered as electricity and heat, depending on the MSWI technology.
Introducing CCU as a post-treatment process significantly affects the energy balance of the MSWI;
CC makes significant use of steam/heat (Bisinella et al., 2020). Likewise, the production of
chemicals requires electricity and often heat. The production of hydrogen required to make
chemicals for hydrogenated CO2 utilisation uses large amounts of electricity and produces a
significant amount of heat. Connecting the amended processes closely to the electricity/steam/heat
cycle of the MSWI is beneficial for the net exchange of electricity, heat and products from the
MSWI plant when amended with CCU.

The potential benefits of energy recovery depend on the energy system in which the MSWI
operates. Usually, an MSWI plant is a net producer of energy and thus contributes to savings in
climate change impacts, if substituting for fossil-based energy. However, since CCU technologies
may operate for more than 30 years after their introduction, we expect that the energy system will
change towards increasingly non-fossil-based energy sources during its operational lifetime. In an
expanding electricity market, the marginal technology affected by MSWI electricity recovery is
invested to meet future demands, such as wind turbines and solar panels. Some countries may also
struggle to meet the politically set targets for reducing fossil electricity and thus will embrace any
possibility available to close existing plants based on fossil energy; this could suggest that fossil-
based technologies could also be affected technologies. While the electricity market is typically
regional, national or even cross-national, the steam and heat markets are local, as steam and heat
cannot be transported over large distances. Thus, the future steam and heat markets, in addition to
regulations and prices, also depend highly on local factors such as the presence of potential steam-
demanding industries or a large public district heating grid.

Developments in the regional electricity market and the local heat market cannot be
predicted with a reasonable level of accuracy, nor can one prediction be generally applicable to a
European context. We therefore take into account potential changes in the energy system by using
five potential energy scenarios that range from fossil-based energy systems (e.g. 1.1 kg CO2-
eq/kWh for electricity based on coal; 0.09 kg CO2-eq/MJ heat based on oil) to non-fossil-based
energy systems (e.g. 0.021 kg CO2-eq/kWh for electricity based on off-shore wind power; 0.009 kg
CO2-eq/MJ heat based on electricity-driven heat pumps). This corresponds to 50- and 10-fold
reductions in climate impacts for electricity and heat, respectively, between fossil-based and green
energy systems. The energy scenarios are described in Table S2 in the SM. As the “baseline”
energy system for presenting the results, before assessing the changes induced by operating the
MSWI with CCU in different energy systems, we use 0.205 CO2-eq/kWh for electricity and 0.022
kg CO2-eq/MJ heat (SM, Table S2, energy scenario 3). We did not link the energy scenarios to
specific years in the future, but rather represented potential relevant scenarios within the lifetime of
the CCU technology (the next 30 years). The different energy scenarios estimate the potential
effects on climate change of different interactions between MSWI and an energy system, for

18
example due to geographical location (e.g. northern or southern Europe) or due to planned
developments of the energy system within the lifetime of the amended CCU technology.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of modelling the two MSWIs, with and without various technologies, for the utilisation
of captured carbon dioxide are presented in detail as well as summarized in the SM (Table S3 to
S13). The following paragraphs summarise and assess the main results.

3.1 Technical outcome

Both MSWI plants without CCU are net energy producers: MSWI A produces around 740 kWh
electricity per tonne MSW, and MSWI B produces around 620 kWh electricity and 7.8 GJ heat per
tonne MSW (Table S3, SM).

CC induces an energy penalty, since the MEA process uses part of the steam originally used
for electricity production. The penalty is around 250 kWh/tonne MSW for MSWI A (reducing net
electricity production by one-third) and around 300 kWh/tonne MSW for MSWI B (reducing net
electricity production by half). Plant B has in addition a small reduction in net heat production by
6%, although we assume that 60% of the heat associated with the carbon capture process can be
recovered for district heating.

CC removes for each of the two plants 823 kg CO2 per tonne MSW, of which 317 kg is of
fossil origin and 505 kg of biogenic origin. This is directly governed by the carbon content of the
waste and the efficiency of the MEA process. Thus, the plants are still emitting CO2 of biogenic as
well as fossil origin, corresponding to the 15% CO2 not captured: 56 kg fossil CO2 and 89 kg
biogenic CO2 per tonne MSW.

Utilising the captured CO2 directly on the market, substituting for CO2 produced in other
processes, requires that the CO2 is compressed and ready for transport. Compression is also
included for the hydrogenated utilisation, in order to allow for short-term storage and optimal
conditions for the chemical synthesis. The electricity used for this step (65 kWh/tonne MSW) is
included in the abovementioned penalties.

