Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: Current

and future practices in China
Hefa Cheng a,*, Yuanan Hu b
a
State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, PR China
b
Education Program for Gifted Youth, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94025, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With rapid economic growth and massive urbanization, China faces the problem of municipal solid waste
Received 19 June 2009 (MSW) disposal and the pressing need for development of alternative energy. Waste-to-energy (WTE)
Received in revised form 6 January 2010 incineration, which recovers energy from discarded MSW and produces electricity and/or steam for heat-
Accepted 12 January 2010
ing, is recognized as a renewable source of energy and is playing an increasingly important role in MSW
management in China. This article provides an overview of the WTE industry, discusses the major chal-
lenges in expanding WTE incineration in China, namely, high capital and operational costs, equipment
Keywords:
corrosion, air pollutant emissions, and fly ash disposal. A perspective on MSW as a renewable energy
Municipal solid waste
Waste-to-energy
source in China is also presented. Currently, only approximately 13% of MSW generated in China is dis-
Incineration posed in WTE facilities. With the significant benefits of environmental quality, the reduction of green-
Renewable energy house gas (GHG) emissions, and government policies and financial incentives as a renewable energy
Greenhouse gas reduction source, WTE incineration industry is expected to experience significant growth in the coming decade
and make greater contribution to supplying renewable energy in China.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the traditional sense, renewable sources of energy are those
that can be replenished by nature, such as hydropower, wind
power, solar power, and biomass. Municipal solid waste (MSW) re-
fers to the materials discarded in urban areas, including predomi-
nantly household waste with sometimes the addition of
commercial wastes, collected and disposed by the municipalities.
MSW contains a significant fraction of paper, food waste, wood
and yard trimmings, cotton, and leather, and is a source of biomass.
Materials derived from fossil fuels, such as plastics, rubber, and
fabrics, are also found in MSW. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency considers MSW a renewable energy resource because the
waste would otherwise be sent to landfills (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2006a). The U.S. Department of Energy includes
MSW in renewable energy only to the extent that the energy con-
tent of the MSW source stream is biogenic (Energy Information
Administration, 2007). The non-renewable portion of MSW has to
be either separated or accepted as part of the fuel (Themelis and
Millrath, 2004), and practically all the wastes in MSW after mate-
rial recovery and recycling are treated as renewable.
Waste-to-energy (WTE) processes recover the energy from the
waste through either direct combustion (e.g., incineration, pyroly-
sis, and gasification) or production of combustible fuels in the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 20 8529 0175; fax: +86 20 8529 0706.
E-mail address: hefac@umich.edu (H. Cheng).
forms of methane, hydrogen, and other synthetic fuels (e.g., anaer-
obic digestion, mechanical biological treatment, and refuse-de-
rived fuel). Incineration and gasification are the two primary
WTE technologies that have been used successfully throughout
the world. It is estimated that about 130 million tonnes of MSW
are combusted annually in over 600 WTE facilities worldwide, pro-
ducing electricity and steam for district heating and recovered
metals for recycling (Themelis, 2003). WTE incineration has long
been accepted as a solid waste management option, complement-
ing landfilling and composting (American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2008; Denison, 1996; Themelis, 2003; United Nations
Environment Programme, 1996). The advantages and limitations
of the major MSW disposal technology options, landfilling, com-
posting, and incineration, are compared in Table 1. Incineration
of MSW in WTE facilities prevents the possible aqueous and gas-
eous pollution associated with landfilling and provides a source
of reliable, renewable energy. As a proven, environmentally sound
technology, WTE has been used extensively in Europe and devel-
oped countries in Asia such as Japan and Singapore (American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers, 2008).
The demand for sustainable urban growth in China is unprece-
dented: 300 million people will move from the countryside into
cities (18–20 million people/year), necessitating the building of
over 400 new cities in the next two decades (Brookins, 2007;
Cheng and Hu, 2010; Hart and Milstein, 1999; United Nations,
2008; United Nations Population Fund, 2007). It is expected that
70% of China’s population, or approximately 1.0 billion people, will

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.040
 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
Table 1
Comparison of the major MSW management technology options: landfilling, composting, and incineration.
Technology Advantages
Landfilling An universal solution that provides ultimate waste disposal;
Relatively low cost and easy to implement;
Complements with other technology options for handling the
residual waste;
Can derive landfill gas as a byproduct for household and industrial
uses;
Costs incurred incrementally as landfill expands.
Composting Converts decomposable organic materials into an organic
fertilizer;
Reduces the amount of waste to be landfilled and integrates well
with landfilling and materials recovery/recycling.
Incineration Provides substantial reduction (by 90%) in the total volume of
waste requiring disposal in landfill;
Requires minimal pre-processing of waste;
The bottom ash from incineration is biologically clean and stable,
and can be used in road building and the construction industry;
A very stable process, and virtually all wastes can be burned and
the burning process can be adequately controlled;
Heat from combustion can be used as energy source for
generation of steam and/or electricity;
Incineration facilities can be located near residential areas,
thereby reducing costs of transporting MSW to locations of waste
disposal;
Air emissions can be well controlled;
More optimal land use and more efficient integration of resources
than landfilling.
be living in urban areas by 2050 (Feiner et al., 2001; United Na-
tions, 2008). Dealing with the increasing volume of MSW gener-
ated as a result of both the increasing urban population and the
improving life style of the people presents a daunting challenge
(Cheng et al., 2007; Cheng and Hu, 2009). At the same time, China,
which is the world’s second largest consumer of energy and the
third largest importer of oil (Energy Information Administration,
2009), also faces massive demand for energy to power its economic
growth. Discarded MSW is a viable energy source for electricity
generation in a carbon-constrained world (Kaplan et al., 2009),
thus a MSW management technology with the benefits of recover-
ing energy from the waste is a promising alternative in solving the
MSW disposal problem in China. WTE is gaining increasing popu-
larity in China primarily for its ability to reduce the volume of
MSW that requires landfilling, it also lessens the country’s depen-
dence on fossil fuel and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This arti-
cle provides an overview of the situations of MSW disposal and the
development of WTE incineration in China. The major challenges
facing the growth of WTE incineration industry are discussed and
the perspective of MSW as a renewable energy source in China is
also presented.
