Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy

resources for Jordan
Zayed Al-Hamamre a,n, Motasem Saidan a,d,n, Muhanned Hararah b, Khaled Rawajfeh a,
Hussam E. Alkhasawneh c, Mohammad Al-Shannag a
a
Chemical Engineering Department, School of Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
b
Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, Ma'an, Jordan
c
College of Engineering, Alhosun College, Al Balqa Applied University, Irbid, Jordan
d
Water, Energy and Environment Center - The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An assessment of biomass resources potential in Jordan for power/heat generation and biogas production
Received 27 February 2015 is presented in this paper. The investigation is based on five crucial requirements toward process sus-
Received in revised form tainability and production cost. These requirements include biomass analysis and availability, conversion
8 May 2016
technologies, optimizing efficiency, reduction of environmental impact, and political decisions. All of
Accepted 9 September 2016
these requirements collectively work in synergy toward commercial implementation of bioconversion
technologies of biomass into energy. The information obtained in this study is expected to be useful for
Keywords: both decentralized and centralized wastes based energy planning by policymakers and industry devel-
Biomass opers, which can increase the biomass based renewable energy share to the energy mix. Direct biomass
Municipal solid wastes
resources including agricultural residues, animal manure and municipal solid waste are considered in the
Energy sustainability
analysis. Jordan produces more than 5.83 MT of wastes and residues annually, where 42% of which are
Jordan
estimated as available sources for energy generation and biogas production. The corresponding annual
biogas and power potential is 313.14 MCM and 847.39 GWh, respectively. The produced biogas could
replace almost 23.64% of Jordan primary energy consumed in the year 2012 in the form of natural gas
(656 toe). Amongst all wastes and residues, municipal solid waste generated in the middle region of
Jordan has the highest potential for biogas and power generation at 24.26%. This is followed by poultry
manure with 18.58% and olive residues with 15.1%. The potential of the other wastes and residues is
estimated at 42.06%.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
1.1. Assessment of biomass energy potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
1.2. Availability of biomass resources in Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
1.3. Energy sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.1. Requirement #1: Capturing or production of sustainable energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.1.1. Agricultural land in Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
3.1.2. Vegetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3.1.3. Field crops residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3.1.4. Fruit residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3.1.5. Animal wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
3.1.6. Municipal solid waste (MSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
3.2. Requirement 2: Conversion of sustainable energy sources into appropriate energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

n
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: z.hamamre@ju.edu.jo (Z. Al-Hamamre), m.saidan@ju.edu.jo (M. Saidan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.035
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
296 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

3.3. Requirement 3: Increased efficiency in the provision of energy services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

3.4. Requirement 4: Reduce environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
3.5. Requirement 5: Consideration of other facets of sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
4. Challenges and solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

1. Introduction sink upon burning.

The global energy demands have been continuously growing
due to the increase in population and industrialization. Fossil fuel
resources including crude oil and its derivatives, coal and natural
gas, represent important world energy resources. The energy se-
curity and declining of fossil fuel resources promoted the ad-
vancement of sustainable and renewable technologies that utilize
cheap, or zero cost biomass. Subsequently, this will easily replace
the many uses of fossil oil. For example, producing liquid or gas
biofuels helps to reduce fossil oil demand with potential benefits
that tackle problems associated with greenhouse gases, energy
security, sustainability and production cost.
Biomass is available abundantly on earth and considered to be
the most common component for renewable energy production
[1,2]. Biomass can be converted into various types of biofuels or
energy utilizing a number of processes including thermal, physical,
and biological processes [3,4].
Biofuels and energy are derived from a wide variety of biomass
materials varying in source and quality. The five basic categories of
materials including: virgin wood, energy crops, agricultural re-
sidues, food wastes, and industrial wastes and co-products [5–8].
The presence of biomass varies in terms of quantity and type on
the basis of climatic, morphological, economic and social factors.
Agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes (MSW) can
viably provide cost-effective sources of energy with low sulfur
content [9,10]. Biomass materials represent a sustainable energy
source that can be used as replacement for fossil fuel. This will not
only reduce negative impact of the waste into on the environment
[11,12], but also forms a solution to environmental problems and
depleting energy supplies. Hence, sustainable utilization of these
resources is of great importance from economic and environ-
mental perspectives [13]. However, in comparison with the fossil
fuel, biomass has nonhomogeneous form, lower grindability index,
high moisture content, high oxygen to carbon ratio (O/C) ratio
[14,15]. Consequently, biomass has lower calorific value in com-
parison with the fossil fuel (about 10–40% of that of most of fossil
fuels) [14]. The moisture content for animal manure varies de-
pending on production conditions and manure clean-out proce-
dure. For example, poultry litter ranged in moisture content from
7–49% [16], while analyses of cow dung have reported a moisture
content of 41.2% [17]. On the other hand, the reported moisture
contents of MSW ranged between 55–65% [18], respectively. The
heating values vary between 12.3 [19] to 16.9 MJ/kg-dry wastes
[20] for animal manure, while for MSW the heating values esti-
mated at 11.49 MJ/kg [21].
For a newly cut tree wood, the moisture content can be as high
as 60% of the total mass, while for air dried wood the moisture
content is normally around 12–20 wt%. Accordingly, the heating
value can vary between 5 MJ/kg for fresh biomass to 20 MJ/kg for
dry wood briquettes. This is equivalent to approximately 44% of
heating value of coal, whose low heating value varies from about
22 MJ/kg for lignite [22] to 34.9 MJ/kg for low volatile bituminous
coal [23]. On the other hand, the water content in fermentation
residues and raw sludge can be as high as 90% and works as heat
The aforementioned negative characteristics of biomass mate-
rials result in technical constrains that limit the use of biomass
materials alone in energy utilization systems and present chal-
lenges to some conversion methods [24]. Likewise, the high in-
vestments costs for biomass feed systems, uncertainty in the se-
curity of the feedstock supply due to seasonal variations and
limited infrastructure for biomass supply in some countries are
other significant obstacles. All of these hurdles and obstacles
should be taken into account while investigating the feasibility of
biomass for energy utilization.
The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the availability of
biomass residues in Jordan for agro-energy purposes in particular
to be used for heating, biogas production and electricity genera-
tion; (2) to encourage and motivate public and private sectors to
participate in the management and development of biomass en-
ergy sector; (3) to find better and sustainable utilization of bio-
mass, MSW and other organic wastes with minimum environ-
mental impacts the ecosystem.
1.1. Assessment of biomass energy potential
Energy assessments of biomass resources can be considered as
a development strategy for the improvement of the quality of life
and the environment. The yearly obtainable biomass residues are
varied depending upon several local conditions; among which
climatic factors, farm production, the type and variety of livestock
and crops planted and their yields [25]. One of the key barriers to
biomass development is the lack of knowledge on the resource
potential [26,27]. Accurate estimates of biomass sources are sig-
nificantly needed to support the policy and decision making
processes.
Several studies have estimated the potential of different agri-
cultural and forest residues available for energy purposes in dif-
ferent regions and territories worldwide including the Party of
General Pueyrredón in Argentina [28], China [29–32], Sri Lanka
[33], India [34–37], Sudan [38], Egypt [39], Bangladesh [40,41],
Ghana [42], Colombia [43] Czech Republic [44], Europe [45,46],
Portugal [26,47] and Italy [48,49]. Depending on the case, the
different types of biomass include agricultural residues, from
agriculture harvesting or processing; municipal and industrial
wastes and co-products, from manufacturing and industrial
processes.
Malico et al., [46] evaluated the net positive effect of utilizing
forest and agricultural residues to produce bio-heat for heating
local public schools located in rural area of Portugal, Estremoz.
Assessment of biomass availability, techno-economic feasibility
and environmental aspects were included. The results show that
about 273.14 thousand tone of residues can be produced annually
in Estremoz. This corresponds to energy potential of about 267.680
TJ.
In Kumar et al., [34], biomass energy resource, potential energy
conversion and policy for promotion implemented by government
of India were discussed. The research reveals that India has large
potential for biomass feed stock as surplus agricultural and forest
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
area which comprises about 500 million metric tons of biomass
availability per year. The renewable energy contributed 10.5% of
total generation out of which 12.83% power is being generated
using biomass. The total biomass power generation capacity is at
17,500 MW.
Gonçalo and Paulo, [26] investigated the potential for genera-
tion of biomass residues from agro-forestry sources in a region of
Portugal (Alto Alentejo). Residue productivity (in dry t/ha/year) of
each forestry and agricultural biomass family were estimated. The
potential of these residues was estimated to be 4000 dry t/year
and 40,000 dry t/year, respectively. This corresponds to an energy
potential of 158,000 GJ/year. Gaetano et al., [49] studied the
availability of biomass in Sicily, an area characterized by Medi-
terranean crops, which are to be subsequently exploited in anae-
robic fermentation processes in order to produce thermal or bio-
methane electricity. Considering that the coefficient of availability
of waste and by-products from processing ranged between 10%
and 50% and that for agricultural residues from cereal crops in
Sicily is 70%, the estimated quantities of biomass were up to
3,910,649.1 t/year.
In Justo et al., [28] the availability and energy potential of
herbaceous and vegetable residues derived from the agricultural
activity in the Party of General Pueyrredón, Argentina, were as-
sessed. The calculations resulted in an availability of residual
biomass of 204,536 t/year, implying an energy potential of 2605
TJ/year. When used to generate electricity, this amount of biomass
could supply 76,000 users from Mar del Plata city. If the same
available biomass would be used for heat generation, 25,160 users
could be supplied by the available residual biomass.
Halder et al., [40] used the agricultural residue production ratio
(RPR) concept to estimate the potential of biomass resources
available in Bangladesh. Considering that only 35% of field crop
residues can be utilized, and that crop processing residues have
a100% recovery factor, the total predicted amount of 2012–2013
was 90.21 million tons. This is equivalent to (32.124 Mtoe) or
373.71TWh of electricity. In a previous work, Rofiqul et al., [41]
reported that approximately 60% of total energy demand of the
country is supplied by indigenous biomass based fuels. These re-
sources are mainly used for domestic cooking and in small rural
industries.
Kemausuor et al., [42] investigated the potential of crop re-
sidues, animal manure, logging residues and municipal waste in
Ghana. The study results showed that the potential of bioenergy
from these sources is 96 PJ (2700 Mm3 of biogas or 52 PJ in
2300 ML of cellulosic ethanol). The biogas potential is sufficient to
replace more than a quarter of Ghana’s present wood fuel use.
However, infrastructure requirements represent a large challenge
for utilizing the predicted potential.
Miguel et al., [43] stochastically estimated the biomass energy
potential in Colombia using statistical analysis approach based on
Monte Carlo algorithm. The model estimated that the theoretical
energy potential of 744 PJ and a technical potential of 590 PJ in
2010. This accounts for 1.2% of the primary energy production in
the country (4,930 PJ). In Said et al., work [39], the energy po-
tential of four types of biomass resources including agricultural
residues, municipal solid wastes, animal wastes, and sewage
sludge in Egypt is estimated. With energy availability factor ran-
ging between 0.6 and 1.0, the results showed that the dry biomass
produced from bioenergy crop residue sources has been estimated
at about 12.33 million tons/year, of which 63.75% is produced from
rice straw. The total theoretical energy content the biomass was
estimated at 416.9
1015 J.
In the work provided by Monforti et al., [45], a computational
approach based on geographical assessment of potential bioenergy
production in the European Union from residues of eight agri-
cultural crops (wheat, barley, rye, oat, maize, rice, rapeseed and
297
sunflower) was reported. Their results reviled that the estimated
crop residue resources in EU-27 could provide fuel for about 850
plants expected to produce about 1500 PJ/yr.
The results supported and concluded that the energy potential
of residual biomass potential is significant in the studied region.
However, further analysis must be conducted on these bioenergy
sources in terms of their availability and technical burning con-
ditions to assess the techno-economic feasibility of using them as
alternative energy source.
1.2. Availability of biomass resources in Jordan
Jordan has very limited local indigenous energy resources that
contribute only with 2.4% to the overall energy consumptions [50].
The government has established a strategy to diversify the energy
sources and increase the contribution of the local and renewable
energy sources in the energy mix. This could be achieved by im-
plementing and developing existing technologies by increasing its
efficiency in the various sectors. The Renewable Energy and En-
ergy Efficiency Law adopted in 2010 in Jordan is a major step
forward. The law sets incentives to promote renewable energy
utilization in Jordan as well as establishing the Jordan Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency Fund (JREEEF), but is still not op-
erational, yet. However, several important issues are not addressed
directly by the law and left for future decisions and instructions to
be issued by relevant entities.
The recent energy mix is heavily weighted in favor of oil and
natural gas at 93.9% of the total energy mix for the year 2011 [51].
With respect to renewable energy, the strategy aims to increase
the share from 2% to reach 7% by 2015 and 10% by 2020 [50]. The
10% of renewable energy share in the energy mix in 2020 includes
600–100 MW wind, 300–600 MW solar and 30–50 MW biomasses.
The government has scheduled and/or planned many projects
concerned with solar energy and wind energy with total capacity
of 1.0 GW [52].
In the domain of biomass energy, Jordan has encouraging bio-
mass energy resources in the form of municipal solid wastes,
agricultural residues, animal manure and organic industrial wastes
[53]. Unfortunately biomass has no real industrial utilization in
Jordan in spite of its energy value except very limited utilization
on the form of direct combustion process to for space heating.
In the updated master strategy for energy sector for the year
2007–2015 [54] two projects were recommended: Municipal
waste exploitation project for electrical power generation project
with a capacity of about (20–30) MW at an investment volume of $
30–40 million and utilization of agricultural products project to
produce biogas and bio-ethanol at an investment volume of $ 50–
100 million. In 2012, the amount of the liquid waste that was
processed in Al-Rossaifa for the year 2012 reached 770 m³. The
corresponding electricity generated reached about 5.9 MWh.
However, biomass conversion technologies are still undergoing
research and development and are not yet fully feasible for com-
mercial production. Additionally, a detailed evaluation of the
available biomass quantities should be performed in order to de-
termine initial feasibility of biomass energy projects.
Changes in fuel supply, demand and /or quality due to planning
or management failure, wrong evaluation of available resources
and/or climate (weather) variations are reasons for failure of bio-
mass power projects. Therefore, sustainable generation of renew-
able raw material for biomass energy in Jordan is essential for
successful adaptation of biomass in the energy mix in Jordan.
1.3. Energy sustainability
Energy sustainability involves both sustainable energy sources,
as well as, sustainable energy use in energy systems. It is well
298 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
known that energy resources drive most of the world’s economic
activity. In addition, different fossil fuels or renewable energy re-
sources are obtained from the environment, at the same time
wastes generated from energy processes are typically released to
the environment. Also, services provided by energy support social
developments and stability in order to improve quality of life.
Hence, energy sustainability is indirectly linked to the three pillars
of the overall sustainability: environmental sustainability, eco-
nomic sustainability and social sustainability [55]. These three
components address concerns about relationships between hu-
man society and nature. Energy sustainability in turn targets to
find the balance between these components in order to meet the
needs of the present without compromising the needs of the fu-
ture [56,57]. This imposes the sustainable use of energy in the
overall energy system starting from the harvesting approaches and
technologies, conversion processes and the end use of energy [58].
To promote sustainable energy innovations, improvements are
required in energy production, conversion, and storage and end
use technologies. This is accomplished by increasing the efficiency
of energy use through the deployment of efficient and less ex-
pensive technologies that are capable of using more abundant,
cheaper and cleaner energy resources. Rosen [59] summarized the
component and requirements for energy sustainability as: Cap-
ture/production of sustainable energy sources, conversion of these
resources into proper energy carriers, reduced its environmental
impact and increased efficiency in the provision of energy services.
This in turn requires that energy services are provided to all
people sufficiently in a reasonable price without any harmful ef-
fect to the environment [60–62].
Renewable energy technologies are diverse and can serve the
full range of energy service needs. This service can provide the
required energy in a sustainable manner with low environmental
impacts, including GHG emissions and thus mitigating of the cli-
mate change. Different types of renewable energy can supply
thermal energy, electricity and mechanical energy. It can be also
used to produce fuels that are able to satisfy multiple energy
service needs. Hence, renewable energy must satisfy to the de-
velopment goals of the three-sustainability pillars.
Biomass resources represent a renewable energy source that
may have a significant potential for sustainable development. To
be sustainable, the development, production, reforming and uti-
lization of biomass based fuels should not threaten the environ-
ment. Additionally, biomass utilization for energy should not ad-
versely affect food security, and should be economically affordable
and at the same time meet societal needs.
2. Methodology
Biomass resource assessment could guide industry develop-
ment strategies, stakeholders and policy makers and thus support
decision-making processes. Such assessment is essential in eval-
uating the bioenergy potential and impacts associated with pro-
duction and use of these resources.
The assessment performed in this study is based on de-
termining and localizing the biomass availability and supply in
different geographical locations in Jordan. It includes:
i. Estimating the amount of biomass resources produced in the
country and determining the type and variety of crops planted
and their yields. These resources include: vegetable, crops,
fruit, and animal and MSWs. Average of six years (2007–2012)
is used in order to minimize yearly fluctuation in biomass
statistics.
ii. The amount of dry biomass residues and wastes are estimated
based on the biomass quantities generated from different
resources. Agricultural residues are estimated using technical
coefficient based on the RPR, while annual animal wastes
production is based on the livestock population and derived
using coefficients which take into account the production of
fresh dung per animal.
iii. The predicted amount of residues that may contribute in the
energy production is calculated using the availability or po-
tential energy factors presented by Hall, et al., [63]. These
factors represent the fraction of residue from specific source
that can be actually collected, recovered and used for energy.
The energy availability factors for the different biomass materi-
als are 75% for MSW, 12.5% for animal manure and 25% for
agricultural residues [63]. However, for cattle and poultry, a
factor of 90% is used since these livestock are usually belonging
to the private sector farms in which all livestock and other farm
waste are collected. Further, olive fruit field based residues are
usually difficult to be collected, while olive cake which is
considered a processing based residue is usually available in
relatively large quantities at the processing site and can be
easily collected. Therefore, an overall factor of 75% is
considered.
iv. Estimation of biogas volume and the power generation that can
be produced from different biomass residues. The estimation is
determined based on data obtained from previous studies and
investigations which utilized similar biomass for energy
utilization.
v. Biomass resources with high potentials are specified based on
several categories and constraints including: yield, availability,
and social and environmental impacts. The requirement for
energy sustainability and factors that need to be considered in
order to move towards energy sustainability are discussed
following the approach reported in [59].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Requirement #1: Capturing or production of sustainable energy
sources
Most biomass resources in Jordan are entirely scattered across
the country and have low collection coverage. A significant part of
agricultural residues are lost during collection, burned or left in
the field as food for animal. Other barriers to promote the devel-
opment of biomass utilization in Jordan include the high har-
vesting, collection and transportation costs, overlapping demand
for some biomass, and lack of existing utilization capacity for
biomass. Animal manure is disposed off in open areas and left
uncovered; though it is washed up by rain to soil. Nevertheless,
these resources can provide a great potential for bioenergy de-
velopment prospects if they are carefully managed.
3.1.1. Agricultural land in Jordan
Jordan, with a total area of about 88,780 km2, lies to the East of
the Jordan River. Agricultural land (% of land area) in Jordan was
measured at 11.29% in 2011. This includes the share of land area
that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent
pastures. Furthermore, 9.61% (% of total agricultural land) re-
presents an agricultural irrigated land. These lands refer to agri-
cultural areas provided with water and land irrigated by controlled
flooding.
Irrigation represents a key factor to maintain stable production
of any crop in Jordan. Therefore, the production of purely rain fed
land is so varied each year; hence, it might be difficult to produce
any crop when the rainfall is abnormally low. In order to maintain
stable production of any crop, a sustainable water supply and
demand balance must be secured. This can be achieved by
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314 299

