Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00904-7

REGIONAL CASE STUDY

Energy potential using landfill biogas and solar photovoltaic system:

a case study in Brazil
Matheus Martins Lopes1 · Vladimir Rafael Melián Cobas2 · Regina Mambeli Barros3   · Electo Eduardo Silva Lora2 ·
Ivan Felipe Silva dos Santos3

Received: 18 March 2019 / Accepted: 4 August 2019 / Published online: 17 August 2019
© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the potential of energy use by in MSW landfill sites by considering the use of landfill gas and
solar photovoltaic system, through a case study. In the case of photovoltaic solar energy, it is considered that the system
would be installed on the top deck of the landfill. For a Brazilian case study in a landfill consortium in Itajubá, south of
the Minas Gerais’ State, the landfill gas generation was calculated using the ­LandGem® software. The optimum power and
generator number for thermal power plant were obtained by a staggered method. The energy potential of a solar photovoltaic
plant at this landfill was calculated using the ­PVSyst® software. During the considered periods, the analyses show that the
two systems presented economic viability. There are positive effects when they are benefited as mini- and micro-distributed
generation systems as preconized by the Brazilian National Electric Energy Resolution no. 482/2012 updated by the Reso-
lution no. 687/2015. The biogas system could generate a total of 162.1 GWh for 30 years, and the solar system 15.1 GWh
for 25 years of operation.

Keywords  Landfill gas · Solar photovoltaic energy · Renewable energy · Micro-distributed energy generation

Introduction

There are growing concerns about issues caused by human

actions on the environment. In this context, face to the con-
stant and increased production of solid waste and effluents,
this includes the search for their appropriated treatment
* Regina Mambeli Barros and disposal procedures. Likewise, the global energy issue,
remambeli@hotmail.com
there is nowadays much effort to increasingly develop the
Matheus Martins Lopes so-called renewable energies sources.
matheusmlopes1@gmail.com
According to Peters et al. [1], capitalizing on the solar
Vladimir Rafael Melián Cobas resource available in sunbelt countries, as Brazil, is cru-
vlad@unifei.edu.br
cial to efficiently deploy large-scale solar technologies.
Electo Eduardo Silva Lora González-González et al. [2] presented an integrated solu-
electo@unifei.edu.br
tion to an energy and environmental problem of the compa-
Ivan Felipe Silva dos Santos nies that produce wastes as biomass, by the hybridization
ivanfelipedeice@hotmail.com
of biogas. Anaerobic digestion of these wastes could gener-
1
Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed ate this biogas. In addition, this renewable energy could be
Generation (NEST), Federal University of Itajubá, Itajubá, hybridized with photovoltaic solar energy. Szabó et al. [3]
Brazil evaluated the concept of solar photovoltaic system installa-
2
Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed tion in closed landfills. These authors demonstrated that 450
Generation (NEST), Mechanical Engineering Institute–IEM, MWp of solar could be deployed in the Hungarian closed
Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI), Itajubá, Brazil
landfills, and at European Union level projections, it could
3
Natural Resources Institute, Federal University of Itajubá, be obtained estimations for a potential of about 13 GWp.
Itajubá, Brazil

