1.

Waste to energy in thailand

2. Waste to energy in USA
3. Waste to energy in Canada
4. Waste to energy in China
5. Waste to energy in Africa
6. Waste to energy in India
7. Waste to energy in UAE
8. Waste to energy in Norway
9. Waste to energy in Vietnam
10. Waste to energy in Latin america
11. Waste to energy in japan
12. Thermal Technologies
13. Direct Combustion (Mass Burn and RDF)
14. Pyrolysis
15. Conventional Gasification
16. Plasma Arc Gasification
17. Waste to energy in Brazil
18. Waste to energy in UK
19. Waste to energy in sweden
20. Turning Waste into energy
21. Process in WTE
22. Evolution of WTE
23. Option can be use in WTE
24. Solid waste management in India
25. Waste to energy in Portuguese
26. Waste to Energy in Germany
27. WTE technologies
28. Waste to energy in bangladesh
29. Generating Electricity using Solid Waste
30. Pre treatment Technologies in WTE
Sustainable Waste Management and Waste to Energy Recovery in Thailand
By Warangkana Jutidamrongphan

4. Waste to energy (WTE) technologies

The increasing amount of mixed household waste has become a national problem in Thailand and
elsewhere, the resolution of which may be to turn a crisis into an opportunity and reap benefits from
garbage. The Thai government has instructed provincial authorities to find locations for constructing waste
management facilities capable of using garbage to produce renewable energy. It is not only Thailand which
lacks proper waste management systems and throughout the world peoples’ attitudes to finding suitable
sites to dump garbage have led to continuing conflicts and protests based on the “Not in my Backyard”
(NIMBY) attitude. Therefore, it would be preferable to solve the problem by employing suitable waste
management strategies as alternatives to disposal. The PM has declared that every province should build
a WTE facility to convert waste to electricity which will support the country’s efforts to reduce its dependence
on natural gas and other fossil fuels. However, to-date, Thailand has just 3 WTE incinerators [19, 20, 21].

Nowadays, the use of WTE technologies is gaining momentum as a favorable waste management strategy.
Unquestionably, WTE seems to be a viable option for diminishing the volume of waste as well as offering
the additional benefit of producing alternative energy from waste recovery [21]. Already there has been
increased recovery of recyclable materials from MSW rather than continued dependence on sanitary
landfilling as the primary conventional method of solid waste disposal [22]. But the benefits of energy
recovery from MSW are potentially more valuable, both as an alternative energy source and for the positive
environmental implications, mainly relating to the saving of non-renewable energy derived from fossil fuels
[23]. WTE or energy from waste refers to any waste treatment that transforms waste resources into
electricity, steam, or heat energy. These include, for example, anaerobic digestion (hereafter AD),
incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc, and RDF. WTE technologies usually reduce the volume of
original waste by as much as 90%, depending on the waste composition and the type of energy derived. A
waste management hierarchy generally follows the pattern of waste avoidance or reduction, reuse,
recycling, recovery treatment, followed by disposal. An integrated approach to WTE that practices waste
segregation and pre-treatment of waste does not by-pass the waste hierarchy but precedes or replaces the
disposal step which is a more sensible approach to WTE recovery than simply burning or converting raw
unsorted waste. Nonetheless, the choice of WTE technology is important and the conversion plant itself
may incorporate waste pre-treatment units to facilitate this approach.

Thailand has a recent history of developing projects in WM in terms of sanitary landfills and managing waste
through WTE facilities. Moreover, Thailand has experience of WTE projects which have been developed
locally and which date back at least a decade and from these, significant lessons related to both thermal
and non-thermal technologies have been learned. Thermal treatments have involved both incineration and
gasification processes and under the heading of non-thermal processes, biogas has been produced from,
for example, waste fermentation or AD and the following sections will examine and compare case studies
relating to both these technologies.

5. Anaerobic digestion (AD) power plant: a case study of Rayong municipality

The advantages of AD systems were set out by Spuhler [24] who noted that biogas and sludge were
produced, respectively, for electricity generation and the production of fertilizer. Greenhouse gas emission
can be reduced through methane recovery and efficient AD treatment systems reduce excess sludge by
separating out heterogeneous organic waste, leachate, and wastewater. However, AD technologies may
need to be modified to be appropriate for small and medium-scale facilities in developing countries. The
high sensibility of methanogenic microorganisms need to be carefully investigated. Sulphuric compounds
generated during methane production can cause erosion of equipment in AD facilities, and in order to
protect AD equipment, the biogas produced may need to be significantly purified. The design and
construction of AD power plants on a commercial scale needs to be under the supervision of experts, and
professional operational and maintenance skills are also required to deal with fluctuations in the AD
process.

Bearing in mind that Thailand is located in a tropical area and that the main economic income is derived
from agricultural activities, the composition of MSW in Thailand is largely from food waste (40–60%) which
has a high moisture content. Therefore, organic waste in Thailand seems to have a high potential as a raw
material for producing biogas which can be converted into electricity. The case study which follows is of a
biogas power plant located in Rayong municipality and includes some lessons-learned from its installation
in 2004 and its operation since then.

Rayong municipality, is located in the coastal industrial zone on the eastern seaboard of Thailand. Rayong
province is 179 km from Bangkok, approximately 3552 km2 in area and is separated into eight districts, 58
sub-districts called Tambons in Thai and 440 villages. The population of Rayong municipality in December
2007 was 56,085: 27,110 males and 28,975 females [25].

Rayong municipality is a largely commercial city and in the late 20th Century generated increasing volumes
of MSW due to the growth of the population. Between 1995 and 1997 the volume of waste grew from 57.47
tons to 63 tons per day. In 2000, the MSW contents were noted to be composed mainly of organic waste
(67.77%) [26] and the bulk density of the MSW was 220 kg per m3, as illustrated in Table 1.
The WTEF plant constructed in 2004 had the potential to treat 70 tons of organic waste per day. However,
during 2004–2005, the organic waste fed to the AD system were separated in 2 main streams of about 12
and 3.3 tons per day of source sorted organic waste (SSOW) and mechanically-sorted organic fraction of
MSW (OFMSW), respectively. The solid contents of the organic waste were 18% of total solids (TS) and
36% of volatile solids (VS) [27]. From 2006 to 2008, the organic waste collected and fed into the AD system
was between 14.55 and 25.85 tons per day, with an average of 20.5 tons per day. However, this amount
of organic waste was far less than the design capacity of the WTEF plant of 70 tons per day and represented
only 29.3% of full capacity. A survey of the organic waste resources in Rayong municipality (Table 2)
showed that marketplaces were the biggest source of organic waste representing 70% of the total. Other
sources of organic waste were restaurants, hotels, and department stores. Nowadays, the organic waste
treated in the AD plant is less than 20 tons a day.

The overall waste treated consisted of two waste streams (SSOW and OFMSW). The MSW collected is
firstly processed in the front-end treatment (hereafter FET) unit then fed into the AD facilities to produce
electricity and fertilizer [29]. There was a significant effect from the low amount of organic waste input and
a lack of operation management which affected the loading capacity which has a maximum capacity of 70
tons of organic waste per day. The AD substrates were mostly, derived from food waste. The food waste
treated at the WTE facility was separated at its sources: communities, restaurants, hotels, marketplaces,
and department stores in the Rayong municipal area. On the environmental aspect, the recovered CH4
from the AD process that was used in electricity generation resulted in GHG reduction of about 0.34 Gg
CH4 per year, equivalent to 7.15 Gg CO2 eq of total GHG emission per year [30].

In order to raise people’s awareness of and participation in waste management, various facilities were
provided and activities conducted, such as recycling banks, recycling markets, and Tung Khaw Moo which
is a process in which food waste is separated and gathered before being used as animal feed. The Rayong
Municipality Office approached local residents by setting up public relations teams and providing
information to the community about collaborating in separating food waste from schools, households,
restaurants, hotels, department stores and marketplaces. These activities need to be conducted
continuously and required proper monitoring systems to be successful. However, cooperation from
government departments, the administrative organization was not forthcoming and local communication
was poor.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from the AD project at Rayong municipality. Firstly, the
characteristics of the organic waste intended to be used should be comprehensively identified in terms of
its availability, and chemical and physical characteristics. Further, the climate and also the culture, and
lifestyle of the people in the area should be established and taken into consideration in assessing how
much organic waste will be available. Furthermore, the small amount of organic waste produced was also
a significant problem in the AD process. This might be solved by finding other sources of additional
substrate such as night soil, manure, and shredded pineapple peel which could be put into the AD process
to improve the biogas yield. Secondly, the facilities in the AD process should be properly designed, durable
and flexible. Thirdly, AD microbial activity should be increased by means of chemicals and adjustment or
improvement of the anaerobic microbial activity of enzymes. Finally, the feasibility of investing in this kind
of project should be carefully considered taking into consideration social awareness and people’s
willingness to participate since both are essential for the sustainable development of such projects.

Considering Waste-to-Energy Facilities in the United States

Jordan P. Howell
WTE in the United States
Waste incineration once played a much larger role in MSW treatment, accounting for over 30 percent of all
MSW management in the early 1960s (Curlee et al. 1994, 4). Incineration was popular as it reduced the
volume of MSW by about 90 percent; the remaining ash could be Considering WTE in the US 2 landfilled
or in some instances re-used in road surfacing. But from a human health standpoint continued operation of
older waste incinerators would be troublesome. MSW incinerators operated with limited emissions control
technology, releasing carcinogens, heavy metals, and various types of particulates into the surrounding
atmosphere (Rudzitis, Hochman, and Hwang 1981). Their spatial distribution on the outskirts of urban areas
meant that low-income residents often received the brunt of the pollution, contributing to claims of
environmental injustice. Furthermore, cities seeking to push their infrastructure to limits in response to
tightening budgets and rising waste volumes frequently overloaded or otherwise improperly operated their
incinerators, leading to incomplete combustion and mountains of unprocessed waste (Melosi 2005). In the
1970s and 1980s, the technique rapidly fell out of favor for precisely these reasons. In fact, the planned
waste incineration capacity cancelled between 1982 and 1990 summed to more than the total capacity
existing at the end of that period (Curlee et al. 1994, 4). Landfilling, almost by default, became the dominant
method of dealing with trash. Figure 1: Waste management in the US, 1960-2009. Totals do not sum to
100 percent because not all treatments are shown. (After U.S. EPA 2010b, 2) Historically, its elevated
release of hazardous substances placed incineration under close scrutiny from the EPA and other
environmental agencies. The Agency has long promulgated rules for controlling emissions and handling
incinerator ash under the authority of the Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Solid Waste
Disposal Acts (“Standards of Performance…” 2009). Although admittedly dirty in the past, since the mid-
1990s several studies have demonstrated that emissions and residues from WTE, properly maintained and
operated, pose minimal threat to human health and the surrounding environment (e.g. National Considering
WTE in the US 3 Research Council 2000; Lima and Bachmann 2002; Lima and Saloca 2003).
Contemporary WTE operates with very high-end pollution control equipment, removing dioxins, furans,
nitrous oxides, sulfuric compounds, and particulates from flue gas before release into the atmosphere
(Figure 2). Figure 2: Schematic of a Waste-to-Energy Plant (ecomaine 2012a) Despite this improving track
record, incineration accounts for just 12% of all MSW management in the United States (EPA 2009a). As
of 2007 only 87 modern WTE incinerators were in operation, distributed across 25 states (Michaels 2007,
1; Figure 3). This is in marked contrast with countries like Germany, Denmark, and Japan, which treat
virtually all nonrecyclable material by incineration using the same technology available to WTE facilities in
the United States (Rosenthal 2010). The expansion of a facility in Florida that same year was the first ‘new’
WTE construction in a decade (ibid.), although a second facility is slated for a site in Palm Beach County,
Florida; an expansion recently came online for the facility in Honolulu, HI; and a brand new plant is in the
works for Durham, Ontario, Canada.