Table 1
The main vegetables produced in Jordan for the years 2007–2012, the average estimated residues produced and their energy potentials.

Annual Production (1000 ton) [64] Average Moisture RPR Dry waste calorific Residues energy Residues
Annual Pro- content generated value energy availability energy
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 duction (103 [65] (103 ton) MJ/kg potential factor [63] Potential
ton) [68] (TJ) (TJ)

Tomatoes 610.24 600.34 654.31 737.26 777.82 738.23 686.37 80–90 1 [66] 102.95 6 617.73 0.25 154.43
Squash 54.52 48.80 59.26 69.66 93.12 68.97 65.72 80–90 0.5 [66] 4.93 6 29.57 0.25 7.39
Eggplants 98.13 99.90 106.79 104.75 116.97 121.17 107.95 80–90 0.5 [66] 8.10 6 48.58 0.25 12.14
Cucumber 150.87 125.93 137.68 176.18 227.15 155.94 162.29 80–90 0.5 [66] 12.17 6 73.03 0.25 18.26
Potato 98.87 139.79 118.70 174.93 216.48 141.57 148.39 55–65 0.81 [67] 48.08 6 288.48 0.25 72.12
Cabbage 35.55 22.26 25.40 20.32 22.08 39.52 27.52 70–90 0.5 [66] 2.75 6 16.51 0.25 4.13
Cauliflower 44.48 54.98 80.32 54.73 62.53 39.85 56.15 80–90 0.5 [66] 4.21 6 25.27 0.25 6.32
Pepper 41.74 51.53 43.67 55.14 63.74 72.18 54.67 80–90 1.5 [66] 12.30 6 73.80 0.25 18.45
Peas & beans 18.59 22.15 21.87 33.53 44.02 29.56 28.29 80–90 1.4 [66] 5.94 6 35.64 0.25 8.91
Jew's mallow 27.39 33.96 26.57 35.66 21.99 25.94 28.58 80–90 0.5 [66] 2.14 6 12.86 0.25 3.22
Lettuce 35.13 41.59 39.75 48.20 40.38 39.53 40.76 70–90 0.5 [66] 4.08 6 24.46 0.25 6.11
melon 116.32 126.02 123.49 184.17 160.40 150.70 143.52 80–90 0.5 [66] 10.76 6 64.58 0.25 16.15
Onion dry 28.57 27.16 28.82 15.76 40.78 26.48 27.93 80–90 0.05 [67] 0.21 6 1.26 0.25 0.31
Others 43.52 37.69 42.18 79.85 40.84 51.51 49.27 80–90 0.5 [67] 3.69 6 22.17 0.25 5.54
Total 1403.9 1432.08 1508.82 1790.14 1928.3 1701.2 1627.40 222.31 1307.49 333.48

effective management of groundwater and surface water resources of these crops.

and rising awareness of the general public on the water situation.
3.1.2. Vegetable
A wide variety of vegetables including tomatoes, cucumber,
potato, melon, eggplants, cauliflower, squash, lettuce, onion, jew's
mallow, cabbage, pepper, peas & beans are produced for domestic
consumption, local markets, and export.
Vegetables are mainly cultivated on irrigated lands located in
the middle of country and in the Jordan Valley. Hard weather
conditions such as drought and freezing may contribute to the low
crop output from time to time. Table 1 lists the main vegetables
produced in Jordan for the years 2007–2012, the estimated re-
sidues produced and their energy potentials. Tomatoes represent
the most staple product, accounting for about 42.2% of the total
vegetable produced in Jordan. Cucumber, potato and melon pro-
duced at approximately equal rate ranged from 140 to 155 thou-
sand ton per year and account for about 28% of the total vegetable
produced. After vegetables are gathered and processed, various
byproducts and residues remain on the field such as stalks, and
leaves. Residues amount are estimated based on available and
previously reported product-to-residue ratios. The RPR values
ranged between 0.05 for dry onions [66] to 1.5 for pepper [65]. The
energy content of the residues is approximately similar for all
residues at 6.0 MJ/kg [68]. However, the availability of these re-
sidues for energy generation purposes is relatively low since col-
lection is difficult and most of them are left or burnt in the farms.
Moreover, a significant part of these residues have other uses as
fertilizer, and animal feeds. Considering the energy availability
factor of 25% [63], the energy potential of the residues is estimated
at 333.48 TJ. Tomatoes have the largest contribution with 47.3%.
This is followed by potatoes with 20.04%. Cucumbers, pepper and
melon residues have approximately similar contribution with 5.0%
each.
3.1.3. Field crops residues
Most crops production in Jordan are concentrated in irrigable
land (in the Jordan valley), along with some rain fed areas in the
middle and northern side of the country where the rainfall can be
as high as 400–600 mm/a. Crop cultivation without irrigation on
dry lands depends entirely on the rainfall that regularly occurs in
the winter and early spring, i.e. late October to April. Most crops on
these lands are planted in the October–November period and
harvested in August of the next year. However, the rain shortage
and the low winter temperatures sometimes kill the early growth
Clover Trifoil is the most abundant crops currently available,
the annual average production reaches 147.29 thousand ton ac-
counting for about 66.5% of total harvested crops. Other grains
include maize (account for 8.8%), barley (8.5%) and wheat (7.7%).
Because agricultural production in Jordan is highly dependent on
water from rainfall, flooding, and stream flows, crop harvests vary
dramatically each year depending on the weather. Relatively high
production was experienced during 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012
mainly due to favorable weather; however, in 2007 and 2011, low
rainfall and water shortage contributed to the low crops output.
Most of the residues are generated in the field at the time of
harvest (field based residues). These residues include mainly
straws stalks, husk and leaves. Types of crops, residues and their
respective RPR (residue production ratio) and heating values are
given in Table 2 for the most abundant crops grown in Jordan for
the year 2007–2012.
The energy availability factor for agricultural residues was re-
ported as 25% [63]. On average, it is estimated that, 400.82 thou-
sand tons residue is available in Jordan. Out of this, 287 thousand
tons of residues (71.8%) are contributed by Clover Trifoil with total
residue generation represents 2.3 kg per kg of grain harvested.
This is followed by maize (at 9.3%), wheat (at 6.5%) and barley (at
5.2%). The energy content of these residues varies between 14.65
and 18.60 MJ/kg. Hence, the total energy content of the crop re-
sidues in the country is estimated at 1747.7 TJ.
3.1.4. Fruit residues
Citrus fruits, olives, grapes, peach, apple, and banana are the
main fruits produced in the country and available for local markets
and export.
Olive tree is the most important fruit tree grown in Jordan.
Olives covers about 107,000 hectares which represents 72% of the
total area planted with fruit trees and 36% of the total cultivated
area in the country. The total number of olive trees in the country
is estimated at estimated 17 million olive trees with a growth rate
of 1 million olive trees per year [72]. The produced olive fruit re-
present about 33% of the total amount of fruit produced [72,73].
The average annual production for the years 2007–2012 is esti-
mated at 136.49 thousand ton. The two main producing areas are
the western mountains (rainfed) and the north eastern area
(irrigated).
Citrus trees (oranges, lemons and grapefruit) are cultivated
over about 6.882 hectares represent the 2nd major fruits produced
in the country. Citrus farms are distributed in the Jordan Valley, in
300 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

Table 2
The main crops produced in Jordan for the years 2007–2012, the average estimated residues produced and their energy potentials.

Annual Production (1000 ton) [64] Average an- RPR Moisture [65] Dry residues calorific Residues energy Residues
nual pro- generated, value energy po- availability energy po-
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 duction 1000 ton (MJ/kg) tential, TJ factor [63] tential, TJ
Crops (1000 ton) [70]

Wheat 20.99 7.84 12.48 22.13 19.80 19.20 17.07 1.8 [67] 10–20 26.12 17.39 454.26 0.25 113.56
Barley 13.53 10.33 17.06 10.66 29.29 32.10 18.83 1.3 [67] 10–20 20.80 18.60 386.95 0.25 96.74
Lentils 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.25 0.08 0.10 0.15 1.9 [67] 10–20 0.24 14.65 3.34 0.25 0.83
chick- 1.21 0.68 1.20 3.94 2.16 3.70 2.15 1.4 [67] 10–20 2.56 17.25 44.09 0.25 11.02
peas
Maize 17.78 19.24 19.75 29.01 16.46 14.40 19.44 2.3 [67] 11–22 37.34 17.39 649.28 0.25 162.32
Clover 89.85 162.60 159.44 223.59 99.97 148.30 147.29 2.3 n 10–20 287.95 17.39 n
5007.45 0.25 1251.88
Trifoil
nn
others 1.87 11.53 13.34 27.97 20.21 25.40 16.72 1.82 10–20 25.82 17.25 445.38 0.25 111.35
Total 145.42 212.39 223.39 317.53 187.97 243.20 221.65 400.83 6990.8 1747.7

n
The value of maize is considered
nn
average value of RPR

Table 3
The main fruits produced in Jordan for the years 2007–2012, the average estimated residues produced and their energy potentials.

