GHG Emission from Trucks During Collection of Solid Wastes: Çorlu Case Study

Year 2018, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 21 - 30, 01.12.2018

İbrahim Demir , Kadriye Elif Macin

Abstract

Kerbside collection is most
common method in Turkey for solid waste collection. Çorlu has increasing
population rate due to growing industrial activities and investments.
Information used in the study such as; average waste collection amount in a
month, truck properties (volume, engine power) and travelled distance during
waste collection were obtained from Çorlu Municipality. Total fuel consumption
of trucks during collection of 1-ton waste for      1-km is between 2.12-5.47 L diesel / ton
in Çorlu. Greenhouse gas emissions for different scenarios were calculated in
this study. First, GHG emission estimation done for same volume trucks using
different fuel types, second estimation done for trucks with the same engine power
using different fuel types. GHG emissions for Çorlu were calculated using
emission coefficients for; diesel, gasoline, heavy oil, light oil, natural gas
fuels from literature sources. Maximum emission is found as 35 kg CO₂-eq
/ton, in case of using heavy oil in the 3.5 m³ vehicle and minimum
emission is occurred  5,08 kg CO₂-eq
while using natural gas in 13+1,5 m³ truck. Contrary to
expectations, kg CO₂-eq / ton value (which is show the GHG emission
rate) is decrease while the engine power (horsepower) increases. It has been
determined that there are significant differences in GHG emissions when the
truck and/or fuel type are changed, even without changing factors such as
route, waste collection frequency and number of stops (number of containers).

Keywords

Emission, fuel type, greenhouse gas, waste collection

References

• Bolla V., Pendolovska V. 2011. General and regional statistics Environment and energy, Eurostat report.
• Belediye Kanunu, Kanun Numarası,2005.5393 Madde 15, g bendi.
• Diesel.net- Engine & emission technology. 2017. EU: Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Engines.
• Dr.GerDevlin, 2010. Fuel consumption of timber haulage versus general haulage. COFORD Dept. Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Agriculture House, Kildare Street Dublin 2, Ireland.
• Eisted R., A. W. Larsen, Thomas H. 2009. Christensen Collection, transfer and transport of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste Management & Research. 27 738–745
• Fruergaard T., Astrup T., Ekvall T. 2009. Energy use and recovery in waste management and implications for accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions, 2009. Waste Management & Research 27: 724–737
• İETT İşletmeleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2013. Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu.
• Iriarteab A., Gabarrellac X., Rieradevallac J.,2009. LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense urban areas. Waste Management 29(2): 903-914.
• Larsen AW, Vrgoc M, Christensen TH, Lieberknecht P. 2009. Diesel consumption in waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. Waste Management & Research 27(7):652-659.
• López J.M., Gómez Á., Aparicio F.and Sánchez J. 2009. Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid. Applied Energy. 86(5): 610-615.
• Öztürk İ, 2010. Katı Atık Yönetimi ve AB Uyumlu Uygulamaları Teknik Kitaplar Serisi Istaç.
• The International Energy Agency (IEA), 2016. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion- 2016 Highlights.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) 2015. Seragazı Emisyon İstatistikleri, 1990-2015.
• Usón A. , Ferreira G., Zambrana Vásquez D, Zabalza Bribián I, Llera Sastresa E. 2013. Environmental-benefit analysis of two urban waste collection systems. Sci Total Environ. 72 (7):463-464