2. China’s urban expansion and MSW management challenge
China is the world’s most populous country and is developing
rapidly: its total population increased from 963 million in 1978
3817
Disadvantages
Cost increases significantly with liner, leachate collection and removal system, and
stricter regulations;
Requires large area of land;
Does not achieve the objectives of reducing volume of MSW and converting MSW
into reusable resources;
May result in secondary pollution problems, including groundwater pollution, air
pollution, and soil contamination;
May serve as breeding ground for pests and diseases;
Long postclosure care obligations and unknowns exist, and sets long-term
restrictions on site land use;
Site location may be limited by the local geology and natural stability of the
underground soil;
Due to public acceptance and space limitation, landfills are often far away from the
places where waste is generated, necessitating long distance transport of the waste.
Takes up more space than some other waste management technologies;
Can be costly to implement and maintain, and has no environmental or economic
advantages compared to incineration;
Requires waste size reduction and some degree of waste separation/processing;
There are issues with public perception, such as odor and bioaerosol emissions
during the composting process, and the control of disease producing organisms,
weeds, and insects;
Quality of the fertilizer produced is low and volume is disproportionately large,
resulting in poor market demand;
Compost product may cause soil pollution by heavy metals and pathogens.
High capital and operational and maintenance costs, compared to other, non-
incineration options;
Significant operator expertise is required;
Air pollution control equipment is required to treat the flue gas, and the fly ash
needs to be disposed in hazardous waste landfills;
More raw material have to be used to replace those that have been incinerated, and
it does not save energy in the long run as resources are not recycled;
May some time discourage recycling and waste reduction;
Public perception is sometimes negative, primarily with dioxins emission.
to 1330 million in 2008, with the urban population increased from
17.4 to 43% (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2009). Increas-
ing population, rapidly developing economic and social systems,
accelerated urbanization, and need for improvements in both the
standards of living and the surrounding ecosystems pose multiple
environmental challenges in China, including air pollution, water
and soil pollution, waste disposal, water shortage, and massive en-
ergy demand (Cheng et al., 2007, 2009; Cheng and Hu, 2009, 2010;
Liu and Diamond, 2005). Among them, MSW management is one of
the major problems that affect China’s environmental quality and
the sustainable development of its cities.
Fig. 1a shows the trends in the amounts of MSW collected and
treated in China. MSW generation has been increasing at an annual
rate of 8–10%, with over 150 million tonnes of MSW being pro-
duced each year now (Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007; Yuan et al.,
2008). The fraction of MSW treated by MSW management facilities
has increased from approximately 5% in the 1980s to around 55%.
MSW is managed by a combination of landfilling, composting, and
incineration in China. Fig. 1b depicts the amounts of MSW treated
by these three technologies between 2001 and 2006. Landfilling is
the dominant form of waste disposal in China, handling over 80% of
the treated MSW. However, serious surface water and groundwa-
ter contamination has occurred in many landfill sites due to the
lack of leachate collection and treatment systems in over half of
the existing landfills (Ministry of Construction of China, 2006;
Yan and Wu, 2003). On the other hand, the availability of land
space limits construction of new lined landfills in many cities.
3818 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
Fig. 1. MSW management in China: (a) amounts of MSW collected (including
predicted values for 2010 and 2015) and treated from 1980 to 2015 and (b)
amounts of MSW treated by incineration, landfilling, and composting between 2001
and 2006.
Composting has become an unpopular choice of MSW manage-
ment (dropped from 17% in 2001 to <4% in 2006), primarily be-
cause the lack of waste sorting and materials separation resulted
in compost products with low nutrient contents and elevated hea-
vy metal levels (Yan and Wu, 2003). Meanwhile, the amount of
MSW being incinerated increased steadily, and incineration gradu-
ally became the second most important means of MSW
management.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a typical WTE incineration facility.
3. Air pollution control and GHG reduction in WTE incineration
The vast majority of WTE plants in operation in China are based
on incineration, which is a mature and simpler technology com-
pared to others (Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007; Yuan et al., 2008).