Annual Production (103 ton) [64] Average an- Moisture RPR Annual residues Residues energy Residues
nual produc- content % production calorific Energy availability energy Po-
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 tion (103 [65] of residues values, content factor [63] tential, (TJ)
ton) (103 ton) MJ/kg (TJ)

Citrus fruits 90.22 91.71 105.20 118.63 106.85 111.70 104.05 35–45 2 [66] 124.86 13 [68] 1623.21 0.25 405.80
Olives 125.03 94.07 140.72 171.67 131.85 155.60 136.49 – 1.4 [66] 191.08 15.2 [71] 2904.49 0.75 2178.37
Grapes 27.60 26.37 34.47 29.68 38.37 35.70 32.03 35–45 2 [66] 38.44 13.75 528.56 0.25 132.14
[71]
Peach 17.08 20.83 19.05 23.15 16.15 28.10 20.73 35–45 2 [66] 24.87 13 [71] 323.33 0.25 80.83
Apple 31.52 34.91 31.11 28.77 39.65 36.40 33.73 35–45 2 [66] 40.47 13 [71] 526.16 0.25 131.54
Banana 34.91 41.54 43.83 43.75 48.30 38.90 41.87 35–45 2 [66]– 62.8 13 [71]- 954.72 0.25 238.68
3 [70] 17.4 [70]
other 35.42 39.35 44.67 44.58 45.36 48.70 43.01 35–45 1 [68] 25.81 13 [68] 335.51 0.25 83.88
Total 361.79 348.79 419.06 460.24 426.53 455.10 411.92 508.35 7195.98 3251.24

the Northern Ghor, and in the irrigated area in middle side of the
country. The average annual production is estimated at 104.05
thousand ton accounting for 25.3% of the total amount of fruit
produced. This is followed by banana (10.2%), apple (8.2%), grapes
(7.8%) and peach (5.0%). Table 3 shows the main fruit produced in
Jordan for the years 2007–2012, the estimated residues produced
and their energy potentials.
Residues obtained from fruit trees and fruits can be classified
into two groups. The first group represents residues which are
generated in the field at the time of harvest or field based residues
such as wood, branches and leaves. The second group is of those
residues that are co-produced during processing (by-product or
processing based residues) such as olive cake, citrus fruits peels
and banana peels, etc. For most fruits an RPR value of 2.0 was
reported [66]. Moreover, for olive tree a value of 1.4 was chosen for
RPR [66], and for Banana the RPR values reported ranged between
2.0 [66,68,73] and 3.0 [69,70].
The collection of field based residues is usually difficult and
they are normally left in or burnt in field. On the other hand,
processing based residues are usually available in relatively large
quantities at the processing site or mill and hence can be easily
collected with no or little transportation and handling costs. Be-
sides, they may be used as energy source for the same process.
The estimated amount of fruit residues produced (based on the
average annual fruit production) is 508.35 thousand ton. The en-
ergy content for most residues is equal to 13.0 MJ/kg. For olive filed
residues and processing based residues, an average value of 15.20
MJ/kg is considered. Hence, the total energy content of fruit re-
sidues is estimated at 7195.98 TJ. With 25% energy availability
factor [63] for most fruit residues and 75% factor for olive fruit
residues, the energy potential of fruit residues is estimated at
3251.24 TJ.
Olive residues have the largest contribution with 67.0%. This is
followed by citrus fruits residues with 12.48% and banana residues
with 7.34%. Grapes and apple residues have approximately similar
contribution with 4.05%. For other fruit residues the values are
shown in Table 3.
3.1.5. Animal wastes
Animal husbandry includes cattle, horses, donkeys, camels,
goats, sheep, and poultry (mainly chickens, some ducks and tur-
key). These animals whether they are in farms or owned by po-
pulation are used to providing families’ local and regional market
with subsistence requirements for meat, milk, eggs, and wool.
Jordanian statistics in 2013 indicate the availability of around
600 cow farms, 2125 chicken farms [64]. The distribution of cattle,
goats and sheep in the different country's areas and governorates
for the year 2012 is shown in Table 4. About 34.1% found in the
middle governorates (Amman, Balqa, Zarqa and Madaba), 29.4% in
the southern governorates (Karak, Tafilah, Ma’an, and Aqaba) and
36.5% in the northern governorates (Irbid, Jarash and Ajloun).
The waste generation from these animals can be used as manure
when biodegraded to increase the agricultural land fertility. Table 5
shows the number of husbandry animals, estimated waste pro-
duction and energy potential for 2007–2012. The amount of dry
livestock manure produced in Jordan is estimated at 3313.2 thou-
sand ton. Sheep and goats have the largest contribution with 64.8%.
This is followed by poultry with 25.0%, while cattle, camels, horses
and donkeys contribute to about 19.14%. The calorific values of
animal manure vary between 13.50 and 17.80 MJ/kg.
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314 301

Table 4
The distribution of husbandry animals in the different governorate in Jordan for the year 2013.

Region Governorate Number of Heads (103) [64] Total Number of heads (103) Waste generation, 103 ton/year

Sheep Goats Cattle

Middle Amman 404.59 111.37 7.0 386.37

Balqa 19.36 92.4 3.44 90.62
Zarqa 158.42 36.53 28.73 1073.48 (34.1%) 239.89
Madaba 156.58 54.53 0.53 149.685

North Irbid 220.17 70.62 13.57 252.41

Jarash 19.5 44.27 0.69 1149.45 (36.5%) 47.12
Ajloun 15.36 49.73 0.53 47.47
Mafraq 601.26 100.21 13.54 252.41

South Karak 361.07 157.28 0.36 364.14

Tafilah 90.61 41.62 0.11 92.96
Ma'an 135.65 70.88 0.08 923.56 (29.4%) 144.86
Aqaba 15.8 50.09 0.01 46.16
Total 2198.37 879.53 68.59 2114.09

However, the collection efficiency and hence the energy avail-
ability factors of animal manure varies significantly depending on
production and farming system. For example, all cattle and poultry
farms belong to the private sector and the local farming systems
allow livestock and other farm wastes to be collected. Therefore, a
high collection efficiency and hence the energy availability factor
(as high as 90%) can be expected. For sheep and goats, which
depend mainly on rangeland and stubble grazing, the main pro-
duction system is semi intensive. Intensive production system is so
rare and only found in few governmental stations and private
farms. Recently, there are only three governmental stations con-
tain about 1677 heads [64]. Therefore, the collection efficiency and
the energy availability factor of sheep and goats wastes are usually
as low as 12.5% [63].
The amount available for energy conversion or application is
approximately 1255.5 thousand ton. The estimated energy content
in this amount can be as high as 18.45 PJ. Poultry has the highest
contribution with 54.58%, while the energy content related to
sheep and goats represent 25.9%. This is followed by cattle with
18.73%, camel with 0.47% and horse and donkeys with 0.33%.
Nevertheless, the collection efficiency and the potential of an-
imal manure can be increased by establishing dairy farms for the
animal husbandry with high standard barns in which the manure
can be easily collected, dried in the sun and utilized.
3.1.6. Municipal solid waste (MSW)
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is waste that is generated by
households and the commercial institutions and industrial sectors.
The waste material includes plastics, textiles, glass, metal, and
biodegradable materials such as paper and cardboard, wood, food
waste, and garden waste. There is a steady increase in the volume
of the solid waste fractions in Jordan especially in the last three
decades as a result of population growth; cultural, social and
economic developments, current modern living standards, as well
as, due to the forced migrations resulted due to the regional
conflicts and related to people displacements.
In Jordan, there are about 2.7 million tons of municipal solid
waste amounts generated and collected by the relevant authorities
in 2014 [76]; considering 6.7 million local populations in addition
to around 1.0 million of the Syrian refugees live in the refugees'
camps and host communities in the year of 2014 (in total of
7.7 million of populations) [77]. In comparison with the year 2009,
the annual generated solid waste amounts were 1.9 million tons
for 5.8 million populations [78]. The rate of the municipal solid
waste generation in Jordan is estimated to increase by 3% on an-
nual basis. Around 50% of solid waste stream in Jordan in 2012 is
organic, 16% plastic, 15% paper and cardboard, and the rest varies
between glass and metal among other types of waste [79]. The per
capita waste generation in Jordan is estimated at 0.6 and 0.9 kg per
day in rural and urban areas respectively [79].
The responsibility for collection and transport of MSW to the
final destination sites lies on local municipalities. An exception is
Aqaba City, where waste is collected by a private company con-
tracted by the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA).
However, disposal is the responsibility of the Joint Services
Councils (JSCs). In Fig. 1 the projected amount of MSW is shown
for the 20 years 2010–2030.
Fig. 2 shows the typical percentage distribution of MSW in
three main cities of Jordan (Amman, Irbid and Zarqa). The major
fractions of the solid waste generated are food and paper waste.
The average values of these fractions, which represent the organic
part, are estimated at 68.3% and 12.6%, respectively. The plastic

Table 5
Number of husbandry animals, estimated waste production and energy potential for the years 2007–2012.

Year Number of Heads (103) [64] Average Ratio of dry Waste genera- Calorific Wastes Energy avail- Energy po-
Number of waste produc- tion, 103 ton/ value, MJ/ Energy ability factor tential, TJ
3
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Heads (10 ) tion, ton/head/ year kg [75] content
year [74] (TJ)

sheep 2251.5 2493.4 2071 2175.7 2265 2198 2242.43 0.7 1569.70 17.8 27940.6 0.125 [63] 3492.5
Goats 569.4 1083.3 919.7 751.7 752.2 879.5 825.97 0.7 578.18 17.8 10291.6 0.125 [63] 1286.25
Cattle 81 79.4 64.5 65.5 67.6 68.5 71.08 3.6 255.888 15 3838.3 0.90 3456
Camel 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 3.6 46.8 14.9 697.3 0.125 [63] 86.25
Horse and 9.21 9.21 9.21 9.3 9.21 9.21 9.23 3.6 33.228 14.9 495.1 0.125 [63] 61.25
donkey
Poultry n 37,700 37,700 37,700 37,700 37,700 37,700 37,700 0.022 829.4 13.5 11196.9 0.90 10071
total 40624 41378 40777 40715 40807 40869 40861.71 3313.196 54459.9 18453.25

n
Data for the years 2007 – 2010 are not available and assumed equal to the values in the year 2011 and 2012
302 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
Fig. 1. The projected amount of MSW is shown for the 20 years 2010–2030 (data
are obtained from [80]).
Fig. 2. The composition of MSW in three major Jordanian cities [79].
fraction comes next with an average value of 8.6%. The combus-
tible matter includes food wastes, plastic, paper and cardboard
comprising approximately 90% of the total waste. Glass and metal
ceramics, and clay are noncombustible waste fractions, and they
comprise on average 2.5% and 6.1% of MSW, respectively. The en-
ergy content of the MSW was reported as 11.49 MJ/kg [21].
MSW is transferred to landfills for disposal. There are at present
21 landfills in Jordan [81]. However, the locations of these landfills
have been chosen according to population density in order to
serve the largest possible number of municipalities. At the same
time, the majority of these landfills are without leachate collection
facilities and hence do not have impermeable liner system. This
may increase the risk of contamination of nearby water by lea-
chate [82,83]. An exception of this is Algbawi landfill of the Greater
Amman Municipality, which receives more than 84% of the col-
lected solid waste. This amount corresponds to 58% of the volume
of the generated solid waste in Jordan. The situation in other cities
is different, for example, in Irbid only 20% of the solid waste is
transferred directly to the landfill via transfer stations.
The second largest official landfill in Jordan is Al Akeeder
landfill located in the northern region of Jordan with an area of
806
103 m2, near the main road to Mafraq Governorate. This
disposal site receives more than 45% of the collected waste,
corresponds to 9.2% of the volume of the generated solid waste in
Jordan, at almost equal proportions for disposal of industrial
wastewater and municipal solid waste [84]. It and serves the main
Irbid city and another 62 villages and cities in Irbid, Mafraq, Jarash
and Ajloun Governorates [84].
In Aqaba, the current MSW landfill is located in the southern
part of Aqaba about 17–20 km away from the Aqaba Center. Waste
is collected and transported by a private company from residential
and commercial areas. ASEZA has contracted these services at an
annual cost of 4.2 million Dollars. The Joint Services Council runs
the landfill in the city with an annual cost of 282,500 Dollars. The
MSW landfill receives most of the MSW generated in the ASEZ at
daily rate of approximately 80,000–120,000 kg. The operating
hours of the disposal site are 16 h/day (6 days/week), but the
landfill receives tipping 24 h per day (7 days/week). Current waste
dumping started approximately 8–9 years ago. According to Aqaba
City Services, the current method for waste disposal is the tren-
ching method. This method consists of placing solid waste in an
excavated area with no bottom liner. Once the excavated area is
full, the waste is covered with soil. The approximate area of the
site is around 120,000 m2.
The organic fraction of MSW can be converted in to useful
energy (electricity, heat) or into a more flexible energy source
(gaseous and liquid fuels) via thermo-chemical (combustion, pyr-
olysis, and gasification), and biochemical (anaerobic or aerobic
digestion and fermentation) conversion processes.
Waste to Energy (WtE) plants have been operated by in-
cinerating waste and converting the resulting heat into energy –
and most plants still use this technology to date. There new types
of WtE have been developed recently such as gasification, pyr-
olysis, thermal de-polymerization and plasma gasification, and
landfill gas (LFG) utilization. In Jordan, there are currently two
active governmental WtE projects which are 6 MW LFG recovery
and power generation system at the Al Ghabawi landfill, in Am-
man and another pilot LFG recovery plant in the old Ruseifah MSW
dumpsite operated by Jordan Biogas Company [25].
3.2. Requirement 2: Conversion of sustainable energy sources into
appropriate energy
There are several key technologies by which biomass energy
can be converted into various form of biofuels such as syngas or
liquid fuels (like ethanol and bio-diesel) to replace the traditional
fuels. These technologies include thermochemical conversion
processes such as combustion, pyrolysis and gasification and bio-
logical conversion processes such as alcohol fermentation, and
anaerobic digestion [85].
Generally, energy technologies are neither sustainable nor
unsustainable but can only make significant contributions to sus-
tainability – or cause problems [86]. In order that biomass con-
version process contributes positively to sustainable development
then efficient patterns of production and consumption should be
considered. For instance, the adapted technologies for biomass
conversion usually depend on the net energy production and GHG
reduction. However, the structure and composition analysis of the
feedstock play a crucial role in the process yield and efficiency.
High moisture content biomass including market garbage, biomass
materials derived from animal husbandry, agricultural wastes,
municipal solid wastes, and waste water from food and fermen-
tation industries are applicable to biological conversion processes
or anaerobic digestion in order to produce methane. However, the
high humidity content of biomass, as it is the case in animal
manure, can significantly reduce the overall process efficiency in
the combustion or gasification processes. Therefore, drying is es-
sential to improve the process efficiency although this may not be
economically viable in many cases. On the other hand, biomass
material with cellulosic structure requires pretreatment and hy-
drolysis process to produce sugars, prior to ethanol fermentation.
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
Taking into account, the crucial energy requirements for cellulose
hydrolysis and distillation must be lower than the energy in the
output ethanol for efficient conversion process [87].
Nevertheless, for heat and power generation (using steam
turbines); combustion is usually the method of choice, while for
the production of biogas anaerobic digestion or landfills are widely
used for wet residues and liquid effluents. Keeping in mind that
liquid or gaseous biofuels could be stored for further uses, whereas
heat and power must be used directly and advance technologies
are required for their storage.
Biogas can be produced form several biomass resources such as
animal manure, green plants, waste from agro industry and the
organic part of MSW by anaerobic digestion process. An anaerobic
digester is a sealed, heated tank which provides an appropriate
environment for naturally-occurring anaerobic bacteria to grow,
multiply, and convert the biomass materials to biogas and a low-
odor effluent. The biogas yield of a plant depends on the type of
feedstock, the plant design, the digestion temperature and reten-
tion time.
Biogas can be used in similar manner as natural gas in gas
stoves, lamps or as fuel for engines. The biogas utilization equip-
ment typically consists of either an engine-generator set with
electric utility hook-up, an engine operating hydraulic or air
pumps, or a gas boiler. A schematic diagram of a typical biogas
production and utilization Scenarios is shown in Fig. 3. For elec-
tricity production, biogas is supplied to an internal combustion
engine which drives a generator to produce electricity that can be
used on the farm or sold. Waste heat from the engine is used to
heat the digester and for other farm heating needs.
Table 6 illustrates the biogas potential and the share of the
major animal types, fruits, vegetables and field crops in the an-
nually production of biogas and electricity generation in Jordan.
The values are obtained based on the average amount of wastes
generated from the different resource in the country between
2007 and 2012. In Table 7 the annual theoretical biogas yield ob-
tained from MSW and the potential for electricity generation are
presented for the different locations in the South, North, and
Central areas of Jordan.
Theoretically, Jordan has the potential to produce about 706.92
million cubic meters (MCM) of biogas annually. This volume is
equivalent to about 388.81 million cubic meters NG or 2.57 million
barrel oil equivalent (corresponds to 350.0 thousand toe [88]). If
the whole potential biomass is utilized for energy production, it
could replace almost 53.35% of Jordan primary energy consumed
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a typical biogas production and utilization systems.
303
in the year 2012 in the form of natural gas (656 toe) or 66.23% of
the quantity of natural gas imported from Egypt in 2012 (587
million cubic meters) [84].
Animal wastes have the highest contribution with 28.34%
(corresponds to 200.36 MCM). Of this amount, goats and sheep
contribute to about 62.18% while biogas produced from poultry
residues represents 32.29%. Table 8 shows the distribution of
biogas potential from cattle, goats and sheep wastes in the dif-
ferent country region and in different governorate. Locations in the
Central areas ((Amman, Balqa, Zarqa and Madaba) and North side
of the country (Irbid, Jarash, Ajloun and Mafraq) have approxi-
mately similar potential for biogas generation from cattle, goats
and sheep manure at 24.39% and 23.30% respectively. Further, in
the Southern areas (Karak, Tafilah, Ma’an, and Aqaba) the potential
represents 18.74%.
In rural areas, small farms and at village levels, small-scale
digesters, under anaerobic conditions, can be used to produce
biogas from animal manure. The biogas can then be used to pro-
duce heat for the digestion process itself, or process heat and
electricity in other parts of the farm. Such decentralized small
scale projects will not only achieve solutions to local environ-
mental problems, such as waste accumulation and GHG emissions,
but also improve access to energy by populations in the local
community and at the same time create local socio-economic
development opportunities including diversification of energy
supply, creation of a domestic industry and employment oppor-
tunities. This will also make villagers/small industries self-de-
pendent in respect of their energy requirements and decrease
pressure on fossil fuels such as fuel wood, charcoal and kerosene
[95,96].
Moreover, domestic family-scale digesters can be installed with
variable size, depending on the household’s needs and quantity of
feedstock, to provide households with cooking, heating, and
lighting. The feedstock may include animal manure, other organic
materials such as household kitchen wastes, fruit and vegetable
residues. Table 9 shows the different domestic biogas plant size
and required daily feedstock. In general, a biogas plant with 1 m3
capacity requires about 25 kg of manure per day (supplied by
about two-three cows) can meet the cooking and lighting needs of
a three- to four-member family [97]. The largest family-size plant
(6 m3 capacity) requires about 150 kg of manure per day and can
cover the needs of 18–24 members’ family. Notwithstanding, water
is a necessary component in biogas production and must be added
to the manure at 1:1 ratio [97]. The composition of the produced
304 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

