Accepted Manuscript

Economic and Environmental Assessment of Electricity Generation using Biogas

from Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste for the City of Ibadan, Nigeria

T.R. Ayodele, A.S.O. Ogunjuyigbe, M.A. Alao

PII: S0959-6526(18)32633-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.282

Reference: JCLP 14066

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 20 September 2017

Accepted Date: 27 August 2018

Please cite this article as: T.R. Ayodele, A.S.O. Ogunjuyigbe, M.A. Alao, Economic and
Environmental Assessment of Electricity Generation using Biogas from Organic Fraction of
Municipal Solid Waste for the City of Ibadan, Nigeria, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.282

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Economic and Environmental Assessment of Electricity Generation using Biogas from

Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste for the City of Ibadan, Nigeria

Ayodele T.R, *Ogunjuyigbe A.S.O, and Alao M.A

Power, Energy, Machine & Drive Research Group, Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Email: a.ogunjuyigbe@ui.edu.ng, tr.ayodele@ui.edu.ng, moshoodakanni4u@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author: Ogunjuyigbe A.S.O, Email; aogunjuyigbe@yahoo.com

Abstract

In this paper, biogas recovery from organic fraction of municipal solid waste for the purpose of
electricity generation is presented with the objective of determining its economic and
environmental benefits for the city of Ibadan, Nigeria. Two methods of biogas recovery
technologies (i.e., anaerobic digestion and landfill gas recovery technologies) were considered.
The environmental impact was performed using life cycle assessment technique while the
economic assessment was determined using total life cycle cost, levelised cost of energy, net
present value, internal rate of return and payback period. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to
investigate the influence electricity generation efficiency, capacity factor, per capita waste
generation rate, discount rate, population growth rate and waste collection efficiency on the
economic viability of the two technologies. Some of the results indicated that in a span of 20 years
(i.e., 2017-2036), the waste generation potential of the city of Ibadan was estimated between
477,001 – 966,897 tons. The methane yield for anaerobic digestion and landfill gas recovery
technologies were determined to be about (104.66 – 212.15) x 106 m3/yr and (22.65 – 127.65) x
106 m3/yr, respectively. Also, the electricity generation potential ranged between 321.73 – 652.15
Gigawatt-hour for anaerobic digestion and 63.25 – 436.18 Gigawatt-hour for landfill gas recovery
technologies. The economic indicators showed that both technologies are economically viable as
they presented positive net present values. The net present value for anaerobic digestion was
834.12 million US dollar while that of landfill gas recovery was 489.26 million US dollar. The
levelised cost of electricity generation was between 0.0681–0.0336 US dollar per kilowatt-hour
for anaerobic digestion technology while it ranged from 0.2411 - 0.0350 US dollar per kilowatt
hour for landfill gas recovery technology. The payback period, internal return and the total life

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cycle cost were 5 years, 19.3% and 413.68 million US dollar for the anaerobic digestion and 7
years, 23.4% and 288.05 million US dollar for landfill gas recovery technology. This paper intends
to serve as first-hand technical information to potential investors, government agencies, policy
makers and potential non-governmental organisations to enhance optimal investment in biogas to
energy technologies in Nigeria.

Keywords: Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Landfill Gas (LFG) recovery, Municipal solid waste,
energy recovery and Economic sustainability, Bio-cell

1. Introduction

The age‐long exploitation of fossil fuel has resulted into global warming due to significant
emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) with its attendant environmental and health problems. In recent
years, emission of GHG has been considered the singular largest environmental threat globally
Ayodele et al. (2012). Global attention has been shifted towards renewable energy sources and
technologies for electricity generation and transportation due to the environmental menace caused
by use of fossil fuel as well as the foreseeable depletion in its reserves. Energy recovery
technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD) and landfill gas (LFG) recovery from municipal
solid waste (MSW) have been identified to offer both advantages of efficient waste management
as well as providing energy (electricity and heat) in an environmentally-friendly and economically-
viable manner Rajaeifara et al. (2017) thereby bridging the gap between sustainable environment
and energy supply.

Biogas (the main product of AD processes i.e., AD technology and LFG recovery) is a mixture of
two main greenhouse gases: methane (CH4) consisting of about 55–75% by volume and carbon
dioxide (CO2) consisting of about 25–45% by volume with trace concentration of other non-
methane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as mercaptans, hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and other
organic compounds Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). The greater concentration of methane (i.e., 55-
70% by volume in bio-digester Igoni et al. (2008) and 50–55% by volume in landfill Johari et al.
(2012) and its high energy content (i.e., 37.2 MJ/m3 Ayodele et al. (2017b) make it an important
component of biogas. However, the biogas needs to be purified or upgraded to natural gas
(biomethane) grade before its final consumption as a fuel. The purification process may be by
physical absorption using caustic soda, adsorption on activated carbon and silica gel, permeation

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

approach or cryogenic approach Rajaeifar et al. (2017). The upgraded biogas can be fed into a
combined heat and power (CHP) engine for electricity and heat generation, a boiler for hot water
or steam production and/or as fuel for automobile and stationary engines Rajaeifar et al. (2017).

Technologies for biogas recovery from the highly degradable (putrescible) fraction of MSW have
been developed to a considerable extent in many countries around the world such as Germany,
France, Sweden and Canada Davis ( 2014). Bio-digester, dry-tomb (sanitary) landfill and
bioreactor landfill are prominent technologies for biogas generation through AD process. These
technologies follow biological decomposition of degradable organic materials (i.e., organic
fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), animal waste, industrial sewage sludge, wastewater,
agricultural waste and residues or energy crops) under the influence of microorganisms in an
oxygen lacking condition Aguilar-Virgen et al. (2014). Anaerobic digester is a well-controlled
enclosure Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017) or an air-tight biologically-engineered structure or container
Itodo and Phillips (2001) constructed with materials such as concrete, steel, plastic or brick Nizami
(2012a) where degradable organic material is placed. In sanitary landfill, solid waste is buried and
left alone. For example, in the work of Aydi et al. (2015), three different models were used to
estimate LFG generation and the collection efficiency at the landfill of Jebel Chakir, Tunisia. The
authors aimed to evaluate the electricity generation potential as well as environmental benefit of
utilising LFG for possible electricity generation in Tunisia. The result revealed that LFG to electric
energy gave a total LFG-to-electricity energy of about 255 GWh with a heating value of 4475
kcal/m3, based on a LFG collection efficiency of 58% (loss of 42%) and an energy efficiency of
33%. The authors are of the opinion that investigation of LFG utilisation in Tunisia is satisfactory
in terms of electric energy generation as well as mitigation and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. In a bioreactor landfill, the leachate produced is recirculated into the solid waste to
enhance waste biodegradation. Another novel method of optimizing biogas recovery from landfill
is by biocell technology.

Biocell technology is an extension of the bioreactor landfill whereby a holistic approach of

sustainable solid waste management is followed. Biological decomposition in a biocell occurs in
three stages such as anaerobic, aerobic and mining stages. In the anaerobic stage, landfill gas is
produced using leachate recirculation. In the second stage, the biocell operates as aerobic

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bioreactor whereby air is injected into the solid waste matrix for compost formation. In third stage,
the biocell is mined to extract recyclable materials and space recovery for reuse Davis ( 2014).
From these processes, it is evident that biocell considers waste as a resource for sustainable
development Meegoda et al. (2013). In biocell, the degradation rate is faster and the methane stage
is about 10–20 years whereas for conventional mixed MSW landfill, methane stage is about 50-
100 years Sundqvist (1999). There are two processes of landfill gas collection in practice such as
passive and active collection systems. In passive system, the generated gas moves through the
vertical wells and horizontal trenches by means of natural pressure gradient forces. On the other
hand, an active landfill gas collection system uses a mechanical pump, creating a vacuum in the
vertical and/or horizontal well network Amini (2011).

Another promising alternative for biogas utilisation is the possibility of obtaining renewable
hydrogen (H2) gas through catalytic reforming technologies such as steam reforming (SR), partial
oxidation reforming (POR), auto-thermal reforming (ATR), dry reforming (DR) and dry oxidation
reforming (DOR) Alves et al. (2013). H2 is an efficient energy carrier which when fed into fuel
cell (such as Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC)
produces electricity in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. Among other
types of fuel cell, PEMFC is very promising owing to its low temperature operation and quick start
up Bajpai and Dash (2012). Moreover, AD process can have financial gain by selling the biogas or
the power generated by its combustion and, when possible, the digestate as fertilizer for
agricultural activity Esposito et al. (2012)

It is well known that both the AD (bio-digester) and LFG recovery technologies require similar
input (biodegradable organic biomass) to achieve similar output (biogas or landfill gas) but through
different means. Since the techniques are different, the cost of project implementation, the amount
of biogas generated and the environmental benefit/burden for the two technologies would differ.
Hence, there is a need to make a comparative assessment of the two technologies in order to be
able to make an informed decision for a given location. Some of the differences between the AD
and LFG technologies are as highlighted in Table 1.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Differences between AD and LFG technologies Alves et al. (2013; Ouda et al. (2016)
AD
 Takes place in a digester
 Space requirement is low
 Requires space for storing feedstock
 GHG Minimization
 Cost effective but more expensive
 Better public acceptance
 Digestate produced as by-product is used as
substitute for synthetic fertilizer or soil
conditioner
 Methane content is in the range of 55-70%
 Biogas is directly collected through the gas
holder
LFG
 Takes place in a sanitary landfill
 Large space is required
 No space is required for waste storage prior to
landfilling
 If not collected large GHG is emitted
 Less expensive
 Not enjoys acceptance as AD technology
 Leachate produced as a by-product is a water
contaminant
 Methane content is in the range of 50-55%
 Landfill gas is collected through a system of
wells

In order to accurately assess the most appropriate AD technology, a thorough knowledge of the
waste composition is essential because different feedstocks have varying degradation rates and
biogas yields. AD process has four main stages: Pre-treatment, waste digestion, gas recovery and
residue treatment Mustafa et al. (2016). Due to the heterogeneous (mixed) form of MSW,
pretreatment is highly required to obtain homogeneous feedstock prior to feeding into the digester.
The pretreatment involves separation (sorting) of non-degradable materials from the waste stream
and shredding. Separation could be from the source (source separation) or by mechanical method
(mechanical separation). Waste separation ensures removal of inert, non-degradable and
recyclable components (such as, plastic, glass, metal, stones etc.,) from the feedstock so that the
remaining organic degradable (food waste, yard waste etc.,) could be fed into the digester.
However, the high lignin content of paper and woody material makes them unsuitable for AD
process Nizami (2012a).

