UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS

Waste-to-Energy
Thermal Engineering I - Assignment

29-Jan-16

UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

E443 (Hons) BEng Mechanical Engineering (Minor: Energy Systems) Year 2

MECH 2011Y - Thermal Engineering I (Dr J Chummun)

ASSIGNMENT 1

Names of Students:

ID:

1. ROULLE Stevie
2. BEEHAREE Ridwaan
3. RAMRUCHA Tooshaar

1411638
1411754
1412420

Date of Submission: 29/01/16

Table of Contents
1.

2.

3.

4.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Problem definition ............................................................................................................ 2

Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 4

2.1

Thermal treatment ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2

Biological treatment ......................................................................................................... 5

Waste-to-energy: How it works? .......................................................................................... 6

3.1

Transportation .................................................................................................................. 6

3.2

Waste combustion ............................................................................................................ 7

3.3

Energy recovery ............................................................................................................... 8

3.4

Bottom ash recycling ........................................................................................................ 8

Research and analysis ........................................................................................................... 9

4.1

Environmental Effects of Municipal Wastes ................................................................... 9

4.2

Impact of WtE in our society ........................................................................................... 9

4.3

Nature of pollution associated with WtE ....................................................................... 11

4.4

Economic impact of day to day activities of WtE .......................................................... 11

4.5

Feasibility in Mauritius .................................................................................................. 12

4.5.1

Technical Feasibility and Operational Feasibility .................................................. 12

4.5.2

Economic Feasibility .............................................................................................. 13

4.5.3

Sustainability Feasibility......................................................................................... 13

4.6

Health & safety hazard ................................................................................................... 14

4.6.1

Fire hazards ............................................................................................................. 14

4.6.1

Toxic gas ................................................................................................................. 15

4.

4.6.2

Explosion hazards ................................................................................................... 15

4.6.3

Flare system function and features ......................................................................... 16

4.6.4

Hazards of the feed material ................................................................................... 16

4.6.5

Cross industry co-operation .................................................................................... 16

Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 18
4.1

Poo power ................................................................................................................... 18

4.2

Comparison .................................................................................................................... 19

5.

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 22

6.

References............................................................................................................................. 23

List of Figures
Figure 1: Composition of MSW in Mauritius ................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Waste pathway ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: Waste-to-energy process diagram ................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: The "poo bus" ................................................................................................................ 18

List of Tables
Table 1: Estimation of the amount of waste without recycling ...................................................... 1
Table 2: Solid waste input by type at Mare-Chicose landfill site, 2004 2013 ............................. 2
Table 3: Electricity generated in the US in 2003 .......................................................................... 19
Table 4: WtE & Fossil Fuel Power Plants - Comparison of Air Emissions ................................. 19
Table 5: Comparison between different energy sources ............................................................... 20

Abstract
In this paper, we will study a method of generating energy from waste, the Energy-from-Waste
method (also known as Waste-to-Energy) which involves the incineration of household and/or
industrial waste for energy production. With the global amount of waste increasing every year,
this eco-friendly way of recovering energy from waste could be beneficial to our society, not
only by getting rid of the waste but also provides a clean energy. The process begins by sending
the waste to transfer stations for compaction, and then the waste is sent to the WtE power plant,
where it is dropped in a bunker for incineration. From there, the waste is burnt in the furnace and
ammonia solution is added into the flue gas produced, so as to form nitrogen and water through
chemical reactions. Thus, steam is produced as hot flue gas travels through the boiler,
transferring heat to the running water in the boiler pipes. The steam is then passed through
turbines which drive an electric motor, to generate electricity. Some of the unburnt waste residue
can be treated and recycled into new products. We will also go through some impacts of this
energy source on the environment, as well as in the society. This technology contributes to
several impacts, both positively and negatively, in our society. Implementing these types of
facilities in Mauritius will not only create new jobs, but it will also help the country reduce the
transportation cost of waste to Mare-Chicose.

1. Introduction
1.1

Background

Waste products are generated by humans since their existence and those products are thrown
away as they were considered as worthless or useless. In the prehistoric times, the
population was small and the land was extensively available. Therefore, the disposal of
wastes did not cause any problem to the society but as the human population as well as the
wastes generated by them grew, the accumulation of junk became a serious consequence of
life. A study (Bringezu 2003, p43-64) reveals that a modern man consumes between 30 and
75 tons of material per person per year in their companies and households. Even if, materials
are used more methodically, the overall material consumption will never diminish.
Therefore, large quantity of waste will be generated in the future as it is now.
In Mauritius, the components of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) include food wastes, paper,
green wastes, textiles, rubber, plastic, glass, metals, wood, and inert materials (stones,
ceramics, ashes and so on). MSW may also include little amount of industrial and
construction wastes. The official average MSW generation in Mauritius is 1,200 tons/day.
The largest proportion of MSW consists of food and garden waste which is approximately
42-65 % in Mauritius. The contents of high recycling levels such as paper and metals are
very low.
Table 1: Estimation of the amount of waste without recycling (Karagiannidis, A, 2012)

