Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33664
Title: A comparative techno-economic and life cycle assessment of energy-from-waste technology integrated with carbon capture and storage
Authors: Aljoubory, Janna
Iacovidou, Eleni
Ng, Kok Siew
Keywords: energy-from-waste;carbon capture and storage;techno-economic assessment;life cycle assessment;energy recovery;waste management
Issue Date: 10-Jul-2026
Publisher: Elsevier
Citation: Aljoubory, 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.
Abstract: Rising 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.
Description: Data 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)]..
Rights 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.
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33664
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148920
ISSN: 0959-6526
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.