The choice of digester type depends on a number of factors such as the moisture content of
feedstock (wet or dry), the solid content in the feedstock (high or low solid), the feeding rate (batch
or continuous), operating temperature (mesophilic or thermophilic), the system complexity (single
stage or multi stage). The detail of these factors is depicted in Table 2.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2: Types of anaerobic digesters Igoni et al. (2008)

Classification basis
Substrate feeding
Operating temperature
Substrate Solid contents
Substrate type
AD process complexity
Scale of digester
Digester types
Batch and continuous digesters
Mesophilic (25-40oC), thermophilic (50-65oC) and psychrophilic
(10-15oC) digesters
Dry and wet digesters
High solids ( > 20 %TS) and low solids (< 20% TS) digesters
Single stage and multistage digesters
Farm-based, food processing and centralized digesters

There are a number of nations around the world that are utilizing anaerobic digester technology
especially in Europe for treating OFMSW. The primary development of AD technology is in
Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, where several anaerobic digester companies treating MSW
had successfully been implemented.

Due to low solid content of agricultural and municipal wastewater, single-stage wet digesters are
used for the treatment Rapport et al. (2008). Some of the digesters designed to operate based on
wet system are WASSA, BTA and Linde-KCA. Generally, the batch system is usually associated
with high solid wastes of low volume, while the continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) considers
low solid wastes of high volume Igoni et al. (2008). Since the OFMSW is of high solid and low
volume, then dry-batch process may be appropriate to be adopted for treating OFMSW
Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). This is in compliance with previous work by Igoni et al. (2008).
Kompogas, Varloga and Dranco are some of the digesters designed for dry OFMSW. Multistage
digesters are too expensive and complex to operate but provide more favorable conditions for the
reaction of low-cellulose materials such as animal manure and poultry waste Verma (2002).
Whereas single-stage digesters are preferred because they have simple design and are less
expensive to operate Rapport et al. (2008). They also have low capital and operation costs Nizami
(2012b). Detail of some of the digester designs are shown in Table 3

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Anaerobic Digesters in Europe and their design parameters Davis ( 2014; Rapport
et al. (2008; Verma (2002)
AD Design Country of Capacity Retention Number of Biogas Total Solid Operating Temperature
firm Origin Tons/yr time stages yield (TS) Condition
(days) (m3/ton) Content (%)
BTA Germany 1,000 – 150,000 2 Single 80-120 < 20 (Wet) Mesophilic
Valorga France 10,000 -270,000 21 Single 80-160 20-35 (Dry) Mesophilic/Thermophilic
Linde Germany 15,000 -150,000 - Single/Two 100 20-45 (Dry) Mesophilic/Thermophilic
Dranco Belgium 3,000 -120,000 15-30 single 100-200 20-40 (Dry) Thermophilic
Kompogas Switzerland 1,000 - 110,000 15-20 Single 130 23-28 (Dry) Thermophilic
WASSA Finland 3,000 - 230,000 - Single 100-150 10-15 (Wet) Mesophilic/Thermophilic
.
While technologies for biogas recovery (AD and LFG recovery) from OFMSW have been
developed to a considerable extent in many countries around the world, Nigeria is still struggling
to opt into these technologies probably as a result of lack of scientific information that could
encourage viable investment. Hence, this present work intends to estimate the electricity
generation potential, environmental benefits/burdens and economic implication from adopting the
technologies in Nigeria. One of the potential locations for siting such project in Nigeria is the city
of Ibadan due to its high population and high waste generation potential. This is in an attempt to
encourage the government at all levels, the would-be investors in waste management and energy
industries as well as the non-governmental organisations at investing in AD and LFG recovery
technologies for the production of electricity from biodegradable portion of MSW in the city of
Ibadan.

2. Case Study and its Waste Composition

Ibadan, the largest indigenous city in Nigeria and in tropical Africa, is located at longitude 3.92oE
and latitude 7.40oN Ayodele, T.R; et al. (2016) with an estimated population of about 2,550,593
according to 2006 national census NPC (2017). Like other parts of Nigeria, Ibadan experiences
two local climates (rainy and dry seasons). The rainy season spans from March to October while
the dry season is between November and February, with highest rainfall of 170 mm in the month
of September and the relative humidity for the city is 74.55% Egbinola and Amanambu (2013).
Temperature in Ibadan ranges from 21ºC and 35ºC CPE (2010).

The MSW of Ibadan is composed majorly of organic material which is typical of a developing
economy. The city is selected for the study because of its high average per capita waste generation

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

rate of about 0.51 kg/day Ogwueleka (2009) and high population which could be of good interest
to government and investors for optimal investment in AD technology.
Tables 4 and 5 show the waste composition in Ibadan as well as a typical MSW ultimate analysis
in Nigeria, respectively
Table 4: MSW composition of Ibadan metropolitan city of Nigeria Ogwueleka (2009)
Waste type Putrescible Paper Plastics Textile Metal Glass *Others
Waste composition 76.00 6.60 4.00 1.40 2.50 0.60 8.90
*Others include dust, ceramic, rubber and soil

Table 5: Ultimate Analysis of organic MSW generated in Nigeria Igoni et al. (2007)
Waste component % % % % % % %
Carbon Nitrogen Hydrogen Oxygen Sulphur Ash Moisture
Food waste 51 2.3 5.0 39 0.3 4.8 65.2
Wood waste 49 1.2 6.0 42 0.1 0.8 19.2
Paper 45 0.6 5.0 45 0.1 6.0 6.9
Plastic 56 - 6.0 26 - 2.3 0.3
Textiles/rubber/leather 59 5.4 6.0 19 0.2 7.0 7.8
Average 52 1.9 5.6 34.2 0.14 4.18 19.88

3. Methods
In this section, the materials and methods for estimating the biogas recovery potential of the
organic fraction of MSW through AD and LFG technologies are presented. The economic and
environmental sustainability of both technologies are also given.

3.1 Determination of waste generation and waste composition required for Biogas
Recovery Technology

The quantity of waste generated is a function of population and economy. As the population
increases and economy improves (as measured by income), the MSW generation rate also
increases and vice versa. These increases (i.e. population and economy) are expected to be
captured in the modelling of waste generation. Therefore, the amount of projected waste generation
in tons/year over a given period (t) can be calculated using:

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MWG (t) 
 Pop (t) WGR (t)  365 tons/yr (1)
1000

Where, MWG (t) is the projected total waste generation in ton/year, Pop (t) is the estimated

population projection over a period of time and can be evaluated using:

Pop (t)  Popbase  ( 1  rpop )t (2)

Where Popbase is the initial population, rpop is the population growth rate,

Similarly, WGR (t) is the per capital waste generation rate observed over a period of years (t) in

(kg/person/day) and it can be estimated using:

WGR (t)  WGRbase  ( 1  q )t (3)

Where, WGRbase is the initial waste generation rate, q is waste generation growth rate and t is the

number of years.
The waste per capita can only increase as a result of the country's economic growth represented as
the GDP. It is assumed that the waste generation rate ( q ) depends on the level of income of the
citizenry. Therefore, q can be determined using Phiri et al. ( 2012)

q  recn
(4)
Where, recn is the economic growth rate (GDP) which measures the level of income. The value

of recn is positive if there is economic development and negative for economic recession Amini

(2011)

It should be noted that not all the wastes generated are collected and dumped in landfills. Some
fractions of waste generated are deposited in unauthorized places. Hence, the quantity of waste
sent to landfill (MWF) can be evaluated using:

MWF (ton/ year)  DF  MWG (t) (5)

MWG (t) , is the total mass of waste generated per year as obtained from (1) and DF is the fraction
of waste collected and deposited in the landfill.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The composition and type of waste vary from one location to another depending on the culture and
season Igoni et al. (2007), hence, the analysis of waste for energy recovery should be location
specific. Also, different waste compositions require different technology for energy production
Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). An AD facility (digester) should be designed on the basis of the amount
of feedstock (waste) that is collected and fed to the digester and not on the quantity of waste
produced Igoni et al. (2007). Organic component of MSW such as food waste and yard waste, etc.
are MSW suitable for anaerobic digestion process because of their high moisture content and high
degradation rate. Due to the presence of high lignin content in woody material, they are not
suitable as feedstock in digester. Whereas for LFG recovery, all waste components are landfilled
after removing the recyclables such as metal and glass. Therefore, amount of organic components
of the waste composition that could be utilized in both AD and LFG recovery technologies for
electricity production (tons/yr) can be estimated as:
MWOF (t)  MWF (t)  f (tons/yr) (6)

where f is the fraction of the waste composition that goes into AD facility (AD or LFG recovery),
t is year of calculation under consideration.

The total amount of feedstock (functional unit) for the technologies over their life time (in tons)
can be determined using:

N
MWOF(i)   MWOF (t)
t 1 (7)

N
 MWOF (t)
MWFU(i)  t 1
N (8)

where, N is the lifetime of the chosen technology which is taken as 20 years, i is the type of
technology which could be AD or LFG technology as in the case of this paper.

The parameters used to estimate the waste generation potential of the city of Ibadan are presented
in Table 6.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6: Parameters for evaluating the waste generation potential of the city of Ibadan

Parameters rpop (%) renc (%) WGRbase DF * f s (%) Popbase Lifetime (t)
(kg/per/day) (%)
Value 3.5a 2.79b 0.51c 74d 76c 2,550,593a 20 years
*The high food wastes and agricultural waste like rotten tomatoes may be responsible for high value of
organic fraction of the MSW in Ibadan
a NPC (2017), bNBS (2016), cOgwueleka (2009), dAboyade (2004),

3.2 Biogas recovery potential from Digester

The proposed digester is in this study is assumed to be Varloga single stage dry/batch digester.
Varloga design is a mature and commercially available technology; and it is one that is widely
used Amoo and Fagbenle (2013). It is reported to have a combined installed methane production
capacity of 263 million cubic meters as of May 2010 Amoo and Fagbenle (2013). The digester
will work under mesophilic condition because the annual average temperature in study area
(Ibadan) is 28oC.
The biogas produced from the digester can be fed into a combined heat and power (CHP) plant or,
internal combustion engine (ICE) and/or gas turbine to generate heat and electricity. However,
biogas needs to be purified before its final consumption. Biogas upgrading or purification (i.e.,
biomethane ) is used to increase the CH4 concentration in the biogas to meet specific natural gas
standards Rajaeifar et al. (2017). The digested fraction (digestate) after further treatment is
assumed to be used an organic fertilizer or a soil conditioner (i.e., fertilizer for agricultural
purposes). However, only electricity generation potential is the focus of this paper.