Attitudes toward waste to energy facilities and impacts on diversion in Ontario, Canada
Jamie Baxter , Yvonne Ho , Yvonne Rollins , Virginia Maclaren

Canada’s WtE incineration capacity for municipal waste has grown only slightly in recent years expanding
from five large (above 10,000 t/day) operating facilities in 2006 (Giroux Environmental Consulting, 2014) to
six in 2015. There are 2150 WtE incineration plants worldwide, and Canada’s raw number pales in
comparison to the E.U. and U.S. with 300+ (1.7 million people per facility) and 80+ (4 million people per
facility) WtE facilities respectively (Waste Management World, 2014). Despite increasing interest in WtE in
Canada, industry organizations continue to cast the Canadian public as ‘‘stubbornly skeptical” about WtE
incineration (Waste Management World, 2015b), something corroborated by news media coverage of the
issue (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2015; Sandor, 2015) and recent decisions by three of Canada’s
municipalities (City of Vancouver, Regional Municipality of Peel, and the City of Sault Ste Marie) to cancel
or stall proposed WtE facilities based in part on predictions of lower or uncertain waste volumes (Chan,
2015; Della-Mattia, 2016; Javed, 2016). The siting of landfills is also controversial but there are a larger
number of WtE landfills in Canada than WtE incinerators. As of 2011, 14 WtE landfills were recovering
landfill gas (primarily methane) for energy production (Giroux Environmental Consulting, 2014). There is
considerable policy debate about WtE and, compared to traditional incineration and landfill, surprisingly
little social scientific research on WtE attitudes. A key debate is whether the presence of WtE in a
community, particularly incineration, reduces recycling – one of the hypotheses tested here. Key
environmental groups opposed to WtE incineration in Canada on the grounds that it will discourage the
maximization of diversion include the Zero Waste Coalition (Environmental Leader, 2013), the Canadian
Center for Policy Alternatives (Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, 2015), Greenpeace Canada (Martin,
2010) and the Sierra Club (Jackson, 2015). Internationally, the Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives
(Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives, 2013) has published a fact sheet specifically dealing with the
issue of incinerators undermining recycling programs and subverting the push toward zero waste
Municipalities are also exposed to alternative messaging about WtE incineration from industry. In Canada,
groups like the Canadian Resource Recovery Council – a group supporting the waste industry’s efforts to
implement WtE incineration – use fact sheets to persuade the public that WtE incineration and enhanced
diversion are compatible (Canadian Resource Recovery Council, 2015. However, the claims refuting that
WtE (EfW) incineration reduces diversion are based largely on evidence from experiences in the U. S. and
E.U. (Solomon Wood, 2014; Tracey, 2013); places which tend to be exposed to different policy drivers,
particularly the E.U.
which has a 1999 waste directive to phase out landfill (European Commission, 2015). This has prompted
some zero waste enthusiasts to take more of a middle ground position, suggesting that incineration may
be a useful stop-gap, including North (2009)
who cites incineration and recycling rates in places like Denmark,
Japan, Switzerland and Sweden to show that high incineration is
often matched by relatively high diversion rates. Yet, two countries
with the highest incineration rates in Europe – Norway (57%) and
Denmark (54%) – have relatively modest diversion rates of 39% and
44% respectively (Eurostat, 2015). Seltenrich (2013a,b) reports on
the more extreme case of Flanders Belgium where diversion is at
75%, largely because there is a policy mandated cap of 25% of waste
management by incineration. By contrast media in Ontario point
out cases like Detroit, which has an incinerator and until only very
recently no municipal recycling program; suggesting that diversion
has been limited and piecemeal because of a historical reliance on
WtE (Porter, 2010).
Historically, waste data have been notoriously difficult to standardize for comparing between
municipalities and within municipalities over time. For example, only since 2006 has Ontario had an
organization to oversee the standardization and verification of
municipal residential waste and diversion data (Waste Diversion
Ontario, 2015). Unfortunately these data show the province has
been stalled at a 47% diversion rate since 2011.
Until recently, Ontario had only one large WtE incinerator,
namely a privately-owned facility in the Regional Municipality of
Peel, which has been operational for over two decades managing
only residential waste for most of that period (1992–2012). In
2012, Peel decided not to renew its contract with the operatorsof the facility, intending to build its own
more modern and larger
WtE facility. Recently however, Peel Council rejected the proposed
WtE in 2015 (one year after the completion of our field research),
finding that the cost of construction had become prohibitive (Muir,
2015). It also heard from both staff and environmental groups that
most of the waste stream currently being sent to landfill was recyclable or compostable (Javed, 2016).
Council therefore chose to
invest in new sorting and composting facilities while aiming for
a target of reducing, reusing and recycling 75% of its waste by
2034 (Muir, 2015). Though the Peel municipal solid waste (MSW)
feedstock dwindled for the privately-owned WtE facility it continued to operate by taking MSW from
outside of Peel and concentrating on commercial, industrial and institutional waste. With the
start of operations of the Durham-York Energy Center (DYEC) in
2015, Ontario now has two large WtE incinerators (Javed, 2015a).
Further, the adjacent City of Toronto has recently embarked upon
a long term waste strategy process that includes consideration of
WtE (City of Toronto, 2015). These new developments make
the time ripe for studying how the Ontario public views such
facilities.
Though media messages about WtE incineration often center on
concerns and opposition, this contrasts with industry polls, which
tend to focus on support for WtE. For example, in a 2014 poll
commissioned by the plastics industry in Canada, Nielsen (2014)
found 66% of Canadians have a ‘‘favorable impression” of wasteto-energy compared to 29% who do not
(50% and 42% if
combustion-based only). This industry poll is consonant with one
In Peel Region, taken before Peel’s WtE review process, showing
that 73% supported a new local WtE incinerator (Javed, 2015b).
Further, the plastics industry poll shows that 89% of their sample
of Canadians prefer non-recyclable plastics to be disposed in a
WtE facility compared to only 5% preferring traditional landfill.
There was no response available asking whether we should use
non-recyclable plastics in the first place, while 6% did not know
or refused to answer the question. Further, WtE ranked third after
solar and wind as a preferred energy source (other choices were
natural gas, oil, nuclear and coal). Like most polls the survey was
not set up for in-depth analysis (e.g., modeling), so there is little
emphasis on how such figures correlate with other preferences
regarding waste and waste planning.

Waste-to-Energy in China: Key Challenges and Opportunities

2.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management in China

In China, most recycling tasks are completed by informal collectors who specialize in different
kinds of refuse—rubber, aluminum, tin, plastic, and paper—who either collect these materials by
going house to house or by sorting through the garbage [27]. Precise data on MSW recycling in
China remain elusive. Xu [28] estimated that recyclable wastes accounted for 37.3% and 42.7% of the total
amount of MSW generated in Guangzhou and Beijing, respectively. After being recycled and collected by
the environmental sanitation department, some of the MSW is treated by the residents or communities, and
the remaining MSW is neither treated nor collected. By the end of 2013, China had the largest waste output
in the world, producing more than seven billion tons of untreated MSW, which occupied over three billion
square meters of land, and many cities were struggling with
garbage disposal problems. Of 668 cities in China, two-thirds are surrounded by garbage [29]. In one-fourth
of these cities, garbage has to be transported to nearby rural areas; the grim situation of “waste siege” has
already caused serious pollution in surface and underground water, and in the soil, thus destroying the
environment [26].
In China, household waste is mainly deposited in landfills or incinerated. Table 1 summarizes
the amount of waste processed using different technologies, from 2003 to 2013. Landfills are the main
means of MSW disposal in China; at the end of 2013, almost 70% of household waste was being deposited
in landfills. The landfill approach not only consumes extensive tracts of land, but also results in secondary
pollution. Various state departments’ investigations of waste disposal in 47 key cities in China revealed that
national landfills are commonly subjected to leakage, and their operating conditions and secondary
emissions do not meet national standards [30].

“composting treatment”.
Waste incineration technology was introduced in China in the late 1980s, and it developed
rapidly in the 1990s. More than 30 large and medium-sized cities operate, or are building, waste
incineration plants [31]. Over the past decade, the number of incineration plants has risen markedly. In
2003, there were only 47 incineration plants, with a total capacity of 3.7 million tons a year in the whole
country; ten years later, in 2013, there were 166 plants, with a total capacity of 46.3 million tons a year [32].
MSW incineration has many advantages over using landfills, such as effecting significant volume reductions
(approximately 90%), complete disinfection, and energy recovery [15]. It is becoming an important means
of waste disposal in big cities, where space for landfills may be limited. Studies have been conducted of
the current MSW incineration status of China’s cities [12,13,33]. In most of these cities, it is still difficult to
fully incinerate waste and control secondary pollutants, because of the 14185 Energies 2015, 8, 14182–
14196
waste’s high moisture content, high inorganic composition, high degree of heterogeneity, and the low heat
value of household waste; therefore, improving the quality of the waste that is fed into furnaces is crucial to
achieving safe incineration.
3. Challenges Facing the Waste-to-Energy Industry in China
China’s WTE industry is largely based on power generation by waste incineration, which relies
on a technology that is, comparatively speaking, more mature and simpler than other alternatives. WTE
incineration of MSW is in the initial stages of renewable energy production in China. In 2014, power
generation by WTE incineration was 18.7 billion KWh, accounting for 1.2% of total “new and renewable”
energy production [34]. Driven by national policy and its low-carbon objectives, China’s household waste
incineration industry has developed quickly. In 1988, China established the first incineration plant; more
such facilities followed, and the processing capacity of each grew.
Table 2
lists China’s significant incineration power plants. In the coming years, generating power through waste
incineration will also be China’s main means of waste disposal. Since problems associated with waste
incineration involve not only the technology, but also environmental, social, public health, and many other
aspects, China is now facing many problems with regard to the construction of WTE incineration facilities.

3.1. Facilities’ High Cost and Susceptibility to Corrosion

Compared with other MSW treatment technologies, WTE involves a large capital investment
and high operating costs. As the core of the WTE incineration facilities, the incinerator accounts for
approximately 50% of the cost of investing in a WTE plant [20]. Imported incineration equipment is very
expensive. For example, as shown in Table 2, the Shanghai Pudong Waste Incineration Power Plant, which
utilizes Alstom equipment and technology, cost nearly 110 million USD, and the Shanghai Jiangqiao Waste
Incineration Power Plant, which employs Seeger equipment, required an investment of 144 million USD
[35]. These costs are not sustainable for most Chinese cities, so the majority of WTE plants in China are
located in the most economically developed urban centers [20]. Although private capital investment is
increasing, local governments are still the main funding sources.
Corrosion problems are often associated with WTE incineration [36]. The combustion gases
that contain various impurities (especially HCl and chloride salts) result in much higher corrosion
rates of boiler tubes [37]. Chlorine and sulfur have been considered key elements in the corrosion process
[38,39]. Because of China’s poor performance with regard to waste classification, the high moisture content
of waste and its tendency to generate HCl and SO2 and other acid gases after oxidation may erode WTE
facilities [40].
14186
Energies 2015, 8,

3.2. The Low Heat of Municipal Solid Waste

While recycling is a standard practice in the West, China’s MSW management is still mired in
the stage of waste separation, which is poorly executed [41]. In comparison with developed countries that
have sophisticated approaches to the classification of waste, China’s MSW classification system is less
well developed. Its MSW has a lower heat value because of its relatively higher organic composition and
moisture content, so it achieves lower energy efficiencies when incinerated [42]. The average heat value
of MSW in China’s waste incineration plants is 3–6.7 MJ/kg, which is far lower than the 8.4–17 MJ/kg in
developed countries [43,44]. Table 3 summarizes the composition
of the MSW of some of China’s cities. Because this waste contains many organic substances and nutrients,
the renewable resources it contains may be destroyed in the incineration process; it is difficult to recycle
the heat generated in the incineration process; about 30% of the generated heat may be lost as smoke,
which itself requires purification.
3.3. Air Pollutant Emissions and Fly Ash Management
In environmental impact reports, many Chinese WTE operators have declared that they employ
advanced technologies, yet, of these, a large number refrain from providing detailed data to
substantiate their claims. Substandard incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems trigger a
series of environmental pollution problems, and pollutants are generated in the process of incineration; in
particular, emitted dioxins cause serious air pollution. Ni et al. [16] measured dioxin emissions in 19 WTE
incineration plants in China, and found a value of between 0.042 ng TEQ N¨ m´3and 2.461 ng TEQ N¨ m´3
; the average level was 0.423 ng TEQ N¨ m´3
; 16% of the incineration plants do not meet national standards (1.0 ng TEQ N¨ m´3
), and 78% do not meet EU standards (0.1 ng TEQ N¨ m´3 ). The problem of dioxin emissions is one of the
main reasons there is public opposition to the construction of waste incineration plants in the vicinity of
residences. Therefore, WTE enterprises must improve the standards and practices of their incineration
facilities and flue gas purification systems, to reduce the discharge of various pollutants, and so to protect
public health. Management of the fly ash generated during waste incineration—that leads to secondary
pollution—has not been addressed in China. Although the volume of waste decreases rapidly during
incineration, some residues remain, such as bottom and fly ash. After a stabilization treatment, bottom ash
is used as a building material. In contrast, fly ash is a hazardous waste that contains dioxin and has heavy
metal content; therefore, it must be specially treated [45]. As a requirement, the fly ash should first be
stabilized by cement solidification or other pretreatment technologies, and then be disposed of in a special
landfill. However, few cities possess special venues for dealing with the
fly ash, and instead it has often been reported that it is being deposited in open dumps (see Figure 3).
14187
Energies 2015, 8, 14182–14196 Energies 2015, 8, page–page
6
higher organic composition and moisture content, so it achieves lower energy efficiencies when
incinerated [42]. The average heat value of MSW in China’s waste incineration plants is 3–6.7 MJ/kg,
which is far lower than the 8.4–17 MJ/kg in developed countries [43,44]. Table 3 summarizes the
composition of the MSW of some of China’s cities. Because this waste contains many organic substances
and nutrients, the renewable resources it contains may be destroyed in the incineration process; it is difficult
to recycle the heat generated in the incineration process; about 30% of the generated heat may be lost as
smoke, which itself requires purification.