On the other hand, the amount of electricity required to power the electrochemical processes
for utilising the captured CO2 as chemicals is significant. This leads to the significant import of
electricity into the MSWI plant, running as high as 6000-8000 kWh electricity per tonne MSW,
which is in the order of 10 times more than the amount of electricity the MSWI produces by
incinerating the waste. Table S4 in the SM shows negative net electricity production for CCU-
hydrogenated options, since they need to pull electricity from the grid. The hydrogenated CCU

19
produces heat, which MSWI B can utilise, as it already allows for heat recovery. In some cases
(MSWI B: methane, methanol and DME production), the recovered heat increases to 12-14 GJ per
tonne MSW, which corresponds to a 50% increase in net heat production.

Formic acid production is demanding in terms of both electricity and steam, but it
needs no hydrogen as a feedstock. We assume that recovering heat from the formic acid process,
plus the heat recovered prior to the hydrogenation step, can cover overall steam demand. This is a
coarse but necessary assumption, though, as we have no details about the specific technology used.
However, it does dictate some simplifications in the assumptions: MSWI B does not produce heat
when making formic acid, and producing formic acid is not relevant for the MSWI A plant, which
has no heat recovery system.

The amount of product obtained from 1 tonne of wet waste is in round numbers: methane
275 kg, methanol 565 kg, DME 410 kg or 820 kg of formic acid. These products contain fossil
(39%) and biogenic (61%) carbon, thereby reflecting the carbon content of the waste.

Since we consider later on using methane, methanol and DME as fuels substituting for fossil
fuels, and they all in their production use hydrogen, which in itself is considered an alternative fuel,
it is of interest to report that methane contains 87% of the energy content of the hydrogen used for
its production, while methanol and DME contain 92%. Losses in terms of energy associated with
using the chemicals instead of hydrogen as a fuel are thus smaller for methanol and DME than for
methane. Formic acid has a very low energy density (see Table 3) and is not very useful as a
transportation fuel.

Hydrogenated CCU has by-products, since the production of hydrogen by electrolysis

produces 900-1100 kg of oxygen per tonne MSW. Formic acid production also produces about 75
kg of hydrogen per tonne MSW (in the electrochemical cell). We account for these two by-products
as well as the water used, but we disregard any other by-product that may appear.

3.2 Climate change impacts: contributions within a specific energy system

The climate change impacts of introducing CCU at the two MSWI plants in the baseline energy
scenario (scenario 3; 0.21 kg CO2-eq/kWh electricity; 0.02 kg CO2-eq/GJ heat) are shown in Figure
4 and summarised in Tables 6 and 7. Complete results are provided in the SM.
In the baseline energy system (energy scenario 3), the MSWI without CCU is a net load in
terms of climate change (221 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI A and 65 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW
for MSWI B), since the avoided burdens from the recovered energy do not counterbalance the CO2
emissions from waste incineration (323 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW). MSWI B presents a lower net
burden in terms of climate change impacts, due to the recovery of heat.

20
 The introduction of CC for the further use of the CO2 reduces the benefits from energy
recovery by around 50 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI A, and by 70 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for
MSWI B, but it considerably lowers the impact due to CO2 emitted by incinerating the waste to 65
kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW. The net climate change impacts for MSWI A and B depend on the
utilisation options for the captured CO2.
In direct utilisation, the captured CO2 has a fossil carbon content of 317 kg CO2-eq/tonne
MSW, which we assume is released within the time scope of the study, regardless of the direct
utilisation option. The benefits from direct utilisation thus highly depend on whether the use of the
captured CO2 (local or market-based) and the product it substitutes (fossil or biogenic) can
compensate this emission. The highest net benefits in terms of climate change (in the order of -600-
740 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW) are obtained when CO2 is directly used locally to substitute for the
production of CO2 from combusting a fossil fuel. If local use substitutes a biogenic fuel instead, the
benefits are halved, and only MSWI B offers a modest net saving in terms of climate change (-30
kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW), due to heat recovery. Using CO2 on the market avoids CC in some
industrial process, but it causes the release of the industrial CO2 by-product into the atmosphere.
This is a net load for climate change when the industrial process is fossil fuel-based (730-860 kg
CO2-eq/tonne MSW), and a net saving only for MSWI B (-100 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW). When the
CC is not present at the industrial level, and CO2 is a by-product of a biogenic product, both MSWI
plants exhibit net loads to climate change (40-150 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW).
In hydrogenated utilisation, the captured CO2’s fossil carbon content varies according to the
product at around 300 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW. Production of chemicals has high burdens due to the
energy required for hydrogen production (methane, methanol and DME, with 1300-1600 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW) or for the synthesis process (formic acid, 2000 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW). The
benefits derive from the avoided production of chemicals from fossil sources and the emission of
their fossil carbon content, as well as the recovery of oxygen and hydrogen by-products (when
present). MSWI B with hydrogenated utilisation recovers additional heat from the synthesis of
chemicals, with the exception of formic acid, whereby we assume that MSWI B can internally
provide heat. The avoided production and use of fuels provides fewer benefits than the avoided
production and use of chemicals.
Using methanol and DME as chemicals provides net climate change benefits for both plants
(-500-750 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI A and -740-1000 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI
B). All hydrogenated utilisation options are net savings for MSWI B, due to the heat recovered. The
highest saving for MSWI B occurs when using formic acid as a chemical (around 3000 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW). When used as a fuel, all the hydrogenated utilisations in both plants are close to
neutral with respect to climate change, except for formic acid, which is a net load (around 1000 kg
CO2-eq/tonne MSW).
In all cases, the benefits of recovering and utilising the by-product oxygen from hydrogen
production is significant, i.e. of the order of 700 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW. If utilising this large
amount of oxygen is not realistic (around 900 kg O2/tonne MSW), the by-product does not provide