Incineration transforms heterogeneous wastes into more homoge-
neous residues (flue gas, fly ash, and bottom ash) with the primary
benefit of substantial reduction of the waste’s weight (up to 75%)
and volume (up to 90%). Fig. 2 illustrates the incineration and flue
gas cleaning processes of a typical WTE facility. During incinera-
tion, MSW is combusted in a specially designed chamber at high
temperature, where air is continuously supplied to ensure turbu-
lence and the complete combustion of the components to their sta-
ble and natural molecular forms. The solid residues can be sent to
landfills or cleaned up and used off-site for certain construction
purposes (Cheng et al., 2007; Wei et al., 1990). The flue gases
may contain significant amounts of particulate matter, heavy met-
als, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid. Dioxins used to
be the most serious environmental concern associated with MSW
incineration (Vogg et al., 1987). However, with significant ad-
vances in incinerator design and emission control driven by strin-
gent regulations in the developed countries, incinerators can now
operate with emission of virtually no dioxins (American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 2008; Themelis, 2003). Other air pollu-
tants can also be effectively controlled during the combustion pro-
cess and removed by the flue gas cleaning system (Cheng et al.,
2007; Cheng and Hu, 2009). The heat generated from MSW com-
bustion can be collected through steam generation, which is subse-
quently used for power generation and/or heating. The sale of
electricity/steam generated as a byproduct of the incinerator oper-
ation partially offsets the cost of incineration. With the exception
of some small-scale (100–200 t/d) furnaces operated as supporting
treatment in integrated waste management plants, all MSW incin-
eration facilities in China have the ability of electricity generation
(Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007).
Disposal and treatment of MSW can produce significant amount
of GHG emissions: carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are produced
by incineration, while methane (which is 21 times more potent
than carbon dioxide over 100 years) is produced as a byproduct
of the anaerobic decomposition of MSW in landfills. Methane pro-
duced at solid waste disposal sites contributes approximately 3–4%
 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Pa-
nel on Climate Change, 2006). Methane emission from MSW man-
agement is estimated to be 1.87–3.37 Mt in China in 2004 (Gao
et al., 2007). Compared to the option of landfilling, WTE can curb
the contribution of MSW on GHG emissions through avoiding the
release of methane from landfills and offsetting emissions from
fossil fuel power plants. Comparative studies of WTE and landfill-
ing have shown that WTE can reduce up to 1.3 tonnes of carbon
equivalent per ton of MSW through avoiding the release of meth-
ane from landfills and offsetting emissions from fossil fuel power
plants (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008). U.S. data
indicate a net emission reduction of 0.15 ton of carbon equivalent
was achieved for every ton of MSW managed by WTE instead of
being landfilled (with the national average methane recovery) in
2003 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b). By most esti-
mates, China is now, or soon will be, the largest emitter of GHGs
globally. In the past few years, China has instituted policies to slow
its GHG emissions growth. Even though the contribution of GHG
emissions from MSW management is low (1%) (Gao et al.,
2007), WTE can be a small step towards reducing China’s total
GHG emissions. In addition, WTE can reduce the transport of
MSW to distant landfills and the associated emissions and fuel con-
sumption (Kaplan et al., 2009; Weitz et al., 2002).
4. Characteristics of Chinese MSW and development of WTE
MSW is a heterogeneous material and its physical composition
is dependent on socio-economic level and climatic conditions
(Qdais et al., 1997). In China the physical components of MSW typ-
ically include food waste, paper, textile, rubber, plastic, glass, met-
als, wood, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes (e.g., stones,
ceramics, and ashes). Systematic MSW sorting and recycling is
not implemented, although materials with resale values, such as
metals, paper, and plastics, are highly recycled by the informal
recycling sector (Cheng et al., 2007). MSW in China shows some
distinct compositional characteristics compared to those in devel-
oped countries: food waste, instead of paper, makes up the largest
fraction (50%) of MSW in China, and the moisture levels are much
higher (typically around 50% vs. 20–30% in the U.S. and European
countries) (Cheng et al., 2007; Li et al., 2001; Zhang et al., 2008).
The calorific values (3000–6700 kJ/kg) of Chinese MSW are typi-
cally less than half of those (8400–17,000 kJ/kg) of the developed
countries, which are mainly composed of sorted organic wastes
(Patumsawad and Cliffe, 2002; Thipse et al., 2001). As a result,
incineration of Chinese MSW encounters a range of problems,
including difficulty in ignition, unsteady and unstable combustion
flame, incomplete combustion of the waste, and increased forma-
tion of air pollutants. Supplementary fuel, which would signifi-
cantly increase the operating cost, is often necessary for
incineration of such high moisture, low energy content wastes
(Cheng et al., 2007; Cheng and Hu, 2009; Nie, 2008).
The experience from the first modernized WTE plant (Shenzhen,
Guangdong) in China is a good example of the technology develop-
ment in incinerating the unsorted MSW with high moisture levels
and low heat contents. Two 150 t/d incinerators were imported
from Japan in the late 1980s. They were operated with prolonged
drying and incineration times to adequately incinerate the local
Table 2
Summary of the types and capacities of MSW incinerators in China in 2006 (Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007).
Incinerator type No. of plants No. of incinerators No. of turbine generators
Stoke grate 25 69 46
Fluidized bed 24 50 39
Rotary kiln + pyrolysis 14 32 5 3540
Total 63 151 90
3819
waste, and suffered from problems, including grate blockage and
significant fluctuations in combustion chamber temperature. Sup-
plementary fuel was also required to support combustion, which
substantially increased the operating cost. Overall, the incinerator
performance was unstable and the power output was limited
(500 kW). A third incinerator with over 80% of parts domestically
manufactured was built in 1996, together with the modification
of the imported incinerators and the installation of a 3 MW gener-
ator unit. After this major upgrade, unsorted MSW with calorific
values of >3300 kJ/kg and moisture contents of <55% is adequately
incinerated at the facility, with each ton of MSW generating
approximately 200 kWh electricity.