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1588
In Brazil, regarding the solid-waste issue, by sanction of
the National Policy on Solid Waste (NPSW) in 2010, which
was instituted by Law 12.305/2010 [4] and regulated by
Decree 7404/2010 [5], it was established a more modern
law and directed to its management. According to NPSW,
the right management and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) are mandatory, after exhausting the possibilities of
MSW reduction, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery.
Landfills have always been one of the most common ways
to dispose of the MSW [6–8]. In Brazil, the sanitary landfill
is also the predominant technique of MSW treatment and
final disposal. Table 1 presents data related to MSW man-
agement in Brazil. It generates an opportunity on these sites
related to energy use from landfill gas (LFG) produced by
the predominant anaerobic degradation of organic matter
present in the MSW mass.
There is also the opportunity to use these landfill areas for
installation of other systems of renewable energy generation,
as is the case of photovoltaic solar energy. As preconized
by Townsend et al. [10], sanitary landfills typically have
large areas where photovoltaic panels can be installed. In
addition, closed landfills are often connected to the electric
energy grid in which they were electrified for their operating
years. If this existing grid infrastructure can transfer large
quantities of produced electricity, then the grid is accessible
for the solar photovoltaic system (SPVS) development with
minimal intervention and cost [3].
Around the world, in countries like Germany, France,
Japan, Portugal, Italy, Taiwan, and the United States of
America (USA), solar installations in these areas already
exist or are planned. Szabó et al. [3] mentioned that USA
is more advanced in the use of solar landfill projects, where
some examples include: 276 kWp project in Paulsboro,
NJ;15 landfill SPVS projects were operating with total power
capacity of 17.5 MWp in New Jersey; and an additional 27.5
MWp was located in other states of USA. The advantage
from solar landfill is because the exploitation of these areas
for renewable energy generation can create many environ-
mental and economic benefits. A new use then may replace
these sites under-usage, by producing energy from clean
energy sources.
The present study considered also the compensation
mechanism of energy (net metering) in Brazil for both
Table 1  Data of MSW management in Brazil [9]
Parameter Value
MSW generation 79.9 million tons
Collected MSW 72.5 million tons
Collection efficiency 90.8%
MSW disposal in landfills 42.6 million tons
Percentage of collected MSW sent to landfill 58.7%
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601
projects, by the Brazilian ANEEL Resolution 482/2012 [11]
and its reviewing, the Normative Resolution no. 687/2015
[12], regarding energy from renewable sources (hydrau-
lic, solar, wind, biomass, or qualified cogeneration energy
bases). These resolutions set out the compensation system
as an arrangement in which the active power injected by the
consuming unit with micro- or mini-distributed generation
is sold to the local distributor. Then, if there is an excess,
it can be compensated by the consumption of electrical
energy, which activates for those same consumer units or
other consumer units of the same ownership. The Resolution
no. 687/2015 ([12] extends the benefits to enterprises such
as biogas for up to 5 MW.
In this sense, this study aims to evaluate the feasibility of
LFG use from its conversion into electricity, and the instal-
lation of an SPVS on the sanitary landfill of Itajubá, Minas
Gerais, Brazil, under the Brazilian compensation mechanism
of energy.
Theory
Solar landfill
There is in Brazil a growing interest in the LFG use for its
conversion into electricity. Barros et al. [13] evaluated the
possibility of increasing the amount of energy generated
from renewable resources from LFG using thermal biogas
plants (TPP). It was estimated that Brazil could produce
about 660 MW of electricity from landfills (considering a
30% energy conversion efficiency) [14]. Santos [15, 16] and
Silva et al. [17] intended to define, characterize, and evalu-
ate in each particular study, a methodology aimed to obtain
the maximum economic benefit. The method developed by
Santos [15, 16] is based on the escalation of powers given
through the addition of generating units over the lifetime
of the exploitation for planning the energy use from LFG.
According to the results from staggered method developed
and obtained by Santos [15] for a case study, a venture’s
feasibility was matched when N = 2, and generator groups
should be used [15].
In addition to this possibility, MSW landfill site, besides
other areas used for waste disposal, such as industrial solid-
waste landfills, construction, and demolition landfills, are
candidates’ sites to receive SPVS installations. For instance,
in USA, are encountered most of these projects, with incen-
tives through the program called “RE-Powering America’s
Land Initiative”. By this program, it was examined more
than 11,000 contaminated areas and MSW landfills (cov-
ering approximately 6.1 million acres) to verify the fea-
sibility of installing renewable energy projects, includ-
ing from the solar source [18]. In addition to the United
States, other countries also contain, in minor proportion,
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1589