3.2.1 Determination of biogas or methane yield from Anaerobic Digestion Technology

In other to determine the energy (electricity) potential from the biogas produced from a digester,
the amount of biogas (m3/ton) from the feedstock fed into the digester should be determined. The
theoretical potential quantity of biogas from the substrate is estimated using Bushwell’s equation
Amoo and Fagbenle (2013; Nielfa, A; et al. (2015; Nizami (2012a). The equation is based on

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

stoichiometry of the degradation by taking into account the elemental composition of the waste
material and is given as:

 a b 3c   w a b 3c   w a b 3c 
Cw H a Ob N c   w     H 2O       CO2       CH 4  cNH 3 (9)
 4 2 4 2 8 4 8  2 8 4 8 

To determine the value of constants ‘w’,’a’,’b’and c, the normalised mole ratio proposed by Salami
et al. (2011) was used . The normalized mole ratio was obtained as follows:
K C , H ,O,N 
mole ratio  (10)
M C , H ,O, N 

Where, K is the elemental composition (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen) obtained from
the ultimate analysis of the organic fraction of the waste, M is the molar mass of the respective
elements as furnished in Table 7.
Table 7: Molar mass of the respective elements Salami et al. (2011)

Element Carbon (C) Hydrogen Oxygen (O) Nitrogen (N) Sulphur (S)
(H)
Designate MC MH MO MN MS
Molar Mass 12.01 1.01 16.0 14.01 32.06

The specific theoretical methane ( SCH 4 ) yield in (Nm3CH4/ton) at standard temperature and

pressure (0oC at 1 atm) is obtained as Nielfa, A. et al. (2015):

 w a b 3c 
 2 84 8 
SCH 4  22400    (11)
 12w  a  16b  14c 
 
In practice, the actual biogas or methane yield is less than the theoretical value as about 10% of
the organic matter does not degrade in anaerobic digester Nizami (2012b). Also, a portion (5-10%)
of the organic matter in waste would be utilized for the synthesis of cell tissue of the organism
affecting the microbial decomposition Therefore, the actual methane yield in (m3) is estimated as:
CH 4(AD)  FC  MWOF(AD)  SCH 4 (12)

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where, FC , is the fraction of organic matter utilized for cell tissue synthesis, MWOF(AD) is the

annual feedstock assuming all the food waste generated is for the purpose of feeding the AD
digester.

3.3 Determination of methane generation from landfill

In this study conventional landfill is considered and the the methane genetation potential is
obtained using landfill generation emission (LandGem) model developed by US Environmental
Protection Agency US EPA, (2005). The model is based on first-order decomposition and is given
as:

n 1  MWOF(LFG)   ktij
CH 4(LFG)    kLo  e (13)
i 1 j 0.1  10 

where CH 4(LFG) is the annual methane generation flow rate from landfill dumpsite in m3/yr, i, is

the 1-year time increment, n is (year of the calculation) - (initial year of waste acceptance), j is the
0.1-year time increment, k is methane generation rate per year, Lo is potential methane generation
capacity (m3/ton), MWOF(LFG) is the annual waste landfilled assuming the waste generated are

landfilled and tij is the age of jth section of waste in year i. The use of LandGem requires three

important parameters such as quantity of waste disposed of in the landfill MWF ton/yr, methane

generation potential Lo (m3/ton) and methane generation constant (k) (yr-1). Determination of these
parameters can obtained from Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). Methane generation rate k(yr-1) defines
the time span of methane generation from landfill under specific site conditions Amini (2011) and
is related to the lifetime of the waste Aguilar-Virgen et al. (2014) in the landfill. Its value varies
based on waste degradability, moisture content and climatic condition.

3.4 Electrical Energy Generation Potential of AD and LFG Technologies

The amount of possible electrical energy from the AD technology ( EP(AD) ) and the LFG

technology, ( EP(LFGR) ) in kWh/yr that could be generated from the biogas powered generators

based on their working capacity can be evaluated as (14) and (15), respectively:

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EP(AD) =
CH 4(AD)  E ff  LHVCH4  CF  (14)
3.6

EP(LFGR) 
 CH 4(LFG)  E ff  LHVCH 4    ( 1  fox )  CF 
3.6 (15)
Where, E ff is the electricity generation efficiency of the conversion device, CH 4(AD) is the actual

volume of methane produced from the AD plant and CH 4(LFG) is the methane generation flow

obtained from the landfill using (13),  is the landfill gas (methane) collection efficiency,
LHVCH 4 is the lower heating value of methane, f ox is the oxidation factor in landfill, and CF is the

capacity factor and is given as the ratio of the processed waste (tons) during the year to the waste
(tons) that could be processed if the plant is working at its maximum capacity Hadidi and Omer
(2016a).

Internal combustion engines (ICEs) are the most widely used prime movers for electricity
generation in LFG recovery or AD projects where gas production can generate 100 kilowatts (kW)
to 3 megawatts (MW) However, for sites that are able to produce more than 3 MW of electricity,
multiple engines are required LMOP (2015).
The installed capacity (size) of the AD ( Ps(AD) ) plant and LFG plant ( Ps(LFGR) ) in MW is

determined assuming they are operational throughout the year (i.e. 8760 hours). This is because
electricity is expected to be generated throughout the year and the plants should be sized based on
this expectation. Therefore, the size of the plants can be evaluated as follows:
EP(AD)
Ps(AD)  (16)
8760
EP(LFGR)
Ps(LFGR)  (17)
8760
The parameters used to calculate the volume of methane as well as the electrical energy obtainable
for both the AD and LFG technologies are depicted in Table 8.

Table 8: Parameters for calculating volume of methane yield and energy from AD/LFG technologies
Parameter FC (%) E ff (%) LHVCH 4 CF (%) f ox (%)  (%)
(MJ/m3)
Value 85α 35β 37.2ɣ 85µ 10σ 75τ

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

αSalami et al. (2011), β(Hadidi and Omer (2016a; Rajaeifar et al. (2017), ɣAyodele et al. (2017b),
µ σ τ
IRENA (2012), IPCC (2006) , Amini et al. (2013)

3.5 Economic Viability Estimation of Biogas Recovery Technologies

Determination of some economic metrics such as total life cycle cost (TLCC), levelised cost of
energy (LCOE), net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), payback period (PBP), etc.,
could be pointers to economic feasibility and sustainability of a capital project such as digester or
landfill gas recovery plants.

3.5.1 Total Life cycle cost

Total life cycle cost (TLCC) is a key financial indicator for economic viability assessment of an
investment project. It consists of the total cost of owning and operating a project over its life time
Ayodele and Ogunjuyigbe (2015). TLCC is the sum of investment cost Cinv , the annualized cost

of landfilling the residual waste CR and operation and maintenance costs ( CO&M (i) ).

N CO&M (i)  CR
TLCC(i)  Cinv(i)  
n 1 1  d n (18)

CO&M (i)  FO&M (i)  VO&M (i) (19)

Where, VO & M and FO & M are the variable and fixed operational and maintenance cost, respectively.

VO & M costs include unscheduled maintenance, unplanned equipment replacement, residue disposal

and fuels costs while FO & M costs include costs of labour, insurance, routine parts replacement,

schedules maintenance, etc. i is the type of technology which could be AD or LFG technologies.

3.5.1.1 Investment and Operation & Maintenance Cost for AD Technology

The investment cost as well as the operating and maintenance costs for AD technology can be
determined as follows Hadidi and Omer, (2016a)

Cinv( AD )(USD)  C pu (USD/ kW )  Ps( AD )( kW ) (20)

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CO&M (AD)  0.03Cinv ( AD )  0.005 E p ( AD )

(21)
where C pu is the plant specific cost of AD plants and its value is taking as 4339 USD/kW IRENA

(2012), FO & M costs are expressed as a percentage of Cinv cost. (i.e., 3% of capital cost is assumed

in this study according to Hadidi and Omer (2016b). VO & M are related to the output of the plant

and therefore, expressed as a per unit value of the facility output (i.e., 0.5% of the energy generated
is assumed according to Hadidi and Omer, (2016a)

3.5.1.2 Investment and Operation & Maintenance Cost for Landfill Gas Recovery
Technology
The investment cost for LFG technology can be estimated as:
5
Cinv   Ck (22)
( LFGR )
k 1

Where, C1 is the installed capital cost of vertical gas extraction wells, C2 is the cost of installing

wellheads and pipes gathering, C3 is the cost of installing knockout, blower and flare system C4 is

the cost of engineering, permitting and surveying while C5 is the cost of installation of LFG
technology facility. Each of the cost can be determined as follows:
C1   S(ft)  10(ft)  85USD  N (23)

C2  17000USD  N (24)

 
0.6
C3  CH 4(LFG)  4600USD (25)

C4  700USD  N (26)

C5  (1300USD  PS (LFGR) )  1100000USD (27)

CH 4(LFG)
where, S is the depth of the well, is the methane flow rate, N is the number of well dug

at the dump site, PS (LFGR) is the kW rated capacity of the proposed LFG technology plant.

The operation and maintenance of cost of LFG technology can be obtained as:
CO&M(LFGR)  CO&M  CO&M (28)
(LF) Plant

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Where, CO&M (LF ) is the cost of operating and maintaining the land fill site while CO&M Plant is the
operating and maintaining cost of LFG plant installed at the site. The two operations and
maintenance cost can be calculated as follows:
CO& M  2600USD  M  5100USD (29)
( LF )

CO&M  0.025USD  EP( LFGR ) (30)

(LFGR)

Where, EP( LFGR ) is the annual energy (kWh) produced by the Landfill gas recovery plant.

3.5.2 Levelised Cost of Energy

Levelised cost of energy (LCOE) is the minimum cost in (USD/kWh) of energy generated at which
the system breaks even Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). That is when capital cost equals operation and
maintenance costs. It can serve as a basis by which different technologies are compared in terms
of economic viability. It can be determined for each of the technologies using NREL (1995):

 
 TLCC 
LCOE(i)   N 
(i)

 E 
  ( 1  d )n
P(i )
 (31)
 n 1 
Where, TLCC (USD) is the total life cycle cost of the project, d is the nominal discount rate, N is
the economic lifetime of the project, i is the type of anaerobic digestion technology which could
be AD or LFG technologies.