3.3. Air Pollutant Emissions and Fly Ash Management

In environmental impact reports, many Chinese WTE operators have declared that they employ
advanced technologies, yet, of these, a large number refrain from providing detailed data to
substantiate their claims. Substandard incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems trigger a
series of environmental pollution problems, and pollutants are generated in the process of incineration; in
particular, emitted dioxins cause serious air pollution. Ni et al. [16] measured dioxin emissions in 19 WTE
incineration plants in China, and found a value of between 0.042 ng TEQ 3N∙m−3and 2.461 ng TEQ N∙m−3;
the average level was 0.423 ng TEQ N∙m−3; 16% of the incineration plants do not meet national standards
(1.0 ng TEQ N∙m−3), and 78% do not meet EU standards (0.1 ng TEQ N∙m−3). The problem of dioxin
emissions is one of the main reasons there is public opposition to the construction of waste incineration
plants in the vicinity of residences. Therefore, WTE enterprises must improve the standards and practices
of their incineration facilities and flue gas purification systems, to reduce the discharge of various pollutants,
and so to protect public health. Management of the fly ash generated during waste incineration—that leads
to secondary pollution—has not been addressed in China. Although the volume of waste decreases rapidly
during incineration, some residues remain, such as bottom and fly ash. After a stabilization treatment,
bottom ash is used as a building material. In contrast, fly ash is a hazardous waste that contains dioxin and
has heavy metal content; therefore, it must be specially treated [45]. As a requirement, the fly ash should
first be stabilized by cement solidification or other pretreatment technologies, and then be disposed of in a
special landfill. However, few cities possess special venues for dealing with the fly ash, and instead it has
often been reported that it is being deposited in open
dumps (see Figure 3).
(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a) Fly ash in the open area of a waste‐ to‐ energy (WTE) incineration plant and (b) Fly ash
dumps open without curing. (Photos source: [13,46]).
Figure 3. (a) Fly ash in the open area of a waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration plant and (b) Fly ash
dumps open without curing. (Photos source: [13,46]).
3.4. Public Opposition to Waste-to-Energy Incineration
With growing awareness of the need for environmental protection, public opposition has become
the main obstacle to China’s WTE incineration program. This public opposition has three main
causes. First is the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon that has spread between cities.
Inappropriate site selections for MSW incineration plants are the main reason for NIMBY sentiments.
MSW incineration plants have been constructed too close to residential areas (Figure 4) and even schools,
and a few plants have been built near lakes or rivers that provide drinking water sources for residents. In
addition, some mainstream media report that MSW incineration power plants are potential sources of air
pollution linked to cancer, and imply that security cannot be guaranteed, even though these plants
supposedly meet EU standards. Due to the negative publicity of mainstream media and other factors, public
opposition to the construction of MSW incineration plants has occurred in cities including Guangdong,
Zhejiang, and Shandong [47–49]. Village demonstrations, student strikes, and other protests affect social
stability (Figure 5). These disturbances cause panic among members of the public. Energies 2015, 8, page–
page 7
3.4. Public Opposition to Waste‐ to‐ Energy Incineration
With growing awareness of the need for environmental protection, public opposition has
become the main obstacle to China’s WTE incineration program. This public opposition has three main
causes. First is the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon that has spread between cities.
Inappropriate site selections for MSW incineration plants are the main reason for NIMBY sentiments. MSW
incineration plants have been constructed too close to residential areas (Figure 4) and even schools, and
a few plants have been built near lakes or rivers that provide drinking water sources for residents. In
addition, some mainstream media report that MSW incineration power plants are potential sources of air
pollution linked to cancer, and imply that security cannot be guaranteed, even though these plants
supposedly meet EU standards. Due to the negative publicity of mainstream media and other factors, public
opposition to the construction of MSW incineration plants has occurred in cities including Guangdong,
Zhejiang, and Shandong [47–49]. Village demonstrations, student strikes, and other protests affect social
stability (Figure 5). These disturbances cause panic among members of the public.

Figure 4. A WTE incineration plant near residential buildings (photos source: [50]).

Figure 5. Protests against WTE incineration in China (photos source: [49]).

The second reason for opposition to the WTE incineration program is the lack of public
participation. Sheery [51] concluded that public participation could be divided into eight levels
(Figure 6). There was no public participation when the WTE incineration plants were first
developed in China. As citizens’ environmental consciousness is being awakened, there is growing concern
about the construction of WTE incineration plants. Since 2010, there have been some demonstrations
against the construction of WTE incineration plants that have attracted the attention of the government.
Consequently, some public consultations have been conducted prior to initiating construction of WTE
facilities, but the public participation processes are regarded as tokenism, which is far removed from
involvement at the level of citizen power.

Africa’s First Waste-to-Energy Plant

Author: Africa Research Online

The project will power 30% of the capital’s households.

Ethiopia’s first waste-to-energy facility was inaugurated in Addis Ababa on August 19th, The New Times
reports. The Reppie facility, fully financed by the Ethiopian government, is expected to process 1,400
tonnes of solid waste daily – or 80% of the city’s rubbish, according to the UN.

Investment in energy projects is crucial if Ethiopia is to achieve its aim of becoming an environmentally
friendly industrialised middle-income economy by 2025, said President Mulatu Teshome.

“The growth of [the] energy sector has been a key driver of economic growth in Ethiopia over the last several
years,” Teshome said at the inauguration event.

“Ethiopia has been investing extensively in hydro power, geothermal, wind energy, solar energy and now
biomass to boost the manufacturing sector with a supply of clean, renewable energy,” he said. “[The]
Reppie waste-to-energy project is part of that grand strategy.
“The Ethiopian government hopes [that] with the commissioning of this project, it can turn an increasing
urban rubbish menace into an economic boon,” he said.

The rise of renewable energy in Africa has opened doors for new technology to strengthen economies,
writes John Green for The Exchange.

Ethiopia, like many other African nations, has been facing a huge barrier in the form of waste disposal in
Addis Ababa. The new incineration plant will transform the economic outlook of the nation, and drive the
ease of doing business.

30% of the capital’s households will be supplied with electricity from the plant. A number of companies in
the manufacturing sector will also greatly benefit from the new plant to improve their production.

0821 addis
Addis Ababa. Image: CC 2008

Transformed approach

The former Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation, in collaboration with the UK-based Cambridge Industries,
launched the project in 2013, notes Addis Fortune.

Development, design and construction of the project were conducted by a consortium comprised of
Cambridge Industries Ltd and its partner China National Electric Engineering Co (CNEEC), and under the
auspices of the state power generator. Ethiopian Electric is being advised by Ramboll of Denmark.

The plant is located on what used to be the Koshe dump site, which served Addis Ababa for about 50 years,
Africa News reports. The site made headlines in March after a landslide at the premises killed about 114
people, according to government records.

In the wake of the incident, the government planned relocation for people living on the large area said to
be the size of 36 football pitches. They moved to establish the plant with the broader objective of
transforming the site and Addis Ababa’s approach to dealing with waste.

“We hope that Reppie will serve as a model for other countries in the region, and around the world,” said
Zerubabel Getachew, Ethiopia’s deputy permanent representative to the UN in Nairobi.

The energy generation system is more popular in Europe and in cities with limited land. France leads with
126 waste-to-energy plants.

Here, waste-to-energy incineration is a quadruple win: saving land space, generating electricity, preventing
the release of toxic chemicals into groundwater, and reducing the release of methane — a potent
greenhouse gas generated in landfills — into the atmosphere.

Waste to Energy in India: A Study on the slow pace of Adoption in Delhi

Authors: A. C. Lahiraja P. K. Panna S. Kroezen V.B.V.K. Nallacheruvu

2 Waste to Energy Technology in India

2.1 A Brief History
The first large-scale Municipality Solid Waste (MSW) incinerator, built at Timarpur, New Delhi, in 1985 had
a capacity to process MSW waste up to 300 tonnes per day (TPD) and cost INR 250 million (US$ 5.7
million). While incineration is the most common technology used for generation of Waste to Energy
(Electricity, heat, etc), there are certain limitations: high moisture content and high biodegradable content
can lead to high losses making the technology economically unviable. Yap and Nixon (Yap and Nixon,
2015) explain that it were these reasons, poor waste segregation, seasonal variations in waste composition
and properties, inappropriate technology selection and operational and maintenance issues that led to the
closure of Timarpur incinerator in 1987. Despite many years in technological advancements, the problem
remains the same from a niche perspective. WtE plants have been experimented over a long period of time
in India and most of them failed due to the same precise reasons: the inability to sort and segregate waste
sustained over time, as mentioned by Sunita Narain, who is Delhi’s environmental activist, from the Centre
for science and Environment. 2.2 Technological Overview The quantity and composition of MSW generated
vary from developed to developing countries, and even within different cities of the same country. It depends
on several factors such as standard of living and degree of commercial activities. Every year, 40 million
tonnes of waste is generated in India, and most of it is disposed to unsanitary landfills in city outskirts
(Hoornweg and Bhada, 2012). As the largest commercial centre in northern India, Delhi generates 9500
tonnes of waste each day, consists of food waste, sewage, plastics paper, cardboard, textile, leather,
construction and demolition waste. The process of waste to energy generation involves the following five
aspects as shown in Figure 1. Waste management comprises of waste generation, collection, and disposal
system, requiring a systematic approach to understand all the components and their interactions (Seadon,
2010).

1. Waste Collection: It is the transfer of solid waste from the point of use and disposal to the end of treatment or
landfill. While they can be classified as the household, commercial, industrial wastes, etc., the scope of the study in
this report will be limited to the municipal solid waste obtained from domestic houses. Usually, waste collection and
transport are a major part of waste disposal costs, much more than landfill costs. Hence there is a high scope of
optimization when it comes to waste collection. (Nixon et al., 2017) highlighted the importance of waste collection
as one of the most significant challenges for WtE in India. Inadequate and unreliable collection service is believed to
cause the poor public engagement and concern for local participation.
2. Waste Segregation: It is the process of separating the various types of wastes in the mix collected from the
collection points which includes different kinds of materials like organic materials, paper, plastics, metal, glass,
moisture, and many others. This is a crucial step as all types of elements in the mix are not suitable to incinerate as
they release a lot of toxic pollutants and harmful products.
3. Preliminary Treatment: Out of the waste segregated, wastes most suitable for energy generation with right
properties are selected and are subjected to further treatment where the entire material inherits homogenous
properties – optimum calorific value, lower pollutant content, deodorized, low moisture content, etc. Excess
pollutant in methane gas emissions from landfills can be avoided through WtE technology. Various researchers have
studied several waste processing technologies to seek the best method for developing countries. (Zakir Hossain et
al., 2014) suggested using incineration as the substantial preliminary treatment for generating energy in Bangladesh,
similar with (Brunner and Rechberger, 2015), which emphasized that incineration is the most preferred technology
in developing countries in general. However, (Münster and Lund, 2010) concluded that Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is
a more suitable preliminary treatment considering that MSW generated in India contains high moisture that needs
to be dried before its use. Therefore, this report combined incineration and AD as an appropriate technology for
electricity generation for India.

4. Pelletization: The pre-treated material is now subjected to pelletization where the raw material obtained from
preliminary treatment, which is usually in powdered form, is made into standard or desired shapes needed by the
energy incineration technology.
5. Energy Generation: The pellets are either burnt directly or co-fired with coal to convert water to steam which in
turn drives a turbine to generate electricity that is supplied to the grid.
Figure 2, represents a network map of technologies that are connected to the WtE technology innovation. As shown
in the technological map, landfills and transportation sector are crucial for assembling and transporting MSW to WtE
preliminary treatment facilities. These factors will also be responsible for a storage management system and a
control system for the waste composition.

Comments on waste to energy technologies in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

2. An Overview of Waste to Energy Technologies WtE technologies can be broadly classified into thermal and
biochemical methods. Commercial WtE technologies include incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, thermal de-
polymerization, plasma arc gasification, anaerobic digestion, mechanical and biological treatment [9]. Recent
advances in WtE technologies also include isothermal expansion of sodium [10]; this technology uses high-energy
electrons emitted from nuclear by-products and solid-state devices that directly convert heat to electricity. With
mixed wastes as input, simple incineration is often utilized by means of a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. It
is the most developed WtE technology as well as the first WtE technology used in most countries. When high
percentage of organics is present in the MSW, incineration is not a suitable technique. One of the most efficient
incineration plants, Afval Energie Bedrijf CHP plant located in Amsterdam, can process 1.5 million tons of MSW
annually at an efficiency of 30% [8]. According to world health organization (WHO), waste that can undergo
incineration should have the following properties: (a) moisture content, 30% (b) minimum heating value, 8,370 kJ/kg
(c) fraction of combustible materials, 60% (d) fraction of non- combustible materials < 5% and (e) fraction of non-
combustible fines < 20%. There is also a restriction on the types of wastes used, for example reactive chemical waste,
waste with a high proportion of heavy metals, plastics and pressurized gas containers cannot be incinerated.
Although incineration transforms waste into less hazardous materials and decreases the volume by ten folds, this
technology still produces a large amount of pollutants [11]. The flue gas can contain pollutants such as dust,
hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, dioxins and heavy metals [12].