solar installations in areas of waste disposal, as in Germany,
France, Japan, Portugal, Italy, and Taiwan.
Some advantages to solar installations in MSW landfills
include the fact that they are usually located near the critical
infrastructures such as transmission lines and roads, and are
places near to areas with high energy demands (such as large
urban areas). In addition, they are built usually with large
areas of small slope, they offer low costs of land acquisition
when compared to other open areas, and to these projects
can use the energy compensation systems (net metering)
[18]. The photovoltaic panels can be installed on both the top
and the slopes of the landfill [18]. In sites where the weight
of the solar system is a concern of engineering operation
and projects, solar cells of thin film flexible can be the best
material to be chosen.
The energy compensation system
As above mentioned, with these systems installed and con-
nected to the grid, it is possible that the compensation mech-
anisms of power benefit them. In Brazil, these systems were
included in the regulation of the ANEEL, by the Normative
Resolution no. 482/2012 [11], and amended by Normative
Resolution no. 687/2015 [12].
The compensation system of power allows that the
surplus energy, if any, generated by consuming unit with
micro-generation (< 75 kW) or mini-generation (> 75 kW
and = 5 MW) is injected into the distribution grid, storing
this surplus until the moment that the consuming unit needs
energy from the distributor. Thus, the excess electric energy
generated by this consuming unit is ceded to the local dis-
tributor and then compensated within a maximum time of
60 months with the electricity consumption of the same
consuming unit [19]. These credits can also be used in other
consumer units previously indexed within the same identi-
fier document.
In Brazil, the consumer units are classified into two group
tariffs: Group A and Group B. Group B usually belong the
houses, shops, banks, small workshops, residential build-
ings, a large part of residential buildings, and most of the
public buildings, since they are mostly attended in the ten-
sions of 127 V or 220 V. And in Group A, are consumers
attended in high voltage, as industries, shopping malls, and
some commercial buildings [20]. The two groups present
subdivisions. The Group B is subdivided according to the
activity of the consumer in subgroups B1 (residential), B2
(rural), B3 (other classes, for example, public power), and
B4 (public lighting). The Group A is subdivided according
to the voltage of attendance. In this case, the few public
buildings classified in Group A, in general, are in subgroup
A4 (2.3–25 kV) [20].
The two groups present subdivisions. The Group B is
subdivided according to the activity of the consumer in
subgroups B1 (residential), B2 (rural), B3 (other classes, for
example, public power), and B4 (public lighting). The Group
A is subdivided according to the voltage of attendance
in: subgroups A1 (for voltage level of equal or more than
230 kW), A2 (88–138 kV), A3 (69 kV), A3a (30–44 kV),
A4 (2.3–25 kV), and the AS (for the underground system).
In this case, the few public buildings classified in Group A,
in general, are in subgroup A4 [20]. The tariffs of the Group
A are constituted in three modalities of supply: conventional
tariff structure, green hourly seasonal tariff structure, and
blue hourly seasonal tariff structure. In all three cases, there
is a requirement of a specific contract with the electricity
concessionaire [20].
At the green hourly seasonal tariff structure, the con-
sumer’s demand is also covenanted, regardless of the time
of day, whether peak or off-peak. In this case, the energy bill
is composed of the sum of the parcels referring to the con-
sumption (at the peak or off-peak, separately), demand, and
exceedance. Finally, at the blue hourly seasonal tariff struc-
ture, it should be agreed upon both the value of the desired
demand by consumers at the peak hours, as the desired value
in off-peak hours. The bill of electricity is composed of the
sum of the parcels relating to consumption and demand
(and exceedance, if it existed), and there is differentiation
between peak and off-peak hours in all parcels [20]. The
peak hour corresponds to the period of three consecutive
hours between the range of 17:00–22:00 h, to be defined
by each distributor of energy, according to the record of the
greatest consumption [21].
Methodology
Landfill energy calculations
The sanitary landfill case study of CIMASAS (Intermunici-
pal Consortium of Municipalities of the Microregion of the
High Sapucaí for Sanitary Landfill) is in the municipality of
Itajubá, south of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Currently, it includes
11 municipalities in the region [15].
The landfill project will use an area of 29.95 ha from an
available total of 56.93 ha. The remaining area (26.97 ha)
was defined as a special reserve for future expansion area of
the landfill [22].
In this case study, the useful lifetime of operation of the
sanitary landfill is considered to be for 20 years, with settle-
ment period of 10 years after its closure. Whereas all analy-
sis and technical precautions to be taken, the photovoltaic
system would be installed after this period on the top deck
of the landfill. This photovoltaic system is planned to oper-
ate for 25 years, to be installed using preferably ballasted
mounting system as a foundation. These are both long-term
13