3.5.3 Net Present Value

Net present value (NPV) is the difference between the present value of all the costs that the system
incurs over its lifetime and the present value of all the revenue that it earns over its lifetime (i.e.,
the difference between the cash inflows and cash outflows). Cash inflows are revenues and other
benefits such as incentives, tax forgiveness, subsidies, etc., while cash outflows include investment
cost, operation and maintenance costs, tax on income etc. NPV value must be positive for the
system to be economically viable NREL (2011) and it can be calculated using the following:
N
Fn F1 F2 FN
NPV(i )    Fo    .........  (32)
1  d r  1  d r  1  d r  1  d r 
n 1 2 N
n 0

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fn  ( Rev(i)  Ben(i))  ( Cinv (i)  CO&M (i)  CTax (i))

 1  dn 
dr    1
 1  einf  (33)
Fo = Cinv (initial investment cost)

Taxable income ( CTax ) is the tax paid on the profit (Pr) made from the investment

Pr (i)  Rev(i)  CO & M (i)  Dpre(i) (34)

CTax (i)  Pr(i)  Trate (35)

Re v (i)  EP (i)  Fd (36)

Where, Re v (i) is the revenue accrued from the investment, Fd is the feed-in-tariff for the sale of

electricity, Pr is the profit on investment and Dpre is the depreciation on capital equipment, Fn,
is the net cash flow rate, d r is annual real discount rate and N is the total number of years under

study, Rev is revenue earned from the project, Ben(i) is the benefit enjoyed from the project, Cinv

is the investment cost of the project CO&M operation and maintenance costs, i is the type of
technology which could be AD or LFG technologies, d n is the nominal discount rate, Trate is the

marginal tax rate and einf is the inflation rate.

3.5.4 Internal Rate of Return

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the nominal discount rate which when applied to the after-tax cash
flow over the lifetime of a project), results in a NPV of zero. For a financially viable project, the
IRR should not be equal to zero or be greater than the target value NREL (2011). This value cannot
be found analytically as it requires an iterative process. In this paper, MATLAB was used to
evaluate IRR function using the iterative relationship as follows:
N
Fn
NPV(i)   0
1  IRR 
n
n 0
(37)
where, Fn, is the net cash flow rate and N is the total number of years under study

3.5.5 Payback Period

Payback period (PBP) is the time (years) at which the project cost breaks even (i.e., the time at
which the cost of investment equals operating and maintenance costs). This is the maximum period

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(years) after which there begins return on investment and it was determined using simple payback
period formulation as:
TLCC(i) USD 
PBP(i)  (38)
Csaved (i) USD/ year 

Csaved (i)  Re v(i) – CO&M(i) (39)

Where, Csaved (i) is the cost saved, i is the type of technology which could be AD or LFG

technology.
The parameters used to estimate the economic potential of both the AD and the LFG technologies
are depicted in Table 9

Table 9: Parameters for calculating Economic Potential of AD/LFG technologies

Indices einf (%) d n (%) Trate (%) Fd (USD/kWh) C pu

(USD/kW)
Value 9.4* 10 µ 30 * 0.1868** 4339 µ
µ
IRENA (2012), *CBN (2017), **NESP (2015)
3.6 Factors influencing economic viability of LFG recovery and AD technologies

Electricity generation from MSW as well as its economic viability is dependent on certain factors
such as electricity generation efficiency, plant capacity factor, feedstock availability in term of per
capital waste generation rate, discount rate, waste collection efficiency, and population growth rate
among others. In this study, sensitivity analysis was performed in order to give insight into the
influence of these factors on the economic viability (i.e., LCOE, PBP, NPV and TLCC) of the two
biogas recovery technologies.

3.6.1 Electricity Generation Efficiency

The low electricity generation efficiency of LFG recovery and AD conversion technologies such
as internal combustion engine is one of the factors that reduce energy generation potentials. The
current conversion technologies show that the electrical generation efficiency for internal
combustion is in the range of 31 – 39 % Amini (2011). This is low and could have negative effect
on the economic viability of waste to energy technologies. The use of improved turbines could
increase the electricity generation efficiency of ICE Amini (2011). With the applications of

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

innovative and improved technologies in the turbine or engine designs and other operation
systems, the electricity conversion efficiency of the turbine or ICE could be increased. Also,
collection of the waste heat from the ICE for thermal application (CHP) will improve the overall
efficiency of the system even though the electricity generation efficiency of ICE will decrease due
to the back pressure created by the heat exchanger. Specifically in the context of this paper, the
ICE was considered for electricity generation only and did not incorporate heat recovery. Most
often the recovered heat is used for district heating system. In Nigeria district heating is not
attractive as most of the local or domestic heating is provided by the use of locally available
resources such as wood.

3.6.2 Capacity factor

Capacity factor is the ratio of the actual waste (tons) processed or energy produced per annum to

the waste (tons) that could be processed or energy output if the plant is working at its maximum

(100%) capacity. Therefore, waste to energy plant could only operate at rated capacity if there is

enough feedstock to meet the demand. In most cases, these plants operate at their average capacity

due to limited feedstock. Although LFG and AD based electricity generation plants can achieve

availabilities in the range 85% to 90% IRENA (2015), they will not always operate at these levels.

Systems relying on organic fraction of MSW in particular, may not have access to year-round

supplies of low-cost feedstock and may find it uneconomic to purchase alternative supplies to

achieve a high overall capacity factor for the entire year.

3.6.3 The Per Capita Waste Generation Rate

While capacity factor for waste-to-electricity plants could be as high as 85 to 90% IRENA (2015),
feedstock availability constraint could hamper the achievement of these levels of capacity factor.
This could in turn affect the electricity generation and economic viability of the waste-to-electricity
plant. Therefore, it is important to ensure secure and long-term availability of feedstock (i.e.,
organic fraction of MSW) to be fed into the LFG recovery and AD plants. The amount of MSW

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

generated is a function of population and economic buoyancy of individual citizen capita waste
generation.

3.6.4 Discount Rate

Discount rate is an important part of the information required to evaluate biomass-based power
generation projects and their economic viability. Variation in the discount rate affects the
economic metrics such as LCOE, PBP, TLCC and NPV. It particularly influences the LCOE. An
electricity price above LCOE would yield a greater return on capital while a price below would
yield a lower return on capital or even a loss IRENA (2012) which would in turn affect all other
associated financial metrics. Different investors (such as the government, industrial, commercial
and residential) require different discount rates for their investment. A range of discount rate to
accommodate different investors when investment-specific data are not available is recommended
to vary between 3-10% NREL (1995). A sensitivity analysis is required to show the variation in
the cost variables as the discount rates change to accommodate different categories of investors.
A typical value of 10% discount rate is recommended for biomass based power plants IRENA
(2012). However, it is generally believed that biomass based energy source becomes more
attractive and competitive for electricity generation when lower discount rate are used for
economic analysis.

3.6.5 Population Growth Rate

One of the causes of unprecedented increase in the rate of MSW generation and energy demand

have been attributed to population increase Ogunjuyigbe et al. (2017). Population could

significantly influence the waste generation rate of a given location. This could influence the

available feedstock with significant impact on the economic viability of waste-to-electricity

technology. Many of the viable sites around the world have been the cities with higher population.

3.6.6 Waste Collection Efficiency

Waste collection is a part of the process of waste management. It is the transfer of solid waste from
the point of use and disposal to the point of treatment or landfill. Therefore, effective waste
collection is one of the ways to ensure a viable waste to energy project. For effective functioning
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of waste to energy plant, it is very important to implement a wide system of selective collection in
the cities, where MSW are segregated in homes and collected by the municipal selective collection
system Johnson et al. (2018). In Brazil, selective collection was introduced in urban cities in the
1980s with 1.2% of MSW selectively collected Lino and Ismail (2015). Selective waste collection
will improve on the collection efficiency.

3.7 Greenhouse gas emission assessment of biogas recovery technologies using life cycle
assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been a veritable tool for compilation and evaluation of the inputs,
outputs and the potential environmental impacts (burdens or benefit) of a product or system
throughout its life cycle from cradle to grave Liamsanguan and Gheewala (2007). It is applied in
waste management systems Cherubini et al. (2009), waste treatment and processes for disposal
and recycling Kulczycka et al. ( 2015). In the context of AD and LFG technologies, biogas is the
main product. Therefore, the environmental assessment due to biogas production in digester and
landfill as well as biogas combustion in an internal combustion engine for energy production is
determined from energy inputs and outputs. Zero burdens are assumed for all inputs used in the
LCA in this paper. This indicates that all environmental impacts generated from the production of
a product prior to becoming a waste were neglected. According to International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14040/43, there are four phases of LCA procedure. They are (i) the goal,
scope definition, and functional unit, (ii) inventory analysis, (iii) impact assessment, and (iv)
interpretation.

OFMSW Energy (electricity or heat

or both)
Inputs AD Technological
Output
System
Energy (electricity or
diesel fuel) Air Emission

Residues (digestate
or leachate)
Figure 1: Simplified Input /output block diagram of the mass and energy flow in AD to energy
Processes

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.7.1 Goal, scope and functional unit

Goal and scope define the purpose, intention and extent (boundary) of study Ayodele et al. (2017a)
as well as the options that will be compared in the study Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012). The goal
of LCA in this paper is to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potentials by
using MSW as a source of electricity production through the application of biogas recovery
technologies (i.e., AD and LFG technologies) for the city of Ibadan. In addition, the amounts of
fossil fuel (Diesel) that could be displaced by the use of biogas in generating electricity are also
studied.

The functional unit (FU) is a reference unit for the quantified performance of a product or service
Ayodele et al. (2017a) in a LCA study. There are four (4) types of FU, including(i) unitary FU
(e.g., management of 1 ton of waste), (ii) generation-based FU (i.e., based on waste generation in
a delimited region for a specified period of time), (ii) input-based FU (i.e., based on the amount of
wastes entering a given facility) and (iv) output-based FU (i.e., based on the waste by-products)
Rajaeifar et al. (2017). In this paper, the combination of input and output–based FUs are applied.
The functional unit of this study is tons of MSW treated in the selected location between 2017 and
2036 which is taken as the average annual waste managed within the stated period. The estimated
average annual waste treated in the selected metropolis over a period of 20 years was determined
using equation 8.

3.7.2 Life cycle inventory (LCI), Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and Interpretation

Life cycle inventory (LCI) involves gathering and compilation of relevant data required in the
LCA process to take care of input and output stages. Such data can be obtained on site (site-
specific), from literature, report and publications from both local and international organizations.
This phase determines the authenticity of LCA results with regard to applying accurate data. On
the other hand, Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) aims at understanding and evaluating the
magnitude and significance of potential environmental impacts of a system Finnveden et al.
(2005). It comprises of various causes of environmental damages to human and plant species.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LCIA has three impact categories including (i) human health (i.e., diseases and death causing
effects such as climate change (e.g., GHG emission), ozone layer depletion, carcinogenic and
respiratory effects, and ionizing (nuclear) radiation), (ii) ecosystem quality (i.e., the effects that
affect plant and lower organism's species diversity including ecotoxicity, acidification,
eutrophication (nutrient enrichment), and land-use) and (ii) effect on resource (e.g., surplus energy
needed in future to extract lower quality mineral and fossil resources) Pre-Consultant (2000).
Interpretation evaluates the results from the previous phases in relation to the goal and scope in
order to reach conclusions and recommendations Assamoi and Lawryshyn (2012).