Table 6
The potential of agricultural residues and animal wastes for biogas production and electricity generation.

Biomass resource Average annual waste Volatile Solids BG factor, m3/ BGthn yield BG yield Pelec-BGth, Pelec-BG, Pelec-BMth, Pelec-BM,
generated (103 ton) (VS, wt%) [88] kg VS [89] MCM MCM GWh GWh GWh GWh

Citrus fruits 124.86 78.8 0.42 41.32 10.33 67.71 16.93 94.69 23.67
Olives 191.08 78.65 0.42 63.12 47.34 103.42 77.57 169.42 127.07
Grapes 38.44 78.63 0.42 12.69 3.17 20.80 5.20 30.83 7.71
Peach 24.87 79.12 0.42 8.26 2.07 13.54 3.39 18.86 4.71
Apple 40.47 78.8 0.281–0.38 10.52 2.63 17.24 4.31 30.69 7.67
Banana 62.8 78.8 0.529 26.18 6.54 42.89 10.72 55.68 13.92
other 25.81 78.8 0.42 8.54 2.14 14.00 3.50 19.57 4.89
Sum 508.35 170.65 74.22 279.61 121.61 419.75 189.65
Tomatoes 102.95 94.1 [90], 97 [91], 0.42 40.69 10.17 66.67 16.67 36.03 9.01
Squash 4.93 92.73 [92,93] 0.42 1.95 0.49 3.19 0.80 1.73 0.43
Eggplants 8.1 0.42 3.20 0.80 5.25 1.31 2.84 0.71
Cucumber 12.17 0.42 4.81 1.20 7.88 1.97 4.26 1.06
Potato 48.08 0.276–0.4, 16.74 4.19 27.43 6.86 15.29 3.82
0.426
Cabbage 2.75 0.42 1.09 0.27 1.78 0.45 0.96 0.24
Cauliflower 4.21 0.42 1.66 0.42 2.73 0.68 1.47 0.37
Pepper 12.3 0.42 4.86 1.22 7.97 1.99 4.31 1.08
Peas & beans 5.94 0.39 2.19 0.55 3.59 0.90 2.08 0.52
Jew's mallow 2.14 0.42 0.85 0.21 1.39 0.35 0.75 0.19
Lettuce 4.08 0.42 1.61 0.40 2.64 0.66 1.43 0.36
melon 10.76 0.42 4.25 1.06 6.97 1.74 3.77 0.94
Onion dry 0.21 0.42 0.08 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.07 0.02
Others 3.69 0.42 1.46 0.36 2.39 0.60 1.29 0.32
Sum 222.31 85.45 21.36 140.01 35.00 76.27 19.07
Wheat 26.12 71.3 0.384–0.426 7.54 1.89 12.36 3.09 26.50 6.62
[94]
Barley 20.8 68.8 0.353–0.658 7.23 1.81 11.85 2.96 22.57 5.64
[94]
Lentils 0.23 71.76 0.4 [94] 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.20 0.05
chick-peas 2.56 71.76 0.39 [94] 0.72 0.18 1.17 0.29 2.58 0.64
Maize 37.34 75.17 0.205–0.45 9.19 2.30 15.06 3.77 37.88 9.47
[94]
Clover Trifoil 287.95 71.76 0.345 [94] 71.29 17.82 116.80 29.20 290.59 72.65
others 25.82 71.76 0.4 [94] 7.41 1.85 12.14 3.04 25.98 6.50
Sum 400.82 103.45 25.86 169.50 42.38 406.29 101.57
sheep 1569.701 58 91.04 11.38 149.18 18.65 1629.87 203.73
Goats 578.179 58 33.53 4.19 54.95 6.87 600.34 75.04
Cattle 255.888 33 8.44 7.60 13.84 12.45 223.90 201.51
Camel 46.8 33 1.54 0.19 2.53 0.32 40.68 5.08
Horse and donkey 33.228 33 1.10 0.14 1.80 0.22 28.88 3.61
Poultry n 829.4 78 64.69 58.22 106.00 95.40 653.15 587.84
Sum 3313.196 200.36 81.73 328.29 133.91 3176.83 1076.82
Total 4444.68 559.90 203.17 917.41 332.90 4079.13 1387.11

n
BGth: Theoretical biogas production without considering the energy availability factor.

biogas varies depending on the feedstock. Though, typical com-
position includes methane (50–70%), carbon dioxide (30–50%), and
traces of other gases such as hydrogen and nitrogen [98].
Similarly, fruit and vegetable residues are very rapidly de-
gradable wastes [100]. Residues from vegetables and fruits have
high volatile matter ranging 92.73 [90]–97 wt% [91] and 78.6–
79.12 wt% [71], respectively.
Fruits residues have the 2nd highest contribution with 24.14%
of which 37.0% produced by olive residues, 24.22% by citrus fruit,
15.34% by banana residues and 23.45% produced by the other fruit
residues. Further, the share of vegetable residues is estimated at
85.45 MCM which represents approximately 12.09% of the an-
nually estimated amount of biogas that can be produced. Among
vegetable residues, tomatoes and potato contribute to about
47.61% and 19.60%, respectively, of the estimated amount of biogas
which can be produced from vegetable residues.
On the other hand, major field crops contribute to about
14.65%. Among field crops residues, clover trifoil residues has the
highest contribution with 68.9% of the biogas produced from field
crops residues. The complex structure of crop residues, which
consists of a crystalline cellulose structure intensively cross linked
with hemicellulose and lignin, hinders the methane production by
anaerobic digestion [101]. These materials are more difficult to
digest than animal manures due to the difficulty in achieving hy-
drolysis of cellulosic and lignocellulosic constituents [102].
Therefore, in order to improve methane production from anaero-
bic digestion, pretreatment of the substrate is necessary to break
the polymer chains, increase surface area and reduce lignin con-
tent and crystallinity of cellulose [103]. This makes the structure
more easily accessible by micro-organisms or extracellular en-
zymes [103] and thus accelerates the hydrolysis step, which is the
slowest and limiting process for complex substrate [104]. Such
pretreatment involve particle size reduction, alkaline or acidic
hydrolysis, thermal and ultrasonic treatment in addition to enzy-
matic degradation [101,105,106]. The pre-treatment can improve
the biogas production by a factor up to 4 [107].
Furthermore, co-digestion of corps residues with sewage
sludge, animal manure or poultry litter can significantly improve
the digester performance during in anaerobic digestion. Generally,
co-digestion can provide a better nutrient balance by maintaining
the proper C/N ratio in the reactor [108] and hence decreasing the
concentration of nitrogen [109], thereby decreasing the risk of
ammonia inhibition [110,111]. Additionally, Biodegradation of solid
organic waste is accelerated through biostimulation, accelerate the
digestion rate, enhance stabilization the bioreactor [112,113], and
thus improve biogas yields [114–116]. For example, by the co-
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314 305

Table 7
The distribution of landfills in Jordan, the collected MSW and their potential for biogas production and electricity generation.

Region landfill location Received waste, Biogas factor, Biogas yield, Annual Biogas yield, Waste energy po- Pelec-BG GWh Pelec-MSW, GWh
Tons/day m3/kg CMn1000/day MCM tential, TJ

North Akaider 350 0.106 [117] 37.1 30.18 (20.53%) 3271.20 190.82
Mafraq 100 10.6
Kufrinja 90 9.54
Northern 100 10.6 49.45
Shuneh
Taybeh 30 3.18
Saro 80 8.48
Um Qutain 30 3.18

Middle Algbawi 2200 233.2 101.37 (68.94%) 10987.89 640.96

Madaba 150 15.9
Humra 140 14.84
Dhuleil 70 7.42 166.1
Thiban 20 2.12
Dier Allah 30 3.18
Azraq 10 1.06

South Aqaba 80 8.48 15.48 (10.53%) 1677.54 97.86

Maan 50 5.3
Karak 85 9.01
Tafila 50 5.3 25.36
Shobak 20 2.12
Eil 20 2.12
Qoura 20 2.12
Husania 15 1.59
Southern 40 4.24
Shonah
Ghor safi 20 2.12
Total 3800 402.8 147.02 15936.63 240.91 929.64

n
Pelec-BG: Electricity generation by combustion of the produced biogas, Pelec-BM: Electricity generation by direct combustion of biomass

Table 8 kgVS [115].