1590
projects, which can bring benefits to the landfill operator,
even after its closure.
The population projections were built with data from
The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistic (IBGE)
of 1991, 2000 population census, and demographic census of
2010 [23]. For this purpose, it was used the methodology of
Qasim [24] also presented inVon Sperling [25]: population
growth with decreasing growth rate, according to Eqs. 1–3,
aiming to predict the MSW generation of the cities from
CIMASAS:
Pt = P0 + (Ps − P0 ) ⋅ [1 − e−Kd ⋅(t−t0 ) ], (1)
2 ⋅ P0 ⋅ P1 ⋅ P2 − P21 ⋅ (P0 + P2 )
Ps = , (2)
P0 ⋅ P2 − P21
− ln[(Ps − P2 )∕(Ps − P0 )]
Kd = , (3)
t2 − t0
where Pt = estimated population in the year t (inhabitants);
Ps = population of saturation (inhabitants); P 0, P1, and
P2 = population in years t0, t1, and t2 (inhabitants). Equidis-
tant values use is needed, if it was not based on the regres-
sion analysis; and Kd = coefficient (obtaining the coefficients
by regression analysis is preferable, since the full range of
existing data can be used and not only P0, P1, and P2).
The solid-waste generation was calculated based on data
from Brazil [26], of the National Information System on
Sanitation (SNIS), the National Secretariat for Environmen-
tal Sanitation (SNSA), and the respective population in year
2013. The division between these values results in the index
of solid waste per capita generation. It was considered an
annual increasing in this index of 1%, as suggested by Bar-
ros [6], for a prognosis between the years 2015 and 2035.
With the projection of solid wastes, calculate the LFG
generation using software ­LandGem® from USEPA [27],
as shown in Eq. 4:
n 1
M the greatest energy increasing to TPP by LFG, as shown in
∑ ∑
QCH4 = k ⋅ L0 ⋅ ( 10i )e−ktij , (4)
i=1 j=0.1
where QCH4: annual methane generation in the year of the
calculation ­(m3/year); i: 1-year time increment; n = (year of
the calculation) − (initial year of waste acceptance); j: 0.1-
year time increment; k = methane generation rate (1/year);
L0: potential methane generation capacity (­ m3/ton); Mi: mass
of waste accepted in the ith year (ton); tij: age of the jth sec-
tion of waste mass Mi accepted in the ith year (decimal years,
e.g., 3.2 years).
The revised equation L ­ andGem® v. 3.02 [27] incorporates
the methane generation over a time increment of 0.1 year,
generating emission estimates a little lower than the previous
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601
­LandGem® versions for the values of k. The input param-
eters k and L0 considered were the default values used by the
program: k = 0.05 year−1 and L0 = 170 m3/ton, considering
the methane percentage in LFG of 50%.
Therefore, it was possible to estimate the potential of
electric power generation from the LFG use, and to find the
power and energy values that could be generated, according
to Eqs. 5 and 6, modified from CETESB [28]:
Pavailable = QLFG × PC × 𝜂 × Ec × 1000∕365 × 24 × 3600,
(5)
E = Pavailable × 8760, (6)
where Pavailable = annual available power (kW); QLFG = annual
LFG discharge ­(m3/year); PC = LFG low calorific value (MJ/
m3); η = conversion efficiency yield (%); Ec = LFG collection
efficiency (%); and E = annual available energy (kWh).
Equation 3 was used considering these following values:
LFG calorific value of 16.8 MJ/m3; Otto cycle engine with
efficiency of 33%; LFG collection efficiency of 65%, as
preconized by Broun and Sattler [29] for the conventional
landfill, of 69% and 75%, as recommended by USEPA [27].
Nevertheless, it must be chosen an optimum power
value for the generators, which, at the same time, results
in increased production of energy and economically viable.
At this point, the staggered method proposed by Santos
[16] was used to calculate the LFG energy, considering the
engines being installed over the years, as LFG discharge
values change. This method is based on the application of
generators operating at full load [15, 16].
In the staggered method, the choice of the first genera-
tor power corresponds to that power which combines with
the availability of LFG discharge to supply this generator,
results in maximum efficiency production (PME). The avail-
ability time, Δt, can be obtained by intersecting each power
value with the available LFG power curve, in which the best
equation that fit can be obtained using ­Microsoft® ­Excel®
regression function. From this first group generator, addi-
tional generators can be chosen as being those that promote
Fig. 1 [16].
The calculation of the energy increment (ΔE1) which
would be provided by the deployment of over a module that