Construction
Household Industrial
Household Commercial Industrial
and
Total
Year
Hazardous Hazardous
wastes
wastes
wastes
Demolition
wastes
wastes
wastes
wastes
340,078
70,314
71,159
64,938
1,701
28,134
576,324
2011
354,021
74,533
74,717
67,535
1,770
29,262
601,838
2012
368,536
79,005
78,453
70,237
1,843
30,437
628,511
2013
383,646
83,745
82,375
73,046
1,918
31,660
656,390
2014
399,375
88,770
86,494
75,968
1,997
32,934
685,538
2015
415,750
94,096
90,819
79,007
2,079
34,260
716,011
2016
432,796
99,742
95,360
82,167
2,164
35,641
747,870
2017
450,540
105,727
100,128
85,454
2,253
37,079
781,181
2018
469,012
112,070
105,134
88,872
2,345
38,577
816,010
2019
488,242
118,794
110,391
92,427
2,441
40,136
852,431
2020

One solution would be recycling. It consists of converting waste materials into new products
for further use. However, not all the solid waste can be recycled (about 25%), which results
in an accumulation of waste in landfills. However, not all the solid waste can be recycled
(about 25%), which results in an accumulation of waste in landfills. Another way to get rid
of the waste would be through composting, which is the purposeful biodegradation of
organics matter, which in our case is food waste.

1.2

Problem definition

Over the years, the amount of solid waste at the Mare-Chicose landfill has been continuously
increasing as shown in Table 1.2

Table 2: Solid waste input by type at Mare-Chicose landfill site, 2004 2013 (Islands, 2013)
Waste type
Domestic

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

365528 363776 387751 358781 373860 389999 402816 389743 365867 408858

Construction

6097

3,755

1,109

502

2065

671

2394

5306

5601

6141

Industrial

928

537

499

886

796

1170

1140

1565

680

325

Textile

2169

1803

2120

1271

1002

300

432

130

233

89

Tuna/Sludge

189

5913

8056

13077

12148

91266

10949

10402

7370

6963

Poultry

3962

3930

3752

3387

6867

7209

6339

5942

6061

5316

Rubber
tyres

423

394

465

223

347

365

481

447

372

315

Asbestos

36

85

14

260

32

26

44

15

50

1770

2114

3265

2036

2361

1164

1388

848

1573

1588

12

40

42

13

17

Paper waste

67

30

Others

6648

5918

1771

65

149

243

Condemned
goods
Difficult and
hazardous

Total

381114 382347 407039 387075 399488 415948 427802 414543 387926 429935

This rapid increase of solid waste is decreasing the lifespan of the Mare-Chicose landfill and
since there is other suitable site for the construction of a new landfill in Mauritius, the issue
of waste generation needs to be remediated.

2%
25%

Glass
Yard wastes
Textiles
Miscellaneous
45%

3%

Gravels

Paper

3%

Plastics
Metal
Kitchen wastes

10%
5%

5%

2%

Figure 1: Composition of MSW in Mauritius (Source: Solid wastes as a potential energy source, 2006)

With about 80% of the MSW being organic (yarn, food and paper) as shown in Figure 1,
several biological waste management options such composting and anaerobic digestion, and
thermal treatment options can be considered. The remaining 20% of the MSW are more
suitable for recycling.
In Mauritius, composting and recycling are the most common methods used for wastes
disposal. Solid Waste Recycling Ltd (SWRL) constructed and runs a successful composting
plant at La Chaumire. However, about 77% of total wastes (plastics, metals, textile, glass
and others) received at the composting plant are non-compostable and they need to be
managed.
What is if instead of recycling and composting, there was another way to reduce these wastes
in a more efficient way? Modern technologies can now generate energy in the form of heat,
through the incineration of wastes. Waste-to-energy (WtE) is process of generating energy
from the primary treatment of waste.
[Source: Solid Waste Recycling Ltd (Project Brief)]
3

2. Literature Review
Waste-to energy technologies convert waste products into different forms of fuel that can be
used to generate energy. The waste feedstock may include MSW, agricultural waste,
construction and demolition debris and other facilities. Energy can then be derived from
waste that has been treated and changed into fuel. Waste-to-energy technologies that
produce fuels are also known as waste-to-fuel technologies. Advanced waste-to-energy
technologies can be used to produce biogas (methane and carbon dioxide), syngas (hydrogen
and carbon monoxide), liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), or pure hydrogen. The
primary categories of technology used for WtE conversion are mainly the thermal methods
and the biological methods (See Figure 2).