As urban expansion (rate of urbanization: 2.7% annual rate of
change in 2005–2010) continues, WTE has been increasingly
adopted as an alternative to landfilling in China, particularly in
the relatively more developed cities (Xu and Liu, 2007; Yuan
et al., 2008). As indicated in Fig. 1b, only 2.9% of MSW treated
was incinerated in 2001, while this fraction increased to 13.2% in
2006. Table 2 summarizes the number and types of MSW inciner-
ators and their power generation capacities in 2006. Stoke grate
and fluidized bed are the major MSW incineration technologies
currently being used in China, and their performances are com-
pared in Table 3. Stoke grate systems represent slightly more than
half of China’s MSW incineration capacity. Most of them have med-
ium (500 t/d) or large (1000 t/d) incineration capacities, and rely
predominantly on imported equipments. Because of their high
costs and the heat content requirement for the MSW (>6000–
6500 kJ/kg, or supplementary fuel is necessary), the stoker systems
are typically used in the economically more developed cities (Nie,
2008; Xu and Liu, 2007). Fluidized bed incinerators, in contrast, are
almost based entirely on domestic technologies. They have much
lower capital and operating costs compared to the stoker systems,
and easily allow co-firing of MSW with coal (which is abundant in
China and costs much less than petroleum fuels). As a result, WTE
incineration facilities based on domestic fluidized bed technologies
are being increasingly adopted in small and mid-sized cities, and
the large cities in the middle and western parts of China as well
(Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007). Although the development of fluid-
ized bed technology of co-firing MSW with coal in China is prom-
ising, the treatment capacities of such incinerators until now are
limited to the range of 100–500 t/d.
Most of the MSW power plants in China operate equipments
imported from North American and Western Europe, which are
expensive relative to the local economy. Some do not perform well
because of the high moisture contents and the low calorific values
of the Chinese MSW (Cheng et al., 2007; Liu and Liu, 2005). The
facility costs for imported incineration systems range from 0.6 to
0.8 million Yuan Ren Min Bi (RMB)/daily ton of treatment capacity.
In comparison, WTE facilities based on domestic technologies and
equipments cost only 0.2–0.3 million Yuan RMB/daily ton of treat-
ment capacity (Cheng et al., 2007; Liu and Liu, 2005). The operation
and maintenance (personnel training, fuel, parts repair and
replacement) of imported incineration systems are also costly,
varying between 280 and 350 Yuan RMB/ton MSW treated (Cheng
et al., 2007; Liu and Liu, 2005). For incineration facilities designed
and constructed in China (which use coal instead of natural gas or
diesel as the supplementary fuel), the costs of operating and main-
Total incineration capacity (t/d) Total power generation capacity (MW)
20,400 355
16,080 420
25
40,020 800
3820 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824

Table 3
Comparison of the performances of stoke grate and fluidized bed MSW incinerators.

Incineration Stoke grate Fluidized bed

technology
Pre-treatment No pretreatment is needed. It is better to homogenize the waste feed, and waste separation
and crushing are often necessary.
Auxiliary fuel Liquid fuel is only needed during incinerator startup. Coal is often mixed with the waste to achieve complete
combustion; liquid fuel is also needed during incinerator startup.
Mixing during Mechanical movement of grate agitates and mixes the waste Fluidization by strong airflow forced through a sand bed promotes
incineration completely, and introduction of secondary combustion air mixing and turbulence, causing full circulation of the waste, fuel
through nozzles over the grate also introduces turbulence and and sand throughout the furnace.
mixing.
Slag and fly ash The amount of fly ash produced is small. The waste is burned Fly ash production is 3–4 times of that of grate incinerators. Waste
production completely, and the slag’s loss of ignition is very low. is not completely combusted, and the slag’s loss of ignition is
relatively high (1–2%).
Startup and shutdown The incinerator needs to be operated continuously; incinerator Incinerator startup and shutdown are convenient.
startup and shutdown significantly increase the emissions of
pollutants.
Maintenance The equipment is robust and annual operating time is typically The equipment requires periodic maintenance and repair, and the
above 8000 h. annual operating time is typically 6000–8000 h.

tenance are both much lower as compared to the imported ones.
The total cost for operating and maintenance for such facilities
(70–80 Yuan RMB/ton) is approximately 1/4 of the imported ones
(Cheng et al., 2007; Liu and Liu, 2005).
Over one hundred companies, research institutes and universi-
ties are working on the research and development of WTE inciner-
ation technologies and its integrated equipments in China (Cheng
et al., 2007). In the last few years, there have been significant ad-
vances in development of novel incineration technologies in China
(Cheng et al., 2007; Liu and Liu, 2005; Luo et al., 2004). More than
20 WTE facilities have been built based on domestic incineration
technologies (Xu and Liu, 2007). Fig. 3a shows the schematic for
a grate-circulating fluidized bed combined combustion system,
which is well-suited for disposal of non-sorted high moisture con-
tent and low energy content MSW (Cheng et al., 2007). Fig. 3b illus-
trates a novel MSW incineration technology, in which MSW drying,
pyrolysis, gasification, incineration, and ash vitrification are
achieved as a spectrum of combustion by the same primary cham-
ber in one step (Liu and Liu, 2005). Incinerators based on domesti-
cally developed technologies, especially for circulating fluidized
bed, have been gradually received in China (Cheng et al., 2007;
Nie, 2008). It is expected that future accumulation of operational
and managerial experiences including residue disposal and utiliza-
tion and co-firing efficiency enhancement will bring domestic WTE
technologies even more competitive (Cheng et al., 2007).
5. Problems and prospects of WTE incineration in China
Along with the rapid economic growth, China faces pressing
needs for environmentally sound waste management technology
and clean energy. WTE is playing, and will continue to play, an
increasingly important role in MSW management in the near fu-
ture. Nonetheless, development of WTE incineration industry in
China faces several major challenges.
