Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

ISSN: 1943-815X (Print) 1943-8168 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nens20

Dramatic reduction in emissions of methane from

landfills in the Netherlands: additional measures
considered

René Boerboom , Maria Vatamanu & Dennis Zegers

To cite this article: René Boerboom , Maria Vatamanu & Dennis Zegers (2010) Dramatic reduction
in emissions of methane from landfills in the Netherlands: additional measures considered, Journal
of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7:S1, 167-174, DOI: 10.1080/19438151003621326

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19438151003621326

Published online: 18 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 190

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nens20
Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences
Vol. 7, No. S1, August 2010, 167–174

Dramatic reduction in emissions of methane from landfills in the

Netherlands: additional measures considered
René Boerbooma*, Maria Vatamanub and Dennis Zegersa
a
Royal Haskoning, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; bAgentschap NL, AH Groningen,
The Netherlands
(Received 2 October 2009; final version received 6 January 2010)

The Netherlands has taken various measures to reduce the emission of methane
from landfills, such as less waste disposal, separate collection of biodegradable
waste, use of landfill gas for generating power, and flaring of landfill gas. These
measures have led to a dramatic reduction in emissions. But more can be done by
taking additional measures. The question of whether the costs justify the expected
yields is an important one, and has been addressed in the research. Four types of
additional measures have been selected as potential measures which show great
promise: (1) flaring of low-calorific gas, (2) additional gas extraction wells, (3)
early sealing of landfill, and (4) optimization of existing landfill gas extraction
systems. Low-calorific gas flares are expected to be most for promising in future
for landfills where extraction systems are already installed. The costs of installing
additional landfill gas extraction wells usually exceed the revenues. Early sealing
of a landfill is only feasible when this measure has additional benefits (such as
reduced leachate amounts). This shall be detailed in a business case for the specific
landfill. Quick wins can be achieved by improving the operation of existing
landfill gas extraction systems.
Keywords: methane; landfill; greenhouse gas emission; reduction

Introduction
Methane emission from landfills contributed to the total greenhouse gas emissions in
the Netherlands by 6% in 1990, and was the greatest methane source in the
Netherlands then. Various measures designed to reduce the methane emissions from
landfill have been taken since 1990, resulting in a contribution to the total
greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 3% in 2007. Measures include:

. less waste disposal;

. separate collection of biodegradable waste;
. the use of landfill gas for generating power;
. flaring of landfill gas.

The methane emission from landfills in the Netherlands was estimated at 572 kton
methane (12 Mton CO2-eq, based on a GWP of 21) in 1990. The methane emission

*Corresponding author. Email: r.boerboom@royalhaskoning.com

ISSN 1943-815X print/ISSN 1943-8168 online

Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19438151003621326
http://www.informaworld.com
168 R. Boerboom et al.

Figure 1. Methane emission from landfills 1990–2007 (source: www.milieuennatuurcom

pendium.nl reference code PBL/MNC/aug08/0160 and (Emissieregistratie 2009)).

from landfills in 2007 was assessed at 243 kton methane (5.1 Mton CO2-eq). The
methane emission from landfills has thus been reduced by 57% (See Figure 1).
The Netherlands has approximately 4000 landfill sites. Twenty-five of them are
still in use; the others have been closed. Methane escapes from all these landfills,
including those that have been closed. Emissions are at their highest just after waste
has been disposed of, after which the level gradually diminishes. Emission
registration data (SenterNovem 2007a) show that 129 million m3 landfill gas was
extracted and used or flared at 60 Dutch landfill sites in 2006. Assuming an average
methane content of 51.8%, the extraction at these sites lead to an emission reduction
of circa 48 kton methane (1 Mton CO2-eq) in the year 2006.

Dutch non-CO2 reduction program tailored to landfills

The Dutch governmental agency SenterNovem promotes sustainable development and
innovation, both within the Netherlands and abroad. One of their programs is the
reduction program non-CO2 greenhouse gases (‘‘Reductieplan niet-CO2 Broeikasgas-
sen’’ or ROB). This program aims to reduce emissions by encouraging research into
emission-factors and monitor emission levels from various sources, by funding
research into new technologies, by encouraging the employment of existing reduction
measures, and by promoting co-operation between government, industry organi-
zations, and companies. SenterNovem is charged with implementing the program by
the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM).
Within the targets for CO2 emission reduction, methane from landfills is a major
subject. The project focuses on feasible measures for methane emission reduction,
such as making effective use of low-concentration methane landfill gas, or using
special techniques to generate electricity from landfill gas supplied on an irregular
basis. By order of this SenterNovem ROB program, the landfills research is
conducted by Royal Haskoning in close consultation with the Netherlands waste
disposal sector (Vereniging Afvalbedrijven).
Goal of the research is to find out if additional cost effective measures can
be taken to reduce the methane emission from landfills. The research lays the
 Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 169

foundation of further improvement of the policy for the reduction program non-CO2
greenhouse gases.