3.7.3 Environmental Evaluation of biogas recovery Technologies using LCA method

In accordance to the description of the phases in the implementation of LCA in the previous
subsection, GHGs emission which describe the global warming potential (GWP) and land-use
saving are considered for the environmental impact assessment in this paper. Although, GHGs
comprise of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride
(SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). However, only CH4 emission
which is the focus of this study is included to evaluate GWP in this paper.

3.7.3.1 Direct GHG Emission Evaluation from landfill site

Methane gas is a major component of landfill gas and a strong GHG. Methane gas is the only GHG
considered in this analysis. However, the methane has to be converted into equivalent of CO2. This
is because CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas emission that makes up nearly 77 percent
of global greenhouse gas emissions Adeoti et al. (2014). The plastic and all other inert components
of the waste are stable and do not contribute to landfill gas generation. The mass of methane
generated and subsequently released to the atmosphere throughout the 20 years life time of a
landfill is given as:
M ( LFGR ) (ton/ yr)  QCH 4 (LFG) (t)  (1  f ox )  (1   )  6.67 104
(40)
where  is the collection efficiency which varies from 50-90% due to changes in the landfill design
and the soil cover Amini et al. (2013; EPA (2011), 0.000667 is a conversion factor from m3/yr to
ton/yr as applied to the LandGEM model, 75% collection efficiency is assumed in this study, f ox

is the oxidation factor. According to IPCC, 10% of the methane generated will be oxidized to CO2

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

due to soil cover near the surface of the landfill. The oxidized CO2 has biogenic origin and is a
carbon neutral.
Therefore, the carbon dioxide equivalent of the methane (CO2eq) is obtained as:
M CO2eq (LF)  M (LFGR)  GWPCH 4 1000 (41)

where, GWPCH 4 is the global warming potential of methane gas relative to carbon dioxide and given

as 25 kgCO2/kgCH4 Ryu (2010)

3.7.3.2 GHG Emission from AD Facility

2The CO2 component of the biogas which is removed after cleaning and that which is produced
from combustion of biogas in a combine heat and power or internal combustion engine plant are
of biogenic origin and is presumably a carbon-neutral Mohareb et al. (2011). Emission of other
GHG components such as CH4 and N2O emissions during combustion are very small so good
practice in the waste sector does not require their estimation IPCC (2006). However, certain
amount of biogas (CH4) leakage is possible from the reactor. This is the main source of GHG
emission in AD facilities. 5% of biogas methane generated is assumed to leak out of the digester
IPCC (2006) and Mohareb et al. (2011). Therefore, the GHG methane from digester plant in ton is
obtained as:
M CH 4 (A D )  0.05  CH 4(AD)   methane (42)

Where,  methane is the density of methane, (0.717 kg/m3) MIT (2007), CH 4(AD) is the actual volume

of methane produced by the AD facilities obtained from equation , M CH 4 ( AD ) is the amount of

methane emitted to the atmosphere due to leakage.

Therefore, the carbon dioxide equivalent of the methane (CO2eq) can be calculated as
M CO2 eq (AD)  M CH 4 (A D )  GWPCH 4 (43)

where, GWPCH 4 is the global warming potential of methane gas relative to carbon dioxide and is

given as 25 kgCO2/kgCH4 Ryu (2010).

3.8 Displacement of Diesel with Equivalent of Biogas

Effort is made in this paper to determine how much of diesel that will be displaced if biogas is
adopted as fuel for internal combustion engine. The amount of displaced diesel fuel i.e., the amount
25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of diesel that would have been used for producing equivalent amount of power when methane
content of the biogas obtained from either of the technology is combusted in an internal
combustion engine is determined as Ayodele and Ogunjuyigbe (2015):

Fd(i)  0.246  P(i)  0.08415  PG (44)

Where, i is the technology (i.e., AD or LFG through which the methane (biogas) is produced,
Fd(i) is the amount of diesel equivalent of methane (Litre) , PG (kW) is the power rating of internal

combustion engine, P(i) (kW) is the power rating of either of the technology as obtained in (15)

and (16) for AD and LFG technologies respectively, 0.246 and 0.08415 are empirical factors in
Litre/kW Ogunjuyigbe and Ayodele (2016a)

3.8.1 Avoided CO2 emissions due to Displacement of Diesel by Methane (Biogas)

Electricity generation from combustion of biogas in internal combustion engine offsets the
consumption of fossil fuels in the conventional electricity generation plant, and thus reduces CO2
emissions into the atmosphere. In this analysis, diesel fuel is chosen because larger percentage of
electricity users (industrial firms, households and commercial enterprises) in Nigeria use diesel to
generate electricity from their standalone diesel generators to meet their electricity needs.
The emission from diesel fuel avoided due to the implementation of energy recovery from MSW
(AD and LFG) technologies is obtained as follows:
M d(i)  Fd(i)  S EF (45)

Where, S EF (kg GHG/Litre) is the specific emission factor of CO2 from diesel fuel taken as

2.7 kg CO2/Litre Manfredi et al. (2009) and i is either AD or LFG recovery.

4. Results and Discussion

The results as well as the discussion are presented in this section

4.1 Waste generation potential from Ibadan metropolis

The projected waste generation potential for the city of Ibadan over a period of 20 years (2017-
2036) as determined using (1) is depicted in Figure 2. The inputs used to generate the waste
potential include population data obtained from national population commission NPC (2017),
projected economic growth obtained from National Bureau of Statistics NBS (2016) and per

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

capital waste generation obtained from indigenous publications Ogwueleka (2009) . The figure
reveals that in 2017 about 477,000 tons is expected to be generated based on the data obtained
from the city while it increases to about 966,897 tons in 2036. This indicates a difference of
489,897 tons representing 102.7% increment in MSW in a span of 20 years. The high quantity of
waste generation in Ibadan is expected because of the high population of the city which could be
attributed to high commercial and industrial activities within Ibadan

MSW Projection for Ibadan Metropolis from 2017-2036

966,897
933,288
900,848
869,536
Waste Projection (tons)

839,312
810,138
781,978
754,798
728,562
703,238
678,794
655,200
632,425
610,443
589,225
568,744
548,975
529,893
511,474
477,001
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year

Figure 2: MSW generation projection for Ibadan metropolis from 2017-2036

4.2 Methane (biogas) yield and electrical energy generation potential of MSW using AD and
LFG technologies for the city of Ibadan

The volume of the methane yield for each technology over the lifetime of the project for the city
of Ibadan is shown in Table 10. The results in the table show that more yield are experienced with
the use of AD technology compared to that of LFG technology. In both cases, the yield increases
with the year. This is as a result of estimated increase in population which is expected to increase
the waste generation potential.
Table 10: Volume of methane yield over the lifetime of AD and LFG Technologies for Ibadan

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Volume methane AD 104.66 112.22 116.26 120.44 124.78 129.28 133.93 138.76 143.75 148.93
x106 (m3/yr) LFG 22.85 41.23 55.56 66.97 76.28 84.00 90.75 96.68 102.15 107.33
continuation of volume of methane yield by technologies
Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Volume of AD 154.29 159.85 165.61 171.57 177.75 184.15 190.78 197.65 204.77 212.15
methane x106 LFG 112.20 117.00 121.80 126.60 131.48 136.43 141.53 146.70 152.10 157.65
(m3/yr)

The electrical energy generation potential based on the amount of methane yield for the city of
Ibadan is displayed in Table 11. The tables reveal that AD technology has the potential to generate
electricity in the range of 321.73 to 652.16 GWh over the life span of the project (2017 to 2036).
Similarly, the electricity generation potential using LFG technology ranges between 63.23 and
436.18 GWh over the project life time. The table shows that more electricity can be generated
using AD technology compared to LFG technology. This is because AD technology yielded more
volume of methane compared to the LFG technology. On the average, about 475 GWh of
electricity could be generated using AD technology while 289 GWh of electricity could be
generated using LFG technology. It is generally observed that the electricity generation potential
using any of the two technologies is competitive with electricity generation potential using other
renewable energy sources (wind and solar) Ayodele, T.R et al. (2016). Based on the average
electricity generation potential of both technologies, the size of the plants are determined using
(16) and (17) as 54 MW and 33 MW for AD plant and LFG energy recovery technologies,
respectively.

Table 11: Electrical energy generation over the lifetime of AD and LFGTE Technologies for Ibadan
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Energy Generated AD 321.73 344.98 357.40 370.27 383.61 397.42 411.73 426.56 441.92 457.83
(GWh) LFG 63.23 114.09 153.72 185.28 211.03 232.41 251.08 267.48 282.62 296.94
continuation of electrical energy generation by technologies
Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Energy generated AD 474.32 491.40 509.10 527.43 546.42 566.10 586.49 607.61 629.49 652.16
(GWh) LFG 310.43 323.71 336.99 350.27 363.76 377.45 391.56 405.88 420.82 436.18

4.3 Economic assessment of the technologies

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In this paper, four economic metrics (TLCC, LCOE, NPV, IRR and PBP) were used to estimate
the economic sustainability and viability of the technologies for the city of Ibadan. The LCOE was
evaluated yearly over the lifetime of the projects while the other metrics were determined for the
whole lifetime of the project. The results are shown in Tables 12 and 13, respectively. From table
12, the LCOE decreases from 0.0681USD/kWh in 2017 to 0.0336USD/kWh in 2036 for AD
technology while on the other hand, the LCOE decreases from 0.2411USD/kWh in 2017 to 0.0350
USD/kWh in 2036 when LFG technology is used. This is expected because the amount of
electricity production depends on the amount of biogas yield which is in turn dependent on the
amount of feedstock available for the energy conversion technology. The amount of feedstock
increases yearly as being depicted in Figure 3 with the corresponding increase in electricity
generation potential. The average LCOE over the lifetime of the project implantation is 0.0481
USD/kWh and 0.0666 USD/kWh for AD and LFG technologies, respectively. This value is in
close agreement with similar work in references Amoo and Fagbenle (2013; Ogunjuyigbe et al.
(2017) and the value is also close to the values provided in the annual report of international
renewable energy agency IRENA (2012).
Table 12: Yearly LCOE over the lifetime of the project implementation using the two technologies
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
LCOE AD 0.0681 0.0635 0.0613 0.0591 0.0571 0.0551 0.0532 0.0513 0.0496 0.0478
(USD/kWh) LFG 0.2411 0.1336 0.0992 0.0823 0.0722 0.0656 0.0607 0.0570 0.0539 0.0513
continuation of yearly LCOE
Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
LCOE AD 0.0462 0.0446 0.0430 0.0415 0.0401 0.0387 0.0373 0.0360 0.0348 0.0336
(USD/kWh) LFG 0.0491 0.0471 0.0452 0.0435 0.0419 0.0404 0.0389 0.0376 0.0362 0.0350
Table 13: Other results of economic potential over the lifetime of project implementation
Economic metrics Technologies
AD Technology LFG Technology
Total Life cycle cost (TLCC) 413.68 million USD 288.05 million USD
NPV Net present value (NPV) 834.12 million USD 489.26 million USD
Payback period (PBP) 5.21 years 6.72 years
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 19.3% 23.4%