5.1. Capital and operating costs
Compared to other MSW treatment technologies and power
generation from other renewable resources, WTE requires high

Fig. 3. Examples of domestically developed MSW incineration technologies in China: (a) schematic of a grate-circulating fluidized bed combustion system (Cheng et al., 2007)
and (b) illustrative diagram for the primary chamber of a novel incineration technology integrated with drying, pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion of MSW and ashes
vitrification (Liu and Liu, 2005).
 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824 3821

capital investments and operational costs. Imported incineration
equipments are expensive and have high operating and mainte-
nance costs; equipments based on domestic technologies cost
much less but are generally limited to relatively low capacities.
Most of the WTE facilities in China have been built in the econom-
ically more developed cities, funded by the municipal governments
and some time with assistance from foreign loans, although partic-
ipation of the private sector is increasing. They are predominantly
supported and operated by municipal governments. However, for
WTE facilities to become truly self-sufficient, the tipping fee and
the government subsidy need to be significantly raised to make
up for the higher cost of electricity generation (0.5 Yuan/kWh
vs. 0.2 Yuan/kWh of coal-fired power and 0.03–0.05 Yuan/kWh of
hydropower). The costs of capital, operating, and maintenance for
domestically developed WTE facilities are only 1/3 to 1/2 of those
of imported ones (Cheng et al., 2007; Cheng and Hu, 2009; Liu and
Liu, 2005). China should invest in the research and development of
domestic technologies and incineration equipment, especially the
large capacity incinerators, to help make WTE incineration more
affordable by municipalities across the country.
5.2. Equipment corrosion
Due to the lack of waste sorting and material separation, MSW
in China contains relatively high levels of chlorine and sulfur
(Zhang et al., 2008), which form acid gases (HCl and SO2) during
combustion and can cause serious corrosion of the steam boilers.
Even though higher efficiencies can be achieved by operating
WTE plant heat recovery boilers at higher temperatures, the rate
of high temperature corrosion will also increase. Largely because
of cost considerations, carbon steel and 310 stainless steel
instead of highly resistant materials (e.g., Ni-base alloys) are typi-
cally used to make the boiler tubes in MSW incinerators, requiring
frequent superheater repairs and replacements. To reduce the acid
gas corrosion attack, the boilers are typically operate at rather low
steam conditions (400 °C, 4 MPa), resulting in relatively low overall
thermal cycle efficiencies (20%). On the other hand, although the
capital cost for boiler tubes made of highly resistant materials is
higher, the superheater can be operated at higher temperature
and their lifespan can be significantly extended. The increased en-
ergy recovery efficiency and reduced superheater maintenance
may lead to greater long-term economic benefits than the system
built with less corrosion resistance. To combat the corrosion prob-
lem and to improve the power generation efficiency of WTE plants,
more efforts are to be spent on improving the process conditions in
the boiler and on developing less expensive corrosion-resistant
alloys.
5.3. Air pollutant emissions
A range of air pollutants, particularly dioxins, are produced in
MSW incineration and can be released into the atmosphere in sig-
nificant quantities if the incinerator and the flue gas cleaning sys-
tem are not properly designed and operated. The national emission
standards of MSW incineration was established in 2001 (State
Environmental Protection Administration of China, 2001a), which

Table 4
Emission limits of air pollutants from MSW incineration in China, European Union, and United States.

Pollutant Emission standard

Chinaa European Unionb United States
Small municipal waste Large municipal waste combustorh
combustord
Particulate matters, mg/m3 80 (hourly ave.) 10 (daily ave.); 30 24 (3-run ave.) 25 (existing unit); 20 (new unit)
(half-hourly ave.)
Smoke opacity 20% (hourly ave.) – 10% (hourly ave.) –
CO, mg/m3 150 (hourly ave.) 50 (daily ave.); 100 50-150 (ppm by volume)e 50–250 (ppm by volume)i
(half-hourly ave.)
SO2, mg/m3 260 (hourly ave.) 50 (daily ave.); 200 30 (ppm by volume, daily block 29 (ppm by volume, existing unit); 30 (ppm by
(half-hourly ave.) geometric ave.) volume, new unit)
3
NOX, mg/m 400 (hourly ave.) 200 or 400 (daily ave.)c; 150 or 500 (ppm by volume, daily 165–250 (ppm by volume, existing unit);
400 (half-hourly ave.) block arithmetic ave.)f 180 or 150 (ppm by volume, new unit)j
HCl, mg/m3 75 (hourly ave.) 10 (daily ave.); 60 25 (ppm by volume, 3-run ave.) 29 (ppm by volume, existing unit); 25
(half-hourly ave.) (ppm by volume, new unit)
Hg, mg/m3 0.2 0.05 (measured ave.) 0.08 0.05
Cd, mg/m3 0.1 0.05 (sum of Cd and Tl) 0.02 0.035 (existing unit); 0.01 (new unit)
Pb, mg/m3 1.6 0.5 (sum of Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, 0.2 0.4 (existing unit); 0.14 (new unit)
Cu, Mn, Ni, and V)
Dioxins/furans, ng TEQ/m3 1 0.1 13 (total mass basis)g 30 or 35 (existing unit, total mass basis)k;
13 (new unit, total mass basis)

Notes:
a – all emission limits except opacity are measured at 11% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions (State Environmental Protection Administration of China, 2001a);
b – all emission limits are measured at 10% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions (European Union, 2000);
c – the daily average limit is 200 mg/m3 for new and existing plants with more than 6 tonnes per hour capacity, and 400 mg/m3 for existing plants with no more than 6 tonnes
per hour capacity;
d – for unit with an individual municipal waste combustion capacity of 250 tonnes per day or less, all emission limits except opacity are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at
standard conditions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000);
e – the limit varies by combustor technology;
f – the limit is 150 ppm by volume for Class I units (located at municipal waste combustion plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity more than 250 tonnes per day
of MSW) or 500 ppm by volume for Class II units (located at municipal waste combustion plants with an aggregate plant combustion capacity no more than 250 tons per day
of MSW);
g – dioxins/furans on total mass basis measured as tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Not toxic equivalent (TEQ) value;
h – for unit with an individual municipal waste combustion capacity of greater than 250 tonnes per day, all emission limits except opacity are measured at 7% oxygen, dry
basis at standard conditions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c);
i – the limit varies by combustor technology;
j – the limit varies by combustor type for existing unit, while for new unit it is 180 ppm by volume in the first year of operation and 150 ppm by volume after first year of
operation;
k – the limit is 30 ng/m3 for non-electrostatic precipitator (ESP) equipped unit or 35 ng/m3 for ESP-equipped unit.