Figure 2: Waste pathway (Source: http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/tag/solid-waste/)

2.1

Thermal treatment

This technology uses heat to treat wastes. This may include the following:

Combustion:
MSW can be directly burnt in WtE incinerators as a fuel with minimal processing,
through a process called mass burn. The heat generated from the combustion is used
to vaporize water into steam, which is used to power a steam-turbine generator to
produce electricity. Some may argue that incinerating waste for energy production
may release pollutants into the atmosphere; however, new technologies provide ways
of generating energy from waste that deal with the pollution concerns around
incineration.
4

2.2

Pyrolysis and thermal gasification:

Pyrolysis is the thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated
temperatures in the absence of oxygen (or any halogen), producing a mixture of
combustible gases, liquids and solid residues. Low-temperature pyrolysis can be used
to produce a synthetic diesel fuel. A beneficial byproduct of pyrolysis is a charcoal
type material called biochar, which can be used as a fertilizer and for carbon
sequestration. On the other hand, thermal gasification of waste takes place in the
presence of limited amounts of oxygen. Incineration converts the input waste into
energy, whereas pyrolysis and thermal gasification produce fuel which can be
transported and stored for later use.

Biological treatment

Biological waste-to-energy technologies involve the use of microbes or other organisms to

produce fuel from wastes and they include:

Anaerobic digestion:
The biogas produced by anaerobic digestion can either take place naturally, or in a
controlled condition such as in a biogas plant. The process begins by placing the
waste and various types of bacteria in an airtight container called a disgester.
Advanced disgester systems can then produce biogas with a high content (about 95%)
of pure methane. The biogas can then either be burned directly in boilers to generate
energy or it can be treated and supplied as natural gas.

Fermentation:
Waste to energy technology includes fermentation, which converts biomass into
liquid ethanol. In the fermentation process, the sugar present in waste is changed into
carbon dioxide and alcohol, in the absence of air. Esterification can also be done
using WtE technologies and the result would be biodiesel.

3. Waste-to-energy: How it works?

Waste-to-energy offers a safe, technologically advanced means of waste disposal while
generating a green and renewable energy, while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
Figure 3 shows a brief description of the processes used in a WtE plant.

Figure 3: Waste-to-energy process diagram (Source: SITA Isle of Man)

3.1

Transportation

As the amount of the MSW increases and the travel distances to their treatment facilities
increase, the cost of direct transportation by the collection vehicles becomes increasingly
expensive. However, the use of transfer stations can reduce the transportations expenditure.
Those stations receive the waste from collection vehicles, and transfer it to larger vehicles
such as large trucks; tractor-trailers or railroad cars for economic long distance
transportation. Also, incorporating a waste compressor to those transfer stations would be a
plus, as this reduces the transportation costs enabling the howl vehicles to transport much
heavier loads.
There are three types of transfer stations:

Transfer stations without waste compression

Transfer Station with Mobile Compactor Units
Transfer Stations with Compactor Units

3.2

Waste combustion

The waste collected is first discharged in a bunker where it is mixed to ensure even burning
throughout the combustion process in the furnace. The waste is then moved inside the
furnace, by a series of grate bars, where it is dried and burnt at temperatures above 1000C.
The combustion system involves a seven staged air supply to optimize the process and to
make sure that complete combustion takes place.
The bottom ash from the grate is dropped into a slag extractor where it is cooled with water.
The cooled ash is then discharged onto a vibrating conveyer and is collected in the ash pit as
shown in Figure 3.1. Metal residues are recovered using the over band magnet for recycling.
Ammonia solution is injected into the flue gas produced by the combustion process. The
ammonia reacts with the nitrogen oxide present to form nitrogen and water. Some of the hot
flue gas travels through the boiler, transferring heat to the running water in the boiler pipes
and thus, produces steam.

Figure 4: Before and after combustion process (Source: Eric Nicholson, 2012 & LCSWMA)

3.3

Energy recovery

Power generation is achieved by passing the steam through a turbine, which drives an electric
generator. Generally, about 10% of the electricity generated is used by the plant itself and
the rest is exported to a local grid. The energy produced from the incineration of organic
waste is approximately 500 kWh for every 1000 kg of waste.
The heat remaining after the electricity generation can be used to heat water, which can then
be fed to peoples homes in a district heating system. This can supply the annual
requirements for heat and domestic hot water for about 25,000 homes. In doing so, the
energy efficiency of the plant would be between 75-80%, whereas a conventional power
plant has an efficiency of about 35%.
[Source: Dublin Waste to Energy Project]
A study (Eileen Brettler Berenyi, 2009) examined the recycling rates of more than 500
communities, with waste-to-energy technologies. The results were that these communities
had a higher recycling rate than the national average.