generates power, P, calculated by Eqs. 7 and 8, must be
chosen for deployment of the second-generator group (P2:
Eq. 9). Therefore, the same logic can be applied in the deter-
mination of power and increase of energy due to the imple-
mentation of the other generation modules [16]:
If P < Pi , ΔE = P ⋅ (ti1 − ti + tf − tf1 )
(7)
= P ⋅ (Δt − Δt1 ),
If P < Pi , ΔE = (P − Pi ) ⋅ Δt, (8)
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1591
Fig. 1  Generator sets in the staggered method: a definition of optimum power-generation efficiency P1; b implementation of these power values
in the LFG generation curve; and c intermediate powers (P2 and P3) Source: Santos [15]
Table 2  Equipment considered for a TPP by LFG installation and
related costs Source: updated values from CETESB [28]
Components Cost
Otto cycle engine US$546.85/kW
Flare US$109,384 per unit
Compression US$273.46/m3/h
LFG collection tubulation US$137.63/m
The costs values were updated based on the IGP-M using the citizen
calculator of the Central Bank of Brazil [49]. According to Central
Bank of Brazil [48], the currency conversion was R$ 3.33/US$ 1.00,
on 23 June 2017
P2 = P → MaxΔE1 . (9)
With the generator sets increasing, there will be growing
in the energy production, but also in these groups’ invest-
ment, and costs of operation and maintenance (O&M). This
fact indicates the existence of an optimal power value, in
which the revenue by the energy increasing due to new gen-
erators shall not exceed the incremental cost.
For the economic analysis, the system components and
their costs presented in Table 2 were considered according
to data presented by the software Biogas from the Environ-
mental Company of the State of São Paulo [28].
The costs relating to the LFG purification were con-
sidered and adopted by CETESB [28] and updated to the
current period according to the Central Bank of Brazil: the
moisture, the H ­ 2S/siloxane, and carbon dioxide, consider-
ing the costs of $ 0.006/m3 (R$ 3.33/US$ 1). The initial
investment for the project was calculated as the sum of the
components required for installation and O&M of the TPP
at the landfill site. The O&M costs of the LFG collection
system were adopted as 5% of initial investment. In addition,
other values considered included piping length of 500 m and
a discount rate of 12% per year. Regarding the O&M costs
of the Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), it was considered
the biggest cost shown by Goldstein et al. (2003) [30], of
US$ 0.018/kWh.
Solar photovoltaic landfill
The Photovoltaic Software ­PVSyst® [31], from Switzerland,
was used for the photovoltaic system calculations. It is a
commercial program, that allows its use in a testing period
for 30 days, which period it was used to perform the analyses
in this study.
The landfill upper cover area should be 7540.55 m2. In
this area, 13 devices (LFG drains and monitoring wells) are
planned to be built. Around each one of these points, a cir-
cumference with 3 m of radio is planned to be kept free.
In addition, a safety distance of 3 m was considered to be
maintained from the top slope of the landfill, to allow the
maintenance and cleaning activities, for example. Therefore,
by discounting these safety areas, it was considered an avail-
able area for SPVS after landfill closure of 6050 m2, based
on above-mentioned data presented by Monteiro and Costa
[32]. This value was estimated as the landfill area that can
potentially accommodate the SPVS [3], and with the mini-
mum intervention with the infrastructure of LFG collection.
The solar energy power plant is typically built using an area
utilization factor area between 35 and 45% [33].
The inverter sizing factor (ISF) was used for choosing the
power of inverters. ISF represents the relationship between
the nominal power in alternating current of the inverter
( PNac ) and the peak power of the photovoltaic generator
( PPV ) [34]. However, a conservative way allows to consider
the inverter power value equal to the nominal power PPV of
the photovoltaic generator [34], as adopted in this case study.
It was considered the use of an inverter from the manu-
facturer ­Ingeteam®, model Ingecon Sun 400TL M320 DCAC
Outdoor, and the polycrystalline module Canadian S ­ olar®
CS6 K 260P (Table 3). It was mentioned by Szabó et al. [3]
that sites with conventional waste compacting process are
appropriate to install conventional mounting structures of
crystalline silicon SPVS.
Regarding the positioning of the modules, it was con-
sidered that they must be oriented towards the north (azi-
muth = 0), with slope equal to the latitude of Itajubá-MG
13