3822 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
are generally less stringent than those in Europe and the U.S. (Ta-
ble 4). Concentrations of dioxins emitted from MSW incinerators
under operation in China are generally in compliance with the na-
tional standard of 1.0 ng-TEQ/Nm3, and can even meet the Euro-
pean standard (0.1 ng-TEQ/Nm3) for large-scale MSW
incinerators adopting the best available air pollution control tech-
nologies (Nie, 2008; Xu et al., 2009). Nonetheless, it is necessary for
WTE facilities to continue improve the incinerators and flue gas
treatment systems to further reduce their air pollutant emissions.
For better protection of public health, China should impose tighter
limits on emissions of dioxins and other air pollutants from incin-
eration facilities (towards the European and U.S. standards), which
is expected to lead to a wave of development and implementation
of new air pollution control technologies.
5.4. Fly ash management
Management of fly ash from MSW incineration has not received
adequate attention in China, while improper disposal can poten-
tially cause secondary environmental pollution from the fly ash.
Despite the significant waste volume reduction, considerable
amount of solid residues (i.e., bottom ash, fly ash, and air pollution
control residue) are generated at different points in the process of
MSW incineration. After appropriate stabilization treatment, the
bottom ash is often used as a construction material. In contrast,
fly ash is a hazardous waste due to the enrichment of dioxins
and heavy metals, and must be disposed accordingly (Li et al.,
2004; Yan et al., 2006). Although fly ash is required to be disposed
of in hazardous waste landfills (State Environmental Protection
Administration of China, 2001a), only a few cities in China have
such special landfills in service or under construction with most
of them rejecting fly ash due to its large volume (Nie, 2008).
MSW incineration currently produces approximately 200,000 ton-
nes of fly ash each year, most of which is dumped in open pits or
Fig. 4. Distribution and the status (data of 2007) of MSW incineration facilities outlined in the 11th five-year plan period (2006–2010) in China.
sold to private parties (Nie, 2008). Meanwhile, similar to bottom
ash, fly ash can also be reused in construction applications after
decontamination/stabilization treatment (Shi and Kan, 2009;
Zhang et al., 2007). Significant efforts should be spent on develop-
ing appropriate dioxin destruction and heavy metal stabilization
technologies (e.g., vitrification, sintering, thermocatalyic and
hydrothermal treatments) and strengthening the regulations on
fly ash management and reuse.
The recent rapid development of WTE in China has been driven
by two factors: the mounting pressure on MSW disposal and the
new government regulations and policies promoting environmen-
tally sound technologies for MSW management and renewable en-
ergy. Despite the significant capital and operating costs, a growing
number of cities have built or are planning to build WTE incinera-
tion facilities. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of MSW incineration
facilities under construction and to be built during the 11th five-
year plan period (2006–2010) in China. Challenged by the massive
domestic energy demand, China actively seeks the development of
renewable energy resources and recognizes WTE as one of the
alternatives (National People’s Congress of China, 2005). Besides
the preferential treatments it receives under the category of
renewable energy resources, WTE also benefits from a series of reg-
ulations from the national and local governments, including tax
incentives, electricity buyback scheme, and higher tipping fees
(Cheng et al., 2007; Nie, 2008). The Renewable Energy Law of China
provides loan program, guaranteed tariff for renewable electricity
fed into the public grid, and support measures for research and
development of renewable electricity generation (National Peo-
ple’s Congress of China, 2005). Two subsequent regulations speci-
fied that the electricity from MSW power plants should be
purchased at the prevailing price of electricity generated from
coal-firing power plants plus an additional government subsidy
of 0.25 Yuan/kWh, and that power companies should actively in-
vest in renewable energy development while the private sector is
 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
allowed to invest in small-scale renewable energy projects (State
Development and Reform Commission, 2006a,b). WTE incineration
facilities are also exempted from corporate income tax for the first
5 years of operation, and are eligible for immediate refund of va-
lue-added tax (State Environmental Protection Administration of
China, 2001b). In addition, some municipal governments also set
preferential tipping fee structures for WTE incineration to support
the industry (Cheng et al., 2007; Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007). The
basic framework for the growth of WTE industry has been estab-
lished, and incineration is playing an increasingly important role
in MSW management in China (Shi and Zhang, 2005).