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The results depicted in Table 13 reveal that the two technologies (AD and LFG technologies) are
both viable for the city of Ibadan. The two technologies have positive IRR that is higher than the
nominal discount rate. This is an indication that investing on any of the two technologies for the
city of Ibadan would be financially profitable. Also, the NPV is positive in both cases indicating
that the two technologies are economically sustainable and viable. However, the NPV and IRR for
AD are more positive compared to that of LFG technology with a lower payback period of about
5 years. This is an indication that this technology is particularly encouraging for the city of Ibadan
and may be the better option of the two technologies. However, sustainability in the continuous
production of organic feedstock to the digester will not only guarantee the sustainability of the AD
technology but also remove some highly degradable odour-causing wastes from the landfill. In
spite of the outstanding benefits (as depicted by the NPV, IRR, PBP, TLCC) that could be derived
from AD process, developing countries including Nigeria are yet to fully take the advantage of
this technology. This could be attributed to high investment cost required to establish a large scale
anaerobic digester and lack of technological knowledge and experience for handling and treating
the OFMSW, and operating an AD facility.
4.4 Environmental evaluation of biogas recovery Technologies and estimation of quantity
of diesel displaced with the collected biogas

The GHG emission for both AD and LFG technologies were evaluated and the result is presented
in Table 14. The GHG evaluation was based on CO2 equivalent of methane arising from methane
(biogas) generation from the two technologies (i.e., carbon dioxide equivalent of methane from
LFG recovery is estimated using (40)-(41) and that stemming from AD is determined from (42)-
(43), respectively). The results reveal that AD technology would contribute 2770.8 ktons of CO2eq
GHG emission over the lifetime of the technology. On the other hand, LFG technology would
contribute 10441.5 kton of CO2eq GHG over the entire project lifetime.
Captive power plants (independent power) using diesel fuel is a common practice in developing
regions including Nigeria where the conventional power generation capacity is inadequate to meet
the growing energy demand. Therefore, a number of consumers particularly industrial and
commercial energy users resort to generate their power independently using diesel generator. The
quantity of diesel and the carbon dioxide equivalent that would be displaced by using methane
(biogas) instead of diesel were also determined using (44) and (45) respectively and the results are
also furnished in Table 14. From this table, the amount of diesel and CO2eq that would be displaced

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

or saved as a result of using biogas obtainable from AD technology for electricity generation in an
internal combustion engine throughout the lifespan of the system are 4685.176 Megalitre and
12649.98 kton of CO2eq, respectively for the city of Ibadan. On the other hand, a total of 2846.871
Megalitre of diesel and 7686.55 kton of CO2eq, would be displaced due to LFG technology. This
indicates that for the city of Ibadan, AD technology contributes less to GHG emission compared
to LFG technology. Hence, AD technology would be preferable when environmental concern is in
mind for the city.

Table 14: GHG emission assessment and evaluation of amount of diesel displaced using AD and LFG
technologies for the city of Ibadan
Year GHG emission during Quantity of Diesel displaced with GHG (CO2eq) emission saved
project implementation collected Methane (biogas) by using methane from AD and
LFG technologies instead diesel
GHG GHG Amount of Amount of GHG (CO2eq) GHG (CO2eq)
(CO2eq) (CO2eq) Diesel Diesel displaced displaced by displaced by
emitted emitted due displaced by by biogas using biogas using biogas
from to LFG biogas obtained obtained through from AD from LFG
digester (kton) through AD LFG technology instead diesel instead of
(kton) technology (Mega-Litre) (kton) diesel
(Mega-Litre) (kton)
2017 93.7977 114.3196 158.6027 31.1691 428.2274 84.1565
2018 100.5766 206.2781 170.0651 56.2414 459.1759 151.8518
2019 104.1984 277.9389 176.1893 75.7796 475.7111 204.6050
2020 107.9507 335.0049 182.5340 91.3386 492.8418 246.6142
2021 111.8380 381.5657 189.1072 104.0333 510.5893 280.8899
2022 115.8654 420.2100 195.9170 114.5696 528.9760 309.3379
2023 120.0378 453.9768 202.9721 123.7761 548.0248 334.1955
2024 124.3604 483.6167 210.2813 131.8573 567.7595 356.0148
2025 128.8387 511.0054 217.8537 139.3248 588.2049 376.1770
2026 133.4783 536.8933 225.6987 146.3831 609.3866 395.2345
2027 138.2849 561.2805 233.8263 153.0323 631.3310 413.1871
2028 143.2647 585.2925 242.2465 159.5791 654.0657 430.8636
2029 148.4237 609.3045 250.9700 166.1259 677.6190 448.5400
2030 153.7686 633.3165 260.0077 172.6728 702.0205 466.2165
2031 159.3059 657.7037 269.3707 179.3219 727.3008 484.1691
2032 165.0426 682.4661 279.0709 186.0733 753.4914 502.3980
2033 170.9859 707.9788 289.1204 193.0293 780.6251 521.1792
2034 177.1432 733.8667 299.5318 200.0876 808.7359 540.2366
2035 183.5222 760.8802 310.3182 207.4528 837.8591 560.1226
2036 190.1310 788.6441 321.4929 215.0226 868.0309 580.5610
Total 2770.80 10441.50 4685.176 2846.871 12649.98 7686.55

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.5 Sensitivity analysis of influencing factors on economic viability of LFG recovery and
AD technologies

Sensitivity analysis shows the dependency of a given system characteristic on some defined input
variables Ogunjuyigbe and Ayodele (2016b). This section presents the results of various sensitivity
analysis conducted in order to give an insight into the influence of electricity generation efficiency,
plant capacity factor, feedstock availability, discount rate and population growth rate on the
economic viability (i.e., LCOE, PBP, NPV and TLCC) of both the AD and LFG technologies. The
analysis was also meant to give a fair comparison between the two technologies in terms of
economic parameters vis-à-vis the sensitivity variables.

4.5.1 Electricity Generation Efficiency

The results showing variation of economic parameters with electricity generation efficiency is
depicted in Figure 3. The sensitivity analysis is meant to determine the influence of the variables
change on the expected results of a process. The variable (i.e., the electricity generation efficiency
of ICE) change is taking as  5% of the average value (i.e., 35%). However, in this paper, a change
in electricity generation efficiency of 20 - 40% is considered in line with reported value in Amini
(2011; de Groot (2003).

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LFG AD
0.08 1000

NPV (Million USD)

0.07
800
LCOE (USD/kWh)

0.06
600
0.05
400
0.04

0.03 200
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
Electricity Generation Efficiency (%) Electricity Generation Efficiency (%)
(a) (b)
12 450

400

TLCC (Million USD)

10
PBP (Years)

350
8
300

6
250

4 200
20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
Electricity Generation Efficiency (%) Electricity Generation Efficiency (%)
(c) (d)
Figure 3: Influence of generation efficiency on (a) Levelised cost of energy (b) Net present
Value (c) Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

The figure reveals that the levelised cost of energy decreases exponentially with the electricity
generation efficiency with AD technology presenting a lower cost of energy. The result also
reveals that with increased generation efficiency, the net present value is more positive (for both
AD and LFG) indicating a better economic viability of the projects with AD having greater values.
The payback period decreases exponentially with improved generation efficiency (with the AD
technology having lower payback period). The TLCC for both technologies increases as the
electricity generation efficiency increases with LFG technology presenting lower total life cycle
compared to AD However, there is only a marginal increase in TLCC for AD.

4.5.2 Capacity Factor

The influence of capacity factor on the economic parameters was also exploited and the result is
depicted in Figure 4. The results indicate that at lower capacity factor (< 55%), the levelised cost
of energy of LFG technology is better (i.e lower) compared to the AD technology. However, as
the capacity factor increases AD technology presents a superior (lower) cost of energy. Both the

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

levelised cost of energy and payback period decrease exponentially with increase in capacity
factor. The net present value increases with capacity factor indicating that the higher the capacity
factor the more viable the waste to energy project. LFG technology presents lower payback period
and total cost of energy with increase in capacity factor compared to AD technology.

LFG AD
0.09 1500

0.08

NPV (Million USD)

LCOE (USD/kWh)

0.07 1000

0.06

0.05 500

0.04

0.03 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 95 40 50 60 70 80 90 95
Capacity Factor (%) Capacity Factor (%)
(a) 450 (b)
14

400
TLCC (Million USD)

12
PBP (Years)

10 350

8 300

6 250

4 200
40 50 60 70 80 90 95 40 50 60 70 80 90 95
Capacity Factor (%) Capacity Factor (%)
(c) (d)

Figure 4: Influence of capacity factor on (a) Levelised cost of energy (b) Net present Value (c)
Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

4.5.3 The Per Capita Waste Generation Rate

The results showing the response of economic parameters to variation in per capita waste
generation rate for both the AD and LFG technology are presented in Figure 5. The figures reveal
that the higher the per capita waste generation the more viable the technologies with lower cost of
energy, reduced payback period and increase net present value. With the increase in per capita

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

waste generation rate, AD technology presents a better economic viability compared to LFG
technology.