3.4

Bottom ash recycling

In Europe, as a result of the incineration of waste (around 70 million tons of household and
industrial waste) to generate energy in 2009, it is estimated that around 16 million tons of
bottom ash was produced that year.
As mentioned above, the residue from the combustion process called bottom ash is collected
in the ash pit and the remaining ferrous and non-ferrous metals in the waste from the bottom
ash can be extracted and recycled into new products. Other minerals residue can be recycled
for applications such as aggregate in concrete or for road building. It should be noted that the
combustion process cleans and separates metals and inerts from mixed waste; otherwise,
further recycling of these products would not be possible.
The feasibility of recovering ferrous and non-ferrous metals from bottom ash depends on the
prices of the raw materials on the market. For example, the prices for metals are quite high
today, due to the high demand for raw materials. This is why many WtE plants and bottom
ash processors are spending a lot of money on the latest sorting technologies. A good
example of how much metal is extracted from bottom ash comes from the Netherlands,
where about 119 000 tons of ferrous metals and 21 900 tons of non-ferrous metals were
extracted and used in metal manufacture, in 2009.

4. Research and analysis

4.1

Environmental Effects of Municipal Wastes

Urban, municipal and industrial sectors produce a large quantity of wastes which include
both solid and liquid. Many of these rubbishes are thrown away in ponds, rivers, land and so
on causing environmental impacts. Waste disposal has become an environmental issue due to
reduced land availability and methane emissions from solid waste disposal site. These
problems arise since there is a greater profit in just disposing the wastes to landfill sites.
Moreover, farm residues and animal wastes produces smoke that causes acute bronchitis and
pneumonia among women and infants.
A rise in heavy metal content was found in soils where sewage sludge had been applied and
in tissues of goats, cow and other animals feeding on that grass and would thus require
proper treatment plants, sewage networks and monitoring of the composition of the sludge.
(Ellegars, 1990).
Half of the content of the landfill gas is methane - which is 21 times more intoxicating than
carbon dioxide. Comparisons about the emission of carbon dioxide were made between WtE
and landfilling, and it was found out that for each ton of MSW incinerated, the amount of
CO2 could decrease to a significant extent of approximately 1.3 tons.
Another advantage of the WtE technology is that it helps reducing the transport of waste to
distant landfills, and at the same time decreases the fuel consumption and the related gas
emissions.

4.2

Impact of WtE in our society

Wastes in landfills produce several gases due to the microorganisms present there. Nearly 4060% of the gas is methane (GHG) which contributes to global climate change and the rest is
carbon dioxide and other volatile organic compounds which are mainly simple hydrocarbons.
The process of burning of wastes is performed in specially designed boilers to ensure complete
combustion. Even though this facility produces carbon dioxide, there is a net reduction of
methane which form part of the greenhouse gas.

Two types of CO2 are produced during this process:

Biogenic:

This gas is already part of the Earths natural carbon cycle. WtE process generates about 67% of
biogenic carbon dioxide.

Anthropogenic:

Combustion of unrecyclable plastics and other man made substances produce anthropogenic
carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases are reduced by the following methods in waste-to-energy
mechanism.
a. It avoids the release of CO2 from fossil fuel-based electrical generation by producing
electrical power or steam. Nearly 90,000 tons of waste per day can produce 17 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The same power will require 7.8 million tons of
coal from a coal-fired power plant.
b. Waste in landfill would produce large amount of methane gas which has been eliminated
by the process of combustion in waste-to-energy.
c. Manufacture of metals from raw materials is less energy efficient than metals retrieval
from MSW by waste-to-energy facilities.

We will no more rely on fossil fuel as waste to energy is renewable and we mentioned earlier.
MSW includes 56% biogenic and 44% non-biogenic constituents. The US nation presently
landfills around 248 million tons of waste each year so it is likely to increase energy production
from WTE. Every ton of MSW treated in a WTE mechanism avoids the removal of one third ton
of coal or the importation of one barrel of oil. If all waste were treated in modern WTE facilities,
it could fulfil 3 to 4 percent of the countrys power demand. Oil prices are always rising. Using
this technology, these problems can be avoided.
Waste-to-Energy power plant will require more than 50 employees to control the system that is;
this system will create new jobs in Mauritius. Most of the workers must be technically skilled as
they must be able to control in-feed systems, boilers and so on. These jobs will be stable, wellpaying and long-term as well as boosting economies. Furthermore, additional jobs will be
created for the construction itself of the power plant in Mauritius.

10

Almost 90% of the landfill waste will be diminished. Therefore, to process ash, only few and
smaller landfills will be used. Furthermore, wastes will be diverted to the waste-to-energy unit
due to the fact that trucking of waste will be reduced since regional landfills are often situated
long distances from cities and villages.

4.3

Nature of pollution associated with WtE

Waste incineration systems generate a wide variety of harmful gases which are unfavorable to
human health. For a chemically complex MSW, this system is costly as well as it does not
eradicate or the toxic emissions are not controlled sufficiently. New incinerators also release acid
gases and toxic metals and dioxins. Besides from eliminating the need for a landfill, waste
incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other by-products.
The waste-to-energy program to make best use of energy recovery is technically incompatible
with reducing dioxins emissions. Dioxins are the deadliest Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
which have severe environmental health consequences. The affected public includes those
staying near the incinerator as well as those living in the broader area. People are exposed to
toxics compounds in numerous ways:

By inhalation of the air which affects both staffs in the plant and public who live nearby;
By consumption of locally produced foods or water that have been contaminated by
impurities in air from the incinerator; and
By eating poisoned seafood or any animal which has been contaminated by the air
emissions

Dioxin is an extremely toxic compound which might cause cancer and nerve damage, and disrupt
reproductive systems, thyroid systems, respiratory systems etc.