brief schematic of the process of converting MSW to electricity generation is given in Fig. 1 [13]. Gasification refers
to the incomplete combustion of a solid material to produce a gaseous fuel that can be used to generate energy
[14]. Gasification takes place in an oxygen-controlled environment. The by-products of gasification are mainly
methane and trace amounts of higher hydrocarbons. The effluent stream is called syngas, wood gas, biogas or by
other names depending on the nature of the wastes being gasified. Gasification is a much cleaner approach than
incineration. The disadvantages of gasification include the cost of cleaning the reactor from produced tars and
residue as well as the repeated interruptions of the operation. Furthermore, the presence of moisture in the waste
reduces the efficiency; thus the solid wastes have to be pre-treated before gasification. Pyrolysis is another thermal
process that requires heat energy to decompose carbon-containing compounds materials into synthesis gas, oil and
char in an oxygen free environment. Gasification usually follows pyrolysis where the unreacted hydrocarbons in the
pyrolysis gas are further degraded [15]. In a pyrolysis study, Noma et al. [16] showed 99.3% recovery with the
valuable materials such as metal, char and clean gas. The volume reduction of the waste after treatment was 1/190.
The pre-treatment steps prior to pyrolysis include sorting of the raw materials and dehydration. Chen et al. [17] state
that there are many factors that affect the resulting products of pyrolysis. Typical temperature of pyrolysis ranges
from 300°C to 900°C. If the temperatures were from 500°C to 550°C, then the majority of the product would be
liquid. If the temperature exceeds 700°C, then the majority of the product is syngas. Typical residence time ranges
from a few seconds to several hours. The longer the residence time, the more tar will undergo cracking and therefore
more syngas will be produced. Upon completion of pyrolysis, the gas product could undergo gasification in order to
produce a higher proportion of syngas or gas could be directly used. Furthermore, the solid products of pyrolysis
such as char undergo screening, quenching and separation. If the gas undergoes gasification, then there are two
types of gasification: low-temperature and high-temperature gasification. Low temperature gasification occurs at a
temperature range of 700°C to 1,000°C and at this range, the product gas contains high content of hydrocarbons
[18]. High temperature gasification occurs at a temperature range of 1,200°C to 1,600°C where the product gas has
a low content of hydrocarbons, but a high content of CO and H2, which is termed as syngas. According to Drift and
Boerrigter [19], syngas could be used to generate fuel or could be used to produce other compounds such as
dimethyl ether that are needed for petrochemical processes. A brief schematic of the process for a combined
gasification/pyrolysis plant is shown in Fig. 2 [13]. Masdar Institute, a research facility located in the Emirates of Abu
Dhabi (UAE), is making advances in the use of dark fermentation from MSW to produce biodiesel. The results suggest
that biogas produced from waste could generate 18 MW/y for Abu Dhabi, which would help the goal of generating
7% of its power from renewable sources by 2020 [20]. Research projects are in progress in several areas of research
including microbial desalination, and production of biodiesel from discarded restaurant oils. UAE has ambitious plans
to serve as the headquarters of International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

3. Waste to Energy Technologies in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

3.1. Waste Generation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) UAE has registered an unprecedented growth in its GDP
over the last decade, owing to the staggering expansion of the oil and gas industry in the capital Abu Dhabi, as well
as the tourism market in Dubai. The GDP per capita of a nation is a figure that is strongly correlated to the rate of
solid waste production [22]. The UAE is one of the world’s highest producers of MSW per capita. A government
statistic reports 26 million tons of waste is generated in the UAE in 2012 [23]. In the emirate of Abu Dhabi, statistical
analysis conducted by different authorities reported that average annual per capita waste generation is 1.76 to 2.3
kg/day/person. These numbers are almost twice the figure of the UK. Using the conservative estimate of 1.76
kg/day/person and projecting the estimated increase in population, Fig. 3 shows the expected trend of solid waste
generation in Abu Dhabi [22]. This worrying trend could severely strain the country’s infrastructure and ability to
manage waste. The country has decided to adopt European standards in waste management and WtE technologies
are to be employed in order to achieve the set target by 2030 [24]. As in any place, the composition of solid waste
in the UAE varies widely by source and region. However, it is estimated that exactly half of the entire waste generated
in the country is construction and demolition waste, which is not compatible with most WtE technologies. To combat
this major constituent of the waste, the Environmental Agency has developed regulations, which sets a minimum
required recycling target for construction and demolition waste of 30% with a reward mechanism for achieving
higher recycling rates set at 50% and 70%, respectively. Another constraint it places on construction companies is
that they must ensure adequate waste handling and transportation facilities are in place [24]. Grycová et al. [25]
report a study on the conversion of food wastes into energy using pyrolysis process. Coker [26] reports a study on
conversion of food waste into biogas energy and fertilizer using an anaerobic digestion. Food waste is another major
source of waste specifically in the emirate of Dubai (UAE) where food waste accounts for 55% of the emirate’s waste.
The EPA also had introduced an initiative specific to this problem in collaboration with the humanitarian Red
Crescent Organization. The regulation puts the Red Crescent in charge of leftover food from restaurants, hotels and
wedding halls, where they work to preserve its quality until it is delivered to the needy [24]. A study reveals (Fig. 4),
the following average composition of MSW in Abu Dhabi.

Norwegian Waste-to-Energy (WtE) in 2030: Challenges and Opportunities

2. The sector today: short description of MSW and WtE in Norway As a EEA/EFTA country member, Norway is
implementing EC directives and has therefore a similar regulatory framework as other EU countries in WtE questions
such as gaseous emissions limits and "R1 formula", with a few exceptions of tougher regulations concerning, for
example, Hg and water effluents. There are currently 17 WtE plants in Norway that process about 1.70 million tons
MSW (2013, approx. 60 % from households) and produce about 4 TWh for district heating networks (see further
details in the next section), as well as some steam to the industry and some electricity. The majority of Norwegian
WtE plants are of medium to small capacity, with the smallest national average size in Europe, namely 60 000 t/y
(EC JRC IPPC Bureau, 2005). Concerning the biogenic fraction of MSW in Norway, the latest study (Avfall Norge, 2010)
evaluates it at about 52 % (on energy basis). While the majority of energy from waste is of biogenic origin and can
readily be considered renewable, the remaining fraction "renewability status" is debated. While some consider that
it is of fossil origin and should therefore be considered non-renewable, other argue that it could not be disposed of
in any other way, hence producing "waste/surplus heat", a renewable energy according to Enova. It should be
noticed that about 50 % of WtE is computed as renewable in the Norwegian national statistics. This open debate is
far from being only technical and any "final" decision may actually have social, political and industrial implications.
The latest trends in Norwegian WtE can be summarised as such: (1) strong increase in the total capacity (it was about
1.25 Mt/y in 2010 compared to 1.70 today) – with an average throughput of about 90 % of their nominal capacity;
(2) landfill ban for organic waste (2009); (3) MSW export to Sweden (several hundred thousand t/y); (4) a significant
fraction of the energy (mainly heat) produced is not delivered to any customer (evaluated at 21 % in 2011 in Ulvang
(2012)), especially during the summer; (5) the capital city (Oslo) has newly implemented source sorting of food waste
(in addition to paper, plastic, glass and metal); (6) the number of landfills has been reduced. Concerning bottom and
fly ash, a field where no EU regulatory agreement (concerning final treatment/disposal) has been reached so far,
Norway implements two distinct solutions: fly ash is to be sent to special landfills for hazardous wastes (two exist,
the main one is located on the Langøya island in the Oslo fjord) while bottom ash is landfilled or utilised in ordinary
landfills. In spite of several industrial and R&D initiatives, no other disposal/use is currently authorised. 2402 3. What
are the unique advantages offered by WtE to the Norwegian society? 3.1 Increased energy flexibility and increased
use of local energy sources As previously mentioned, the energy use for heating purposes in Norway has for many
years mainly been based on electricity produced by hydropower. In the 1990's Norway experienced an energy crisis
due to large yearly variations in hydropower production combined with limited transfer capacity from Europe. This
resulted in a new national strategy (Energimeldingen, 1998-99) for energy production and hence the creation of
Enova SF - the public enterprise for economic support of environmentally friendly energy projects - in 2001. The new
national strategy included an energy development program with a twofold goal: (1) increased energy flexibility based
on energy production from local, renewable energy sources as well as (2) reduced dependency on electricity for
heating. This national aim was further emphasised by new climate aims in 2002 (Klimameldingen, 2001-02) which
included the promotion of WtE to replace fossil energy sources (residential oil boilers for example). These important
signals from the Norwegian government led to a significant increase in the building of new WtE plants with energy
production for district heating, electric power and industrial steam. Figure 2 shows the historic use of fuels in Norway
for district heating from 2004 until today.

Figure 2. Energy sources in district heating plants in Norway (SSB, 2014) The evolution observed clearly shows the
major role WtE plants have in the increased energy flexibility and increased use of local renewable energy sources.
Today, more than 50 % of the total district heating production in Norway is provided by WtE plants. The second
contributor is bioenergy. WtE plants generate energy from local residual waste; contribute to energy supply security
and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. 3.2 WtE plants are vital for fulfilling the national goal for waste treatment
The Norwegian waste treatment strategy is similar to the goals and vision set by the EU and is based on increased
material recycling and reduced landfilling (see the hierarchy of waste management options and the Landfill
Directive). Norway introduced also, as a few other European countries, a total landfill ban on biodegradable waste
in 2009. This landfill ban can only be fulfilled by using WtE plants in combination with material recycling. After
material recycling (source sorting) of several fractions (paper, plastic, metal, glass, wet organic matter etc), WtE
plants produce energy from the remaining waste fraction that is contaminated and has a complex and
heterogeneous composition. The WtE plants act as a sink for pollutants with their thermal treatment processes
destroying organic pollutants and extracting chemical pollutants via advanced flue gas cleaning system. This
increases the quality of the material within the waste circulation system. Furthermore, WtE plants increase material
recycling by sorting out valuable elements from bottom ash for example ferrous and non-ferrous metals. 4. The
challenges faced by Norwegian WtE The future of the Norwegian WtE market looked promising at the beginning of
the 2000’s. The shortage of processing capacity was significant and a landfill ban for biodegradable waste was
announced for 2009. 2403 During this period, a significant number of WtE plants were built or expanded to cope
with this national capacity shortage, still leaving a shortage of approximately 1 mill tons. Despite these facts, three
Norwegian WtE plants closed down in 2010-2011 with a total annual capacity of 80,000 t/y. This was simply due to
unsufficient profitability. Currently, several Norwegian WtE plants are suffering from low profitability. The main
reason is that the processing capacity exceeds the waste arising in the Scandinavian market where the gate fee is
basically set by the Swedish WtE plants. They can offer more favourable rates because of significantly higher
revenues from energy sales than the ones achieved by Norwegian WtE plants. Swedish WtE plants are benefitting
from well-developed district heating systems that enable the WtE plants to deliver recovered energy as heat plus
higher energy prices than in Norway. A market with excess capacity will put the gate fees under pressure and that is
not financially viable in the long run. There are two alternatives, either reduce the processing capacity or increase
the demand for processing capacity. One the one hand, a movement towards capacity reduction has, as already
mentioned, started and will probably continue if nothing is changed. If the capacity is not reduced, WtE plants will
continue to suffer from low profitability and sooner or later several of them will be forced to discontinue their
operation. On the other hand, an increase in demand for processing capacity can be achieved by the import of waste
from markets with insufficient capacity, i.e. countries where the waste would otherwise be landfilled. The main
challenge is to be able to implement this in a cost efficient manner in order to ensure that the gate fee is acceptable
for continued operation. It is possible as exemplified by the WtE agency in Oslo (EGE Oslo), currently importing waste
from the United Kingdom. If the current WtE market is stabilised, there will still be a challenge to establish new WtE
plants in the Norwegian market. The main reason is the lack of good project opportunities, i.e. projects that can
secure a long-term, strong and stable revenue stream from energy sales. The major cities in Norway (Oslo, Bergen,
Trondheim and Stavanger) have already a well-developed infrastructure for district heating. The remaining district
heating market is limited and only for small-scale applications. This makes it difficult to realize WtE plants that can
secure a full utilization of recovered energy. A possibility to improve energy utilisation is combined heat and power
(CHP). However, even that prospect is challenging from a financial point of view for two reasons: (1) high investment
costs; (2) minor differences between the energy prices achievable for the sales of heat and electricity in Norway.
This will cause a significant reduction in the revenue stream for a WtE plant that has to sell electricity rather than
heat. Another possible market sector is the industrial hot water/steam market. Several WtE plants in Norway are
currently integrated in the industry. An example is the FREVAR WtE plant located in the Øra industrial area (near
Fredrikstad). It delivers about 200 GWh/y heat to industrial actors (FREVAR, 2014). The challenge with these projects
is that the WtE plant is often dependent on a single large customer that might shut down or reduce its activities
abruptly due to fast-changing market situations. Furthermore, large industrial energy consumers are used to
significant discount in energy prices and they are normally not willing to commit to long term energy supply
contracts. The result is that it is more challenging to fund these projects as the potential profitability is low. 5. What
are the novel aspects that will be essential for Norwegian WtE to address in the coming years? The Norwegian WtE
industry must find its place in a circular economy, and concentrates even more on bringing back a variety of products
to the society. Today's WtE main product is energy, heat and/or power, in addition to the "traditional" service of
waste disposal (volume/ weight reduction and hygienic destruction). Energy (heat and/or power) can be seen as the
main product because waste disposal has been suffering from decreasing prices (the so-called gate fees) that will
probably remain low in the near and medium-term future. The WtE plants will in the future concentrate on being as
reliable, safe and cost-effective energy producers as possible, and will develop technologies and markets that can
make use of the totality of the heat produced, as today a significant fraction does not find its way into the district
heating systems but is wasted, especially in the summer. This will include technologies that can produce electricity
from low temperature heat sources, technologies that can convert the heat (and electricity) to other energy carriers
(hydrogen) or energy storage technologies that make sure that most of the energy is used. Energy systems – based
on renewable energy sources – must also go through profound changes. District heating networks must develop
flexibility and more efficient/wider markets to make sure that the energy from the district heating network can be
sufficient to all thermal energy demands in buildings. It must also be a twoway network, where as much as possible
of the energy leaving buildings is reused. See such a possible concept described on Figure 3.
Figure 3. Smart, renewable, multidirectional and integrated energy system incl. WtE (IEA, 2014) Sorting waste from
all markets (household, industry, service, construction) will increase. Food waste will be sorted out to produce
transport fuel (biogas) and fertilizer, and as much plastic as (economically and environmentally) possible will be
material recycled. The plants must be able to either sort out recyclable materials before converting it to energy, or
process waste fractions that cannot be treated in any other way. This trend will probably lead to new requirements
concerning the (online) measurements of the heat value of the waste going into the furnace and require even more
efficient flue gas cleaning systems. In the longer term, there is even a possibility to be part of “urban mining” for
valuable materials from old landfills. There is also the prospect of extracting high added-value chemical elements
such as rare earth metals, but no technical solution is commercially available yet. The by-products from WtE will
increasingly be converted into marketable products. The technologies for extracting metal fractions from bottom
ash and fly ash are soon to be standard solutions. The mineral fraction (phosphorus, etc.) from bottom ash is still
not part of a commercial market, but recent developments suggest that this also can be converted into raw materials
for, for example, clinker, cement or concrete. Public perception is also a challenge. WtE plants must be able to
explain and defend their roles both in responsible waste management and energy production systems. A key aspect
is to make sure that the fossil CO2 emitted is reduced to a minimum, and that it is emitted because there is no better
way to re-use it.