The potential of MSW for biogas production in the different Governorate. MSW, which has relatively high collection efficiency and po-
tential energy factor, contributes with approximately 20.8% of the
Governorate Theoretical Biogas Biogas yield Total BG poten-
Region yield MCM MCM tial MCM total biogas produced annually at 147.0 MCM. As it is demon-
strated in Table 7 the MSW collected in the Middle region of Jor-
Middle Amman 21.78 2.72 dan contributes to about 68.94% of this amount, while the shares
Balqa 4.95 0.62 of wastes collected in the North and South regions correspond to
Zarqa 11.33 1.42 46.69 (23.3%)
Madaba 8.63 1.08
about 20.53% and 10.53%, respectively.
Due to their high calorific values, these wastes are referred to as
North Irbid 13.42 1.68
refuse derived fuels (RDFs). The RDFs are waste materials which
Jarash 2.67 0.33 48.88 (24.4%)
Ajloun 2.71 0.34 have been processed to fulfill guideline, regulatory or industry
Mafraq 30.09 3.76 specifications. RDFs can be used as fuel for boilers in industrial
South Karak 21.09 2.64
facilities or power generation facilities, for kilns in manufacturing,
Tafilah 5.38 0.67 or for dedicated incineration plants. Other possible end-users of
Ma'an 8.39 1.05 37.54 (18.7%) RFDs are in brick kilns, lime kilns, paper mills, and iron industries.
Aqaba 2.68 0.33 RDFs are produced by sorting through wastes to remove wet pu-
Total 133.11 16.64
trescible and inert materials, leaving mainly a combustible mate-
rial. The type of solid fuel prepared can vary greatly and depend
upon the type of waste and on the user requirements of the cus-
Table 9
Domestic Biogas plant size and daily feedstock requirements [99]. tomer and their combustion equipment. Depending on the source
and the ultimate use, the incoming waste will likely be separated,
Plant capacity Average daily Approximate no. of No. of family mem- shredded, blended, and pelletized. Drying is often also used during
(m3) manure required cattle bers that could be
the process to increase the heat calories available during com-
(Kg) served
bustion. While costs to produce RDFs are higher than sending the
1 25 23 34 waste to the landfill, the RDF can be sold for revenue (providing a
2 50 46 68 customer is available) and landfill airspace can be conserved. This
3 75 69 9  12 alternative is typically implemented in heavy industrial areas
4 100 8  12 12  16
where there are multiple industrial customers that could use the
5 125 10 15 15 20
6 150 12  18 18 24 RDF. In Aqaba’s case, the land is readily available and there are
industrial facilities such as the cement industry that might be in-
terested in such a plant. Therefore this alternative should be
digestion of cattle manure with agricultural waste, the biogas considered.
production can be increased to 0.62 L/kgVS [114] and by the co- Alternatively, MSW can be treated in centralized large scale-
digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste, manure, and fruit and biogas plant or traditional landfills. In traditional landfills, these
vegetable waste the biogas yields can be as high as 0.8–1.0 m3/ wastes are covered and compressed by the weight of the material
306 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
that is deposited above. An uncontrolled anaerobic digestion
process occurs naturally underground, and biogas is consequently
produced. The rate of production is affected by waste composition
and landfill geometry. Usually 100–200 m3 of total gas are pro-
duced per ton of MSW digested [90,117,118]. The produced biogas,
and depending upon the ultimate use, the gas can be then up-
graded to “natural gas” quality and fed into a local utility network
and to produce heat for the process heat and electricity. Assuming
thermal efficiency of 70%, the total amount of heat available from
biogas in Jordan can reach 2.34 TWh.
Biogas can be also combusted directly to produce heat as fuel
for combustion engines, which convert it to mechanical energy,
powering an electric generator to produce electricity. With 27.5%
conversion efficiency of biogas to electricity [53], the total annual
power that can be obtained is estimated at 917.41 GWh which is
17% higher than the electricity imported from Egypt and Syria
(784.3 GWh) [50] and approximately half of the consumed elec-
tricity in 2012 (16595 GWh). Moreover, the availability of natural
gas grid infrastructure in some regions, as in Amman and Aqaba,
allows injecting the biogas, after upgrading, into the natural gas
grid (in either national high pressure gas transmission grid or in
local low pressure gas distribution network). This provides es-
sential synergies and economic advantages.
However, if the conversion efficiency and the energy avail-
ability factors are considered, the annual biogas generation and its
potential for power generation become 313.14 MCM and 573.81
GWh, respectively. The share and potential of major biomass re-
sources in this potential is illustrated in Fig. 4. Agricultural re-
sidues have the largest contribution with 38.76%. This is followed
by municipal solid wastes with 35.18% and animal wastes with
26.08%.
Nevertheless, the availability of suitable infrastructure, trans-
portation and the well-organized planning and collection strategy
adapted by local governorates in Jordan play a major role in suc-
cessful utilization of the different biomass resources. The available
infrastructure and transportation facilities for MSW make it the
best biomass resource for energy production. Further, poultry
wastes (contribute to 18.58%) and olive wastes (contribute to
15.10%) are usually available in private farms and oil pressing
plant, respectively, they can be easily collected in order to be used
for biogas and energy generation. The share of these resources in
addition to MSW can be as high as 68.86% in the biogas production
potential.
The performance of traditional landfills can be enhanced by
creating conditions for waste degrading organisms to thrive. This
is typically performed by increasing moisture content by either
Fig. 4. The share of major biomass resources in the annual biogas production and
its potential for electricity generation. The estimation is performed by considering
the energy availability factors.
leachate recirculation [119] or water addition to increase the
moisture content above 40% [120]. Such landfill modification ac-
celerates the bio-stabilization and degradation of waste, enhances
leachate stabilization, and improves landfill gas generation [121]
due to enhanced hydrolysis [122].
The production of electricity, mechanical power and heat from
burning biomass is another process that operates commercially
today [2]. In a direct combustion system, the biomass is burned
with excess air in order to produce heat or to heat water in a boiler
to create steam to operate a steam turbine and generator to make
electricity. An example of biomass electric generation system
layout is shown in Fig. 5. For a steam cycle, the system is made up
of several components including the following items: Fuel storage
and handling equipment, Combustor/furnace, Boiler, Steam tur-
bine, Generator, condenser, fans and pumps and Exhaust / emis-
sions controls.
The system can be applied either at small scale near the points
of use or in a centralized way in large production units. Decen-
tralized power generation in rural areas makes villagers/ small
industries self-dependent in respect of their power requirements,
help in raise the socio-economic development of the rural areas,
reduce pressure on fossil fuels and reduce the transmission losses
[95,96]. This strategic approached has been widely proven in rural
areas [123] in developing countries [124], Indonesia [125], and
some other African countries [126,127]. In addition, such decen-
tralized power generation systems can reduce peak loads and
maintenance cost of transmission and distribution network
[95,96]. However, conversion efficiencies in such system range
from 20–40% due to the low calorific value of the biomass wastes
and its high moisture content. At the same time, small-scale heat
producing plants are relatively expensive and suffer from bad
economics, especially if high emission standards have to be con-
sidered. Also, small scale heat production plant may only operate
for limited time since consumers (often space heating) only need
heat during the cold season. Moreover, incineration of such ma-
terials causes air pollution and also requires high capital and op-
erating cost [128]. Small size power plants in turn present a series
of characteristics that complicate and raise the costs of electricity
supply and hence it is difficult to exploit economies of scale to the
same level as in large electricity systems [129].
Nevertheless, higher efficiencies can be obtained with 100
MWe power plants or when the biomass is co-combusted in coal-
fired power plants [2]. Therefore, such system may not be ap-
plicable for household domestic heating and small industries.
Rather, large-scale biomass power plants can be practically fea-
sible and cost effective in regions where the waste is collected for
disposal as in landfills or if local feedstock is available at low cost.
In Jordan, 2316.7 GWhe can be generated from the different
biomass available for energy production utilizing direct combus-
tion technology. The share of major biomass resources in the po-
tential of electricity generation by direct combustion is demon-
strated in Fig. 6. Animal wastes have the largest contribution with
46.48%. This is followed by municipal solid wastes with 40.13% and
agricultural residues with 13.39%. The contribution of MSW, olive
wastes, poultry and cattle wastes can be estimated at 79.68%. On
the other hand, the collection of sheep and goats dung and wastes
is a problematic because they are used to be out of door and are
left in the fields during the daylight to feed. Therefore, utilizing
these wastes for energy production may not be practical in spite of
the fact that the potentials of these wastes for biogas production
and electricity generation by direct combustion are estimated at
4.97% and 12.03%.
In the Northern part of the country, utilizing the MSW in
Akaider landfill for power generation can provide 85.62 GWhe
with an annual net emission saving between 92.86 thousand ton
CO2 equivalent and 194.8 thousand ton CO2 equivalent. Likewise,
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
Fig. 5. Biomass electric generation system layout (direct combustion/steam turbine system).
Fig. 6. The contribution of major biomass resources in electricity generation by
direct combustion of biomass. The estimation is performed by considering the
energy availability factors.
in Algbawi landfill of the Greater Amman Municipality, 538.2
GWhe can be generated and the net annual CO2 equivalent emis-
sion reduction ranged between 582 thousand ton CO2 equivalent
and 1220 thousand ton CO2 equivalent. The CO2 equivalent re-
duction emissions are estimated assuming that the electricity
production from MSW offers a net emission saving between 725
and 1520 kg CO2/t MSW [130]. If the whole MSW are utilized for
energy production, then the minimum and maximum total CO2
equivalent emission saving is estimated at 1005 thousand ton and
2108 thousand ton CO2 equivalent annually.
Gasification and pyrolysis are developing technologies for ad-
vanced uses of biomass and waste, represent another option to
utilize the energy content of biomass. In gasification, the biomass
is oxidized at high temperature with oxygen supply into a com-
bustible gas mixture which is then used as a feedstock (syngas) in
the production of chemicals (e.g. methanol). Besides feedstock
characteristics including moisture and ash content, the biomass
size have a large influence on gasifier size. Therefore, the gasifier
size must be optimized considering the feeding rate, residence
time, tar production, temperature and gasifier efficiency. Conse-
quently, biomass preparation, such as drying and/or sizing is
needed to some extent for most combinations of feedstock and
gasifier type. Alternatively, in pyrolysis, the biomass is thermally
cracked in the absence of air to produce liquid (termed bio-oil or
bio-crude), solid and gaseous fractions. However, the poor thermal
stability and corrosiveness characteristics of the produced oil in
addition the low process conversion are problems that need to be
overcome.
In spite of the different technologies for utilizing energy from
307
biomass, nearly all previous biomass assessment work con-
centrated on estimating the potential of different biomass and
organic materials for biogas production and electricity generation.
Table 10 presents a comparison between the results of various
biomass assessment studies in different regions worldwide.
3.3. Requirement 3: Increased efficiency in the provision of energy
services
Energy efficiency represent as series of measures and means
carried out in order to reduce energy consumption and improving
energy usage in a way that does not affect the level of perfor-
mance, i.e. to use less energy to provide the same service [136].
This can be achieved when the energy requirement in specific
product, process, or area of production or consumption is reduced.
Energy efficiency is also the improvement and development of
product that help to do more work with less energy.
Energy efficiency improvements can provide additional eco-
nomic value by reducing energy consumption, substituting more
expensive fuels with cheaper ones, preserving resources, reducing
the need for investing in energy supply, and lower spending by the
consumers on energy-related expenditure. This allows efficient
exploitation of natural resources and promote overall economic
development. Energy efficiency is also combined with pollution
prevention technologies and hence has considerable contribution
in mitigating environmental problems by the reduction in air
pollution levels. It was reported that the implementation of energy
efficiency measures lead to 25% reductions of current emissions
[137]. Further, most of these measures are cost-effective and can
considerably reduce energy costs.
Efficiency measures include both new technologies and more
efficient practices [138,139]. Numerous options can be adapted to
improve the efficiency of energy conversions and end uses. The
use of combined heat and power systems [140], and recovery of
wasted thermal or mechanical energy [141] are examples that
raise energy efficiency in the power supply and industrial sectors.
Moreover, biomass wastes represent supplementary fuel in power
generation and industrial processes which have a simultaneous
win-win benefit of wastes and producing energy [142]. Biomass
rich in lignocellulosic content has a higher reactivity with oxygen
than coal. Hence burning the biomass or the co-burning with coal
in power generation units and boilers results in lower tempera-
tures and hence leading to greater energy saving.
Moreover, in power plant, the use of biogas in gas combined
cycle power plants are more efficient than coal-fired power plants
[143]. Besides, the spent slurry (digestate), which is produced as a
by-product from the biogas production plant, represents a highly
nutrient odorless fertilizer. Thus, it can be used for land spreading
or injection into the soil without odor nuisance.
System integration of various conversion technologies such as
pyrolysis and gasification would lead to a significant development
 308
Table 10
comparison between the results of various biomass assessment studies in different regions worldwide.

Resource Residue production ratio Dry biomass produced Availability Heating va- Theoretical energy Theoretical electrical Biogas produced Ethanol yield Ref.
(RPR) (1000 tons/year) factor lues, MJ/kg content, TJ/year generation (MCM) (L/dry ton)

Forestry residues 0.48–4.0 t/ha/year 27.314 – – 267.680 – – – [46]

Forestry residues
Agricultural residues
waste and by-products
from processing
livestock sewage
– 40.035 0.7 14–17 0.143681 – – – [26]
– 3.978 14 0.014041 – – –
0.21–5.0 3,910.6491 0.1–0.5 – – – – – [49]
2.5–50 kg/ Livestock /day – – – – – –

Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

agricultural residues 1.5–2.6 t/ha 0.7 – – – – –
bioenergy crops 20–60 t/ha – – – – – –
Agricultural residues 1.1–2.0 205.6299 – 5.8–15.0 2107.9 – – – [28]
Forest residues – – – 497.5 – – –
agricultural residues 0.52–2.45 12,330 (63.75% is pro- 0.6–1.0 18.6 185,750 – – 416–428 [39]
duced from rice straw)
municipal solid wastes – 34600 – 5.02 173,800 12069.8 GWh (25% 0.80 m3/kg of VS –
conversion efficiency) destroyeda
animal wastes 13,578 – – 40,610 – – –
sewage sludge 2000 – 8.374 16,740 1560 GWh (0.78 kWh/ 1 m3/kg of VS –
kg)
forest residues 17,440 1.0 12.52–18.0 210,640 58.53 – [40]
Livestock Residue 0.09–12 kg/ Livestock /dayb 34,263.876 10.60–13.86 56,410 126.81 2910
MSW 0.15–0.41 kg/capita/day – 18.56 95,610 26.57 – –
agricultural residue (Field Process residues: 0.083– 36479.28 12.38–18.53 582,330 161.80 – –
and Process residues) 0.477 Field residues: 0.3–
3.0c
Livestock residues – 79,849.361.9 – – – – – – [41]
solid waste 0.15–0.5 kg/capita/day – – – – – – –
Crop residues 0.2–4.0 686,000 – 10–20 4,150,000 – – – [37]
Forest residues 0.48–1.0 ton/ha 2.63356 – 14–17 0.02789986 – – – [47]
Agriculture residues 0.31–7 ton/ha 7.97334 – 14 0.07813873 – – –
Animal waste – – 0.07–0.24 16.99–25.46 150,000 – – – [43]
Agricultural residues – – 0–1.0 7.565–21.429 400,000 – – –
Forestry residues – – 0–0.5 – 219,320,000 – – –
Urban waste – – 0.5–0.9 – 10,000 – – –
Food crops residues 0.68–1.5 390354.2 0.75–0.78 [131]
Oil crops residues 1.01–5.51 62468.2 0.9
Forest residues 0.344–1.0 93.2 x108 0.3–1.0
Livestock waste 0.15 kg/d- 8.2 t/a 843,000 0.6–0.9
MSW 1.0–1.4 kg/capita/day 94,300
vegetables residues 0.05–1.5 222.31 0.25 6.0 333.48 19.07 21.36 – The present
Crop residues 1.4–2.3 400.83 0.25 14.65–18.60 1747.7 101.57 25.86 – work
fruit residues 1.0–3.0 508.35 0.25–0.75 13.0–17.4 3251.24 189.65 74.22 –
animal wastes 0.022–3.6 ton/head/year 3313.196 0.125–0.9 13.5–17.8 18459.7 1076.82 81.73 –
MSW þ sludge 0.6–0.9 kg/capita/day 3800 0.75 11.49 15936.63 929.64 147.02 –