21
any savings, and all the results will change toward the higher climate change impacts. For example,
in all cases, fuel production will have much higher climate impacts than the original MSWI plants.

22
Table 6. Net climate change impacts for MSWI A, without CCU and with CCU, for direct and
hydrogenated utilisation scenarios. Hydrogenated utilisation results are presented with and without
a market for the oxygen by-product. Green: higher benefits (> 100 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW) than
reference MSWI, red: higher loads (> 100 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW); yellow: within ± 100 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW from reference MSWI. ES refers to energy scenarios (1 is fossil based, 5 is wind
power and heat pumps)
MSWI A Climate change impacts kg CO2-eq/tonne
ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4 ES 5
Utilisation scenarios
(Baseline)
MSWI: Reference
Power only, 739 kWh/tonne ww -392 -148 221 307 359
MSWI + CCU: Direct utilisation of CO2, local
100% substitution of fossil-based CO2 -1010 -849 -605 -548 -514
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2 -291 -130 114 171 205
MSWI + CCU: Direct utilisation of CO2, market
100% substitution of fossil-based CO2 456 617 861 917 952
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2, avoided CC -367 -206 38 94 129
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2 -120 41 285 341 376
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of chemicals, market for by-products
Methane 6388 3920 187 -680 -1211
Methanol 4286 2381 -501 -1171 -1581
DME 3995 2106 -752 -1416 -1822
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of chemicals, no market for by-products
Methane 7267 4798 1066 198 -333
Methanol 4977 3071 190 -480 -890
DME 4681 2791 -66 -730 -1137
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of fuels, market for by-products
Methane 6376 3908 176 -692 -1223
Methanol 4915 3009 128 -542 -952
DME 4867 2977 120 -544 -951
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of fuels, market for by-products
Methane 7255 4787 1054 187 -344
Methanol 5606 3700 819 149 -261
DME 5552 3663 805 141 -265

23
Table 7. Net climate change impacts for MSWI B, without CCU and with CCU, for direct and
hydrogenated utilisation scenarios. Hydrogenated utilisation results are presented with and without
a market for the oxygen by-product. Green: higher benefits (> 100 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW) than
reference MSWI, red: higher loads (> 100 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW); yellow: within ± 100 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW from reference MSWI. ES refers to energy scenarios (1 is fossil based, 5 is wind
power and heat pumps)
MSWI B Climate change impacts kg CO2-eq/tonne
ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4 ES 5
Utilisation scenarios
(Baseline)
MSWI: Reference
Combined heat and power, 618 kWh/tonne ww and 7.9 GJ/tonne ww -974 -605 65 137 291
MSWI + CCU: Direct utilisation of CO2, local
100% substitution of fossil-based CO2 -1497 -1237 -740 -703 -577
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2 -778 -518 -21 16 142
MSWI + CCU: Direct utilisation of CO2, market
100% substitution of fossil-based CO2 -31 228 726 763 889
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2, avoided CC -854 -595 -97 -60 66
100% substitution of biogenic-based CO2 -608 -348 150 187 313
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of chemicals, market for by-products
Methane 5305 3075 -99 -987 -1334
Methanol 3393 1680 -739 -1429 -1685
DME 3092 1398 -992 -1676 -1927
Formic acid 1446 -318 -3025 -3624 -4030
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of chemicals, no market for by-products
Methane 6184 3953 779 -108 -455
Methanol 4084 2371 -48 -738 -994
DME 3778 2084 -307 -991 -1242
Formic acid 2130 367 -2341 -2940 -3346
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of fuels, market for by-products
Methane 5294 3063 -111 -998 -1346
Methanol 4021 2309 -111 -800 -1056
DME 3964 2270 -121 -805 -1056
Formic acid 5480 3716 1009 410 4
MSWI + CCU: Hydrogenated utilisation of CO2, production of fuels, no market for by-products
Methane 6172 3942 768 -120 -467
Methanol 4712 3000 580 -109 -365
DME 4649 2955 565 -120 -370
Formic acid 6164 4401 1693 1094 688

24
Figure 4. Climate change impacts for MSWIs A and B, without CCU and with CCU, for direct and
hydrogenated utilisation scenarios. The figure shows the contribution of processes illustrated in
Figures 1-3 (same colours) to the net results (black diamonds).