Solid Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Moving towards a Circular Economy?

3.2.2. Assessment of the Feasibility of Enhanced Landfill Mining

Enhanced landfill mining (ELFM) is proposed and defined as the “the safe conditioning, excavation and integrated
valorization of landfilled waste streams as both materials (Waste-to-Material, Sustainability 2017, 9, 286 11 of 20
WtM) and energy (Waste-to-Energy, WtE), using innovative transformation technologies and respecting the most
stringent social and ecological criteria”, and emphasized the material and energy recovery [26–30]. The landfill
deconstruction (LD) process involves the excavation process to remove the waste from the landfill. The excavated
waste is segregated to recover the fractions of the recyclable material. Figure 6 shows the typical process flow
scheme for a landfill mining process. Sustainability 2017, 9, 286 11 of 19 and respecting the most stringent social
and ecological criteria”, and emphasized the material and energy recovery [26–30]. The landfill deconstruction (LD)
process involves the excavation process to remove the waste from the landfill. The excavated waste is segregated
to recover the fractions of the recyclable material. Figure 6 shows the typical process flow scheme for a landfill
mining pro
The approach presented in Figure 6 is based on the European understanding of circular economy, the WM hierarchy
as established in the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [31], which gives advantage to the raw materials
recycling over energetic utilization. The feasibility of an enhanced LD application according to the European
understanding of circular economy is shown in Figure 7 for Vietnamese landfills. In case of Vietnamese landfills the
application of a LD concept indicates that up to 70% of LD material might need backfilling, as concluded from Austrian
and German LD pilot site investigations (Austria: landfills in Spitzau, Theresienfeld, and Tyrol; Germany: landfills in
Reiskirchen, Hechingen, Wiesbaden, Vaihingen/Horrheim, Pohlsche Heide, and Schöneicher Plan [32–34]).
Separating the GÈ Cát landfill material (screen at 60 mm) is considered to be extremely difficult with conventional
technique based on dry-mechanical screening due to the inconsistent mixture and highly different degree of
decomposition [35]. Due to the fact that GÈ Cát landfill is nearly waterlogged, a material separation without prior
drying is impossible. Further, recyclable materials are of minor relevance at GÈ Cát landfill. Usually, total LD cost
range at international scale from US$15–US$190 per m3 deconstructed landfill volume. Having in view the particular
situation at GÈ Cát landfill, the cost might reach US$20–US$40 per m3 , divided into 20%–30% for preparatory
measures, 30%–40% for machinery/processing, and 30%–40% for residues transport as well as disposal.
Nevertheless, net costs of LD must be balanced with the monetary savings and benefits of GÈ Cát landfill site. Land
occupied by the landfills could be reclaimed for the usage of urban and industrial development or societal benefits
(e.g., building a park on the landfill site), or the air-space could be recovered for a new landfill cell [36]. With respect
to material recycling from GÈ Cát landfill body the conclusion leads to an unfavorable cost-benefit-ratio, if not other
valorization options like land recycling apply. The official property price in the Binh Tuan District, where GÈ Cát
landfill is located, is 3.0 to 6.0 mil VND/m2 (compared to US$135–US$260 per m2 ), resulting in a minimum value of
the landfill area of approximately 34 mil US$ in case of a clean property. The achievable price on the property market
might be even higher as the HCMC metropolitan area is characterized by a strong competition for land. As HCMC
city administration is said to have costs of about US$830,000 per year for maintaining a safe state at the GÈ Cát
landfill, the financial pressure leads to the consideration of a particular approach to land recycling: the energetic use
of the material of GÈ Cát landfill in order to recover a valuable property in the city near industrial area. Recent
examples in Switzerland on energetic use of deconstructed landfill material show a large potential for this kind of
solution [37]. A recent feasibility study for a landfill in Switzerland having 320,000 m3 waste volume highlighted
210,000 m3 recovered landfill volume and between 3.240 MJ/t and 4.510 MJ/t energy recovery potential. The energy
necessary for transport and deconstruction cumulates to 1.5% of the heating value of the respective landfill.
Additionally, the benefit from the recovered landfill volume in monetary terms must be considered. Sustainability
2017, 9, 286 12 of 19 approach to land recycling: the energetic use of the material of Gò Cát landfill in order to
recover a valuable property in the city near industrial area. Recent examples in Switzerland on energetic use of
deconstructed landfill material show a large potential for this kind of solution [37]. A recent feasibility study for a
landfill in Switzerland having 320,000 m3 waste volume highlighted 210,000 m3 recovered landfill volume and
between 3.240 MJ/t and 4.510 MJ/t energy recovery potential. The energy necessary for transport and
deconstruction cumulates to 1.5% of the heating value of the respective landfill. Additionally, the benefit from the
recovered landfill volume in monetary terms must be considered.

ORGANIC WASTE TO ENERGY IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (LAC); STATE-OF-THE-ART LITERATURE
REVIEW

3 MAIN FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In LAC, every year millions of tons of agricultural,forest and urban solid residues are generated, and their potential
as alternative energy sources through thermochemical and biochemical processes has been identified. In recent
years, several studies have presented technical, environmental and economic analyses of different WtE
technologies, as well as their comparative performances for bioenergy production. Thermochemical technologies
include combustion or incineration, gasification and pyrolysis, and among them, incineration is the most commonly
practiced in the region [7, 8] with a demonstrated further potential. Nevertheless, nowadays there is an ongoing
debate on whether this is the
right organic waste treatment method, considering the negative environmental effects and the low process
efficiency these technologies portray, and the advantages of pyrolysis and gasification systems. As for the
biochemical technologies, these comprehend anaerobic digestion, fermentation, landfilling gas capture and
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) technologies. In recent years research and development (R&D) in the region has been
focused in small-scale anaerobic digesters (AD) [8] and landfilling; and fermentation in less extent. Notwithstanding,
interest in large-scale biodigesters, second generation (2G) biofuels and MFC´s have been gaining ground. The
main findings on the state-of-the-art of these technologies are presented hereafter: 3.1 Thermochemical
technologies Thermochemical technologies count with similar processes, the main difference between them is the
amount
of excess air and temperature within the process that leads to the conversion of final product CO2 and water or
to intermediate useful products [9]. Although incineration is currently the most used technology in the region,
gasification and pyrolysis present some advantages over combustion such as being more thermally efficient,
utilization of downstream products (biofuels, chemical or fertilizers), higher and cleaner bioenergy production,
among others [10]. However, the decision between
selecting any of these technologies is related to the type of residues or lignocellulosic materials treated, what energy
carries are developed, and the interest for each region. For example, direct combustion can produce steam to later
on be used to generate electricity. Gasification produces a lower heating value gas, which can be used to
power energy turbines [8]. Furthermore, Parascanu et al. (2017)
[11] concluded that for pyrolysis processes, the desirablecharacteristics of iomass are high volatile matter and low
ash content, and for combustion processes, the biomass has to show high low heating value (LHV) and low ash
content. In the case of gasification processes, the biomass ought to have high fixed carbon. The implementation of
thermochemical technologies will be crucial in the upcoming years, having a promising pathway to take advantage
of residues in various countries of the region. Especially, according to [8], the development of small- scale
commercial systems for the production of power inrural areas.

Generating Renewable Energy from Municipal Waste Sector: A Comparative Study between Japan and Indonesia

B. WtE Implementation in Japan Japan uses waste to energy as one form of intermediate treatment on waste
generated before disposed to landfill. Incinerator technology becomes main waste treatment method because of
the difficulty for providing land for landfills in most cities in Japan. The primary advantage of operating incinerator
is its capability in reducing weight and volume of waste until 75% and 90%, respectively [3]. Even, the latest Japanese
incineration technology can reduce the volume of solid waste up to 97.5%. The majority of MSW generation in big
cities like Tokyo is combustible waste therefore reducing weight and volume of MSW through incineration process
can reduce the amount of MSW disposed of by landfill significantly [Fig 1]. As a secondary advantage is the capability
of incinerator to generate electricity and heat. There are 1141 incinerators operated in Japan by 2015 with total
capacity 181,891 tons/day (Table 1). National average of incineration rate is over 75% placing Japan as a leading
country worldwide in the number of incinerator as well as the incineration rate [Fig 2].
Tokyo, one of prefectures in Japan, consists of 23 wards/cities relying on 21 incinerators across Tokyo to tackle its
MSW problem. In 2000, the responsibility in managing MSW was shifted from Tokyo Metropolitan Government
(TMG) to the government of 23 wards. The Clean Authority of Tokyo is a special purpose municipal body established
by the consensus of 23 Cities, based on the Local Autonomy Act, in order to deal with this joint waste management
including the management of all incinerators. All incinerators produce electricity but only five of them are designed
also for producing heat. By 2016, in total, 660 million KWh electricity was sold from all incineration plants in Tokyo
and US$ 117,66 million was generated as revenue from selling electricity. In addition, US$ 1,92 million was revenue
generated from selling 501.000 GJ of heat. About 60% of total generated power is used within facilities to operate
incinerator and the rest is sold to power companies and heat supplying companies. Two incineration plants namely
Shin-koto and Itabashi incineration plants distribute heat directly to households, schools, heated pools, tropical
museums, and other facilities around incineration plant [15]. All incinerators in Japan have also used high
combustion temperatures (800-1000oCelsius) to prevent the production of dioxins. Dioxin becomes a major health
and environmental issue since it was detected contained in fly ash from incinerator in Japan in 1983. Due to the
many additional equipment for treating the exhaust residues, the cost for construction and operation increase. The
investment needed for an incineration plant is about US$ 448 Million. Some incinerators in Tokyo were built by the
local government (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) with National Government’s subsidy and the rest are funded
by private sector. The operational and maintenance budgets are funded by income from selling electricity and heat.
The selling price (Feed in Tariff/Fit) of electricity generated by incinerator is fluctuated. Feed in Tariff (FiT) for
electricity from renewable energy sources including waste to energy is regulated by the Electric Utilities Act. Ministry
of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) defines the purchase price and purchase period for each category of
renewable energy at the beginning of every fiscal year. Related to licensing, the incinerator to be built or renovated
shall be in accordance with the standards established by the Government of Japan through its regulation, especially
a strict standards for prevent pollution. Periodically, environmental measurements around the incinerator are also
informed through the Tokyo Clean Authority website. The exhaust gas measurements are also informed directly and
real time through an information boards. In addition to the standard, the most important licensing is the approval
of local residents and environmental permits. Communications with the community are carried out thoroughly, such
as: a) providing explanations to the community when establishing and renovating, negotiations are made several
times, until community approval is obtained; b) at the time of execution, continuous follow-up do to eliminate public
anxiety; and c) conducting a public tour study at an incinerator facility. Protection for neighborhood is also done
when building and renovating facilities, such as: a) give attention to the design of the building to harmonize with the
surrounding area; b) restrict the factory's exit and entry times, use of tools, and so on to reduce noise and vibration.
Protection for neighborhood is also done while the work process every day, such as: a) prevention of noise, vibration,
and odor; b) design of garbage collector route, congestion prevention, and so on. In order to improve the energy
self-sufficient rate, Japanese government encourages private companies to develop biomass power generation.
Some private companies operate biomass power generation by methane fermentation. BIOENERGY Corporation,
the largest methane fermentation plant in Japan, produced 24,000 kWh of power generated per day from food
waste. The total amount of food waste generated in 2013 is more than 19 million tons in which 83% of total food
waste was contributed by food manufacturing industries [16]. Two determinant factors to ensure the sustainability
of biomass power generation plant in Japan are the certainty of food waste supply as feedstock and financial
incentive to reduce production cost. Even though about half of total energy generation from BIOENERGY Corporation
is sold to Power Company, the most income comes from food waste producer like food industries and restaurants.
Under extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy, producers have obligations to contribute physically as well as
financially to minimize the impact of post-consumer wastes .