a
VS is the total organic/volatile solids (say50%), The organic bio-degradable fraction (approx. 66%of VS), the typical digestion efficiency (60%).
b
Dung yield was estimated as 8–12 kg/animal/day for buffalo, 5–10 kg/animal/day for cattle, 0.25–0.50 kg/animal/day for sheep and goat [41]. The feces generation rate for both chickens and ducks was considered as 0.1 kg/
animal/day. Waste generation from human was taken as 0.09 kg/human/day based on dry matter [132].
c
Values obtained from [133–135].
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
in energy demand by both processes. For example, energy surplus
of the syngas could be recovered and fed into pyrolysis unit since
pyrolysis operates at lower temperature (300–500 °C) versus ga-
sification (400–900 °C). Energy systems integration leads to opti-
mize the entire energy system. The combination of energy carriers
(e. g. thermal pathways, fuels, and water) with infrastructures
(such as communications and transportation) is as an excellent
example of energy systems integration to maximize efficiency and
minimize waste [144,145].
3.4. Requirement 4: Reduce environmental impact
In order to develop sustainable energy system, relations be-
tween energy and environment must be understood. In general, all
energy systems and human activities have environmental impacts.
Extraction of natural resources, materials processing, production
processes, transportation and disposal processes produce a huge
amount of wastes and emissions. Energy products are usually re-
leased into the environmental media (water, air, and soil). These
products often cause severe problems concerning the quality of air,
ecosystems, biodiversity, and freshwater. Therefore, the use of
renewable natural resources and the use fossil fuels with cleaner
technologies can help reduce the environmental effects of energy
use.
Moreover, the accumulations of large amount of agricultural,
domestic and industrial wastes generated due to human activities
and/or improper handling and disposal of theses solid wastes have
potentially harmful effects both on the environment and human
health. Managing these wastes from generation to their safe dis-
posal is a major requirement. Incineration of these wastes targets
to reduce their volume, cost of landfilling and to recover energy,
either for heating or electricity generation [146]. However, in-
cineration can be applied for residues with water content less than
50% otherwise oil or gas must be added to fuel the combustion
process [147]. Besides, incineration produce CO2, CO, NOX and
volatile organic compounds, which cause environmental pollution,
while a large amount of ash and residues from off-gas treatment
requires further treatment [148].
Recycling and/or minimizing the generation of these wastes
represent the basic solution in order to meet the new demands of
sustainable development in both industrialized and developing
countries. Systems that utilize energies produced from these
wastes, which represent biomass resources, are examples of en-
ergy recycling systems. For example, biomass co-firing with coal
and biomass are an attractive option with a relatively low need for
additional investments when used in the power generation sector.
Furthermore, the ash content in biomass is very low (2–6%) in
comparison to coal (20–50%) [149] and emissions from a biomass
system depend on the system design and fuel characteristics.
Therefore, the use of biomass in power generation instead of fossil
fuels will results in significant decrease in the release of particu-
late matters to the atmosphere. When needed, emissions controls
systems can be used to reduce particulate matter and oxides of
nitrogen emissions. On the other hand, sulfur emissions are
usually very low due to the low sulfur content of the biomass
when compared to fossil fuel normally used in Jordan with a sulfur
content of 3–4%.
Additionally, anaerobic digestion is considered as an alternative
option to manage and treat biomass materials obtained from dif-
ferent resources (agricultural residues, animal manure, sewage
sludge and organic fraction of MSW). Utilizing these wastes for
energy or biogas production prevents the accumulation of these
wastes and eliminates their cause of serious environmental con-
cerns [150,151]. The use of animal dung cakes to produce biogas by
controlled anaerobic digestion can solve the environmental issues
concerning GHGs [152], nitrogen and unpleasant odors and
309
eutrophication (intensifies the recycling of nutrients within
agriculture).
Further, biogas has lower-carbon to hydrogen ratio and it is a
better fuel than these wastes and is much cleaner, odorless, and
smokeless fuel. Uncontrolled burning of these cakes in open fires
and stoves results in exposure to air pollutants which are harmful
for mankind and environment. Therefore, decentralized domestic
digesters offer the possibility of converting animal wastes into
biogas which is then used to fulfill household’s cooking, heating
and lighting requirements.
In addition, the management of landfills, the regulation of
waste collection, the removal of the existing dumps and the pro-
duction of biogas for electricity generation help to promote waste
disposal by landfill as a sustainable form of waste management.
The energy supply from landfill gas results in considerably lower
impacts [153] with respect to energy consumption, GHG and
particulate emissions. Therefore, landfill gas can be used as sub-
stitute for coal and petroleum products (oil and gas) in power
plants and industrial facilities. In addition to the high conversion
efficiencies achieved in centralized large-scale power and or/heat
generation systems, such systems allow the opportunity for cap-
turing and sequestering GHGs emitted from the use of biomass
energy and fossil fuels. This will in return mitigate the undesired
environmental impacts of energy production.
In the industry, there are opportunities to substitute biomass
and/or natural gas for coal and oil in the manufacture of basic
materials. For example, in steel production gas-based direct re-
duced iron processes can be used in place of coal-based blast
furnaces [154,155]. Also, in cement kilns, a wide range of biomass
wastes such as plastics, auto shredded residues, slaughterhouse
residues, waste tires and sewage sludge can be used to replace
traditional kiln fuels (gas, oil or coal). The high incineration tem-
perature, the large area of the furnace, the significant length of the
kiln, and the alkaline environment inside the kiln promote utili-
zation of these waste as alternative fuels [156].
Increasing the fraction of the energy supply coming from bio-
mass wastes represent a transition away from relying heavily on
fossil fuels to using sustainable energy flows that reduce green-
house gas. Upon utilizing the biomass energy, carbon that was
already in the natural carbon cycle is recycled. The net effect being
that no new CO2 is added to the atmosphere as long as the original
sources of the biomass are sustainably managed.
Hence, biomass can provide adequate energy supplies to meet
the demands of the country and at the same time GHGs from
energy use are curtailed. Biomass sustainability can be conserved
by maintaining a balance of biomass production and/or growing
and biomass consumption (utilization). The sustainable use of
biomass resources offer important advantages in the ecosystem
service including preserving biodiversity, protecting ground and
surface water, maintaining air quality and conserving soil. Also,
growing of forest and/or agricultural based biomass will not alter
or change the landscapes as it is the case with wind and solar
farms. Thus, cultural and natural landscapes of particular char-
acteristic and beauty can be conserved.
On the other hand, uncontrolled excessive collection of biomass
and its use in traditional, inefficient combustion systems lead to
health damage and environmental deterioration. It causes ecolo-
gical damage (e.g. deforestation and soil erosion) and local scarcity
of biomass energy resources. For example, imbalances in the use of
agricultural residues and animal dung will draw them away from
their use as fertilizer. As results, the plant ecosystems will no more
be replenished and thus agricultural productivity in the following
years will be reduced.
310 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
3.5. Requirement 5: Consideration of other facets of sustainability
Sustainable energy development may not be achieved without
the sustainability of social systems. Lowering the cost, as well as,
improving and increasing the access to energy for individuals and
communities, reducing unemployment and improving the quality
of jobs, and reducing poverty levels are major factors at local level
to achieve social sustainability [157]. The local sustainability im-
pacts of a biomass energy project depend to a large extent on the
relationships between the stakeholders and the involvement of
the local actors in the project [158]. Moreover, the acceptance or
rejection of such projects by the local communities is determined
by the achieved benefits for the local communities and thereafter
makes the implementation of such project and its contribution to
local sustainability either a success or a failure. Thus, support for
renewable biomass energy will depend considerably on the per-
ception of its benefits at the territorial/local level.
Further, establishing community initiatives for renewable en-
ergy can support the sustainable biomass energy development.
Community initiatives are defined as decentralized, non-govern-
mental initiatives of local communities and citizens to facilitate
cooperative renewable energy production, promote energy sav-
ings, the production and consumption of renewable energy [159].
They can support community projects which are typically small
and dependent on the individual motivations and capacities of
their members. Also, community initiatives can create different
group of projects focused at the provision or production of bio-
mass energy, reduction of energy consumption, the support for
private households to produce their own renewable energy and
providing information about other renewable energy or sustain-
ability practices (e.g. home insolation) to reduce private
consumption.
In order to make biomass energy systems more sustainable
governments must provide policies, institutions and training
program to prepare skilled manpower to lead the development of
biomass energy projects. It should also set out frameworks con-
ditions (market rules, pricing mechanisms, taxes incentives and
reductions) to encourage private investment that can support
economic growth and sustainable biomass energy development.
The regulations should ensure reduction in energy consumption
and increase in the contribution of renewable energy in the
country energy mix. Further, decision-makers and the general
public should be fully involve during the planning stages and as
progress is made.
In order to ensure sustainable development in the biomass
energy sector, it is necessary to encourage using the biomass
sources locally, when it is possible, in order to reduce transpor-
tation emissions, costs and support local businesses. Moreover,
ensuring of autonomous self-support of farmers for using biomass
for energetic purposes may influence the economic sustainability
of the countryside. Thus, regulations that encourage decentralized
usage of wastes in domestic and village levels should be
established.
Complete characterization of the biomass materials (proximate
analysis, ultimate analysis, ash fusion temperatures, and calorific
values) enables more accurate estimation of their potentials for
energy utilization. Also, estimation of their power generation po-
tentials for a small thermal power plant on decentralized basis
allows the opportunity for using these wastes in the countryside.
The development of biomass systems that are capable of handling
waste which would have otherwise been sent to landfill, where
their decomposition releases potent greenhouse gases like me-
thane, to produce biomass energy is more sustainable.
4. Challenges and solutions
In fact several challenges are encountering the promotion of
biomass in Jordan. Firstly, the potential of biomass from livestock
waste and leftovers is not seriously explored. In the past, the li-
vestock activity was scattered and very few farms were existing,
however, there are high number of livestock farms in Northern,
Middle, and Southern regions of Jordan. More importantly, these
farms are more and less localized in municipality with short dis-
tances between them. Hence the transportation cost is not a sig-
nificant hurdle.
Secondly, the use of biomass in industry, agriculture and
stockbreeding is relatively very modest and inadequate in Jordan.
Moreover, small scale of biomass utilization exists recently and it
is only for thermal use (i.e. heating) and not for energy generation.
To overcome this challenge, funds should be raised for pilot plant
installations to convert organic biomass to energy based on will-
developed business models viability. Another funding option is
through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources by ex-
ercising the pressure to the pertinent entities in order to establish
the operation of JREEEF since the money are already allocated to
the fund. Accordingly, financially viable projects of considerable
scale can be created.
Thirdly, there is no comprehensive solid waste management
plan taking into account recycling, energy generation, and en-
vironmental aspects. This in turn causes a failure in the complete
value chain of the biomass utilization including the supply chain of
the sustainable biomass resource. However, once Ministry of Mu-
nicipalities adopts cost-effective policy in the field of waste col-
lection in cooperation with other entities, then a reliable supply of
sustainable biomass resources can be ensured. Moreover, farmers
and stockfarmers can be financially motivated to sell their biomass
wastes and utilize their biomass residues produced locally with no
or low cost.
Finally, there is no well-equipped biomass research lab in Jor-
dan which has led to lack of research and development in the field
of creating of biomass product that has higher energy content,
easy handling and transportation, based on a mix of different solid
biomass to form new product.
The investment in biomass energy field can be satisfactory and
accelerated depending on the policies and execution of strategies
of the government in Jordan. For example, the government strat-
egy should focus on small and large scale technologies. In small
scale village or countryside level, it is important to concentrate on
improving the efficiency and quality of the traditional usage of
biomass (heating and biogas production). On the medium-to-large
scale centralized utilities, the policy should focus on electricity
generation. Moreover, the government should also provide more
financial and institutional support for capturing the different
biomass resources and allocate engineered landfills for biogas and
leachate collection. The government may also introduce feed in
tariff schemes to accelerate investment in biomass energy field
and encourage private sector for adapting related projects. Fur-
thermore, , the Ministry of Higher Education can prioritize the
biomass utilization research in its funding policy in order to en-
courage the researchers to conduct research projects in this field
and consequently to equip their labs with the needed infra-
structure for testing, characterization, and R&D activities.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the availability of residual biomass in Jordan and
its energy potential are estimated. The assessment includes the
biomass quantities potentially available in the following cate-
gories: agricultural residues (crop residues, fruit and vegetables
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
residues), agricultural processing residues (olive cake), animal
wastes, and municipal solid wastes. The estimates of raw materials
are based on statistics from 2007 to 2012, by applying a series of
parameters obtained from literatures. In addition, five sustain-
ability pillars including biomass availability, conversion technolo-
gies, optimizing efficiency, reduction of environmental impact and
political decisions are discussed.
Biomass can be converted into other usable forms of energy