25
3.3 Climate change impacts: net results in transient energy systems

The climate change impacts presented above for a specific energy system have also been quantified
for the same technological combinations and utilisations for four other energy systems. The energy
systems included thereby represent a transition from fossil to non-fossil-based energy systems and
thus help assess how the climate change impacts of CCU amendments depend on the interaction
between the energy system and the MSWI. The relevance of this connection is the high amount of
energy (electricity and heat) associated with MSWI, CC, hydrogen production and the synthesis of
chemicals. The affected energy system may differ from the average energy system in a country and
over time, depending on national energy policies and the national success in meeting the set
political targets. Tables 6 and 7 summarise the net results, whilst Figure 5 shows climate change
results as ranges representing different CCU options.
MSWIs without CCU (dashed lines in Figure 5) show a significant change in climate change
impact as the energy system becomes fossil-free. In a fossil-based energy system, the MSWI plants
constitute a saving in climate change of the order of 400 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI A, and
1000 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW for MSWI B. However, as the energy system becomes fossil-free, the
credit for the net recovered energy diminishes, and the MSWI then becomes a net contributor to
climate change. In energy scenario 5, MSWI contributes with 300-350 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW, and
the fossil carbon content constitutes an upper limit for the climate change load (373 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW). This clearly shows that the climate change impact of MSWI highly depends on the
interaction with the energy system. It is beyond the scope of this paper to assess specifically how
MSWI is currently contributing to climate change, but it is certain that the net climate change
burden increases and asymptotically reaches the fossil carbon content in the incinerated MSW, as
the energy systems become less fossil-based.
Figure 5 shows that the direct local substitution of fossil-based CO2 always provides better
climate change impacts than MSWI without CCU. However, this may be a rather limited option,
due to the low availability of local direct utilisation and seasonal variations in CO2 demand. In
contrast, direct substitution on the market may lead to increased climate change impacts compared
to MSWI without CCU, depending on the fossil or biogenic origin of the CO2 by-product of the
industrial process affected in the market. In general, climate change impacts as a result of direct
CCU increase in non-fossil energy systems.
In Figure 5, hydrogenated CO2 utilisation offers the largest variation in climate change
impacts across energy scenarios, for both chemicals and fuels. The ranges for hydrogenated
utilisation are greater from MSWI B, since MSWI A does not produce formic acid. Dashed green
and blue ranges represent the hydrogenated CO2 utilisation results without a market for oxygen by-
products, which is extremely relevant for the magnitude of the results (700-900 kg CO2-eq/tonne
MSW). The hydrogenated utilisations have very high climate change impacts (3000-7000 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW) in fossil-based energy systems (energy scenarios 1 and 2), making them
unattractive as a means of reducing the climate change impact of waste incineration. Conversely,
the hydrogenated utilisations become attractive and provide high net savings (1000-4000 kg CO2-

26
eq/tonne MSW) in non-fossil-based energy scenarios (energy scenarios 4 and 5). In all cases,
utilisation as a fuel is less attractive than utilisation as a feedstock chemical.

3.4 Climate change impacts: choice of CCU technology

The choice of CCU technology for amending existing MSWI must consider many aspects, such as
technological readiness and robustness, cost, fit to existing MSWI, safety, future markets for
products and environmental impacts. If the emphasis is on climate change, our assessments suggest
that CCU can be attractive for reducing the associated impacts of MSWI, albeit with a technological
focus depending on the energy system in which the MSWI operates.
Hydrogenated utilisation as chemicals can provide the highest savings between all CCU
technologies. However, due to the use of high amounts of electricity, these CCU technologies are
only attractive if non-fossil electricity is available in large amounts, and so they may only be in
demand at some point in the future when the energy system is non-fossil. Direct utilisation with a
local focus on substituting fossil-based CO2 would be attractive within any energy system,
depending on the stability and the magnitude of CO2 demand throughout the year. We realise that
such a local utilisation may be limited in capacity, and so it must be carefully planned in order to
avoid increased climate change impacts from the induced release of fossil-based by-products. As
other industries are also likely to introduce CC, it is very hard to predict the future market for the
direct use of CO2.
Bisinella et al. (2020) showed that CCS is likely to improve the climate profile of an MSWI
by 500-800 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW, depending on the energy system (dotted line in Figure 5). This
suggests that storage could be an alternative to difficult or unattractive CO2 markets until the energy
system makes hydrogenated utilisation more desirable from a climate change perspective. CCS
provides savings on the same order of direct local utilisation and substitution of fossil fuel, for both
MSWI technologies and all energy systems.
Between hydrogenated utilisations, we find methanol and DME the most appealing options,
because both consistently show the best results in non-fossil energy systems as both chemicals and
fuels. Methane is in many scenarios less attractive because of its high hydrogen consumption and
the lower efficiency involved in transferring energy in the hydrogen to the product (87% for
methane, 92% for methanol and DME). In addition, methane has a very high greenhouse gas effect
in the case of fugitive losses (28 kg CO2-eq/kg CH4), and formic acid is attractive only if used as a
chemical with internally supplied process heat at the MSWI. Finally, the low energy intensity of
formic acid makes it technically less desirable as a transportation fuel.