1592
­ VSyst® [31]
Table 3  Characteristics of photovoltaic module Source: P
Model CS6K 260P
Type Polycrystalline
Maximum power 260 W
Efficiency 16.18%
Voltage of the maximum power (VMPP) 30.40 V
Current of the maximum power (IMPP) 8.56 A
Voltage of the opened circuit (VOC) 37.50 V
Short-circuit current (ISC) 9.12 A
Length  1.650 m
Width 0.992 m
Area of the module 1.637 m2
Weight  18.2 kg
added to 5º. The photovoltaic modules typically have guar-
antees to operate for 25 years with at least 80% of their nom-
inal power at the ending of this time. In addition, sometimes,
this guarantee reaches 30 years at 70% of their nominal
power [35]. Therefore, the degradation rate of 0.5%/year was
adopted, based on a study of Jordan and Kurtz [36]. Equa-
tion 10 was used for the calculation of photovoltaic system
efficiency during the years (ηs(t)), considering this degrada-
tion rate [37]. As considered for the inverters, these must be
exchanged for shorter periods, usually every 10 years. This
term was adopted in this case study:
𝜂s (t) = 𝜂s0 ⋅ (1 − deg )n , (10)
where ηs0 = efficiency of solar panel in the first year (see
Table  3), d eg = annually degradation rate of PV sys-
tem = 0.5% [36], and n = time in years.
The major part of total investment in an SPVS consists of
the modules and inverter costs. The respective cost values
were based on the method of calculations proposed in the
study by the Brazilian Association of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Industry (ABINEE) [38], considering the use of
equipment imported to Brazil. The international price val-
ues were adopted for the inverter (€0.11/W) and the mod-
ules (€0.59/W), according to Photon [39]. Over the final
price, some costs were charged. These costs included: taxes
and costs with freight and international insurance (5%); the
importation tax-II (12% for modules and 14% for inverters);
industrialized products tax-IPI, as in Portuguese (15% for
inverters); a program of social integration tax, PIS, as in
Portuguese (1.65%); contributing to the financing of social
security (COFINS, as in Portuguese) taxes (7.5%); tax on
goods and services circulation, ICMS, as in Portuguese
(18%); and various rates (12% on total taxes and contribu-
tions). The aliquot of the IPI on photovoltaic modules was
considered as of 0%, according to the table of tax on indus-
trialized products incidence (NCM 8541.40.32) approved by
the Brazilian Decree no. Decree no. 8950/16 [26].
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601
Regarding the energy generated, the obtained value
considers losses due to many factors. These included:
near shadings (− 2.3%); the incidence angle modifier, IAM
factor (− 2.0%); losses by the irradiance level (− 0.6%)
and temperature (− 9.6%); module array mismatch loss
(− 1.0%);ohmic wiring loss (− 1.1%); inverter loss during
operation efficiency (− 1.8%).
In addition to the modules and inverters, an SPVS needs
balance of system components (BoS). These components
include: the supporting structures, electrical cables, con-
trolling equipment, the safety, security, and monitoring
system [18], additionally to the costs related to engineer-
ing projects, licensing, and project installation [38].
This value was adopted as the sum of the modules and
inverters costs, as proposed by ABINEE [38], resulting in
US$ 0.70/W, being is close to the values presented by the
International Renewable Energy (IRENA) [40], in which
these costs are estimated at an average of $ 0.80/W in
China and $0.84/W in Germany.
The O&M system costs were considered equal to 1% of
the total cost of the investment. This value was the average
between the enterprises that marketed solar energy in the
2nd energy auction reserve 2015 and was similar to those
verified in auctions that already occurred for the photovol-
taic energy source (MME/EPE) [41].
Regarding the analysis of the economic feasibility of
this study, the cash flow by the Net Present Value (NPV)
was estimated by considering economic parameters con-
sulted in the Central Bank of Brazil website [42].
The levelized cost of energy
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is essentially a break-
even value, which a power producer would need to obtain
per energy (kilowatt-hour, kWh) as sales revenue to jus-
tify an investment in a particular power-generation facility
[43]. The analysis on LCOE for the presented case study
was also carried out. To carry out the LCOE calculate,
capital and running costs are divided by the total electrical
energy generated in the lifetime of a generator [44]. Equa-
tion 11 allows the calculation of LCOE [45]:
∑T
Ct ∕(1 + r)t
LCOE = ∑t=0
T
, (11)
Et ∕(1 + r)t
t=0
where Ct = costs in each year and Et = annually energy.
In both systems, it was found the variation of the NPV
considering the price per unit of energy used at ANEEL
auction, and if applied the price or the rate of utility for con-
sumers included in Group B-subgroup B3 and Group A-Sub-
group A4 with the green hourly seasonal tariff structure.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1593
Results and discussion
LFG energy system
Figure 2 shows the population growth considering all the
municipalities that are members of the CIMASAS, Itajubá,
Minas Gerais, Brazil. In addition, with population projec-
tion prognosis values, it was possible to estimate MSW
generation for the period 2015–2035.
With the values of waste production, and using the
software ­LandGem® [27], the projection of the LFG gen-
eration over the years was possible, and subsequently to
obtain a power curve (Fig. 3). Figure 3 also presents the
regression equations for the first 20 years and after this
period.
The adjusted curves for the estimated powers vary
according to the LFG production. After the MSW landfill
closure, the LFG generation decreases with a tendency to
stabilize over time. Therefore, the available powers will
Fig. 2  Population and MSW
generation projection for the
CIMASAS consortium
Fig. 3  Graph of the available
powers over the year’s variation
at the landfill site
also decrease. Nevertheless, the selected values of power
or an optimum power value must be those presents the
largest energy production, and, at the same time, are eco-
nomically viable. The energy that could be generated by
each power value was analyzed. In Fig. 4, it is possible to
observe that the availability time of each power is variable
because of variation of LFG generation. In addition, it is
observed that the power which would result in increased
production efficiency (PME) is 570 kW. Thus, it would be
possible to obtain this power value for 30 years, as can be
verified by the line drawn in the center of Fig. 4.
After the power was analyzed, the energy incrementally
production due to the other generator’s implementation. Fig-
ure 5 shows the energetic increment generated by each addi-
tional generator set power. It is observed that the increase
of energy decreasingly rises the generator number and that
there is a trend of stabilization from three generators. There-
fore, a maximum of three generator sets was considered for
the economic feasibility assessments.
13