Thermal Technologies

Direct Combustion Mass Burn and Refuse Derived Fuel

As mentioned above Mass Burn facilities have been in existence for decades and as the technology reflects it literally
burns/combusts everything, leaving only noncombustible material. There are over 100 of these facilities operating
in the U.S. and considerably more in Europe and Asia. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is the process of removing the
recyclable and noncombustible from the municipal solid waste (MSW) and producing a combustible material, by
shredding or pelletizing the remaining waste. There are only 19 RDF facilities in the U.S., but as energy prices climb
and landfill permitting gets more difficult there may be an increase in the number of these facilities. Figure 2 and 3
are B&W’s rendition of typical Mass Burn and RDF technologies.
Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is the thermo-chemical decomposition of organic material, at elevated temperatures without the
participation of oxygen. The process involves the simultaneous change of chemical composition and physical phase
that is irreversible. Pyrolysis occurs at temperatures >750°F (400°C) in a complete lack of oxygen atmosphere. The
syn-gas that is produced during the reaction is generally converted to liquid hydrocarbons, such as biodiesel.
Byproducts from the process are generally unconverted carbon and/or charcoal and ash.

There are various types of Pyrolysis technologies ranging from carbonization to rapid or flash type systems. Table 1
below shows the different types and comparisons of the process conditions and major products.
Figures 4 and 5 show the process flows for the fast and rapid pyrolysis processes that are being offered commercially.
We are aware of small modules operating throughout the world, but to our knowledge there are no systems
operating at large industrial sized.

Conventional Gasification

Conventional gasification is defined as the thermal conversion of organic materials at temperature of 1,000 °F - 2,800
°F (540 °C – 1,540 °C), with a limited supply of air or oxygen (sub-stoichiometric atmosphere). This is not combustion
and therefore there is no burning. Gasification uses a fraction of the air/oxygen that is generally needed to combust
a given material and thus creates a low to medium Btu syn-gas. Although more mature than other processes, it does
require complex systems, such as gas clean up equipment.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Worldwide Gasification Database shows that the current gasification capacity
has grown to 70,817 megawatts thermal (MWth) of syn-gas output at 144 operating plants with a total of 412
gasifiers. The database also shows that 11 plants, with 17 gasifiers, are presently under construction, and an
additional 37 plants, with 76 gasifiers, are in the planning stages to become operational between 2011 and 2016.
The majority of these plants—40 of 48—will use coal as the feedstock. If this growth is realized, worldwide capacity
by 2016 will be 122,106 MWth of syn-gas capacity, from 192 plants and 505 gasifiers. This data base does show that
there are gasifiers operating on both biomass and waste. Figures 6 and 7 are two basic types of gasifiers, Figure 6 is
fluidized bed gasifier and char combustor and Figure 7 is a typical slagging gasifier.
Plasma Arch Gasification

Plasma Arc gasification is the process of that utilizes a plasma torch or plasma arc using carbon electrodes, copper,
tungsten, hafnium, or zirconium to initiate the temperature resulting in the gasification reaction. Plasma
temperature temperatures range from 4,000 °F – 20,000 °F (2,200 °C – 11,000 °C), creating not only a high value syn-
gas but also high value sensible heat. The technology has been used for decades to destroy wastes that may be
hazardous. The resulting ash is similar to glass that encapsulates the hazardous compounds.

The first Plasma Arc unit began operation in 1985 at Anniston, Alabama. The unit used a catalytic converter system
to improve gas quality and the gasifier was designed to destroy munitions. The second system began operation in
1995 in Japan followed by the third system in Bordeaux, France, both design for MSW. There are other operating
systems in Sweden, Norway, the UK, Canada, Taiwan and the U.S., Japan has added nine more since 1995. All of
these are small in size but have the ability to scale up, using multiple units. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show a couple of
current systems available on the market and both can be employed to reduce waste and generate clean electric
energy.
The advantage of the Plasma gasification is the high temperature that minimizes air pollutants well below those of
traditional WTE facilities. At the elevated temperatures, there is no odor, and the cooled off gas has lower NOX, SO2
and CO2 emissions. The solid residue resembles glass beads.

Legal aspects of introducing waste-to-energy (WTE) technology in Sao Paulo State of Brazil: The case studies of
URE Barueri and city of Sao Paulo

3. Waste to energy technologies As energy is becoming short to face the high rates of population growth,
urbanization and production-consumption supply/demand around the world, it is wise to recover energy from
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) before landfilling. Besides the energy generation, the volume of waste before
landfilling can be reduced by 80-90% and by 60-70% in mass after waste to energy (WTE) treatment (Lomabardi,
Carnevale, Corti, 2015), which reduces the area needed to waste final disposal; also, the WTE technology destroys
pathogens and reduces GHG emissions (Themelis, 2015). The WTE technology doesn’t compete with recycling, since
the prior deals with recovery of materials, while WTE with energy recovery. Also, the recyclability of
materials/products are limited and not all materials can be recycled (cosmetics, soap), but some of these
materials/products can still generate energy by WTE technology. 28 The estimated disposition of post-recycling
urban solid waste in 2012 was about 1,200 billion tons (WTE = 200 billion tons, sanitary landfill with CH4 recovery =
200 billion tons, and landfilled without recovery of CH4 = 800 billion tons) and these numbers tend to increase
(Themelis, 2015). In the Table 9, it is shown some advantages/ disadvantages between landfilling, composting and
waste to energy technologies.
There are more than 800 waste to energy plants in the world, and China had almost 200 WTE plants in 2014 (total
capacity of more than 60 million annual tons) (ecoprog GmbH, 2015). In United States, there are 84 WTE power
plants, 76.2% employing mass burn technology (64 unities), 15.5% refuse derived fuel (13 unities) and 8.3% utilize
modular combustion (7 facilities); on the other hand, out of those 84 units, 73.8% produce electricity (62), 4.8%
export steam (4 units) and 21.4% cogeneration—or combined heat and power (18) (Energy Recovery Council, ERC,
2014). 29 The MSW is rich in energy and the waste to energy plant releases this energy in the form of heat and
electricity by a thermochemical conversion process, like combustion, gasification or pyrolysis (Lomabardi, Carnevale,
Corti, 2015). There are mainly two WTE technologies: the mass burn and the refused-derived fuel (RDF). The “mass
burn” technology is the combustion ofas received MSW in a single combustion chamber, while the RDF receives the
pre-processed MSW, after removing ferrous materials, glass, grit, and other materials that are not combustible (EPA,
2016). In Figure 17, it is shown the WTE plant process of generating electricity and heat.
MSW is stored in a trash storage bunker and then it is lifted it into a combustion chamber and then combusted,
releasing heat (used to convert water to steam). While the steam is generating electricity through a steam turbine
generator, the ash generated in this process is collected and taken to a landfill (EPA, 2016). The amount of ashes
generated ranges from 15-25 percent by weight of the MSW processed and from 5-15 percent of the volume of the
MSW processed. Fly ash typically amounts to 10-20 percent by weight of the total ash while the bottom ash amounts
to 80-90 percent by weight. The flue gases filtering process removes NOx, Mercury and dioxins, acid gas, particulate
matter and then the Air Pollution Control process is tested. The cleaned fuel gases are then released to the air
through a stack (EPA, 2016). The RDF technology input material are plastic packaging, paper industry rejects, high-
caloric plastics, mixed waste from households, industry, construction business, and wood. The processing of RDF
begins with pre-shredding operation, in order to 30 obtain homogeneous RDF with high calorific value. Then, the
next steps are the separation, granulation line process, Fe – and NF – separation, and the outputs (NF – fraction, 10-
30 mm; heavy fraction and RDF size between 10-90mm) (MeWa, 2016). One of the most attractive characteristic of
the waste to energy plant is related to reduction of GHG emissions. Among the various issues related to sustainability
is the climate change resulting from increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production process, consumption
and waste generated by mankind. It is estimated that these emissions over the next 100 years will be responsible
for a rise of 5 ° C in the temperature of the planet in relation to the pre-industrial period (World Bank, 2010) – an
increase equivalent to the difference between today's climate and the last glacial era - resulting in undesirable effects
such as, for example, the greatest difficulty in producing enough food for entire world population, the lower
availability and quality of water resources, and the increase of poverty. Anthropogenic activities such as burning
fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous dioxide in the atmosphere have been increasingly
interfering with natural balance of Nature and its ecosystems, by rising the temperature of the troposphere, with
huge consequences to present and future generations, and to the whole Planet. For instance, as WTE is an
intermediary process between recycling and landfilling, its comparative performance with GHG emissions from
landfill is of high relevance. Landfilling is a definitive disposal of waste, while waste to energy is often classified by
nationals’ regulatory framework as a process prior to the definitive disposal2 . So, if it reduces more the waste
volume and GHG emissions than landfills, its utilization becomes essential for a healthier environmental. The WTE
GHG reductions are quantified by GHG reductions from avoided methane emissions from landfills, WTE electrical
generation that offsets or displaces fossil-fuel based electrical generation, and the recovery of metals for recycling.
A comparison of carbon dioxide equivalents, sulfur oxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions for landfill-gas-to-
energy (LFGTE), WTE, and conventional electricity-generating technologies is shown in Figure 18 (Kaplan, Decapolis,
Thorneloe, 2009). The waste to energy reduction of CO2, NOx and SOx emissions are higher than emissions from
landfill-gas-to-energy and electricity-generating technologies. It shows the best performance of all other sources of
GHG emissions considered in this study, except the nuclear power, which, however, has some well-known weakness.

Hot Issue and Burning Options in Waste Management: A Social Cost Benefit Analysis of Waste-to-Energy in the UK

3. The UK’s Waste Treatment Policy The disposal of waste through incineration dates back to 1874 when the first
fully functional incinerator was constructed in Nottingham. The facility remained in operation for 27 years with the
ash from the plant being used as building material. The world’s first waste fired electricity generating plant was
constructed in Shoreditch, London in 1885. By 1912, there were some 300 waste incinerators in the UK; 76 of which
generated electricity (CIWEM, 2007). The early plants emitted ash, dust, and charred paper, which fell over the
surrounding neighbourhoods. The resulting local opposition to WtE plants dampened the development of the
technology in the UK, and efforts to deploy WtE came to a halt during World War II. Once mining and quarrying
opened up large cavities for cheap waste disposal, WtE became a redundant option. The 1960s and 70s saw a new
period of plant construction. About 40 incinerators were built, but because the main objective was to reduce the
volume of waste to ease the pressure on landfills, only five were equipped for power generation. Technical
knowledge of WtE in the UK had virtually disappeared, and the new firms entering the industry constructed facilities
using overseas designs at low cost. Maintenance costs rose above expectations, however, and numerous plant
breakdowns made it necessary to provide emergency disposal sites for diverted waste. Landfill proved to be the
more reliable alternative (Waste Online, 2007). Furthermore, there was a growing awareness of the invisible
environmental and health implications of the largely unregulated emissions from WtE plants with relatively
rudimentary emissions control equipment. By the end of the 1980s, opinion regarding WtE began to change as a
result of increased public awareness of the volume of waste sent to landfills. A further 18 plants have since been
permitted by the Environmental Agency, with many smaller private projects authorised under Environmental Health
powers granted to District and Borough Councils (WS WLP, 2005: 10). Figure 3 shows the highs and lows of WtE plant
construction in UK from 1968 till 2008.

Figure 4 shows MSW management within England by regions during 2005/06. Of the 28.7 million tonnes of waste,
17.9 million (62 percent) were sent to landfill, down from 19.8 million tonnes (67 percent) in 2004/05 (DEFRA, 2006).
Around 37 percent of the waste was recycled, composted or incinerated with energy recovery, but with considerable
regional variations. In the West Midlands, almost 31 percent of the total waste was incinerated with energy recovery,
while the figure was only 9 percent across England.

Establishing competitive markets for waste management externalities through the allocation of property rights is
inherently difficult. The number of agents involved (on a local, national and global scale) makes defining rights
difficult and the accompanying transaction costs prohibitively high. The alternatives are either market-based
incentives or command-and-control policies. These instruments are capable of achieving a Pareto optimal outcome
under the assumptions of a first-best world, in which government is benevolent and there is perfect competition
and perfect information in the market. In the real world, based on the degree to which these assumptions break
down, certain policies can be more appropriate than others. The remainder of this section evaluates the policies that
influence WtE decision making, taking into account the circumstances within which they operate. Each policy makes
a contribution to the overall framework of MSW management. Figure 5 is a simplified representation of England’s
waste management decision-making structure. It depicts the relationships between the main bodies and policy
documents which can be referred to throughout this section as a guide to how policy and policy making components
fit together. While the structures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are similar to this system, the nature of
local government and the names of equivalent bodies differ. We now turn to analysing five important policies
affecting WtE decisions.
An Independent Engineering Evaluation of Waste-to-Energy Technologies

2.1 Waste for energy

Wastes utilized for energy purposes in this study are animal and vegetable waste, household waste, wood
waste, water waste sludge, agricultural straws and forestry waste like barks and sawdust, excluding waste
for reuse and recycling, and waste from pulp and paper industry like black liquor. The included waste is
optionally used for production of power, heat, and motor fuels like biogas, syngas or ethanol through
different technological conversion processes. However, the collected landfill biogas is excluded from the
final WtE production calculation.
2.2 Calculation of waste generation and WtE Production

Waste generation under different waste scenarios is calculated with the methodology described in [10]. The
WtE production calculation is based on different energy supply and demand under different energy
scenarios.