like thermal energy, electricity or biogas; both in centralized or
decentralized-local small scale utilities. Results indicated that
biomass residues can potentially play vital role in the energy mix
of Jordan. The availability of agricultural residues and animal
wastes in Jordan is estimated at 1131.49 thousand ton/year and
3313.20 thousand ton/year, respectively, while MSW is produced
at 1387.00 thousand ton /year. The corresponding energy potential
of theses wastes for biogas production is estimated at 313.14 MCM
which represents 23.64% of Jordan primary energy consumed in
the year 2012 in the form of natural gas. When these resources are
used for electricity generation by direct combustion, the estimated
energy in the form of electricity can be as high as 2316.75 GWhe.
The contribution of MSW, olive cake and poultry wastes in the
potential of biogas production is estimated at 35.18%, 18.58% and
15.10% respectively. At the same time, the sharing of these re-
sources in the total electricity generation by direct combustion is
40.13% for MSW, 25.37 of poultry wastes and 5.48% for olive cake.
Therefore, theses biomass resources represent the best resources
for either biogas production via digestion process or electricity
generation by direct combustion. With respect to MSW, local
government and municipalities have developed a master plan,
which provides a framework for infrastructure, planning, zoning
and transportation. At the same time, poultry and cattle wastes are
usually available in farms that belong to the private sector. The
local farming systems in these farms allow livestock and other
farm wastes to be easily collected. Moreover, olive cake can be
seasonally collected from olive press plants.
Biomass energy offers the opportunity for advancing the rural
development, rural access to energy and environmental protec-
tion. Rural biomass energy can overcome the lack of traditional
energy forms and electricity supplies. The generated biomass can
be used either in supply local household biogas system, hence
farmers produce enough energy to meet their needs while save
time, expenses, and energy, or be sold to large scale plants.
Therefore, farmers can save and earn from using their biomass for
energy conversion. Moreover, farmers may also use the sludge
(organic fertilizer that results as a by-product of the biogas con-
version process), and thus farmers can save the expense of com-
mercial fertilizer. The savings and income offer opportunities for
investments in education, health, housing, and other physical and
social assets that will increase long-term security, standard of
living, and productivity.
References
[1] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83 37–4.
[2] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 2): conversion tech-
nologies. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:47–54.
[3] Victor KW, Sancho A, Silvio H, Luiz FS. Economic assessment of biodiesel
production from waste frying oils. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:4415–22.
[4] Kaygusuz K, Turker MF. Biomass energy potential in Turkey. Renew Energ
2002;26:661–78.
[5] Varol Murat, Aysel TA. Combustion of olive cake and coal in a bubbling
fluidized bed with secondary air injection. Fuel 2007;86:1430–8.
[6] IEA (International Energy Agency). IEA bioenergy annual report; 2006
〈http://www.energytech.at/pdf/iea_bereport06.pdf〉 [accessed February,
2014].
[7] IEA (International Energy Agency). Bioenergy project development & bio-
mass supply 〈http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/biomass.pdf〉
311
[accessed February, 2014].
[8] Demirbas A. Mechanisms of liquefaction and pyrolysis reactions of biomass.
Energy Convers Manag 2000;41:633–46.
[9] Alkhamis TM, Kablan MM. Olive cake as an energy source and catalyst for oil
shale production of energy and its impact on the environment. Energy
Convers Manag 1999;40:1863–70.
[10] Abu-Qudais M, Okasha G. Diesel fuel and olive-cake slurry: atomization and
combustion performance. Appl Energ 1996;54(4):315–26.
[11] HJ Veringa, Advanced techniques for generation of energy from biomass and
waste 〈http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/units/bio/Overig/pdf/Biomassa_
voordelen.pdf〉 [accessed February, 2014].
[12] Overend RP. Biomass for energy. Energy Stud Rev 1989;1(1):5–30. 〈http://
digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/esr/vol1/iss1/2〉.
[13] Al-Masri MR. Changes in biogas production due to the different ratios of
some animal and agricultural wastes. Bioresour Technol 2001;77:97–100.
[14] J Scurlock, Bioenergy feedstock characteristics, 〈http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/
papers/misc/biochar_factsheet.html〉, [accessed February 2014].
[15] Jaya ST, Shahab S, Christopher TW, Richard DB, Neal AY. A review on biomass
classification and composition, co-firing issues and pretreatment methods.
In: Proceedings of the ASABE Annual International Meeting, Louisville,
Kentucky; 2011.
[16] Kirubakaran V, Sivaramakrishnan V, Premalatha M, Subramanian P. In-
vestigation of energy recovery from poultry litter and municipal solid waste
by thermochemical conversion method in India. J Environ Sci Eng 2005;47
(4):266–75.
[17] BabaShehu UA, Nasir I. Anaerobic digestion of cow dung for biogas produc-
tion. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 2012;7(2):169–72.
[18] Abu Qdais HA. Techno-economic assessment of municipal solid. Waste
Manag Jordan Waste Manag 2007;27(11):1666–72.
[19] Kishore VVN. Renewable energy engineering and technology a knowledge
compendium.New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute; 2008.
[20] Auke Koopmans, Jaap Koppejan. Agricultural and forest residues – genera-
tion, utilization and availability the regional consultation on modern appli-
cations of biomass energy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 6–10 January, 1997.
[21] Abu- Qdais M, Abu-Qdais HA. Energy content of municipal solid waste in
Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers Manag 2000;41(9):983–
91.
[22] The Asian biomass handbook. A guide for biomass production and utiliza-
tion. Japan Institute of Energy, 〈http://aba.jie.or.jp/aba_handbook.htm〉.
[23] Reichardt C. Solvent and solvent effects in organic chemistry. Germany: VCH
Weinheim; 1990.
[24] Obernberger I, Thek G. Physical char acterisation and chemical composition
of densified biomass fuels with regard to their combustion behavior. Bio-
mass- Bioenerg 2004;27(6):653–69.
[25] Karaj ShT, Leis H, Müller J. Analysis of biomass residues potential for elec-
trical energy generation in Albania. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2010;14:493–9.
[26] Gonçalo L, Brito P. Assessment of biomass energy potential in a region of
Portugal. (Alto Alentejo). Energy 2015;81:189–201.
[27] Gonzalez-García S, Dias AC, Clermidy S, Benoist A, Maurel VB, Gasol CM,
Gabarell X, Arroja L. Comparative environmental and energy profiles of po-
tential bioenergy production chains in Southern Europe. J Clean Prod
2014;76:42–54.
[28] Justo JR, Agnelo MC, Pedro OP, Rubens AD, José APB. Assessment of dry re-
sidual biomass potential for use as alternative energy source in the party of
General Pueyrredón, Argentina. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;41:568–83.
[29] Anttila Perttu, Vaario Lu-Min, Pulkkinen Pertti, Asikainen Antti, Duan Jie.
Availability, supply technology and costs of residual forest biomass for en-
ergy: a case study in northern China. Biomass- Bioenerg 2015;83:224–32.
[30] Jiang Dong, Zhuang Dafang, Fu Jinying, Huang Yaohuan, Wen Kege. Bioe-
nergy potential from crop residues in China: availability and distribution
Dong. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012;16:1377–82.
[31] Li Junfeng, Hu Runqing, Song Yanqin, Shi Jingli, Bhattacharya SC, Abdul Salam
P. Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-plantation biomass
resources in China. Biomass- Bioenerg 2005;29:167–77.
[32] Zhou Xinping, Wang Fang, Hu Hongwei, Yang Lie, Guo Pengheng, Xiao Bo.
Assessment of sustainable biomass resource for energy use in China. Bio-
mass- Bioenerg 2011;35:1–11.
[33] Perera KKCK Rathnasiri PG, Senarath SAS, Sugathapalaa AGT, Bhattacharyab
SC, Abdul Salam P. Assessment of sustainable energy potential of non-
plantation biomass resources in Sri Lanka. Biomass Bioenerg 2005;29:199–
213.
[34] Kumar A, Kumar N, Baredar P, Shukla A. A review on biomass energy re-
sources, potential, conversion and policy in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2015;45:530–9.
[35] Chauhan Suresh. District wise agriculture biomass resource assessment for
power generation: a case study from an Indian state. Punjab- Biomass-
Bioenerg 2012;37:205–12.
[36] Singh Jagtar, Panesar BS, Sharma SK. Energy potential through agricultural
biomass using geographical information system—a case study of Punjab.
Biomass- Bioenerg 2008;32:301–7.
[37] Singh Jasvinder, Gu Sai. Biomass conversion to energy in India—a critique.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2010;14:1367–78.
[38] Omer Abdeen M. Biomass energy potential and future prospect in Sudan.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2005;9:1–27.
[39] Said N, El-Shatoury SA, DíazL F, Zamorano M. Quantitative appraisal of bio-
mass resources and their energy potential in Egypt. Renew Sust Energ Rev
312 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
2013;24:84–91.
[40] Halder PK, Paul N, Beg MRA. Assessment of biomass energy resources and
related technologies practice in Bangladesh. Renew Sust Energ Rev
2014;39:444–60.
[41] Rofiqul MI, Rabiul MI, Rafiqul MAB. Renewable energy resources and tech-
nologies practice in Bangladesh. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2008;12:299–343.
[42] Kemausuor Francis, Kamp Andreas, Thomsen Sune Tjalfe, Bensah Edem
Cudjoe, Østergård Hanne. Assessment of biomass residue availability and
bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;86:28–37.
[43] Gonzalez-Salazar Miguel Angel, Morini Mirko, Pinelli Michele, Spina Pier
Ruggero, Venturini Mauro, Finkenrath Matthias, Poganietz Witold-Roger.
Methodology for estimating biomass energy potential and its application to
Colombia. Appl Energy 2014;136:781–96.
[44] Lewandowski I, Weger J, van Hooijdonk A, Havlickova K, van Dama J, Faaij A.
The potential biomass for energy production in the Czech Republic. Biomass-
Bioenerg 2006;30:405–21.
[45] Monforti F, Bodis K, Scarlat N, Dallemand JF. The possible contribution of
agricultural crop residues to renewable energy targets in Europe: a spatially
explicit study. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;19:666–77.
[46] Malico I, Carrajola J, Pinto Gomes C, Lima JC. Biomass residues for energy
production and habitat preservation. Case study in a montado area in
Southwestern Europe. J Clean Prod 2016;112(5):3676–83.
[47] Fernandes U, Costa M. Potential of biomass residues for energy production
and utilization in a region of Portugal. Biomass- Bioenerg 2010;34:661–6.
[48] Pantaleo A, DeGennaro B, Shah N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic
co-digestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the province of Bari
(Italy). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:57–70.
[49] Chinnici Gaetano, D’Amico Mario. Analysis of biomass availability for energy
use in Sicily. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;52:1025–30.
[50] MEMR: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources; 2013 [accessed March
2014]. 〈http://www.memr.gov.jo/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket¼ j2Hm9pn0Osw%
3d&tabid ¼ 111〉.
[51] Tanya Khammash, Energy sector report, 2012, Jordan Investment Trust P.L.C,
〈http://jordinvest.com.jo/uploads/documents/energy-sector-report-12-12
2012.pdf〉 [accessed March 2014].
[52] Clean Energy pipeline VB/Research Ltd. An analysis of investment opportu-
nities in jordan’s renewable energy sector, Jordan, Regulation & Policy,
Market trends, Project/Asset Finance; 2013 〈http://images.cleanenergypipe
line.com/Documents/2013/11/1_febbcbbd-672e-4aa5-a73d-01229a44764c.
pdf〉 [accessed March 2014].
[53] Al-Hamamre Z, Al-Matar A, Sweis F, Rawajfeh K. Assessment of the status
and outlook of biomass energy in Jordan. Energy Convers Manag
2014;77:183–92.
[54] Updated Master Strategy of Energy Sector in Jordan for the period (2007–
2020) 〈http://www.memr.gov.jo/Portals/0/energystrategy.pdf〉 [accessed
March 2014].
[55] BMU. Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland, Entwurf eines umweltpoli-
tischen Schwerpunktprogramms. Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Nat-
urschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Bonn, Germany; 1998.
[56] WCED. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and De-
velopment (WCED). Oxford, UK and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University
Press; 1987.
[57] Bojö J, Maler KG, Unemo L. Environment and development: an economic
approach. Dordrecht, The Netherlands and Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers; 1992.
[58] Hammond GP. Alternative energy strategies for the United Kingdom re-
visited; market competition and sustainability. Technol Forecast Soc
1998;59:131–51.
[59] Rosen MA. Towards energy sustainability: a quest of global proportions,
forum on public policy, 2000, Online: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table,
summer 2008 edition, p. 1–20, 〈http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/sum
mer08papers/archivesummer08/rosen.pdf〉 [accessed March 2014].
[60] Lior N. Energy resources and use: The present situation and possible paths to
the future. Energy 2008;33:842–57.
[61] Haberl H. The global socioeconomic energetic metabolism as a sustainability
problem. Energy 2006;31:87–99.
[62] Rosen MA. Energy efficiency and sustainable development. Int J Glob Energy
2002;17:23–34.
[63] Hall DO, Rosillo-calle F, Williams RH, Woods J. Biomass for energy: supply
prospects. In: Johansson TB, editor. Renewable Energy. Washington: Island
Press; 1993. p. 594.
[64] DSS (Department of Statistical Studies, Ministry of Agriculture) Annual re-
port. Amman, Jordan, 2013; 〈http://www.dos.gov.jo/dos_home_e/main/〉.
[65] Di Blasi C, Tanzi V, Lanzetta M. A study on the production of agricultural
residues in Italy. Biomass- Bioenerg 1997;12(5):321–31.
[66] Daniela Jölli and Stefan Giljum, Unused biomass extraction in agriculture,
forestry and fishery, Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) Garni-
songasse 7/27.
[67] Atlas Biomass V2.0. Biomass Resource Atlas of India. 〈http://lab.cgpl.iisc.er
net.in/Atlas/〉 [accessed March 2014].
[68] Amoo-Gottfried K, Hall DO. Biomass energy flow chart for Sierra Leone.
Biomass- Bioenergy 1999;16:361–76.
[69] Singh Jasvinder, Gu Sai. Biomass conversion to energy in India—a critique.
Renew Sust Energy Rev 2010;14:1367–78.
[70] Moonmoon H, DhimanDas DCB. Bioenergy potential from crop residue bio-
mass in India. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2014;32:504–12.
[71] Domalski Eugene S, Jobe Thomas L, Milne Thomas A. Thermodynamic data
for biomass conversion and waste incineration. Solar Energy Research In-
stitute; 1986. 〈http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/2839.pdf〉 accessed 19/10/
2014.
[72] AARINENA, Global Post-harvest Initiative, Linking Farmers to Markets,
Meeting of the Working Group for the development of a Global Partnership
Programme. Al Ain, UAE; 22–23 February, 2006.
[73] Hemstock SL, Hall Do. Biomass energy flows in Zimbabwe. Biomass- Bioe-
nerg 1995;8(3) 151–7 l 3.
[74] Tatlidil F, Bayramoglu Z, Akturk D. Animal manure as one of the main biogas
production resources: case of Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv 2009;8(12):2473–6.
[75] The Asian Biomass Handbook: A guide for biomass production and utiliza-
tion. Japan Institute of Energy. 〈http://aba.jie.or.jp/aba_handbook.htm〉 [ac-
cessed March 2014].
[76] Jordan’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs records, 2014, 〈http://www.sumpa-
med.net/?page_id¼ 1425〉.
[77] The UN refugee Agency, UNHCR Jordan Overview, Syrian Refugees Regis-
tration records, 2014, 〈http://www.unhcr.org/5385de2c9.html〉.
[78] SWEEP, Country profile on solid waste management situation in Jordan, The
Regional Solid waste Exchange Information and Expertise Network in
Mashreq and Maghreb Countries; 2010.
[79] SWEEP, Country report on the solid waste management in Jordan, The Re-
gional Solid Waste Exchange of Information and Expertise network in