4.4

Economic impact of day to day activities of WtE

The long-lasting availability of a profitable, dependable, and sustainable solid waste

management system is a vital section of the infrastructure needed by a local community to
branch economic development. Besides from processing non-recycled waste for energy recovery,
WtE facilities provide several significant economic development benefits as listed below.

Long-term investments in waste disposal tipping fees.

The maintenance of waste management costs in the local community.
Creation of high excellence jobs that cannot be outsourced.
The creation of base-load renewable electricity
[Source: SWANA, 2011]
11

As mentioned earlier, the implementation of the WtE facility will create at least 50 full-time as
well as well-paid jobs. These jobs are linked to the maintenance and the operation of the WtE
plant. Therefore, they cannot be subcontracted and can last up to at least 40-45 years.
Furthermore, additional construction jobs will be created for the implementation itself of the
power plant in Mauritius.
However, waste-to-energy is a costly asset. The capital cost of this facility is very high. We can
assume that this type of facility pays for itself as it produces electricity but it is not so. The sale
of electricity would only equalize about half of the operating overheads. The remaining
operational expenses would need to be enclosed by tipping fees or by the local government.
Thus, waste-to-energy is not financially competitive and is a risky investment.

4.5

Feasibility in Mauritius

4.5.1 Technical Feasibility and Operational Feasibility

Technical and operation feasibility is related to the resources that are already available
and whether this project will become a success if implemented in Mauritius. The proper
resources include the place of the plant to be constructed, existing and convenient
utilities, existing processing and material handling equipment and the engineering skills
of the employees.

During this feasibility test, the followings should be taken into consideration:

Available space
Safety Precautions
Consistency with the processes and material handling
Effect of product standard
Knowledge and skills needed to operate the equipment
Required technologies
Supplement labors requirements
Effect in product marketing
Time taken to complete the project

12

4.5.2 Economic Feasibility

From a financial point of view, standard economic evaluation is the most reasonable
method to identify alternatives. These measures include the payback period, internal rate
of return and net present value for each alternative. Firstly, the cost (capital cost,
operating costs, operating revenue, and so on) of this evaluation must be determined.
Capital cost is used to buy large equipment like baler or plastic grinder used in the
process of converting the waste to energy.

Capital cost is fixed that is, it is used only once and includes not only the cost of the
equipment but also the following:

Site preparation and development

Equipment
Material cost including piping, electrical, telecommunications and structural
Construction costs
Fees of contractor
Permitting costs
Building inspection costs
Training cost (because of new technology in Mauritius)

After calculating the capital cost, other costs such as (reduced solid waste disposal cost,
changes in utility cost, maintenance supplied/labor, changes in overhead costs, revenues,
etc.) must be determined. Since these costs have a great impact in the projects cash flow,
the savings must be taken into consideration firstly.

4.5.3 Sustainability Feasibility

This project must also be evaluated based on sustainability. The latter can be defined as
the sustainable development which includes the four interconnected domains: ecology,
economics, politics and culture (Wikipedia). Therefore, the WtE project must be assessed
based on the sustainability and some criteria used to evaluate this feasibility are listed
below.

Dealing with possibility of failure

Ensuring proper appreciation and restoration of nature
Sustainable community
Conservation of biodiversity
No net loss in human capital
13

4.6

A promise to best practice

Need for good governance
The principle of improvements

Health & safety hazard

The necessity to reduce the carbon footprint of energy generation and treatment of waste in the
most ecological way possible has given rise to an increasing number of waste gasification
facilities. We will see the health and safety issues concerning gasification. Thermal gasification
of waste takes place in the presence of limited amounts of oxygen and produce fuel which can be
transported and stored for later use.

Gasification produce synthesis gases, also known as syngas, which can cause hazard to an
industry but those industries, have limited experience of such hazard. However, in chemical
process industries, these hazards are well understood. Safety precautions are well taken into
considerations to ensure the safe design, construction and contracting of plants. Capitalizing on
this knowledge is vital to ensure that the emerging waste to energy industry is not disrupted by
the type of major cases that have happened on a number of circumstances in other chemical
industries.
A number of key issues relating to gasification plant design have been identified by the
knowledge of the process safety precautions. If all these safety techniques are well taken into
consideration, the industry will be guaranteed that it will be safe. The most dangerous process
safety issues related to waste to energy plants are fire hazards and toxic gas and explosion
hazards.