2.3 Data preparation

The data is prepared through the following ways: macro statistical data is taken from external sources,
such as Statistics Sweden (SCB), Swedish Energy Agency, Swedish Environmental Research Institute and
Swedish Waste Management; waste treatment data is collected at case plants or calculated through
operation data from representative treatment plants in Sweden, for example waste heating plants; further
some data is collected from pilot plants, for example of ethanol production from cellulosic materials; and
from published literature.

2.4 Motor fuels

In this study, motor fuels production from waste refers to biogas production by digestion, syngas production
by gasification and ethanol as an alternative to replace the gasoline or diesel in the transportation sector.
Other forms of motor fuels processed from the intermediate of biogas or syngas are calculated by the
equivalent biogas or syngas amount relating to energy content.

2.5 Evaluation of CO2 reduction

Regarding the fact that in Sweden the majority of the heat is already provided by power, biofuels, WtE,
waste heat and other forms of renewable energy and only a small part comes from fossil fuels, mainly the
operation of oil-fired boilers in the peak demand time, only the possible CO2 reduction from the added
power and motor fuels production compared to the base year 2010 is included in this study. The reduction
of CO2 emission from added power production is considered to be 350 kg/MWh in this study, based on an
assumed natural gas combined cycle power plant [11]. As for the motor fuels, an average reduction of 242
kg/MWh is adopted [12 3. PRESENT ENERGY STRUCTURE ]. However, the fossil-origin CO2 emission
from waste combustion must be removed from the reduction calculation. In addition, because the UNFCCC
doesn’t publish the official data about CO2 emission in 2009 and 2010 by countries until Dec. 2011, a same
reduction percentage as 2008-2009 will be applied on the period of 2009-2010 for Sweden. If so, Sweden
will roughly have a CO2 emission about 46.67 Mt in 2010

Turning waste into energy

4. About waste to energy

• There are two main categories of waste to energy facilities: thermal and biological.
• Waste to energy technologies also produce residual outputs such as digestate from biological treatment
of organic waste or ash from thermal processing. Some of these products have value, others must be
disposed of in landfill.

• Before receiving a licence in Victoria, all waste to energy facilities must demonstrate they can meet strict
environment protection standards.

Types of waste to energy facilities Waste to energy technologies fall into two broad categories: thermal
treatments and the biological processing of organic waste. The main technologies for each are described
in more detail in Table 1 and Appendix A. The various technologies have many applications, and no two
facilities may be quite alike. While there are only a few technology types at work, each facility will be tailored
to the feedstock it uses and the outputs it produces. This section discusses some typical models for waste
to energy facilities that we might see in Victoria. Our definition of waste to energy includes gas capture and
combustion at landfills. However, those facilities are not a focus of this paper. Energy generation from
landfill gas is a mature technology that is common practice in Victoria.
Large scale combustion plant (thermal) A larger scale waste to energy plant is likely to use combustion to process
municipal solid waste (MSW). It could process very large volumes of waste and generate significant quantities of
energy. Some could also accept commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. The
Amager Bakke combustion plant in Copenhagen will treat around 400,000 tonnes of waste annually produced by
500,000 – 700,000 inhabitants and at least 46,000 companies. By 2017, it will supply a minimum of 50,000
households with electricity and 120,000 households with district heating. This type of plant would charge a gate fee
to local governments and waste generators to take their residual waste, and sell the electricity produced to the grid.
Projects at this scale would need to enter into long-term contracts to secure a reliable supply of waste feedstock.
Waste is combusted, generating heat and steam to power turbines. Additional revenues can be achieved in waste
to energy facilities that capture both heat and electricity. For example, in some European waste to energy facilities
that are located next to large residential populations, heat is distributed through district heating systems. In
Australia, heat may be more likely used by industry for manufacturing processes or could be turned into cooling for
residential or commercial use.The residual ashes are usually disposed to landfill, unless the facility can reprocess
those outputs into new products, such as bricks for construction. A large combustion plant may cost hundreds of
millions of dollars to build, create hundreds of construction jobs and dozens of ongoing jobs.
Anaerobic digestion plant (biological)
Anaerobic digesters process organic waste with high moisture content in a sealed oxygen-free environment. Good
waste feedstocks for this technology include food waste, manures from farms, or sewage sludge. This kind of waste
to energy produces biogas that can be used directly, in place of natural gas, or it can be used to produce electricity.
This type of plant, like a combustion model, can charge a fee to take waste and, at a suitable scale, sell electricity to
the grid. With appropriate approvals, it might also further process the digestate that remains after biogas has been
produced and sell it as a fertiliser or soil conditioner.

Municipal Solid Waste: Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the only form of biological treatment of MSW. It creates the least amount of waste and
is the most efficient conversion technology, yet has the smallest contribution to total energy output of WTE
Anaerobic digestion produces a biogas which can be used to produce electricity, process steam, or in the
transportation sector —In this biological process, microorganisms are used to break down organic waste in the
absence of oxygen in an enclosed vessel. Temperature, moisture, nutrient contents, and pH of the organic matter
are key factors in the process —The biogas from AD consists of 60%-70% methane (CH4 ), 30%-40% carbon dioxide
(CO2 ), and other trace chemicals Biogas can be used to power a gas engine or turbine or it can be compressed and
purified for use as vehicle fuel Methane may also be extracted from the biogas for direct use Many forms of
anaerobic digestion exist and some of these are more efficient than others. Efficiency of the AD process depends on
the form of waste used as feedstock as well as the vessel used to host the process —Until recently, AD adopters
have been individual farms looking for ways to reduce their environmental (waste) footprint and thus have been
focused less on economics than other non-financial factors In these cases, the main feedstock for AD has been
animal waste as opposed to MSW —Municipal sewage contains biomass solids, so AD is also used in wastewater
treatment plants to reduce volume of those solids. However, AD of sewage produces other harmful chemicals not
found in AD of farm animal waste —Landfill gas (LFG)-to-energy is a less efficient form of AD that harnesses and uses
gas from pre-existing landfills Two drawbacks of AD are its by-product and its need to be pre-treated —In addition
to the methane-rich biogas created in the AD process, a digestate, in either a solid or liquid form (depending on
either dry or wet input) is also created as a by-product. The digestate must be disposed of or composted in solid
form or purified and treated in its liquid form. This treatment process requires expensive, complex technologies —
In order for MSW to be used in this process, it must be inspected and sorted to remove plastics and other
contaminants. This added cost reduces the efficiency of AD

Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Technology Applications for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Treatment in the Urban
Environment
II. WASTE TO ENERGY (WTE): AN INTEGRATION OF TWO INDUSTRIES
According to a 2001 study by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), ―The increasing volumes of waste
being generated would not be a problem if waste was viewed as a resource and managed properly‖ [9]. Waste to
Energy (WTE) technology is a green opportunity to continue the path of human ingenuity and technical
advancement.
A. Pyrolysis Process
The Pyrolysis process begins when MSW, after presorting and shredding, is metered into a reactor with little or no
oxygen. The temperature in the reactor is increased to a range between 1,200 and 2,200ºF. Combustion (―burning‖)
does not occur in this process. When carbonbased materials are exposed to high temperatures, chemical bonds
begin to break. Depending on the temperature, this process results in the generation of solid char, oily liquids, and
gases such as hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile hydrocarbons such as methane (CH4). Such a
mixture of these flammable gases is known as syngas. Syngas is further treated to remove harmful substances
including mercury, hydrochloric acid, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. After this process, the syngas may be
used to generate electricity using a gas turbine. The resultant solid and fluid residues (ash, char, metals, biooils, etc.)
can be further processed to produce solid fuels for power plants, a petroleum substitute (bio-oil), and concrete filler.
Pyrolysis typically generates 571 kWh per ton of MSW [14].
B. Gasification Process
Similar to pyrolysis, conventional gasification often begins after removing recyclables and large items such as
refrigerators and car bumpers. The remaining MSW is fed into a gasifier. The gasification reactor is heated to
temperatures between 1450-3000ºF. In contrast to incineration, gasification uses a sub-stoichiometric volume of
oxygen, often called a ―starved-air‖ process. This creates a smoldering reaction which generates syngas mixed with
combustion products such as CO2 and water vapor. Often, steam is added into the process in order to enhance
production of hydrogen and hydrocarbon gases. The syngas is cleaned up to remove hazardous components and can
then be used to generate electricity. Due to the small amount of air involved in the gasification process, the produced
gas has a higher caloric value than the pyrolysis process. The conventional gasification process can generate 685
kWh per ton of MSW [14]. Mixed gases, ash, slag, and metals are produced at the end of the reactions in the
gasification reactor. The remaining solids are useful as concrete and asphalt aggregates. As in the pyrolysis process,
mixed gases should be filtered to get high quality syngas and to remove hazardous gases such as sulfur, chlorides,
and mercury. To get high quality syngas from the gasification process, preprocessing of raw MSW is required.
C. Plasma Arc Gasification Process
The Plasma arc gasification process is the most advanced and efficient technology available. Its name is due to the
process of generating plasma (the so-called ―4th state of matter‖) by ionizing a gas in the reactor. The plasma flames
generated are essentially lightning bolts, created by high-voltage arcs. Temperatures in this process range from 7,200
to 12,600 ºF. MSW is generally shredded, then fed into the plasma reactor with sub-stoichiometric volumes of
oxygen or air. The syngas produced can be cleaned, and used to make electricity. The solid residue from plasma arc
gasification is unique. A glass-like byproduct, known as vitrified slag, extrudes from the bottom of the reactor. An
attractive characteristic of this material is that its components do not leach out. The vitrified slag consists of metals
and silicate glasses which fuse together into an inert solid. Vitrified slag has more uses than ash from conventional
gasification, including as insulation material, flooring tiles, and garden blocks. By utilizing plasma arc technology it is
possible to generate 816 kWh per ton of MSW.

The Evolution of WTE Utilization - The European Perspective

 Energy from Waste Waste incineration is an old and established method for treating MSW in Europe. The
first plant was built already during the 1890'ies. By that time waste incineration was used for hygienic aspects, not
least to solve the enormous problems with cholera in the densely populated cities of Europe. Still being a method to
tackle the hygienic problems it also during the 1900'ies became a method for reducing the increasing volumes of
waste being generated. Incineration was not associated with any form of recovery. An objective like that is relevant
for a society with linear material flows where raw materials are provided from virgin materials and the waste
dumped without any recycling. This is not in accordance with a society of sustainable development. Today we are
aiming at a cyclic flow. There is only one objective for waste incineration that is relevant in the eco cyclic society and
that is energy recovery. Volume reduction is no more an objective but still an important parameter when comparing
environmental impact. Furthermore incineration is only justifted when the method is at least as favourable as other
recycling or recovery alternatives. In many European countries you will not even get a permission today to build a
new waste incineration plant without recovering the produced energy. Besides, the operation costs in a modern
plant with advanced flue gas cleaning and a strict handling of the residues will be too high without any incomes from
energy recovery. The situation in Europe when coming to waste incineration is today actually a little bit difficult to
overlook. In some countries there are a number of old, small incineration plants not meeting the EO-directives on
waste incineration. Of course they have to be closed down, probably replaced with new, larger plants, but there is
an uncertainty about the future amounts of waste to be incinerated due the effects of the increased recycling
activities, the effects of the producer's responsibility and of the ban or restrictions on landfilling of organic and
burnable waste. Will the amounts for incineration increase, decrease or remain at today's level? At some larger
plants in Europe there is to-day an overcapacity, due the increased amounts of waste being recycled or composted.
The restrictions on landfilling will probably change this situation into the opposite and there will probably soon be a
demand for increased incineration capacity in many European countries.

Waste-to-Energy Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management

3. WASTE-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

This chapter gives an overview of five WtE technologies at the municipal scale (see Figure 4): incineration,
coprocessing, anaerobic digestion (AD), landfill gas (LFG) and pyrolysis/gasification (further also called alternative
technologies). While the general principles of the last two chapters apply, these five technologies have different
functions and applications in the municipal waste management system. The order of the technologies is based upon
the perceived demand for advice on these technologies and does not imply any priority or applicability. For each
technology, some technical background information is given followed by a listing of the suitable waste types and a
summary of related operational, environmental, legal and financial matters. The reader should gain a basic
understanding of which technology fits which waste stream best and the ecological, legal and financial implications.
Several publications are available from different stakeholders, describing in detail the essential differences and
specifics of WtE technologies (see references and further reading sections). Some also include an analysis of
necessary prerequisites such as market, policy, regulatory and financial sustainability issues. These documents are
an invaluable source of information, especially for technical experts and implementation agents. However, many of
these documents assume that pre-conditions can easily be met (e.g. enforced payment of waste charges, close to
100% separate collection of organic waste at the door step, or existence of the required legal framework), and
implementation risks in local contexts often do not receive the required attention.