Basic assumptions
Landfills in the Netherlands can be distinguished into three types: former landfills,
medium-sized landfills closed in the mid-1990s, and landfills still in use. The date of 1
September 1996 is important, because legislation prescribed controlled landfilling;
landfills closed before 1 September 1996 did not have to fulfill new requirements
which asked for large investment costs.

(1) Former landfills which were closed well before 1 September 1996 have been
examined as part of the national project ‘‘Aftercare of Former Landfills’’
(NAVOS). It was concluded that landfill gas emissions at these former
landfills were not a significant hazard for which direct remediation measures
should be taken. Emissions of former landfills were assumed to be relatively
small. Discussions during the execution of our research where related to the
contribution of these former landfills to the total methane emissions from
landfills. The discussion is not ended yet, and will be subject to further
research by SenterNovem in 2009.
(2) Medium size landfills were closed just before 1 September 1996, when new
landfill legislation came into force. These landfills mostly contain organic
waste, and a large number of landfills are equipped with landfill gas
extraction and utilization systems.
(3) Landfills in use have to fulfill all obligations of the Environmental Management
Act. SenterNovem published the ‘‘Guideline for reduction of methane from
landfills’’ in 2007 (Handreiking methaanreductie stortplaatsen) (SenterNovem
2007b). The Guideline reflects the Best Available Technology and is appointed as
such in the Dutch BAT regulation (‘‘Regeling aanwijzing BBT-documenten’’).
The minimum level is called the base case: controlled landfills shall all comply to
the base case when methane emissions are expected. The base case includes gas
wells (at least 60% capture rate during operation), landfill gas extraction, high
temperature flaring, and gas utilization when technical and economical feasible.
(4) It is assumed that measures to be taken for nationwide reduction of methane
emission from landfills will be only effective at medium size landfills that were
closed just before 1 September 1996, landfills closed after 1 September 1996
and landfills in use. We expect that a structured approach of reduction of
methane emission from old former landfills will not be cost effective. This
assumption is subject to be verified in this study.
(5) Monitoring of methane emissions from landfills for verification of measures
is still subject to numerous international studies. These studies are needed to
improve the cost effectiveness and reliability of monitoring, up to the level
that monitoring of relatively small changes in emissions can be registered.

Potential additional measures

Short description of potential additional measures
For the research, a distinction was made between potential measures, which are
additional to the base case (see Figure 2):
170 R. Boerboom et al.

Figure 2. Schematic view of types of measures.

(A) Related to the landfill type (dumpsite, controlled landfill), waste conditions
(aerobic, anaerobic) and waste body (geometry).
(B) Related to capture of landfill gas in the top layer (top soil layer, sealing).
(C) End of pipe (extraction and flaring/utilization).

(A) Landfill body and waste

A1. Shift waste to a controlled landfill. Waste is excavated from a former
landfill and disposed in a controlled landfill with landfill gas extraction.
Landfill taxes are seen as obstruction.
A2. Waste mining. Mining of former landfills is used to reduce
environmental impact of former landfills, extracting recyclables out of
the waste and shift remaining (organic) waste to a controlled landfill
with landfill gas extraction. Landfill taxes are seen as obstruction.
A3. Anaerobic bioreactor landfill. (Re)infiltration of leachate and rain water
improves the anaerobic digestion, increasing the methane generation rate
and more efficient landfill gas capture.
A4. Aerobic bioreactor. Aeration of the waste body, preventing methane
generation.
A5. Adjusting waste body shape. Steep slopes (1V:3H) and landfill thickness
of more than 10 m improves the volumes of waste within the extraction
system limits.
A6. Waste pretreatment. Pretreatment by size reduction and homogeniza-
tion leads to better circumstances for digestion and therefore a higher
methane generation rate and more efficient extraction opportunities.
Separation of organic waste (for separate composting or digestion) leads
to a lower methane potential.
A7. Waste management. Waste management resulting in less landfills which
can be operated more efficiently as controlled landfill, improving landfill gas
capture.
 Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 171