LFG AD
0.2 2000

NPV (Million USD)

1500
LCOE (USD/kWh)

0.15

0.1 1000

0.05 500

0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Waste Generation per capita (kg/person/day) Waste Generation per capita (kg/person/day)
(a) (b)
40 500

TLCC (Million USD)

30 400
PBP (Years)

20 300

10 200

0 100
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Waste Generation per capita (kg/person/day) Waste Generation per capita (kg/person/day)
(c) (d)

Figure 5: Influence of increase in per capita waste generation rate on (a) Levelised cost of energy
(b) Net present Value (c) Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

4.5.4 Discount Rate

In this paper, the economic analysis is based on 10% discount rate; a change in this value can
significantly affect the LCOE, PBP, NPV and TLCC. To gain insight into the possible influence
of discount rate on the economic viability of waste to energy project, sensitivity analysis was
conducted on discount rate. The discount rate was varied from 5 to 50% and the results on the
economic parameters are presented in Figure 6.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LFG AD
0.08 2000

1500

NPV (Million USD)

LCOE (USD/kWh)

0.06
1000
0.04
500
0.02 0

0 -500
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Discount rate (%) Discount rate (%)
(a) (b)
12 600

10 500

TLCC (Million USD)

PBP (Years)

8 400

6 300

4 200

2 100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Discount rate (%) Discount rate (%)
(c) (d)
Figure 6: Influence of discount rate on (a) Levelised cost of energy (b) Net present Value (c)
Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

From this figure, it reveals that the LCOE, PBP, NPV and TLCC decrease exponentially with
increase in discount rate. At discount rate less than 20%, all the economic metrics considered
declined steadily as the discount rate increases for both technologies with AD having lower values
compared to LFG recovery technology. However, as the discount rate increases beyond 20%
onwards, negative NPV was presented by both technologies while their LCOE, PBP and TLCC
tend to be constant. It is evident from this analysis that operating these technologies at a discount
rate beyond 20% will be economically unviable due to the negative NPV being presented.
However, it is generally believed that biomass based energy source becomes more attractive and
competitive for electricity generation when lower discount rate are used for economic analysis.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.5.5 Population Growth Rate

Sensitivity analysis was also conducted on the influence of population growth rate on the economic
viability of AD and LFG technologies. The population growth rate was varied from 1.5 to 5% and
the results are presented in Figure 7. The results reveal that LCOE, PBP decrease with increase in
population growth rate. This shows that the viability of both the AD and LFG technology increases
with increase in population. This is because population influences feedstock (i.e. inputs into the
energy technologies). Also, The TLCC for AD technology increases slightly with increase in
population while it increases significantly for LFG technology, the NPV for both technologies
increases significantly with increase in population indicating that, waste to energy project are
economically viable with increase in population.
LFG AD
0.06 3500

3000
0.05 NPV (Million USD)
LCOE (USD/kWh)

2500

0.04 2000

1500
0.03
1000

0.02 500
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Population Rate (%) Population Rate (%)
(a) (b)
8 900
7 800
TLCC Million USD)

6 700
PBP (Years)

5 600
4 500
3 400

2 300
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Population Rate (%) Population Rate (%)
(c) (d)

Figure 7: Influence of population growth rate on (a) Levelised cost of energy (b) Net present
Value (c) Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.5.6 Waste Collection Efficiency

Waste collection efficiency in Nigeria has been identified to be in the range of 50-80% Aboyade
(2004), hence there is need to conduct sensitivity analysis on the collection efficiency in this range
to gain insight into its influence on economic feasibility of waste to energy projects. Figure 8
presents the result of sensitivity analysis conducted to show the influence of waste collection
efficiency on the viability of AD and LFG technology based on economic parameters (LCOE,
PBP, NPV and TLCC).

LFG AD
0.08 1200

1000

NPV (Million USD)

LCOE (USD/kWh)

0.07
800

0.06 600

400
0.05
200

0.04 0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Waste Collection Rate (%) Waste Collection Rate (%)
(a) (b)
12 450

400
TLCC( Million USD)

10
PBP (Years)

350
8
300

6
250

4 200
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Waste Collection Rate (%) Waste Collection Rate (%)
(c) (d)

Figure 8: Influence of waste collection rate on (a) Levelised cost of energy (b) Net present
Value (c) Payback period and (d) Total Life cycle cost

The figure reveals that the LCOE and the PBP of both the AD and LFG technologies decreases
with increase in collection efficiency. This is expected as the more efficient the collection

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

efficiency, the more the feedstock to ensure reliability of electricity generation which in turns
reduces the LCOE and PBP. Similarly, the NPV increases with increase waste collection
efficiency signifying that as the waste collection efficiency improves, the project becomes more
economic viable. The results reveals that AD technology presents a better technology compared
to the LFG technology with increase in waste collection efficiency with lower LCOE, reduced
PBP and increased NPV compared to that of LFG technology.

5. Policy Implication

From the results obtained, it is evident that the investigation of the potential contribution of energy
recovery from MSW using AD and LFG recovery technologies to the energy mix and the
curtailment of GHG emissions currently produced from reckless dumping and burning of solid
wastes in Ibadan is worthwhile. Both AD and LFG recovery technologies are viable from the
energy generation and environmental perspectives based on the waste generation potentials and
higher biomass components of the waste stream as well as the LCA conducted for the city of
Ibadan. The economic metrics also indicated financial feasibility. In spite of the outstanding
benefits that could be derived from AD based technologies, developing countries including Nigeria
are yet to fully opt for these technologies. This could be attributed to high investment cost required
to establish a large scale anaerobic digester and lack of technological knowledge and experience
for handling and treating the OFMSW, and operating an AD facility. Therefore, it is recommended
that every level of government in Nigeria should embark on pilot projects (either for the AD or the
LFG). Likewise, relevant research institutions should be empowered through adequate budget
allocation for waste to energy projects in Nigeria.
However, for effective adoption and implementation of these technologies in Nigeria, adequate
regulatory and policy measures must be put in place. The government at all levels (i.e., federal,
state, and local governments) should provide an enabling environment through legislation and
policy framework with clear strategies for implementation and enforcement to encourage corporate
and individual organizations for possible investment in waste to energy projects. Also, the public
should be enlightened and sensitized on the benefits of proper waste management and clean
environment. The government needs to strengthen and broaden financial institutions to attract the
necessary private sector investments. There should be policy flexibility which will make it possible
to choose between the technologies for the would-be investors. Adequate incentives (like

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

subsidies, tax holiday, carbon credit etc.,) should be provided to encourage investment in waste to
energy projects as well as strict punishment for non-compliance with the existing policy and
regulations. Establishment of regulatory institutions that will oversee the implementation of
various laws for waste management in Nigeria is very crucial and should be put in place.
6. Limitations and future outlook for the study

In this study, a number of assumptions were made in determining the energy, economic and
environmental potentials of AD and LFG technologies. The study assumed that the organic
components of the waste stream is 76% and is constant throughout the study year. This assumption
may be subjective as waste composition is influenced by many factors such as culture and
traditions, economic development and climatic conditions Ayodele et al. (2017a; Scarlat et al.
(2015). Some of these changes with time may introduce uncertainty in biogas production. For
example, biogas production from AD and the LFG technology is highly favored by the waste
stream characterized by high moisture content and organic component such as food waste, any
change to the flow of such waste due to climatic condition (season) may have effect on biogas
production. Also, variation in capital cost and maintenance cost of conversion engines (i.e.,
internal combustion engine, gas turbine and micro turbine) which convert the biogas into
electricity with time may also affect the overall economics of the systems. Other variables such as
landfill gas collection efficiency, landfill oxidation factor, waste moisture content due to
precipitation etc., can significantly affect the landfill gas production and collection. In the present
work, most of the parameters are assumed constant throughout the period of study. Future study
will take into consideration the uncertainty factors in waste composition of the MSW, moisture
content variation, landfill gas collection efficiency and variation in conversion technologies. The
life cycle assessment conducted in this study is limited to methane equivalent of CO2 (global
warming potential). Future work will investigate other environmental impacts such as acidification
potential (AP), nutrient enrichment potential (NEP), dioxin/furan emission potential,
photochemical oxidant formation, ozone layer depletion and land use for the city of Ibadan. The
future work will also consider the potential of biocell in the waste-to-energy concept in Nigeria. It
should be noted that this study considered the city of Ibadan as a representative city in the south
western region of Nigeria as a case for the application of these technologies. We intend to extend
in our subsequent study the applicability of these technologies to other regions in Nigeria.

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7. Conclusion
The biogas recovery potential, economic sustainability and environmental benignity of anaerobic
digestion and landfill gas recovery technologies from OFMSW for electricity generation through
biogas combustion in an ICE have been presented. The environmental assessment was determined
using life cycle assessment. Sensitivities analysis to investigate the influence of electricity
generation efficiency, capacity factor, per capita waste generation rate, discount rate, population
growth rate, waste collection rate on the economic viability of AD and LFG technologies have
also been conducted. From the results, it is established that both the AD and LFG technologies
have great potential to contribute to the electricity generation mix of Ibadan. Both technologies are
economically viable as they present positive net present values and payback periods of about 5
years and 7 years when operated at 35% electricity generation efficiency and 10% discount rate
for the AD and LFG technologies, respectively. The amount of diesel and CO2eq of the GHG that
would be displaced if biogas obtained from AD technology is utilised for electricity generation
over the lifespan of the AD system were 4685.176 Megaliitre and 12649.98 kton of CO2eq,
respectively. On the other hand, a total of 2846.871 Megalitre of diesel fuel and 7686.55 kton of
CO2eq of GHG would be displaced using LFG technology for electricity generation. This indicates
that AD technology contributes less GHG emission compared to LFG technology. However, from
the energetic, economic and environmental points of view, AD has presented itself to be better
than LFG recovery. The sensitivity analysis conducted revealed that the two technologies will be
more profitable if the electricity generation efficiency of the ICE is increased by the application of
innovative and improved technology to the engine design. Enhanced capacity factor and waste
generation rate through adequate feedstock supply can also ensure the economic viability of the
technologies. From the results presented, it is evident that AD is a better technology to invest in
than LFG recovery system in Ibadan. This paper will serve as first-hand technical information for
decision making for optimal investment in waste to energy technology for electricity generation in
Ibadan, Nigeria
References

Aboyade, A., 2004. The Potential for Climate Change Mitigation in the Nigerian Solid Waste
Disposal Sector: A Case Study from Lagos, Environmental Science. Lund University, Sweden,
Lund University, Sweden, p. 47.

