Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33664
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAljoubory, Janna-
dc.contributor.authorIacovidou, Eleni-
dc.contributor.authorNg, Kok Siew-
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-07T08:33:21Z-
dc.date.available2026-08-07T08:33:21Z-
dc.date.issued2026-07-10-
dc.identifier.citationAljoubory, J., Iacovidou, E. and Ng, K.S. (2026) 'A comparative techno-economic and life cycle assessment of energy-from-waste technology integrated with carbon capture and storage', Journal of Cleaner Production, 572, 148920 , pp. 1–12 (+ 10 pp. supplementary material). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148920.en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0959-6526-
dc.identifier.urihttps://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33664-
dc.descriptionData availability: The data have been provided in the Supplementary Materials: Supplementary data: The following are the Supplementary data to this article: • Multimedia component 1. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959652626014617-mmc1.docx (Word document (97 KB)) [a PDF version is also archived below as MMC1.pdf (Acrobat PDF file (371 KB)]..en_GB
dc.descriptionRights retention statement: For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) Licence to any Accepted Author Manuscript version arising from this submission.en_GB
dc.description.abstractRising urbanisation and global population growth are projected to nearly double municipal solid waste (MSW) generation by 2050. Energy-from-waste (EfW) technologies recover energy from mixed waste streams, generating electricity and heat. However, for every tonne of MSW incinerated, 0.7–1.7 tonnes of CO₂ is emitted. Integrating carbon capture and storage (CCS) into EfW (EfW + CCS) presents a promising pathway to mitigate these emissions yet remains constrained by high costs and decreased energy efficiency. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of EfW + CCS, using a combined techno-economic and life cycle assessments approach. A thermodynamic steady-state model was developed in Aspen Plus to evaluate mass and energy balances for both standalone EfW and EfW + CCS. Results show that an EfW + CCS system with 250 ktpa capacity and 80% capture rate incurs a 35% energy penalty and increases capital (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) both by 30%. Additionally, the system results in a positive net present value, 2.7% return on investment and a levelised cost of electricity of £163/MWh, but extended payback period from 4.5 to 8.3 years compared to standalone EfW. The life cycle assessment results showed a 33% reduction in global warming potential (GWP), though monoethanolamine production and carbon capture infrastructure increased other impacts. This study suggests that the current carbon price of £49.4/t CO₂ is insufficient to incentivise CCS deployment, with a required subsidy estimated at £178/t CO₂ captured. Furthermore, ammonia use for NOₓ removal strongly influenced GWP and OPEX, with 60% NOₓ removal resulting in a reduction of 41% in GWP and increasing OPEX by 19% compared to standalone EfW.en_GB
dc.format.extentpp. 1–12 (+ 10 pp. supplementary material)-
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic-
dc.languageEnglishen_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.subjectenergy-from-wasteen_GB
dc.subjectcarbon capture and storageen_GB
dc.subjecttechno-economic assessmenten_GB
dc.subjectlife cycle assessmenten_GB
dc.subjectenergy recoveryen_GB
dc.subjectwaste managementen_GB
dc.titleA comparative techno-economic and life cycle assessment of energy-from-waste technology integrated with carbon capture and storageen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.dateAccepted2026-07-04-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148920-
dc.relation.isPartOfJournal of Cleaner Productionen_GB
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
pubs.volume572-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1786-
dcterms.dateAccepted2026-07-04-
dcterms.descriptionHighlights: • An 80% CO₂ capturerate imposes an energy penalty of 35% in EfW + CCS systems. • EfW CAPEX and OPEX increased by 30% with the addition of CCS. • EfW + CCS had a positive net present value and economic potential. • The addition of CCS decreased GWP by 33% in EfW systems. • Ammonia use for NOx removal in EfW systems strongly influenced GWP and OPEX.en_GB
dc.contributor.orcidAljoubory, Janna [0009-0001-4715-1477]-
dc.contributor.orcidIacovidou, Eleni [0000-0001-6841-0995]-
dc.contributor.orcidNg, Kok Siew [0000-0001-7689-2832]-
dc.identifier.number148920-
Appears in Collections:Department of Chemical Engineering Research Papers
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).4.95 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
MMC1.pdfCopyright © 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).370.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.