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY AS A KEY COMPONENT OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT IN MUMBAI, INDIA

3.2 What is Integrated Solid Waste Management?

India, as well as all other developing countries, would benefit from adopting the “integrated solid waste
management” approach established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early nineties. [126]
This approach deals effectively and efficiently with all aspects of solid waste management, starting from the
generation of waste by an individual to final disposal by local government. It is based on the fact that there is not a
single solution to the waste management problem, but by adopting five main approaches -- source reduction,
recycling, composting, incineration, and landfills – one can effectively manage the waste generated. [126]
• Source reduction begins with reducing the amount of waste generated, reusing materials to prevent them from
entering the waste stream, and recycling them to prevent materials from being disposed in landfills.
• Recycling is the method of taking used plastic, glass, metals, and paper and reprocessing them into new products.
It reduces the amount of materials that need to be sent to landfills and conserves energy by lowering the amount of
virgin materials that need to be used. [110]
• Composting is the process of converting organic material into compost through aerobic or anaerobic
decomposition. Compost is used as a fertilizer or soil. [18]
• Incineration is the process of combusting waste at high temperatures and in the presence of air. The heat is then
used to produce steam for electricity or district heating (cooling) or both. Incineration lowers the volume of trash to
be disposed in landfills and is considered to be a renewable energy sources in many countries, including India. (See
Section 3.3 for more information on WTE as a renewable technology).
• Landfills are used for the disposal of wastes that cannot be recycled, composted, or incinerated. Landfills have
been known to cause pollution in air and water and are a major source of greenhouse gases. Hence, landfilling should
be used as a last resource and only when the first four components of integrated solid waste management have
been exhausted. 15
Often a waste hierarchy is used to explain the preferred methods of waste generation and disposal. [143] Figure 12
shows that the preferred step is the prevention of waste generation. Although the goal of “zero waste” has been
promoted by groups around the world, it is unlikely that as economies develop and consumption levels rise this will
be achievable. Instead, reusing materials, by repairing, donating, or selling them, or recycling them into other
products, are more easily achievable. If materials cannot be reused or recycled, they should be sent to waste-
toenergy facilities that can recover both energy and resources through incineration. Only if products cannot be
incinerated should they be landfilled. Note that incineration with energy recovery is much preferred to incineration
solely to reduce the volume of waste without energy recovery. Dumping and open burning are the least preferred
methods for solid waste disposal. Unfortunately, in India, both dumping and open burning are the most prevalent
methods of MSW disposal today. As solid waste management policies develop and people become more aware of
the consequences of open dumping and burning, it is hoped that India will switch from these methods to modern
waste-to-energy and that regulated landfills will eventually be used only for disposal of non-compostable or non-
combustible materials, such as WTE ash.

Environmental Analysis of Waste-to-Energy— A Portuguese Case Study

Waste management is currently a global concern in view of an exponential population growth accompanied by
lifestyle improvements and their consequences, such as higher demand for plastic products and packaging,
evidenced by the steadily growing number of field-related published literature. Chen et al. [1] performed a
bibliometric analysis of the research concerning municipal solid wastes from 1997 to 2014 and concluded that this
type of publications has progressively increased, especially at the beginning of the 21st century. Recently, Eriksson
[2] has also published a special issue on energy and waste management, compiling more than 20 works which cover
the technicalaspects as well as some future perspectives on the energy systems. Zhang et al. [3] reported on the key
challenges and opportunities on the waste-to-energy (WtE) in China, referring some hints of the economic and social
benefits related to the implementation of standardized and regulated waste management processes. Environmental
regulations and directives seek sustainable solutions to this problem, regarding the implementation of new
technologies as well as using the existing ones, to assure environmental quality and aiding to meet the set goals [4–
8]. The European Union has established well-defined waste management policies, preconizing preventive measures
and promoting reducing ones, with the aim to take control over the progressively increasing amounts of solid
residues produced nowadays [9]. Cucchiella et al. [10] studied the sustainability of Italian waste-to-energy (WtE)
plants according to environmental, financial, economic and social interpretations. A remarkable conclusion of their
work was that WtE processes are effective in combating climate change arising from global warming potential
causes, once it is possible to generate renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions. This is corroborated by a myriad
of studies compiled some years ago by Cherubini and Stromman [11]. Also, as waste is combusted instead of
disposed of, these techniques reduce the amount of methane released by landfills. The authors found an interesting
solution to balance the need to manage waste with a safe and controlled release of pollutant emissions through the
use of mixed waste strategies, therefore promoting sustainability as well as complying with waste legislations. For a
deeper understanding of waste management evolution, a thorough review on this topic was published by Brunner
and Rechberger [12], where incineration is highlighted as a featured WtE technique. This technology was also
pointed as more environment-friendly when compared to others such as sanitary landfill and mechanical-biological
treatment [13] or even recycling in specific cases [14]. There are even published works on the waste management
balance between some techniques, showing that as landfilling is reduced and other options such as incineration
raise, more easily attainable are the EU goals, while high efficiency rates are reached [4]. While the first incinerators
were built only for hygienic and waste volume reduction purposes, with no interest in energy recovery, nowadays
besides environmental protection, modern WtE plants show significant contributions to the so-claimed resource
conservation once some of their by-products may substitute primary resources [3,4]. In countries where waste
streams are already seen as important assets for energy production, WtE outcomes are intensively scrutinized in
order to determine the overall amount of biogenic CO2 emissions, as in the case of Austria [15], and also to interpret
the effect of changing waste fractions by adding different types of residues, recalling a recent work published for
Norway [16]. Portugal also struggles to reach the so desired environmental sustainability, hence progresses have
been made in the last years. Back in 2006, Magrinho et al. [17] published a review on the municipal waste disposal,
reporting on the waste management practices at that time. Main findings were that since 1998 separate collection
of residues was growing as the most common way of disposal, until 2002 when WtE plants became the most
important disposal means. In 2009, Ferreira et al. [18] conducted an overview of the bioenergy production
highlighting that, although by that time the country was the fourth-largest share of renewable electricity generation
in Europe, bioenergy production was not at the desired level. The authors suggested that the energy from animal
origin had high potential but was still not well developed. Regarding biomass, it was and still is a highly available
resource, enabling the use of several technologies for power production. More recently, Margallo et al. [19] assessed
incineration in Iberian Peninsula, so that the overall process was better known and discussed, in order to understand
the influence of some critical factors such as waste composition, moisture and heating value on the environmental
burdens associated with each fraction. The trigger for this conscious behaviour towards environment and public
health protection as well as materials and energy return was given by the settlement of PERSU I (strategic plan
dealing with municipal solid waste management between 1996 and 2006, establishing major goals such as ending
up waste discharges in Nature, creating waste recovery plants and sanitary landfills, among others), followed by
PERSU II (proceeding with municipal solid waste management between 2007 and 2016 and rectifying possibleflaws
from the previous plan) [17]. Nowadays the prevailing plan is PERSU 2020, which constitutes an improvement of
PERSU II for the period between 2014 and 2020 aiming at specific targets like reducing waste deposition from 63%
to 35% of the reference values for 1995, raising the reuse and recycling rates from 24% to 50% and also ensuring
levels of selective waste collection of 47 kg/inhabitant/year [20]. The waste management entity for the area of
Greater Porto (the most densely populated district on the north of the country), LIPOR, holds responsibility for the
management, recovery and treatment of municipal wastes from eight associated municipalities, produced by 1
million inhabitants at a 500,000 t/year rate. Its integrated waste management system (IWMS) includes separated
units for waste valorisation, incineration, recovery, composting of the organic residue and landfilling of a small pre-
treated fraction (Table 1). Despite recyclables may be seen as treasured resources due to their origin and heating
value (enhancing the capacity of the plant to produce renewable energy), the company makes the effort of instilling
the idea that these items can be transformed in better assets through the sorting plant than sending them to energy
valorisation process, according to the waste management hierarchy.

4.4. Waste to Energy in Germany

The yearly MSW production in Germany is about 48 million tons [55]. As one of the high income countries, the
average composition of German MSW is presented in table 7 [56]. About 37.8% of the produced MSW are
incinerated, 44.5% are recycled and 17.3% are composted while the remaining 0.4% goes to landfills [57]. Table 7
German Average MSW Composition [56] Component Paper Organic Plastic Metals Glass others Percentage 31 28 11
6 7 17 There are many WTE technologies applied in Germany such as mono-incineration, coincineration, RDF
production and biomethanation for biogas production [58]. The average number of existing WTE plants in Germany
are about 900 fermentation plants, 62 mechanical-biological waste treatment plants, 67 waste incineration plants,
one pyrolysis plant and about 36 RDF power plants.

Waste to Energy Technology

There are multiple technologies for converting MSW to energy, but these technologies are not in competition with
each other

● Incineration of waste is the most prevalent form of converting MSW to energy. The waste is combusted,
and the heat or biogas created is harnessed and either distributed as heat or converted into another form
of useful energy –steam or electricity
● Combustion processes are classified as mass burn combustion, where waste is not pre-sorted, or RDF
combustion, a more costly process where recyclable materials are sorted from the rest of the waste. This
process is also known as the Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) combustion process
 ● Another thermal treatment process is gasification, which is effective in minimizing air pollutants.
Gasification occurs in the presence of limited oxygen and generates a synthetic gas to be used in a heat and
electricity producing gas turbine
● A third process, pyrolysis, is now reaching market maturity - it is a thermochemical process that produces
syngas, and most recently cellulosic ethanol
● Anaerobic digestion is a form of biological treatment where organic material is treated and the output
biogas is rich in methane. The biogas can be cleaned and used, turned into heat and electricity, or used for
methane

Waste to Energy: A New Dimension in Generating Electricity in Bangladesh

The natural resources in the form of fossil fuels are the raw materials from which electrical energy is generated and
the day to day life of the people of today’s world is solely dependent on the electrical energy [1]. Researchers in this
field say that the reserved gas will be finished soon, and usage of gas is increasing day by day. In developing countries,
especially in Bangladesh, there is not enough generation of electrical energy to keep up with the demand, and there
is a scarcity of raw materials for producing the energy. Alternative sources are now explored to prepare for the
future dearth of traditional energy sources. The waste materials can be a good source of energy as the amount of
waste is increasing every day, and can help in meeting the electrical energy not only in Bangladesh but also in the
world. Many countries are now switching to renewable energy sources, as they are clean and a suitable substitute
for fossil fuels [2]. Some part of the world have already established a few waste to energy power plants but this is
not enough and there is a huge scope of increasing the overall performance of the systems.

II. WASTE RESOURCES IN BANGLADESH

For a developing country like Bangladesh, converting the waste materials into energy is economically advantageous.
Let us first have a look at the waste generation and disposal of waste in Dhaka City as listed in Table I and the
composition of that waste is listed in Table II [9]. Recycling industry wastes raises a total of 436 t/d [10] of material
recovery as shown in the Table III. The amount recovered is the amount of waste to be managed by Dhaka City
Corporation (DCC). Composting contributes very little to the waste reduction although the compostable waste has
the largest portion among generated wastes. The target level of waste disposal is set up on Table IV as shown below.
As a result, 3,054 t/d is expected to be collected in 2015. The cumulative disposal volume is estimated at about 9
million tonnes by the end of 2015 [9]. The Study Team conducted waste generation source surveys in dry and wet
seasons to obtain the unit waste generation rate of domestic waste and business waste. The results of the surveys
are shown in Table V. The average waste generation rate from domestic sources proved to be 0.34 kg/c/day.

Electricity Generation by Use of Urban Solid Waste

3. Electricity Generation
With the technological evolution that is intensifying human activities in recent decades, there is a growth in
electricity consumption. The generation that was once based on the availability and economic feasibility, today is
based on efficiency and in the environmental impacts [7]. In Brazil, after the electricity rationing occurred in 2001, a
tendency of diversification of energy sources has begun to stimulate the energy generation from alternative sources
[8]. Although there are still large potential of hydropower to be explored, factors such as the difficulty in obtaining
environmental permits, concerns about the energy market and climate changes, suggest the development of
alternative systems for power generation. To supply small demands, alternative sources are viable, however, the
large scale use requires high initial investments and the installation of these generation methods depends on the
definition of regulatory policies that ensure incentive and government support [9]. Because of this, the Brazilian
government had created the PROINFA (Incentive Program for Alternative Sources of Electric Energy) in order to
increase the participation of electricity produced by these sources in the national power electric system.

Waste to Power: A small-scale waste to energy system that doesn’t count its chickens

Pre-treatment Technology
The pre-treatment of wastes involve several different processes , such as crushing, drying and
deodorizing. Now an innovative technology called a Resource Recycling System (RRS) has been
developed that can perform these three pretreatment functions in a single process, utilizing
high-pressure saturated steam. This technology is characterized by low energy consumption for
drying. Figure 1 shows the operating principle of RRS.

Solid wastes, such as municipal solid waste (MSW), plastics, food residues, animal manure and
sewage sludge, are fed into the reactor. Saturated steam at 200-230 °C, 16-30 bar is injected into
the reactor for about 60 minutes. The reactor blades rotate for about 10-30 minutes to achieve
uniform mixing. The product is then discharged after extracting the steam.

The raw wastes of various sizes are converted into a powdery material, although the moisture
content remains almost the same as that of the raw material. The powdery product is
subsequently dried by ambient air or by air blowing. Drying is carried out using natural energy,
which results in low energy consumption. The product is almost odourless.

The product can be used for co-firing with coal for power generation or as part-substitute for coal
for cement manufacture.The extracted steam is condensed and the condensed water is
discharged or recycled as boiler feed water after appropriate treatment.