(B) Landfill gas capture

B1. Methane oxidation in top layer. Measures stimulating methane
oxidation in landfill top soil layers. Pilot tests show positive results, but
uncontrolled emission, e.g. through cracks, is difficult to prevent, and
monitoring is complex. International landfill gas models assume a standard
10% methane oxidation in the top layer, and higher oxidation rates are not
(yet) accepted by international monitoring agencies.
B2. Early sealing of landfill. The early construction of an impermeable and
gastight top cover improves the capture of landfill gas. A decrease of waste
stabilization and landfill gas generation is expected due to shortfall of
moisture in the landfill body. The measure is only technical feasible when
limited differential settlements are expected.
B3. Aeration of top layer. This measure leads to improvement of
oxidation of methane in the top layer. Drawbacks similar to B1 can be
observed.
(C) End of pipe techniques
C1. Installment of additional extraction wells. More extraction wells at the
same surface lead to an increased landfill gas capture rate, especially during
the period when a landfill is not sealed by a top cover.
C2.1. Flaring of low-calorific landfill gas (30% to 45% CH4). Technical
modifications of standard flares extend operational limits of standard
flares, and consequently extend duration of the operation period. This
technique also can be used simultaneously with other techniques, at
landfills where part of the waste is producing low-calorific gas.
C2.2. Flaring of low-calorific landfill gas (15% to 30% CH4). The use of this
type of flare is subject of research and pilot studies. When successful, the
period of methane reduction by flaring can be extended.
C2.3. Flaring of low-calorific landfill gas (8% to 15% CH4). An innovative
type of flare, still in the development stage.
C.2.4. Collection and flaring of landfill gas without the use of compressor.
Technique using pressure increase in the landfill body. In development
stage within a Dutch demonstration project.
C3. Gas utilization by Organic Ranking Cycle (ORC). Utilization of landfill
gas by the ORC technique. Demonstration projects proves technical
feasibility.
C4. Regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO). Very low-calorific gas (51%
CH4) non-catalytic oxidation process. High investment costs and critical
operation parameters.
C5. Separate extraction and treatment of high-calorific and low-calorific
landfill gas. Separate extraction of high-calorific landfill gas improves
utilization rates. Extra costs for low-calorific landfill gas extraction system
and flare.
C6. Discontinuous landfill gas extraction. Discontinuous extraction uses
higher methane contents of generated landfill gas and extends the use of a
standard flare.
C7. Optimization of existing landfill gas extraction systems. The efficiency of
landfill gas extraction systems depends strongly on the frequency of
control, and experience and specific knowledge of the operator. Improve-
ment of operation leads to higher extraction rates rather easily.
172 R. Boerboom et al.

Ranking of potential measures

The feasibility of potential measures is ranked by using a weighted multicriteria
analysis of these measures (Royal Haskoning 2009). The criteria used and the
weighting factors (within brackets) include:

. Proven technology (1.2). Has the technology been used in landfill gas
projects succesfully, and is the technology available for this purpose?
. Legislative aspects (1.1). Is the technology applicable within the landfill
legislation in The Netherlands? Or do authorities have to give specific
guidelines for it?
. Potential application at former landfills (1). Is the technology suitable at
former landfill sites?
. Potential application at landfills in use (1.2). Is the technology suitable at
landfills in use?
. Potential application at new landfill (cells) (1). Is the technology suitable at
landfill (cells) which still have to be built?
. Economic performance (1.5). Will the operational costs and investments be
covered by the benefits of the potential measure?
. Environmental outputs (1.5). A rough estimation of the environmental yield of
a potential measure.
. Scale of the measure (1.5). The scale of the measure is related to the efficiency
of the measure to reach a significant emission reduction.
. The likelihood of quantifiable monitoring (1.3). Can emission reduc-
tions be quantified easily, e.g. end of pipe techniques, or are that difficult to
monitor?

Based on these criteria and weighting factors, an expert judgment has been
executed by the authors and presented and discussed in a workshop with landfill
operators, Dutch landfill gas experts, and relevant authorities (provinces,
SenterNovem, Ministry of Environment).
Following the weighted multicriteria analysis, four potential measures show great
promise:

(1) C2.1. Flaring of low-calorific landfill gas (30–45% CH4).

(2) C1. Increasing the amount of extraction wells.
(3) B2. Early sealing of landfill.
(4) C7. Optimization of existing landfill gas extraction systems.

Feasibility of potential measures

Introduction
Several scenarios have been developed to scrutinize the feasibility of the costs of
measures, expressed as costs per avoided CO2-equivalent. As reference a (positive)
market price of e20 per ton of CO2 is assumed.
Scenarios have been worked out for former landfills, and an expert judgment is
given for the feasibility of additional measures on landfills in use.
 Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 173

Former landfill scenarios

Five former landfill scenarios have been worked out, as described in Table 1. Waste
characteristics: municipal (household) waste with a biodegradable carbon content of
130 kg/ton. Landfill gas generation is estimated using the Dutch TNO first order
landfill gas model (Oonk et al. 1994; Oonk and Boom 1995).
The emission reduction of each scenario has been calculated, by estimating
methane emissions and converting it all into CO2 equivalents (tons). The next step
was to calculate the maximum earnings, assuming that all methane is captured from
the landfill, based on e20 per ton of CO2.
The final step was to check whether the revenues of emission reduction will cover
the investment (CAPEX) and operation (OPEX) costs of potential measures (See
Table 2).