4.6.1 Fire hazards

Potential fire hazards arise due to the formation of flammable mixtures both inside and
outside of the equipment. The nature of the gasification process means that ignition
sources, and controlled, localized "combustion zones" are typically present within the
equipment (e.g. gasifier). At under pressure there is a risk of air ingress and a fire may
occur inside a particular section.

14

Under the right circumstances wooden feedstock offer the potential for self-ignition. In
plant sections where pressure build up exists, there is a risk of gas escape to atmosphere,
which may lead to an external fire. Syngas from gasification can auto-ignite at
temperatures above about 600C - 650C.

4.6.1 Toxic gas

The gasification process generates a highly flammable mixture of gaseous components,
including hydrogen, and the very poisonous gas, carbon monoxide. High risk of gas
leakage to the atmosphere can occur where pressure build up in plant sections leading to
a toxic atmosphere. The gas must be well constricted in order to ensure control and
prevent the escape of toxic gas.
Zones outside the equipment must be sufficiently ventilated so as to avoid build-up of
any explosive atmosphere. Moreover, it will ensure the safety of the employees by not
letting any escape of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide detection
apparatus should be provided to identify any probable leaks.

4.6.2 Explosion hazards

Internal or external explosion will occur depending on whether the gasifier operates at
below atmospheric pressure or above atmospheric pressure.
At lower pressure, air can enter the equipment causing an explosion inside a particular
plant section. A method to prevent explosion is to avoid an explosive atmosphere as
there are possible sources of ignition within the equipment. For an explosion to occur,
the syngas concentration needs to happen in the flammable range as well as oxygen is
required. Since the gasifier plant passes regularly through the flammable range, the
removal for oxygen is required. During the plant start-up, at shutdown or any case of
uncontrolled air intake (leakages), there is a high risk of explosion.
Therefore, gas tightness is a significant prevention measure to prevent air intake, yet,
similarly the design of protection measures to make sure the control and venting of an
explosion is crucial.
In plant sections, where a positive pressure occurs (e.g. after a blower), there is a
possibility of gas leakage to the atmosphere, which may lead to an exterior explosion.

15

Gas tightness is once more important to prevent gas discharge, along with perilous area
zoning to prevent external ignition sources.

4.6.3 Flare system function and features

Moreover, safety features include emergency venting/flaring and power on and power off
switches. The combination of upstream syngas and boiler gas feed generation leads to
control problems in balancing syngas usage versus the generation rate and also syngas
quality. An alternative venting route is essential, in the case where an unexpected boiler
shutdown happens.
Also, referring to the case mentioned above, the flare system forms the final section of the
pressure relief system in the occurrence of a plant emergency shutdown (ESD). The flare
system should include a flame monitoring with alarm, a water seal vessel, and an
automatic ignition system.
Additionally, during start-up and shutdown, the gases may reach various combustible
ranges and ignite a fire, unless it is purged with an inert gas. It is essential that the
equipment is designed to maintain in a gas tight state to avoid any explosion.

4.6.4 Hazards of the feed material

The feed materials to a waste to energy plant usually comprise of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) or biomass. These feed
materials have their own dangers including dust explosion, fire, and toxic gas formation.
For example, self-heating can occur when feed materials such as biomass wood are kept in
large piles. Microbial activity, in the presence of moisture occurs by wood fuel, which,
when kept for a long time period can lead to the production of self-ignition and heat.
Other feed safety precautions include hazards related with dust, such as explosion hazards
needing protection by, for example, explosion venting and hot particle detection.

4.6.5 Cross industry co-operation

The gasification of waste presents an entire new series of safety issue more similar to
chemical process plants than conventional combustion technologies. These risks are well
understood in the chemical process industries, where safety techniques, including LOPA
(Layers of Protection Analysis), HAZOP (Hazard and Operability) and SIL (Safety
Integrity Level), have changed to ensure safe and proper design of plants. Cross industry
16

co-operation will result in safer as well as faster implementation of new technology,

greatly dropping the risk of a disastrous event. The process industry sector has a lot of
experience of the tools and methods required to ensure, as far as is reasonably feasible,
that plants meet the high principles of safety expected by the public. These safety
techniques must be applied to gasification to ensure a safe and green future.

17

4. Discussion
4.1

Poo power

The method of generating energy from waste has been taken to new levels since the introduction
of the poo bus. The bus is entirely powered by human and food waste and it has hit the roads
in UK in 2014.

Figure 4: The "poo bus" (Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-30115137)

The 40-seat Bio-bus is fueled with biomethane gas which is generated through the treatment of
sewage and food waste. Bristol sewage treatment processes around 75 million cubic metres of
sewage waste and 35,000 tons of food waste every year, generating a total of 17 million cubic
metres of biomethane, enough to power 8,300 homes. This is done through the process of
anaerobic digestion.
This eco-friendly vehicle can travel up to 300 km on one tank of gas, which takes the annual
waste of about five people to produce. A single passengers annual food and sewage waste
would fuel the poo bus for 60 km. Its combustion engine is similar in design to diesel
equivalent in conventional buses. Compressed gas is stored in dome-shaped tanks on the roof of
the bus. To power the vehicle, the biogas undergoes "upgrading", where carbon dioxide is
removed and propane is added. Impurities are removed to produce virtually odor free emissions.
The poo bus emits up to 30% less carbon dioxide compared to conventional diesel vehicles.

