This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nigro, E.F. Articles by Ryder, W.C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nigro, E.F. Articles by Ryder, W.C. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

City of Chicago Refuse Disposal and Resource Recovery Techniques

Department of Streets & Sanitation, 121 North La Salle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 U.S.A.

W.C. Ryder

Department of Public Works, 320 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610, U.S.A.

This paper deals with a comparison of the two resource recovery systems most often utilized for refuse disposal in the United States; mass burn incineration and refuse-derived fuel. The City of Chicago has designed, constructed and operated facilities incorporating both of these systems.

The primary purpose of these facilities is the disposal of refuse. For either of these systems to be financially competitive with the most commonly used disposal method, sanitary landfill, resource recovery of materials and energy is an imperative.

Mass burn incineration utilizes a system of specially designed equipment to combust unprocessed refuse, i.e. without presorting or separation prior to firing. Products of resource recovery are ferrous metals and energy as steam, electricity and hot water.

Refuse-derived fuel production utilizes equipment borrowed from other industry applications to presort and size reduce refuse to derive a dry fuel for later firing, sometimes co-firing with other fuels, in utility or dedicated boilers. Products of resource recovery in this two stage process are similar to those of mass burn incineration with the possible addition of glass and aluminium depending on the availability of the market for these items.

The two systems are examined with regard to state of the art, economics, markets and management control.

Mass burning technology has proven to be reliable and efficient relative to maintenance, air pollution control and volume reduction of the solid waste.

The plant to produce refuse derived fuel was shut down following preliminary operation at 60% of its rated capacity because it was an economically unfeasible operation.

Key Words: Solid waste • landfills • mass burning • refuse-derived fuel (RDF) • resource recovery • economics • markets • management control • incineration.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?