Governmental financial incentives have played a crucial role in
stimulating the development of WTE incineration and strengthen-
ing its position in the renewable energy market. For example, the
total capital investment for the Changchun MSW Power Plant
(two 260 t/d incinerators with a 6 MW electric generator), which
was based on domestically developed coal co-firing technology,
was 160 million Yuan RMB (Cheng et al., 2007). The facility re-
ceived 30 Yuan RMB for each ton of MSW treated from the muni-
cipal government and 0.94 Yuan RMB for each kilowatt-hour of
electricity supplied to the public grid. It incinerated a total of
137,325 tons MSW and generated 46.2 million kWh electricity
(79.3% was supplied to public grid) in 2006, resulting in a gross
revenue (free from taxes during the first 5 years of operation) of
38.6 million Yuan RMB (Cheng et al., 2007). Its net profit in 2006
was 20.3 million Yuan RMB (assuming a straight line depreciation
rate of 5%), or 12.7% of the total capital investment. The stable and
high rate of return on investment has driven the rapid develop-
ment of WTE incineration in many parts of China over the last sev-
eral years.
Annual generation of MSW in China is expected to reach 180
and 210 million tonnes by 2010 and 2015, respectively. The com-
position of MSW is also changing with the contents of organic
and recyclable wastes continue to increase. As the major source
of household fuel shifts from coal to natural gas, food waste al-
ready replaces coal ash as the largest component in MSW (Cheng
et al., 2007; Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007). The total content of or-
ganic materials in MSW from major cities is approaching 70%,
and waste sorting is being gradually introduced in China, making
combustion of MSW without supplementary fuel feasible (Cheng
et al., 2007; Nie, 2008; Xu and Liu, 2007). Under the assumptions
that the MSW then has a mean heat content of 5000 kJ/kg and half
of the MSW can be incinerated in WTE facilities, a total of 25 and
29 TWh of electricity may be generated in 2010 and 2015, respec-
tively. Obviously, there is a significant market demand for WTE
facilities and technologies over the next decade in China. If 30%
of the MSW generated is to be treated in WTE incineration facilities
by 2015, it would require a total capacity of 172,600 t/d, or 346
incinerators with 500 t/d capacity.
6. Conclusion
WTE solves the problem of MSW disposal while recovering the
energy from the waste materials, and the pollutant emissions can
be controlled to low levels. With the significant benefits of envi-
ronmental quality and reduction of GHG emissions, MSW is
increasingly accepted as a clean source of energy. Government po-
lices and regulations, financial incentives, new technologies, and
improved operations will strengthen the position of WTE in the
renewable energy market in China. Research and technology devel-
opment focusing on corrosion phenomena, flue gas control, fly ash
management and beneficial reuse of residues will further drive the
growth of WTE industry. WTE incineration is expected to make
increasingly greater contribution to supplying renewable energy
in China, while helping solving the country’s MSW management
3823
problem in the coming decade. The challenge of MSW disposal
and the demand for alternative energy resources are common in
many developing countries. It is expected that the experience on
the development of WTE in China can offer some helpful lessons
to other developing counties.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the State Key Laboratory
of Organic Geochemistry (Grant No. SKLOG2009A04) and the
‘‘One Hundred Talents” program of the Chinese Academy of Sci-
ences. The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments. This is contribution No. IS-1158 from GIGCAS.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008. Waste-to-Energy: A Renewable
Energy Source from Municipal Solid Waste; White Paper Submitted to
Congress; New York, NY.
Brookins, C.L., 2007. Major forces and factors shaping global markets: the emerging
agricultural world. J. Agribusiness 25, 1–16.
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., 2009. Energy from municipal solid waste. An experience from
China. Chim. Oggi. 27, 26–28.
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., in press. Planning for sustainability in China’s urban development:
status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. J. Environ. Monitor. 10.1039/
B911473D.
Cheng, H., Zhang, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q., 2007. Municipal solid waste fueled power
generation in China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchun city.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7509–7515.
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., Zhao, J., 2009. Meeting China’s water shortage crisis: current
practices and challenges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 240–244.
Denison, R.A., 1996. Environmental life-cycle comparison of recycling, landfilling,
and incineration: a review of recent studies. Annu. Rev. Energ. Environ. 21, 191–
237.
Energy Information Administration, 2007. Methodology for Allocating Municipal
Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy; Office of Coal, Nuclear,
Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC.
Energy Information Administration, 2009. Country Analysis Brief: China. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 December 2000 on the Incineration of Waste Brussels, Belgium.
Feiner, J., Mi, S., Schmid, W.A., 2001. Meeting the challenge of future urbanization:
risks and opportunities for future urban planning in the People’s Republic of
China. Disp. 145, 10–18.
Gao, Q., Du, W., Lu, S., Zhang, Z., Zhang, E., Wu, J., Ren, Z., 2007. Methane emission
from municipal solid waste treatments in China. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 3, 70–
74.
Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B., 1999. Global sustainability and the creative destruction of
industries. Sloan Manage. Rev. 41, 23–33.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; IGES: Japan.
Kaplan, P.O., DeCarolis, J., Thorneloe, S., 2009. Is it better to burn or bury waste for
clean electricity generation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1711–1717.
Li, X., Lu, S., Xu, X., Yan, J., Chi, Y., 2001. Analysis on calorific value of Chinese cities’
municipal solid waste. Zhongguo Huanjing Kexue 21, 156–160.