18

4.2

Comparison

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that WtE plants
generate energy with less environmental impact than almost any other source. WtE plants
operate almost the same way as fossil fuel fired power plants, with the only difference being the
fuel: WtE uses waste, not resources like coal, oil or natural gas. Table 4.2.1 shows the difference
in the amount of electricity generated in 2003, by different power plants.

Table 3: Electricity generated in the US in 2003 (Source: United States Department of Energy Energy Information Administration)

Fuel

Thousand Megawatt-hours

Fossil Fuel

Coal

2,743,051

Percentage (%)
71

1,973,737

51

Oil

119,406

Natural Gas
Nuclear

649,908

17
763,733

20

Hydroelectric

275,806

Renewable

87,410

MSW
Other

21,900

0.6

Total

3,883,185

100

The data provided on the EPA Clean Energy web site for air emissions from WTE plants and
fossil fueled power plants is summarized in Table 3.
Table 4: WtE & Fossil Fuel Power Plants - Comparison of Air Emissions (Source: EPA)

Fuel

Carbon dioxide

Sulfur dioxide

Nitrogen oxides

Pounds per megawatt Hour

MSW

837

0.8

5.4

Coal

2,249

13

Oil

1,672

12

Natural Gas

1,135

0.1

1.7

19

Table 5: Comparison between different energy sources

Energy source

Solar energy

Wind energy

Hydropower

Pros
Non-polluting
Most abundant energy
source available
Systems last 15-30
years
No emissions
Affordable
Little disruption of
ecosystems
Relatively high output

No emissions
Reliable
Capable of generating
large amounts of power
Output can be regulated
to meet demand

Natural Gas

Widely available
Cleanest-burning fossil
fuel
Made safe by adding
artificial odor so that
people can easily smell
the gas in case of a leak

Biofuels

Coal

Abundant supply
Fewer emissions than
fossil fuel sources
Can be used in diesel
engines
Auto engines easily
convert to run on
biomass fuel
Abundant supply
Currently inexpensive
to extract
20

Cons
High initial investment
Requires large physical
space for PV cell
panels
Output is proportional
to wind speed
Not feasible for all
geographic locations
High initial
investment/ongoing
maintenance costs
Extensive land use
Environmental impacts
by changing the
environment in the dam
area
Hydroelectric dams are
expensive to build
Dams may be affected
by drought
Transportation costs are
high
Lack of infrastructure
makes gas resources
unavailable from some
areas
Burns cleanly, but still
has emissions
Pipelines impact
ecosystems
Emits some pollution as
gas/liquid waste
Increases emissions of
nitrogen oxides, an air
pollutant
Uses some fossil fuels
in conversion
Emits major
greenhouse gases/acid
rain

Capable of generating
large amounts of power

Uranium

No greenhouse gases or
CO2 emissions
Efficient at
transforming energy
into electricity
Uranium reserves are
abundant

Geothermal

Waste

Minimal environmental
impact
Efficient
Power plants have low
emissions
Low cost after the
initial investment

The majority of waste

that would normally go
into landfill sites can be
re-used
The fuel is obtainable
cheaply
Reliable source of fuel
as people will always
have waste

21

High environmental
impact from mining
and burning, although
cleaner coal-burning
technology is being
developed
Mining can be
dangerous for miners
Higher capital costs due
to safety, emergency,
containment,
radioactive waste, and
storage systems
Problem of long-term
storage of radioactive
waste
Heated waste water
from nuclear plants
harms aquatic life
Potential nuclear
proliferation issue
Geothermal fields
found in few areas
around the world
Expensive start-up
costs
Wells could eventually
be depleted
Public acceptance
Waste-to-energy
facilities are expensive
to construct

5. Conclusion
The generation of waste in developing and emerging countries is expected to increase rapidly in
the coming years. For the safe disposal of this waste, incineration to generate energy could be a
major component in sustainable waste management.
By 2025, the CEB is planning to generate at least 30% of clean energy; however, at this time
only 1% of the energy source is renewable. Sotravic was the first major player to embark on this
path. The operator has found the right formula to extract gas from domestic waste dumped at
Mare-Chicose. Sotravic manages the landfill site and produces 36,000 m3 of gas since
November 2011, through a system of extraction and processing.
It may not be a big deal on the national level, but it is an improvement on the energy bill, in
addition to a reduction of our CO2 emissions. has declared the director of the CEB, Sanjaye
Adjodah.
The traditional but recognized MSW incineration remains the most interesting method of
recovering energy from waste in terms of financial income, for either electricity or CHP
production. The environmental benefits of biogas exploitation render it is a crucial requirement
for any existing landfill. Additional investigation is required for exploring more technologies
possibly interesting for WtE projects such as plasma arc gasification and thermal
depolymerisation.