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Adeoti, O., Ayelegun, T.A., Osho, S.O., 2014. Nigeria biogas potential from livestock manure and
its estimated climate value. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37, 243–248.
Aguilar-Virgen, Q., Taboada-González, P., Ojeda-Benítez, S., Cruz-Sotelo, S., 2014. Power
generation with biogas from municipal solid waste: Prediction of gas generation with in situ
parameters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30, 412-419.
Alves, H.J., Junior, C.B., Niklevicz, R.R., Frigo, E.P., Frigo, M.S., Coimbra-Arau´ jo, C.H., 2013.
Overview of hydrogen production technologies from biogas and the applications in fuel cells.
International journal of hydrogen energy 38, 5215 - 5225.
Amini, H.R., 2011. Landfill gas to energy: Incentives & Benefits, Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Construction Engineering. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Amini, H.R., Reinhart, D.R., Niskanen, A., 2013. Comparison of first-order-decay modeled and
actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data. Waste Management 33, 2720–
2728.
Amoo, O.M., Fagbenle, R.L., 2013. Renewable municipal solid waste pathways for energy
generation and sustainable development in the Nigerian context. International Journal of Energy
and Environmental Engineering 4(42), 1-17.
Assamoi, B., Lawryshyn, Y., 2012. The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration
of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Management, 1019-1030.
Aydi, A., Abichou, T., Zairi, M., Sdiri, A., 2015. Assessment of Electrical Generation Potential
and Viability of Gas Collection from Fugitive Emissions in a Tunisian Landfill. Energy Strategy
Reviews 8, 8-14.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., 2015. Increasing household solar energy penetrationthrough
load partitioning based on quality of life: The case study of Nigeria. Sustainable Cities and Society
18, 21-31.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Alao, M.A., 2017a. Life cycle assessment of waste-to-energy
(WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Applied
Energy 201, 200-218.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Amusan, T.O., 2016. Wind Power Utilization Assessment
and Economic Analysis of Wind Turbines across Fifteen Locations in the Six Geographical Zones
of Nigeria. Journal of Cleaner Production 129, 341-349.

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Amusan, T.O., 2016. Wind power utilization assessment and
economic analysis of wind turbines across fifteen locations in the six geographical zones of
Nigeria. Journal of Cleaner Production 129, 341-349.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ekoh, E.E., 2017b. Outlook of Agricultural Sector in the
Face of Changing Global Climate: The Case of Nigeria. Agricultural Research & Technology
5(3), 1-4.
Ayodele, T.R., Olanrewaju, O.A., A.A, J., 2012. Energy and Climate Change: Critical Reflection
on the African Continent. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 14(6), 84-97.
Bajpai, P., Dash, V., 2012. Hybrid renewable energy systems for power generation in stand-alone
applications: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 2926– 2939.
CBN, 2017. Current interest rate. Central Bank of Nigeria, Nigeria.
Cherubini , F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management
strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34, 2116-2123.
CPE, 2010. Landfill Recovery and use in Nigeria Pre- feasibility Studies of using LFGE. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC.
Davis, R.C., 2014. Anaerobic digestion: Pathways for using waste as energy in urban settings.
Greenest City Scholar Vancouver, Canada.

de Groot, A., 2003. Bio-methane & Bio-hydrogen. Status andperspectives of biological methane
and hydrogen production. Dutch Biological Hydrogen Foundation, The Netherlands.
Egbinola, C.N., Amanambu, C., 2013. Climate variation assessment based on rainfall and
temperature in Ibadan, South-Western, Nigeria. Journal of Environment and Earth Sciences 3(11),
32-45.
EPA, U., 2011. Available And Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Liotta, F., Panico, A., Pirozzi, F., 2012. Bio-Methane Potential Tests To
Measure The Biogas Production From The Digestion and Co-Digestion of Complex Organic
Substrates. The Open Environmental Engineering Journal 5, 1-8.
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, A., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of Energy from
Solid Waste-Part 1: General Methodology and Results Journal of Cleaner Production vol 13,
213–229.

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hadidi, L.A., Omer, M.M., 2016a. A financial feasibility model of gasification and anaerobic
digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste Management In Press, 1-12.
Hadidi, L.A., Omer, M.M., 2016b. A financial feasibility model of gasification and anaerobic
digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste Management In Press.
Igoni, A.H., Ayotamuno, M.J., Eze, C.L., Ogaji, S.O.T., Probert, S.D., 2008. Designs of anaerobic
digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid waste. Applied Energy 85, 430-438.
Igoni , A.H., Ayotamuno, M.J., Ogaji, S.O.T., Probert, S.D., 2007. Municipal solid-waste in Port
Harcourt, Nigeria. Applied Energy 84, 664-670.
IPCC, 2006. Waste, in: Pipatti, R. (Ed.) Biological Treatment of Solid Waste. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland,, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Volume 5–Waste;2006.

IRENA, 2012. Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series of Biomass for power
generation. IRENA, Bonn, Germany, p. 60.
IRENA, I.R.E.A., 2015. Renewable Power Generation Costs In 2014. International Renewable
Energy Agency Bonn, Germany, pp. 1-164.

Itodo, I.N., Phillips, T.K., 2001. Determination of suitable material for anaerobic biogas digesters,
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference and 23rd Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian
Institution of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 437-441.
Johari, A., Ahmed, S.I., Hashim, H., Alkali, H., Ramli, M., 2012. Economic and environmental
benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 16, 2907– 2912.
Johnson, M., Fitzpatrick, C., Wagner, M., Huisman, J., 2018. Modelling the Levels of Historic
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Ireland. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 131,
1–16.
Kulczycka, J., Łukasz Lelek, L., A;, L., Zarebska, J., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment of Municipal
Solid Waste Management – Comparison of Results Using Different LCA Models. Poland Journal
of Environmental Studies 24(1 ), 125-140.
Liamsanguan, C., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Environmental Assessment of Energy Production from
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (7),
529 – 536.

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lino, F.A.M., Ismail, K.A.R., 2015. Municipal Solid Waste as Sustainable Energy Source for
Brazil. International Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 4(4), 197-204.
LMOP, U., 2015. LFG Energy Project Development Handbook. Landfill Methane Outreach
Programme (LMOP), USA, pp. 1-94.
Manfredi, S., Tonini, D., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Landfilling of Waste: Accounting of
Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Contributions Waste Management & Research 27, 825-
836.
Meegoda, J.N., Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiaratchi, P.A., Hettiarachchi, H., 2013. A Comprehensive
Model for Anaerobic Degradation in Bio-Reactor Landfills, International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering Scholars' Mine, Chicago, pp. 1-7.
MIT, M.I.o.T., 2007. Units & Conversions Fact Sheet. Massachusetts Institue of Technology.
Mohareb, E.A., MacLean, H.L., Kennedy, C.A., 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste
Management—Assessment of Quantification Methods. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association 61(5), 480-493.
Mustafa, M.Y., Calay, R.K., Román, E., 2016. Biogas from Organic Waste - A Case Study.
Procedia Engineering 146, 310 – 317.
NBS, 2016. Nigerian Gross Domestic Product Report. National Bureau of Statistics Abuja,
Nigeria.
NESP, 2015. The Nigerian Energy Sector An Overview with a Special Emphasis on Renewable
Energy, Energy Efficiency and Rural Electrification. Nigerian Energy Support Programme,
Nigeria, pp. 1-152.
Nielfa, A., Cano, R., Fdz-Polanco, M., 2015. Theoretical Methane Production Generated by the
Co-digestion of Organic Fraction Municipal Solid Waste and Biological Sludge Biotechnology
Reports 5, 14-21.
Nielfa, A., Cano, R., Fdz-Polanco, M., 2015. Theoretical methane production generated by the co-
digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological sludge. Biotechnology Reports
5, 14-21.
Nizami, A.S., 2012a. Anaerobic Digestion: Processes, Products and Applications Nova Science
Publishers, Ireland.

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nizami, A.S., 2012b. Anaerobic digestion: processes, products, and applications, in: Caruana, D.J.,
Olsen, A.E. (Eds.), Engineering Science, Engineering and Technology. Nova Science Publisher
Inc, pp. 1-17.
NPC, 2017. Nigeria Population Growth Rate. National Population Commission, Nigeria.
NREL, 1995. A Manual for the Economic Evaluation of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Technologies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, USA, pp. 1-120.
NREL, 2011. Technical Manual for the SAM Biomass Power Generation Model. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, p. 40.
Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ayodele, T.R., 2016a. Optimal Allocation and Sizing of PV/Wind/Split-
Diesel/Battery Hybrid Energy System for Minimizing Life Cycle Cost, Carbon Emission and
Dump Energy of Remote Residential Building Applied Energy, 171, 153–171,.
Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ayodele, T.R., 2016b. Techno-Economic Analysis of Stand-Alone Hybrid
Energy System for Nigerian Telecom Industry. International Journal of Renewable Energy
Technology 7(2), 148-162.
Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ayodele, T.R., Alao, M.A., 2017. Electricity generation from municipal
solid waste in some selected cities of Nigeria: An assessment of feasibility, potential and
technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80, 149-162.
Ogwueleka, T.C., 2009. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iran
Journal of Environment, Health , Science and Engineering 6(3), 173-180.
Ouda, O.K.M., Raza, S.A., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., Korres, N.E., 2016. Waste to
energy potential: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 61,
328–340.
Phiri, A., Godfrey, L., Snyman, 2012. Modeling the generation of domestic waste for supporting
the planning of municipal waste services. International Journal of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering 4(6), 171-191.
Pre-Consultant, 2000. Eco -Indicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life cycle Impact
Assessment Manual for designer Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment
Netherland.
Rajaeifar, M.A., Ghanavati, H., Dashti, B.B., Heijungs, R., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M., 2017.
Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through different municipal solid

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

waste management technologies: A comparative review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews 79, 414-439.
Rajaeifara, M.A., Ghanavati, H., Dashti, B.B., Heijungs, R., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaeib, M.,
2017. Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through different municipal
solid waste management technologies: A comparative review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 79 414–439.
Rapport , J., Zhang, R., Jenkins, B.M., Williams, R.B., 2008. Current Anaerobic Digestion
Technologies Used for Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste. Department of Biological
and Agricultural Engineering University of California

California, p. 90.
Ryu, C., 2010. Potential of Municipal Solid Waste for Renewable Energy Production and
Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South Korea. Journal of Air & Waste Management
Association 60, 176–183.
Salami , L., Susu , A.A., Patinvoh, R.J., Olafadehan, O.A., 2011. Characterisation of solid wastes:
A case study of Lagos State. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology 1(3), 47-
52.
Scarlat, N., Motola, V., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Mofor, L., 2015. Evaluation of
energy potential of Municipal Solid Waste from African urban areas.
RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews 50, 1269–1286.
Sundqvist, J.O., 1999. Life cycles assessments and solid waste – Guidelines for solid waste
treatment and disposal in LCA. Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Sweden, pp. 1-169.
Verma, S., 2002. Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes,
Department of Earth & Environmental Engineering. Columbia University, Columbia, p. 56.

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlight

 Economic & environmental benefits of biogas recovery are conducted for Ibadan city

 Sensitivity analysis are conducted on some parameters to understand biogas recovery

 The results reveal that the technologies are technically and economically viable

 The LCOE from waste ranges between 0.0681–0.0336 USD/kWh for AD technology

 Also the cost ranges from 0.2411 to 0.0350 USD/kWh for LFGR technology