Table 1. Former landfill types.

Operation Area Waste amount

Scenario period (hectare) (m3 per year)
1. Very old landfill 1950–1960 2 4000
2. Small old landfill 1975–1980 2 8000
3. Large old landfill 1970–1985 10 54000
4. Small landfill 1990–1995 2 12000
5. Large landfill 1985–1995 15 150000

Table 2. Landfill gas extraction revenues (based on assumption of e20 per CO2-equivalent)
and conclusions.

Operation Revenues period,

Scenario period 2009–2020 (Euro) Conclusions (summary)
1. Very old landfill 1950–1960 2,500 Revenues do not cover costs of
potential measures
2. Small old landfill 1975–1980 23,000 Revenues do not cover costs of
potential measures
3. Large old landfill 1970–1985 500,000 Revenues are calculated for 100%
utilization of methane. In practice a
maximum of 70% is realistic. Then
revenues will not cover costs of
potential measures (over a period
of 12 years)
4. Small landfill 1990–1995 156,000 Revenues do not cover costs of
potential measures
5. Large landfill 1985–1995 3,132,000 Flaring of low-calorific landfill gas
and increasing the amount of gas
wells might be cost effective
Early sealing of landfill specific for
landfill gas capture is not viable
A site specific business case shall give
further insight in potential
measures
174 R. Boerboom et al.

Landfills in use
Landfills in use, approximately 25 in The Netherlands, have to fulfill the requirements
of the ‘‘Guideline for reduction of methane from landfills’’ in 2007 (Handreiking
methaanreductie stortplaatsen). As mentioned, the Guideline reflects the Best
Available Technology (BAT). Additional measures for emission reduction therefore
have a minor impact on the methane emissions from landfills in The Netherlands.
Measure C7, the optimization of existing landfill gas extraction systems, will be
very suitable to have ‘‘quick wins’’, improving the performance of landfill gas
extraction and thus reduction of methane emission from landfills in use (and former
landfills with a landfill gas extraction installed).

Conclusions and recommendations

A dramatic reduction in emissions of methane of landfills in The Netherlands has
been achieved by various measures since 1990. We conclude that potential additional
measures for reduction of methane emission from former landfills in general will not
be cost effective. Measures might be feasible if these are combined with multiple
objectives, such as redevelopment of the landfill site when it has the potential to be
redeveloped once it is cleaned up. Also waste mining (to gain back recyclables) or the
capping of a landfill for reasons of groundwater protection might benefit reduction
of methane emissions.
Low-calorific gas flares are most promising for additional reduction of methane
emission when developed further for landfill gas extraction systems. These and
several other measures for treatment of low-calorific landfill gas have future
perspective, but will always have to deal with uncertain interpretation of waste
parameters for landfill gas estimates, and uncertainties in the monitoring results.
For large (type 5) former landfills and landfills in use, methane emission
mitigation measures shall always be subject of a feasibility study.
Additional measures at landfills in use will have a minor impact. Difficult is the
monitoring of effects on (minor) reduction of the methane emission from these
landfills. However, optimization of existing landfill gas extraction systems will be
very suitable to improve the performance of it.

References
Emissieregistratie. 2009. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving. Bilthoven, CBS, Den Haag, RWS-
Waterdienst, Lelystad, SenterNovem-Uitvoering Afvalbeheer, Utrecht en TNO, Utrecht.
Oonk H, Boom T. 1995. Landfill gas formation, recovery and emissions. TNO-report R95-
203, TNO, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Oonk J, Weenk A, Coops O, Luning L. 1994. Validation of landfill gas formation models.
NOVEM Programme Energy Generation from Waste and Biomass (EWAB), TNO report
94–315, Apeldoorn, Netherlands.
Boerboom R, Zegers D; Royal Haskoning. 2009. Potentiële maatregelen voor de reductie van
methaanemissies uit stortplaatsen, April 2009. [Internet]; [cited 2010 Feb 8]. Available from:
http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/Rapport%20Potentiële%20maatregelen%20voor%
20reductie%20van%20methaanemissies%20uit%20stortplaatsen_tcm24-302247.pdf.
SenterNovem. 2007a. Afvalverwerking in Nederland. Gegevens 2006, Werkgroep Afvalregis-
tratie, Juli 2007. SenterNovem: 3UA0708; Vereniging Afvalbedrijven: VA07001IR.R.
Coops O, Luning L, Oonk H, Boerboom; AAM; SenterNovem. 2007b. Handreiking
methaanreductie stortplaatsen. Utrecht: Agentschap NL.