Li, M., Xiang, J., Hu, S., Sun, L., Su, S., Li, P., Sun, X., 2004. Characterization of solid
residues from municipal solid waste incinerator. Fuel 83, 1397–1405.
Liu, J., Diamond, J., 2005. China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature 435,
1179–1186.
Liu, Y., Liu, Y., 2005. Novel incineration technology integrated with drying,
pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion of MSW and ashes vitrification.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 3855–3863.
Luo, Z., Wang, S., Liao, Y., Zhou, J., Gu, Y., Cen, K., 2004. Research on biomass fast
pyrolysis for liquid fuel. Biomass Bioenerg. 26, 455–462.
Ministry of Construction of China, 2006. China Urban Construction Statistics
Yearbook. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2009. China Statistical Yearbook 2009. China
Statistics press, Beijing.
National People’s Congress of China, 2005. The Renewable Energy Law of the
People’s Republic of China. Beijing, China.
Nie, Y., 2008. Development and prospects of municipal solid waste (MSW)
incineration in China, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 2, 1–7.
Patumsawad, S., Cliffe, K.R., 2002. Experimental study on fluidised bed combustion
of high moisture municipal solid waste. Energy Convers. Manage. 43, 2329–
2340.
Qdais, H.A.A., Hamoda, M.F., Newham, J., 1997. Analysis of residential solid waste at
generation sites. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 395–406.
Shi, H., Kan, L., 2009. Leaching behavior of heavy metals from municipal solid
wastes incineration (MSWI) fly ash used in concrete. J. Hazard. Mater. 164, 750–
754.
3824 H. Cheng, Y. Hu / Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 3816–3824
Shi, J., Zhang, C., 2005. Application and potential of municipal solid waste
incineration for power technology in China. Kezaisheng Nengyuan 28, 64–
65.
State Development and Reform Commission, 2006a. Regulation of the Price of
Electricity from Renewable Energy and Fee Sharing. State Development and
Reform Commission, Beijing, China.
State Development and Reform Commission, 2006b. Management Regulation for
Electricity from Renewable Energy. State Development and Reform
Commission, Beijing, China.
State Environmental Protection Administration of China, 2001a. China Pollution
Control Standard for MSW Incineration (GB18485-2001); Chinese
Environmental Science Press, Beijing, China.
State Environmental Protection Administration of China, 2001b. National Action
Plan for Recovery and Utilization of Landfill Gas, State Environmental Protection
Administration of China, Beijing, China.
Themelis, N.J., 2003. An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry. Waste
Manage. World 3, 40–47.
Themelis, N.J., Millrath, K., 2004. The case for WTE as a renewable source of energy.
12th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Savannah, Georgia.
Thipse, S.S., Sheng, C., Booty, M.R., Magee, R.S., Dreizin, E.L., 2001. Synthetic fuel for
imitation of municipal solid waste in experimental studies of waste
incineration. Chemosphere 44, 1071–1077.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. New source performance standards for
new small municipal waste combustion units; final rule. Fed. Regist. 65, 76350–
76375.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a. Electricity from Municipal Solid
Waste, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/muni.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b. Solid Waste Management and
Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, third ed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c. Standards of performance for new
stationary sources and emission guidelines for existing sources: large municipal
waste combustors; final rule. Fed. Regist. 71, 27324–27348.
United Nations, 2007. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision, Population
Division. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
United Nations Environment Programme, 1996. International Source Book on
Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste Management.
United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka/Shiga.
United Nations Population Fund, 2007. State of World Population 2007: Unleashing
the Potential of Urban Growth. United Nations Population Fund, New York.
Vogg, H., Metzger, M., Stieglitz, L., 1987. Recent findings on the formation and
decomposition of PCDD/PCDF in municipal solid waste incineration. Waste
Manage. Res. 5, 285–294.
Wei, L., Golden, D.M., Naik, T.R., 1990. Utilization of fly ash as a construction
material in China. 7th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Weitz, K.A., Thorneloe, S.A., Nishtala, S.R., Yarkosky, S., Zannes, M., 2002. The impact
of municipal solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in the
United States. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 52, 1000–1011.
Xu, X., Liu, J., 2007. Status and development prospect on municipal solid waste
incineration technology in our country. Zhongguo Huanbao Chanye 11, 24–29.
Xu, M., Yan, J., Lu, S., Li, X., Chen, T., Ni, M., Dai, H., Wang, F., Cen, K., 2009.
Concentrations, profiles, and sources of atmospheric PCDD/Fs near a municipal
solid waste incinerator in eastern China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 1023–1029.
Yan, L., Wu, Y., 2003. Secondary pollution problem caused by urban domestic refuse.
Zhongguo Huanbao Chanye 4, 16–17.
Yan, J., Chen, T., Li, X., Zhang, J., Lu, S., Ni, M., Cen, K., 2006. Evaluation of PCDD/Fs
emission from fluidized bed incinerators co-firing MSW with coal in China. J.
Hazard. Mater. 135, 47–51.
Yuan, K., Xiao, H., Li, X., 2008. Development and application of municipal solid
waste incineration in China. Nengyuan Gongcheng 5, 43–46.
Zhang, H., Zhao, Y., Qi, J., 2007. Study on use of MSWI fly ash in ceramic tile. J.
Hazard. Mater. 141, 106–114.
Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Meng, A., Li, Q., Cheng, H., 2008. Experimental and
thermodynamic investigation on transfer of cadmium influenced by sulfur
and chlorine during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration. J. Hazard. Mater.
152, 309–319.