22

6. References
10 Benefits of Waste as a Source of Energy | Melting Coal. 2016. 10 Benefits of Waste as a
Source
of
Energy
|
Melting
Coal.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
https://meltingcoal.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/10-benefits-of-waste-as-a-source-of-energy/.
[Accessed 27 January 2016].
BBC News. 2014. UK's first 'poo bus' goes into service between Bristol and Bath. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-30115137. [Accessed 21 January 16].
Benefits of Waste to Energy. 2016. Benefits of Waste to Energy. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://swdahsv.org/benefits-of-waste-to-energy/. [Accessed 27 January 2016].
BioEarth Waste to Energy. 2015. BioEarth Waste to Energy. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.bioearthinc.com/wastetoenergy.htm. [Accessed 28 November 2015].
Cheung Kai Suet, L.F, 2014. Digest of Environment Statistics 2013. Vol12. Port Louis,
Mauritius.
Comparison of Air Emissions from Waste-to-Energy Facilities to Fossil Fuel Power Plants.
(2006).
1st
ed.
[ebook]
Available
at:
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/.../nawtec14-3187.pdf [Accessed 28 Jan.
2016].
Ecocycle.
2011.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
https://www.ecocycle.org/files/pdfs/WTE_wrong_for_environment_economy_community_by_E
co-Cycle.pdf. [Accessed 29 January 2016].
nergie verte: lclosion | lexpress.mu. 2016. nergie verte: lclosion | lexpress.mu. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.lexpress.mu/article/274499/energie-verte-leclosion. [Accessed 29
January 2016].
Energy Source Comparison | energy4me. 2016. Energy Source Comparison | energy4me.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://energy4me.org/all-about-energy/what-is-energy/energy-sources/.
[Accessed 29 January 2016].
Gasification: Refining Safety Waste to Energy Waste Management World. 2016.
Gasification: Refining Safety Waste to Energy Waste Management World. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://waste-management-world.com/a/gasification-refining-safety. [Accessed 29
January 2016].

23

How an Incinerator Works. 2015. How an Incinerator Works. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.dublinwastetoenergy.ie/uploads/archive/html/how_incinerator_works.html.
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
Jennifer Giacoppo. 2010. Earth911. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.earth911.com/ecotech/waste-to-energy-from-the-inside/. [Accessed 29 November 15].
Karagiannidis, A., 2012. Waste to Energy: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing and
Transition Economies. Avraam Karagiannidis ed. New York: Springer.
Negative Impacts of Incineration-based Waste-to-Energy Technology. 2016. Negative Impacts
of
Incineration-based
Waste-to-Energy
Technology.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/.
[Accessed
27
January 2016].
Negative Impacts of Incineration-based Waste-to-Energy Technology. 2016. Negative Impacts
of
Incineration-based
Waste-to-Energy
Technology.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/.
[Accessed
27
January 2016].
Pyrolysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2015. Pyrolysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
[ONLINE] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis. [Accessed 28 November 2015].
Tara. 2013. Biofriendly. [ONLINE] Available at: http://biofriendly.com/blog/energy/want-abetter-way-to-get-rid-of-waste-turn-it-into-energy/. [Accessed 25 September 15].
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND DIVERSION IN CALIFORNIA
2001 [ONLINE] Available at: http://are.berkeley.edu/extension/EconImpWaste.pdf. [Accessed
29 January 2016].
The energy-from-waste process SITA Isle of Man. 2015. The energy-from-waste process
SITA Isle of Man. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sita.co.im/energy-recovery/the-energyfrom-waste-process. [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Waste Management World. 2011. Rising from the Waste to Energy Ashes. [ONLINE] Available
at: http://waste-management-world.com/a/rising-from-the-waste-to-energy-ashes. [Accessed 27
January 16].
Waste-to-energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2015. Waste-to-energy - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. [ONLINE] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy. [Accessed
25 September 2015].
Waste-to-energy pros and cons Brightside. 2016. Waste-to-energy pros and cons
Brightside.
[ONLINE]
Available
at:
http://www.brightknowledge.org/knowledge24

bank/geography-and-environment/features-and-resources/waste-to-energy-pros-and-cons.
[Accessed 29 January 2016].
Waste-to-Energy: A Renewable Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste. (2008). 1st ed.
[ebook] 1828 L Street, N.W. Suite 906 Washington, D.C. 20036, pp. 1 - 4. Available at:
http://gcsusa.com/pdf%20files/ASME%20White%20Paper%20recognizing%20Waste-toEnergy%20as%20a%20necessity%20-%202008.pdf [Accessed 28 Jan. 2016].

25