1594 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601

Initially, it was considered the use of a generator, which
would start its operation in the 8th year, with a power of
570  kW (Fig.  6). In the case of the use of two genera-
tor groups, the first one, with power equal to 230  kW,
would start its operation in the 3rd year, and the second
with 340 kW, in the 8th year, as shown in Fig. 7. Finally,
considering the use of three generator sets, the first generator
(230 kW) would operate from the 3rd year, the second gen-
erator (340 kW) from the 8th year, and the third (360 kW)
from the 14th year (Fig. 8).
The economic viability for all three cases was ana-
lyzed, with modifications in the number of generators, i.e.,

Fig. 4  Relation between pow-

ers, availability time and energy
generated

Fig. 5  Energy increments due

to the addition of additional
generators

Fig. 6  Design for the LFG use

using one generator

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1595

considering the use of one, two, and three generators. The
LCOE for operation during the 30 years resulted in the fol-
lowing values: US$ 63.41/MWh for one generating set, US$
61.95 for two generators, and US$ 57.84 for three generators.
Initially, the value considered for selling the energy was
US$ 65.47/MWh, corresponding to the auction price at the
A-3/2015 by ANEEL [46]. Figure 9 shows that energy pro-
duction over the years with three generators would be greater
than the other cases.
However, it can be observed in Fig. 10 that the more eco-
nomically viable scenario is with the use of one generator
set. This behavior can be explained by the fact that with
additional generators, there is an increase in the costs as
compared to the initial investment, O&M, and treatment
costs. In addition, the value of US$ 65.47/MWh has just not
brought greater benefits from an economical point of view,
than to the use of additional generators.
Another scenario was also assessed considering the sys-
tem as a distributed generation system, in case mini-genera-
tion, with energy compensation system based on the ANEEL
Resolution 482/2012 [11] modified by ANEEL Resolution
687/2015 [12]. For instance, the energy could be used to
supplying of public buildings in the city of Itajubá-MG.
In this situation, the amount paid before installation of the

Fig. 7  Design for the LFG use 1400

using two generators
1200
1000
Power (kW)

800
600 P available (kW)
400 P installed (kW)
200
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time (years)

Fig. 8  Design for the LFG use 1400

using three generators
1200
1000
Power (kW)

800
600 P available (kW)
400 P installed (kW)

200
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Time (years)

Fig. 9  Generated energy (GWh)

considering three, two, and one
generator sets

13

1596
Fig. 10  Results of economic
analysis by NPV considering
three, two, and one generators
system, discounting availability, or demand costs, which
could be considered as if it was a revenue once this enter-
prise would generate their energy.
For this reason, to verify how the NPV values would
behave, tariffs applied to subgroup B3, by the electricity
distribution company in June/2017(without taxes) of the city
of Itajubá-MG, CEMIG, were considered (of US$ 168.53/
MWh; [47]). This value is similar to those applied to the
subgroup B1. The currency conversion adopted in this case
study, for conversion from the Real to dollars, was taken on
June 23, 2017, of R$ 3.33/US$ 1.00 [48].
It can be observed in Fig. 11 a significant increase in the
NPV value, resulting in the preference for the use of three
generator sets. It is positive result to the consumer when it
is considered the net metering mechanism, provided by the
above-mentioned ANEEL resolutions. It appears that the
tariff value, even without considering taxes, would outcome
in quite a positive result. By adding the Brazilian taxes as
PASEP/Cofins and ICMS, it could be reached a value of the
US$ 215.54/MWh for this tariff. In this case, the results with
the use of three generators would be even more attractive to
the consumer.
Fig. 11  Results of the economic
analysis considering the energy
prices of ANEEL auction and
power utility
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601
Given the variation in the NPV value in each case, Fig. 12
is drawn up to analyze the options of using one, two, or three
generators, according to the energy tariff. It can be observed
that the projects would present economic viability from a
value about US$ 63/MWh for all options. The possibility of
using three generators becomes the most interesting from
a value around US$ 74/MWh. In addition, from this same
level, the use of only one generator group becomes the more
disadvantageous.
If the consumer is included in the Group A-Subgroup A4
green hourly seasonal tariff structure, as the Administrative
Center of the City Hall of Itajubá, the system would continue
presenting positive NPV value. In this case, it must be used
the applied tariffs on the consumption according to the val-
ues related to June 2017 [21]:
• off-peak:US$ 106.70/MWh (excluding taxes) and US$
136.45/MWh (with taxes);
• during peak, of US$ 375.86/MWh (excluding taxes) and
US$ 480.71/MWh (with taxes); and
• tariff applied to the demand of US$ 2.72/kW (excluding
taxes) and US$ 3.49/MWh (with taxes).
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1597