27
Figure 5. Ranges of climate change impacts for CCU-amended MSWI A and MSWI B in different
energy scenarios (Table S2, SM). The ranges include the utilisation scenarios presented in Tables 6
– 7. Dashed lines represent climate change impacts for MSWIs without CCU, and dotted lines
represent climate change impacts for MSWIs with CCS (from Bisinella et al., 2020).

28
3.5 Robustness of the climate change impact assessment

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic assessment of the climate change impacts of
introducing CCU as a post-treatment technology to MSWI. Climate change evaluations at an early
development stage help identify critical aspects at both the technology and the system level; for
example, the high energy requirements of hydrogenated utilisation, the importance of the market for
CCU products and by-products, and the interaction with the energy system. However, due to the
lack of data, this early assessment builds on many assumptions and uses data obtained from
technologies applied in other areas and from small-scale experiments. Furthermore, it focuses on
climate change and not on other environmental impacts, due to a lack of complete inventories for
the modelled CCU technologies. In the following paragraphs, we discuss some of the main issues
believed to govern the robustness of the assessment.

3.5.1 Technical assumptions

While the inventories for modelling the MSWI plants build on full-scale plants, those used for
hydrogenated technologies are simplified and based on literature information. In particular, we
consider the inventory for the formic acid production uncertain, since little engineering information
is available and many assumptions were made about energy data.
The synthesis processes used in hydrogenated utilisations may be sensitive to the cleanliness
of the captured CO2 and may produce secondary organic compounds that need to be removed
before a marketable main product is ready. We have no detailed information from the literature
about these issues, and so we have not included them in our assessment. Cleaning gases and
products typically needs energy, which in turn will lower the energy recovery efficiency of the
CCU-amended MSWI and thus increase the climate change impact of the hydrogenated utilisation.
While this is not critical in non-fossil energy systems, it could be relevant in a transient energy
system where the net climate change impact of introducing CCU is close to neutral for
hydrogenated utilisations.
It is important to understand that in many cases the net climate change value is close to
neutral or not much different from the value for the MSWI without CCU, although it is calculated
as the difference between very high loads and very large savings. This means that significant
uncertainty about one of the contributions can shift the net result by several hundreds of kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW, and it also highlights that each contribution, i.e. loads as well as savings, should be
carefully assessed.
The technical outcomes in terms of amounts of chemicals produced show that the chemical
synthesis plant for utilization of the captured CO2 is of large size. With an incineration capacity of
450,000-500,000 tonnes MSW per year, the amount of chemicals produced could be of the order of
140,000 – 410,000 tonnes per year, depending on the chemical product, with additional by-products
amounts being equally high.

29
3.5.2 Hydrogen production

The analysis shows that large amounts of hydrogen are needed to produce chemicals from the
captured CO2: 137 kg H2 for producing methane, and 108 kg H2 for producing methanol or DME
from 1 tonne of MSW. We have assumed that the electrolysis of water requires 58 kWh/kg H2,
leading to the consumption of electricity at 6000-8000 kWh/tonne MSW. Below, we have
quantified how more energy-efficient hydrogen manufacture reduces climate change impacts by
improving traditional electrolysis technology or by using alternative technologies.

Energy consumption involved in alkaline electrolysis depends on the size of the system, the
load and the actual technology, with around a 20% difference in energy consumption. We have
redone the calculations using 48 kWh/H2 (corresponding to a 17% saving in electricity
consumption). Hydrogen production can also be achieved through polymer electrolyte membrane
electrolysis (PEMEC) and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC). PEMEC typically has higher energy
consumption than alkaline electrolysis (61-81 kWh/kg H2), while the SOEC may have lower energy
consumption (34-38 kWh/kg H2). We have also redone the calculations, using 38 kWh electricity
per kg H2 – assuming SOEC is available in the future.