Mashreq and Maghreb countries; 2014.
[80] Mahdi Ikhlayel, Yoshiro Higano, Helmut Yabar, Takeshi Mizunoya. Proposal
for a sustainable and integrated municipal solid waste management system
in Amman, Jordan based on the life cycle assessment method the 23rd Pa-
cific Conference of the Regional Science Association International (RSAI) and
the 4th Indonesian Regional Science Association (IRSA) Institute (PRSCO
2013 Conference), May 15, Bandung, Indonesia; 2013.
[81] Mohammad A, Kenneth MP. Municipal solid waste landfills in Jordan – cur-
rent conditions and prospective future. In: Proceedings of the 1st Interna-
tional Conference on Final Sinks, Vienna; 23rd – 25th September, 2010.
[82] Abu Rukah Y, Al-Kofahi Y. The assessment of the effect of landfill leachate on
ground-water quality-a case study. El-Akader landfill site-north Jordan. J
Arid Environ 2001;49:615–30.
[83] Abu Rukah Y. Study of colloidal content and associated heavy metals in
landfill leachate: a case study of el-akader landfill site: Jordan. Int J En-
vironPollut 2005;23(2):205–14.
[84] Abu Qdais H, Abdulla F, Qrenawi L. Solid waste landfills as a source of green
energy: case study of Al Akeeder landfill. Jordan J Mech Indust Eng
2010;4:69–74.
[85] Global Climate and Energy Project. An assessment of biomass feedstock and
conversion research opportunities, GCEP Energy Assessment Analysis
Spring; 2005 〈http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/assessments/biomass_assess
ment.pdf〉.
[86] Grunwald Armin, Rösch Christine. Sustainability assessment of energy
technologies: towards an integrative framework. Energy Sust Soc 2011;1:3.
〈http://www.energsustainsoc.com/content/1/1/3〉.
[87] Demirbas MF, Balat M, Balat H. Biowastes-to-biofuels. Energy Convers
Manag 2011;52:1815–28.
[88] Bodansky David. Appendix: energy units. In: Book Source, Howes Ruth,
Fainberg Anthony, editors. The Energy. New York: American Institute of
Physics; 1991.
[89] Lin Jia, Zuo Jiane, Gan Lili, Li Peng, Liu Fenglin, Wang Kaijun, Chen Lei, Hainan
Gan. Effects of mixture ratio on anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and ve-
getable waste and food waste of China. J Environ Sci 2011;23(8):1403–8.
[90] Wakadikar Kanchan, Sil Avick, Kumar Sunil, Kumar Rakesh, Mudhoo Ackmez.
Influence of sewage sludge and leachate on biochemical methane potential
of waste biomass. Bioremediation Biodegrad 2012:S8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4172/2155-6199.S8-002.
[91] Azadeh Babaee, Jalal Shayegan. Anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. In:
Proceedings of the tenth International Conference on Chemical & Process
Engineering: Florence, Italy; 8–11 May, 2011.
[92] Mital KM. Biogas system principles and Applications. New Age International
Private Limited, New Delhi, India; 1996.
[93] Krishna Nand. Biogas from food wastes. Indian Food Indust 1994;3:23–4.
[94] Jerry Murphy, Rudolf Braun, Peter Weiland, Arthur Wellinger, Biogas from
energy crop digestion, 〈http://www.iea-biogas.net/files/daten-redaktion/
download/publications/workshop/8/5-Energy_crops.pdf〉, Accessed.
[95] Rishi KDR. Estimation of power generation potential of agricultural based
biomass species, MTech thesis.Rourkela: Department of Mechanical En-
gineering, National Institute of Technology; 2007.
[96] Kumar M, Patel SK. Energy values and estimation of power generation po-
tentials of some non-woody biomass species. Energ Source Part A 2008;30
(8):765–73.
[97] Anelia Milbrandt and Ralph Overend. Assessment of Biomass Resources in
Afghanistan, Technical Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617
Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401; 2011.
[98] Salomon KR, Lora EES. Estimate of the electric energy generating potential
for different sources of biogas in Brazil. Biomass- Bioenerg 2009;33(9):1101–
7.
[99] International Network for Sustainable Energy (INFORSE). Manual on sus-
tainable energy solutions to reduce poverty in South Asia, January 2008.
〈http://www.inforse.org/asia/M_energy_solutions_poor.htm〉. Accessed June
2014.
 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314
[100] Pavan P, Battistoni P, Mata-Alvarez J. Performance of thermophilic semi-dry
anaerobic digestion process changing the feed biodegradability. In: Mata
Alvarez J, Tilche A, Cecchi F, editors. Proceedings of the II International
Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, held in Barcelona, June
15–17, 1999, 1: 57–64, (Int. Assoc. Wat. Qual.).
[101] Guangtao Wang. Biogas production from energy crops and agriculture re-
sidues, pH.D. thesis, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Tech-
nical University of Denmark; 2010.
[102] Nagle Marcus, Habasimbi Kennedy, Mahayothee Busarakorn, Haewsung-
charern Methinee, Janjai Serm, Müller Joachim. Fruit processing residues as
an alternative fuel for drying in Northern Thailand. Fuel 2011;90:818–23.
[103] Fan LT, Gharpuray MM, Lee YH. Evaluation of pretreatments for enzymatic
conversion of agricultural residues. Biotechnol Bioeng Symp 1981;11:29–45.
[104] Eastman JA, Ferguson JF. Solubilization of particulate organic carbon during
the acid phase of anaerobic digestion. J Water Pollut Control Fed
1981;53:352–66.
[105] Parveen K, Diane MB, Michael JD, Pieter S. Methods for pretreatment of lig-
nocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2009;48:3713–29.
[106] Lucy FR. Montgomery and Günther Bochmann Pretreatment of feedstock for
enhanced biogas production. IEA Bioenergy; 2014.
[107] Esposito G, Frunzo L, Giordano A, Liotta F, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Anaerobic co-
digestion of organic wastes. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2012;11(4):325–41.
[108] Desai M, Patel V, Madamwar D. Effect of temperature and retention time on
biomethanation of cheese whey–poultry waste–cattle dung. Environ Pollut
1994;83:311–5.
[109] Cuetos MJ, Gomez X, Otero M, Moran A. Anaerobic digestion of solid
slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence of co-digestion
with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Biochem Eng J
2008;40:99–106.
[110] Hills DJ, Roberts DW. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and field crops
residues. Agric Wastes 1981;3:179–89.
[111] Hashimoto AG. Conversion of straw–manure mixtures to methane at meso-
philic and thermophilic temperatures. Biotechnol Bioeng 1983;25:185–200.
[112] Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Adv Environ Res
2003;7:609–16.
[113] Lo HM, Kurniawan TA, Sillanpaa MET, Pai TY, Chiang CF, Chao KP, Liu MH,
Chuang SH, Banks CJ, Wang SC, Lin KC, Lin CY, Liu WF, Cheng PH, Chen CK,
Chiu HY, Wu HY. Modeling biogas production from organic fraction of MSW
co-digested with MSWI ashes in anaerobic bioreactors. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:6329–35.
[114] Cavinato C, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Pavan P. Thermophilic anaerobic codi-
gestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: comparison of
pilot and full scale experiences. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:545–50.
[115] Murto M, Bjornsson L, Mattiasson B. Impact of food industrial waste on
anaerobic codigestion of sewage sludge and pig manure. J Environ Manag
2004;70:101–7.
[116] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour Technol
2000;74:3–16.
[117] Verma Shefali. Anaerobic digestion of biodegradable organics in municipal
solid wastes, M.Sc thesis.USA: Department of Earth & Environmental En-
gineering, Columbia University; 2002.
[118] Regional Information Service Centre for South East Asia on Appropriate
Technology (RISE-AT). Review of current status of Anaerobic Digestion
Technology for treatment of MSW; 1998.
[119] Kelly RJ, Shearer BD, Kim J, Goldsmith CD, Hater GR, Novak JT. Relationships
between analytical methods utilized as tools in the evaluation of landfill
waste stability. Waste Manag 2006;26(12):1349–56.
[120] Bagchi A. Design of landfills and integrated solid waste management.Hobo-
ken, NJ: John Wiley; 2004.
[121] US EPA. State of the practice for bioreactor landfills. Science Applications
International Corporation, Reston, VA; 2002. 〈http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/id/paint/index.htm〉.
[122] Shi L, Zhang Q, Niu D, Zhao Y. Microbiological characteristics of aged refuse-
based bioreactor for landfill leachate treatment. J-Tongji Univ 2007;35
(8):1085.
[123] Arodudu Oludunsin, Voinov Alexey, Duren Iris van. Assessing bioenergy
potential in rural areas: a NEG-EROEI approach. Biomass- Bioenerg
2013;58:350–64.
[124] Terrapon-Pfaffn Julia, Dienst Carme, König Julian, Ortiz Willington. A cross-
sectional review: impacts and sustainability of small-scale, Renewable en-
ergy projects in developing countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;40:1–10.
[125] Teguh Wikan Widodo, Agung Hendriadi. Development of biogas processing
for small scale cattle farm in Indonesia, International Seminar of Biogas
technology for poverty reduction and sustainable development, 18–20 Oc-
tober, Beijing, China; 2005.
[126] Karolina Hagegard. Small-Scale Biogas by Lake Victoria Analyzing and im-
plementing the biogas technology for cooking in rural African households, M.
Sc thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden; 2008.
[127] The potential of small-scale biogas digesters to alleviate poverty and improve
long term sustainability of ecosystem services in Sub-Saharan Africa, DFID
NET-RC A06502, 〈https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sustainable-international-develop
ment/documents/Final_Report_-_Potential_of_Small-Scale_Biogas_Diges
ters_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa%5B1%5D.pdf〉 [accessed in February 2015].
313
[128] Zeshan. Dry anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and digestate
management strategies, M.Sc thesis, Asian Institute of Technology School of
Environment, Resources and Development/Thailand; 2012.
[129] Pérez Y, Ramos J. How to make an European integrated market in small and
insolated electricity systems? The case of the Canary Islands Energ Policy
2008;36:4159–67.
[130] IEA Energy report, IEA Energy Technology Essentials – Biomass for Power
Generation and CHP, 〈http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials3.pdf〉.
[131] Yanli Yang, Peidong Zhang, Wenlong Zhang, Yongsheng Tian, Yonghong
Zheng, Lisheng Wang. Quantitative appraisal and potential analysis for pri-
mary biomass resources for energy utilization in China. Renew Sustain En-
ergy Rev 2010;14:3050–8.
[132] Narang HP, Parashar DC, Bhattacharya SC, Salam PA. A study of biomass as a
source of energy in India. RERIC Int Energy J 1999;21:11–23.
[133] Yokoyama S, Ogi T, Nalampoon A. Biomass energy potential in Thailand.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2000;18:405–10.
[134] Koopmans A. Biomass energy resources for power and energy. In: Options for
dendro power in Asia: report of the expert consultation 1998. Manila, Phi-
lippines: FAO; 1–3 April 1998.
[135] AH. Mondal Implications of renewable energy technologies in the Bangla-
desh power sector: long-term planning strategies. ZEF; 2010.
[136] Rosen MA. Energy sustainability: a pragmatic approach and illustrations.
Sustainability 2009;1:55–80.
[137] Sally MB, Franklin M. Sust energ convers. MRS Bull 2008;33:297–305 ac-
cessed January 2015 http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/  wilkins/energy/
Resources/survey/harnessing-mtl-energy-2008Apr/sustain-2art.pdf.
[138] Ambrose M. Energy-efficient planning and design. In: Newton P, Hampson
KD, Drogemuller R, editors. Technology, Design, and Process Innovation in
the Built Environment. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2009. p. 238–49.
[139] Harvey L. Reducing energy use in the buildings sector: measures, costs, and
examples. Energ Effic 2009;2(2):139–63.
[140] Casten TR. Recycling energy to reduce costs and mitigate climate change. In:
MacCracken MC, Moore F, Topping Jr. JC, editors. Sudden and disruptive cli-
mate change: exploring the real risks and how we can avoid them. London,
UK: Earthscan; 2008.
[141] Brown D, Marechal F, Paris J. A dual representation for targeting process
retrofit, application to a pulp and paper process. Appl Therm Eng 2005;25
(7):1067–82.
[142] Juan AC, Lorena R, Silvia E, Rey Maria D. Pollutant formation and emissions
from cement kiln stack using a solid recovered fuel from municipal solid
waste. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45(13):5878–84.
[143] Jean-Guy, Livio Honorio Rolf, Bartaire Tapio, Bauerschmidt Zoltan, Ohman
Hans, Tihanyi John F, Zeinhofer Vasco De, Scowcroft Hartmut, Janeiro Hans-
Joachim, Kruger Daniel, Meier Offermann, Ulrich Langnickel. Efficiency in
electricity generation; 2003 〈http://www.eurelectric.org/Download/Down
load.aspx?DocumentID ¼ 13549〉.
[144] Jaramillo-Nieves Loraima, Río Pablo del. Contribution of renewable energy
sources to the sustainable development of islands: an overview of the lit-
erature and a research agenda. Sustainability 2010;2:783–811.
[145] Sims R, Mercado P, Krewitt W, Bhuyan G, Flynn D, Holttinen H, Jannuzzi G,
Khennas S, Liu Y, O’Malley M, Nilsson LJ, Ogden J, Ogimoto K, Outhred H,
Ulleberg O, Van Hulle F. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Sey-
both K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlomer
S, von Stechow C, editors. Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and
Future Energy Systems. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources
and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[146] Wilson Parawira. Anaerobic treatment of agricultural residues and waste-
water: application of high-rate reactors, PhD thesis, Department of Bio-
technology, Lund University, Sweden; 2014. 〈http://www.lub.lu.se/luft/diss/
tec_848/tec_848_kappa.pdf〉.
[147] Chynoweth DP, Owens JM, Legrand R. Renewable methane from anaerobic
digestion of biomass. Renew Energ 2001;22:1–8.
[148] Ayalon O, Avnimelech Y, Shechter M. Solid waste treatment as a high-priority
and low cost alternative for greenhouse gas mitigation. Environ Manag
2001;27:697–704.
[149] Longwell P, Rubint ES, Wilson J. Coal energy for the future. Prog Energ
Combust Sci 1995;21:269–360.
[150] Madi A, Kuraan L. Jordan olive monthly report. National Centre for Agri-
cultural Research and Technology Transfer, Amman, Jordan; 1999.
[151] Sharadqah W. Lignin biodegradation during the process of biological con-
version of olive mill by-product (jift). MS thesis, College of Sciences and Arts,
Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid-Jordan; 2000.
[152] Chanchal M, Biswas GK. A comparative study on production of biogas using
green and dried vegetables wastes by anaerobic batch digestion. Process Int
JEng Sci 2012;1:01–6.
[153] Vogt R, Gärnter S, Münch J, Reinhardt G, Köppen S, Daniel J, Postel J, Scholwin
F, Klinski S, Brohmann B, Fritsche UR, Hennenberg K, Hünecke K, Rausch L,
Köppel J, Peters W, Pusch E, Schultze C. Optimierungen für einen nachhal-
tigen Ausbau der Biogaserzeugung und -nutzung in Deutschland. Project
Report to the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature and Reactor
Safety, FKZ, 0327544, Heidelberg, Leipzig, Berlin, Darmstadt; 2008.
[154] Dorota Burchart Korol. Sustainability and eco-efficiency assessment of bio-
mass use in steelmaking, METAL, 15–17 May 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU;
2013. 〈http://www.metal2014.com/files/proceedings/12/reports/1447.pdf〉.
[155] John GM, Harold R, Michael AS, Sharif J, Phillip R. Potential for the use of
314 Z. Al-Hamamre et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 295–314

biomass in the iron and steel industry, CHEMECA, 18–21 September 2011,
Hilton Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; 2011. 〈http://www.conference.
net.au/chemeca2011/papers/252.pdf〉.
[156] Rajendra KP, Mohan PK. Alternative fuels for cement industry: a review. In:
Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia; January 7–9, 2014.
[157] Munashinge M, Shearer W. Defining and measuring sustainability; The World
Bank: Washington, DC, USA; 1995.
[158] Singal S, Varun, Singh R. Rural electrification of a remote island by renewable
energy sources. Renew Energy 2007;32:2491–501.
[159] Oteman Marieke, Wiering Mark, Helderman Jan-Kees. The institutional space
of community initiatives for renewable energy: a comparative case study of
the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Energy, Sust Soc 2014;4:11. 〈http://
www.energsustainsoc.com/content/4/1/11〉.