The above reductions in electricity consumption for hydrogen production, by respectively 10

and 20 kWh/kg H2, reduce total electricity use per tonne MSW by approximately 1100-1400 and
2200-2800 kWh. This corresponds, respectively, to 770-980 and 1540-1960 kg CO2-eq/tonne
MSW, if the electricity used is based on fossil sources such as natural gas (0.7 kg CO2/kWh), and
100-125 and 200-250 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW, if the electricity is based on non-fossil sources such
as solar power (0.09 kg CO2/kWh). Lower electricity use for hydrogen production encourages
significant reductions in overall climate change impacts, and while it does not change the general
conclusion in fossil-based energy systems, it makes fuels production more attractive in non-fossil
energy systems.

3.5.3 Electricity demand of hydrogenated utilisation

The climate change results for introducing CCU depend strongly on the energy system in which the
MSWI operates (Figure 5). In particular, hydrogenated utilisation can range from burdens of 5000
kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW, to savings of -2000 kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW. This dramatic change is
primarily due to climate change impacts connected to electricity use in hydrogen production. With
5000 kWh/tonne MSW of electricity pulled from the grid for CCU, an incinerator treating 500,000
tonnes of waste per year (generating approximately 500,000 tonnes of CO2) must therefore import
about 2500 GWh electricity per year. It is thus important to assess this high electricity demand in
the context of where the MSWI operates.
In Denmark, a good land-based wind turbine delivers about 10 GWh electricity per year.
This suggests that the CCU at a large incinerator may need electricity from 250 wind turbines,

30
corresponding to the electricity used by 600,000 family houses using around 4000 kWh per year. If
we assume an average of three persons per family home, and 270 kg per person of waste incinerated
annually, the MSWI plant will use the same amount of electricity as the amount of electricity used
domestically by the number of people it services with waste management. Exchange with the
electricity grid is by no means ignorable, and it cannot be assumed that the incinerator uses average
electricity from the grid. Substituting fossil-based electricity in family homes, by introducing wind
turbines, provides per kWh higher savings than producing chemicals by CCU, and thus from a
societal point of view it may not make sense to use electricity for CCU until the general electricity
market is close to saturated with non-fossil electricity. This consideration is no different if the
incinerator company owns the wind turbines.
This suggests that in most countries, although progress has been made in changing the
energy system to renewables, CUU may not yet be attractive with respect to climate change. This
calls for a very careful analysis of how the electricity consumption of the CCU interacts with the
energy system throughout its lifetime.

3.5.4 Importance of present and future markets

The main climate change benefits achieved when amending MSWI with CCU are avoided
production and emissions from fossil-based industrial chemicals, substituted by the chemicals
produced by hydrogenating the MSWI-captured CO2. This is a reasonable approach in a fossil-
based energy system and in an energy system in its early transience, but it may be a somewhat
misjudged approach in a future non-fossil energy system, where the use of fossil carbon in general
is politically banned or strongly taxed.
We have no possibility of assessing the climate change impacts of producing organic
feedstock chemicals 30 years into the future, and thus we cannot quantify the future benefits from
hydrogenated CCU. A likely situation is that both technologies for producing hydrogen and
chemicals will develop and operate in the same way in the organic chemical industry, in industries
with CO2 as a by-product and in MSWIs equipped with CCU. The main difference between these
products will thus be access to large volumes of clean CO2, the cost of hydrogenation and the size
of the market, all of which are hard to predict. In this context, the use of hydrogenated MSWI-CO2
as a fuel could become a fallback opportunity, albeit not as attractive as use as a feedstock
chemical.
Oxygen is a by-product produced in large volumes when creating hydrogen. Figure 5
shows results with and without a market for oxygen. The differences are significant (700-900 kg
CO2-eq/tonne MSW) but most critical in energy systems in transience and when the chemicals are
used as fuels. We have not been able to find data on the size of the world market for oxygen, and
thus we cannot judge if it is likely that credits would be obtained in this regard. Consequently, this
is a significant weakness of the results, but one that currently cannot be avoided.

31
 3.5.5 Waste composition

The climate change results strongly depend on the fossil and biogenic carbon content of the
waste. Total carbon content and the CC efficiency determine the amount of CO2 available for direct
or hydrogenated utilisation, while fossil carbon content determines the long-term climate change
load as it is released from the products. Bisinella et al. (2020) assessed likely changes in the future
carbon content of MSW with more efficient source separation and the separate collection of
recyclables and organic waste. Changes in the results for CCS were of the order of 30 kg CO2-
eq/tonne MSW. Thus, in this study, we assumed that changes in waste composition would not
significantly affect the CCU results. However, we recommend using local data on waste
composition, in order to ensure an accurate evaluation of the climate change impacts of introducing
CCU as an amendment to MSWI.

3.6 Perspective on MSW incineration in Europe

CCU is still in the early development stage as an MSWI amendment, and full-scale examples are
extremely few in number. Considering climate change impacts, our analysis shows that CCU not
only reduces the climate change impacts of MSWI by reducing its CO2 emissions, but it has the
potential to attain net climate change benefits when functioning as a carbon supply (in the order of
several hundreds of kg CO2-eq/tonne MSW). The benefits from a carbon supply occur in non-fossil
energy systems supporting the production of hydrogen for the synthesis of feedstock chemicals.
However, in fossil-based energy systems, CCU is not attractive but CCS is more so, referring to
previously published results (Bisinella et al., 2020).
In a non-fossil energy system on a European level, assuming half of the European
incinerators operating with CCU, we could potentially improve the climate change impacts of
MSWI by more than 50 million tonnes CO2-eq per year. However, with current European energy
systems, it is impossible to make a general assessment of the potential climate change benefits of
CCU, due to its high electricity consumption and uncertainty about product markets.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) amendment for municipal solid waste incineration
(MSWI) is in its early development stage. MSWI-captured CO2 can be utilised directly or for the
hydrogenated production of chemicals. We suggest the synthesis of methane, methanol, dimethyl
ether (DME) and formic acid, all of which are both feedstock chemicals and fuels.
We provided herein a systematic methodology for the early quantification of the climate
change impacts of different CCU technologies, amended to two MSWI (power only and combined
power and heat recovery) and in five potential energy scenarios, in total 140 scenarios. Direct
utilisation options were modelled based on scenario analysis for the substituted product,

32
encompassing specific direct utilisation options. Modelling hydrogenated utilisation involved
building inventories on hydrogen production and chemical synthesis.
Despite the scarcity and uncertainty of the data, we quantified essential energy and material
requirements for each CCU technology amended to MSWI, as well as energy recovered and CCU
products and by-products. Carbon capture (CC) significantly reduces the energy recovery of MSWI,
which can decrease by 50%, depending on the MSWI technology. This effect is marginal compared
to the electricity requirement for the hydrogenated utilisation of the captured CO2 (more than
6000kWh/tonne MSW). Irrespective of MSWI technology, amendment with CCU may lower the
climate change impacts of MSWI and supply carbon for a range of uses. However, these climate
change benefits depend on the energy system in which the MSWI operates and on the product
substituted by the CCU product. In fossil-based energy systems, direct utilisation and local
substitution of fossil-based CO2 provide the greatest benefits, to the same order of magnitude of
storing the CO2 underground, while CCU in terms of hydrogenated chemicals is unattractive. In
non-fossil energy systems, hydrogenated utilisation as a feedstock chemical provides a high level of
benefits and is more desirable than producing fuels. Producing methanol or DME, to substitute for
the production of fossil-based feedstock chemicals, is the most promising option.
The energy scenario in which the MSWI operates, as well as future markets for CCU
products, limit the success of CCU amendment to MSWI, and high electricity consumption in this
regard will make hydrogenated utilisation an unattractive option until energy systems become
fossil-free. However, in this scenario, it is equally important to evaluate whether the substituted
feedstock chemicals are still fossil-based, and whether a market exists for oxygen, produced in large
volumes as a co-product. This article represents the first assessment in terms of climate change
impacts of CCU as amendment to MSWI. Future deliberate decisions on CCU alternatives should
also include assessment of other environmental impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the many fruitful discussions about CCU with Senior Consultants Dr.
Tore Hulgaard and Dr. Christian Riber at Rambøll Consulting, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Senior
Researcher Dr. Anders Damgaard, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University
of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. We also appreciate the contributions by Professor Mogens Bjerg
Mogensen, DTU Energy.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, A., Bansode, A., Urakawa, A., Bavykina, A.V., Wezendonk, T.A., Makkee, M., Gascon,
J., Kapteijn, F. (2017). Challenges in the Greener Production of Formates/Formic Acid,
Methanol, and DME by heterogeneously Catalyzed CO2 Hydrogenation Processes. Chemical
Reviews, 117, 9804-9838.

33
Astrup, T., Møller, J., Fruergaard, T. (2009): Incineration and co-combustion of waste: accounting
of greenhouse gases and climate change contributions. Waste Management & Research, 27, 789-
799.
Assen, N., Lampe, M., Müller, L., Bardow, A. (2015): Life-Cycle Assessment Principles for the
Integrated Product and Process Design of Polymers from CO2. In: Gernaey, K., Huusom, J.K.,
Gani, R (Eds.), 12th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering and 25th
European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering. 31 May – 4 June 2015,
Copenhagen, Denmark, p 1235- 1240.
Baena-Moreno, F.M., Rodríguez-Galán, M., Vega, F., Alonso-Fariñas, B., Arenas, L.F.V,
Navarrete, B. (2019): Carbon capture and utilization technologies: a literature review and recent
advances, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 41, 1403-
1433
Bahari, N., Isahak W., Roslam, W.N., Masdar, M. S., Yaakob, Z. (2019): Clean hydrogen
generation and storage strategies via CO2 utilization into chemicals and fuels: A review.
International Journal of Energy Research, 43, 5128-5150.
Andreasi Bassi, S., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A. (2017): Environmental performance of
household waste management in Europe - An example of 7 countries. Waste Management, 69,
545-557.
Benini, L., Mancini, L., Sala, S., Schau, E., Manfredi, S., Pant, R. (2014): Normalisation method
and data for Environmental Footprints - JRC Technical Reports.
Bisinella, V., Hulgaard, T., Riber, C., Damgaard, A, Christensen, T.H (2020): Carbon capture and
storage as post-treatment technology in waste incineration: an environmental assessment in a
European perspective. Waste Management (submitted)
Bisinella, V., Conradsen, K., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F. (2016) A global approach for sparse
representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management systems.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 378-394
Bringezu, S. (2014): Carbon recycling for renewable materials and energy supply. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 18, 327-339.
CEWEP (2020): www.cewep.eu. Accessed September 9th, 2020.
Christensen, T.H., Gentil, E., Boldrin, A., Larsen, A.W., Weidema, B.P. & Hauschild, M.Z. (2009):
C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and climate change potentials in LCA-modeling of waste
management systems. Waste Management and Research, 27, 707-715.
Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., Levis, J., Zhao, Y., Björklund, A., Arena, U., Barlaz, M.A.,
Starostina, V., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F., Bisinella, V. (2020). Application of LCA modelling in
integrated waste management. Waste Management 118, 313-322.
Clavreul, J., Baumeister, H., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A. (2014). An environmental assessment
system for environmental technologies. Environmental Modeling and Software, 60, 18–30.
Faraca, G., Tonini, D., Astrup, T. F. (2019). Dynamic accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from
cascading utilisation of wood waste, Science of the Total Environment, 651, part 2.
ISO (2006a). ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework, second ed. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.

34
ISO (2006b). ISO 14044: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements
and Guidelines, first ed., ISO; Geneva, Switzerland.
Leung. D. Y. C., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M.M. (2014): An overview of current status of
carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewal and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39,
426-439
Oreggioni, G.D., Singh, B., Cherubini, F., Guest, G., Lausselet, C., Luberti, M., Ahn, H.,
Strømman, A.H. (2017) Environmental assessment of biomass gasification combined heat and
power plants with absorptive and adsorptive carbon capture units in Norway. International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 57, 162-172.
Pérez-Fortes, M., Schöneberger, J.C., Boulamanti, A., Harrison, G., Tzimas, E. (2016) Formic acid
synthesis using CO2 as raw material: Techno-economic and environmental evaluation and
market potential. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41,16444-16462.
Pour, N., Webley, P.A., Cook, P.K. (2018): Potential for using municipal solid waste as a resource
for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control, 68, 1–15.
Reggioni, G. D., Singh, B., Hung, C., Spek, M. van der, Skagestad, R., Eldrup, N.H., Ramirez, A.,
Strømman, A.H. (2017): Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of oxyfuel and post-
combustion capture with MEA and AMP/PZ. Energy Procedia, 114, 6604-6611.
Reiter, G., Lindorfer, J. (2015): Climate change potential of hydrogen and methane production from
renewable electricity via power-to-gas technology. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 20, 477-489.
Rumayor, M., Dominguez-Ramos, A., Irabien, A. (2018) Formic acid manufacture: carbon dioxide
utilization alternatives. Applied Science, 8, 914
Rumayor, M., Dominguez-Ramos, A., Irabien, A. (2019) Environmental and economic assessment
of the formic acid electrochemical manufacture using carbon dioxide: Influence of the electrode
lifetime. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 72-82.
Schweitzer, C., Krause, F., Wranik, S., Hensel, R. (2019): Methanol Production at Waste-to-Energy
Plants. In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, S., Winter, F., Luchelkova, D (Eds.): Waste Management, Vol
9, Page 329-341. Thomé-Kozmiensky verlag GmbH, Berlin
Stengler, E. (2019): Waste-to-Energy Roadmap towards 2035. In: Thomé-Kozmiensky, S., Winter,
F., Luchelkova, D (Eds.): Waste Management, Vol 9, Page 3 -13. Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag
GmbH, Berlin
Tang, Y., You, F. (2018): Multicriteria environmental and economic analysis of municipal solid
waste incineration power plant with carbon capture and separation from a life-cycle perspective.
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 6, 937-956.
Thonemann, N., Pizzol, M. (2019) Consequential life cycle assessment of carbon capture and
utilization technologies within the chemical industry. Energy & Environmental Science 12,
2253.
Wernet G., Bauer C., Steubing B., Reinhard J., Moreno-Ruiz E., Weidema, B.P. (2019) Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess., 2016, 21, 1218–1230.

35