Fig. 12  Relation between the

variation in the tariff of energy
and the NPV

Considering that 90% of consumption occurs in off-peak Table 4  Characteristics of the SPVS proposed
hours, as it is the case at the Administrative Center of the Variables Value Variables Value (kW)
City Hall of Itajubá, and using the tariff values without
taxes, the NPV values would result as follows: US$ 1.88 Number of modules 1575 Modules nominal 410
million for three generators, US$ 1.59 million for two gen- power
Modules in series 21 Inverter power 408
erators, and US$ 1.26 million for one generator. As most of
consumption is in off-peak hours, the biggest influence is Connections in paral- 75
lel
upon the tariff assigned to this period.
In this subgroup A4, with green hourly seasonal tariff
structure, where the off-peak hours’ tariff usually corre-
sponds to about 30% of the peak hour tariff, the NPV results Table 5  Results of energy
generation of photovoltaic Generation (MWh) 641
also reduce, although it continues being positive. When is
system in the first year of Specific production 1565
verified the NPV variation in relation to the tariff values (kWh/kWp/year)
operation
variation, in this case, it is noticed the same behavior, as Performance rate 83.1%
shown in Fig. 12. In other words, from a particular tariff
value, even below the current values, the use of three gen-
erators always shows the more economically attractive NPV Therefore, it was chosen the power of an inverter 408 kW
results. In this case, this fact would occur with values of US$ (Table 4). Regarding the production of energy from the
204/MWh for consumption at the peak hour and US$ 58/ photovoltaic system, Table 5 shows the results for its first
MWh for off-peak hours. year of operation.
The results show that this first proposed system for the The performance ratio of the system, defined as the ratio
TPP by LFG of CIMASAS Consortium in Itajubá-MG between the actual system performance over the theoretical
would be economically viable. The next item consists of maximum possible performance, presented a satisfactory
evaluating the economic feasibility of installing an SPVS value of 83.1%. According to International Energy Agency
after this landfill closure. [35], some well-dimensioned systems reach an average per-
formance value between 80 and 90% over the year.
SPVS The obtained value of energy generated is 641 MWh.
Whereas the SPVS was designed to operate for 25 years,
Over the plateau area of the landfill of Itajubá-MG, Brazil, Fig. 13 shows what would be the results for each year of
a total of 1575 photovoltaic modules could be installed, production of energy for an annual degradation rate of the
which would be equivalent to a nominal power of 410 kW, modules of 0.5%.
resulting in an area factor use equal to 45%. This value Table 6 presents values for each component of the pho-
is similar to the estimates mentioned by Szabó et al. [3], tovoltaic system that contributes to the total cost of the pro-
in which 1 MWp of crystalline SPVS requires in average posed project.
1.5 ha. In this case, the area (6050 m2 or 0.61 ha) could Fraunhofer ISE [50] preconized that in Germany, the
generate 0.4067 MWp (or 406.7 kWp) by the crystalline modules represented 55% of the system costs of projects
SPVS. According to the choice of the inverter power, and greater than 1 MW. Inverters contribute with 11% and the
for the simulations of energy production, the Inverter BoS costs with 34%. According to IRENA [40], the average
Sizing Factor (ISF) value close to 1 was considered. estimate of total costs of an installed system was around US$

13

1598 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601

Fig. 13  Energy production for

25 years of photovoltaic system
operation

Table 6  The photovoltaic system costs between US$ 119/MWh-US$318/MWh; the Fraunhofer

Items Costs (US$/W) Percentage of
Institute, between US$ 100 and US$ 178, in 2013; and in
the total cost China, in 2013, these values were US$ 79/MWh–US$ 145/
(%) MWh [35].
Results from the impact of the ANEEL Resolutions [11,
Module 1.05 51
12] on net metering mechanism analyzed for this photovol-
Inverter 0.23 11
taic system are presented in Fig. 14. Thus, in a first moment,
Balance of system 0.78 38
(BoS) as considered in the biogas system, there was viability for
Cost 2.06 100.0 the system when using the same prices paid to the distribu-
tor of energy considering the consumer included in Group
B, i.e., US$ 168.53/MWh (excluding tax) and US$ 215.54/
2.00/W in 2014. To the South and Central America, these MWh (with taxes). In this scenario, the economic viability
values were between US$ 1.35/W and US$ 5.00/W. of the system is achieved, with positive NPV of US$ 73,000,
It was initially considered that all energy generated by with the tariff value of US$ 215.54/MWh. As it is shown in
the photovoltaic system would be sold at a price of $ 89.41/ Fig. 14, the system was estimated to be economically viable
MWh. This value is the average photovoltaic energy tariff from tariff values about US$ 200/MWh.
of the 2ndANEEL Energy Reserve Auction of 2015 [46]. In The economic viability of the system is related to several
this scenario, the analyses carried out showed that the sys- factors, being affected by one or a combination of them, as
tem would not be economically viable, presenting an NPV the equipment costs, such as the modules and inverters and
value of −US$ 0.53 million. The investment of the proposed the energy tariff. In Fig. 15, it is possible to observe the
photovoltaic system would be US$ 847.296. relation between the estimated NPV with SPVS cost and
The LCOE value would result in US$ 196.71/MWh. the tariff.
MME/EPE (2014) mentioned some international references From Fig. 15, it is possible to observe that when the tariff
values in the price of photovoltaic energy, which are rela- is about US$ 90/MWh, the economic viability is achieved
tively close to that found in this case study. The International only when, for example, the SPVS costs are well below to
Energy Agency established in 2014 the LCOE at a price approximately US$ 0.90/W. At the same time, increasing

Fig. 14  Variation in the NPV

value in function of tariff paid
per MWh

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1599
Fig. 15  NPV values with vari-
ation in the total system price
(US$/W) and amount paid per
unit of energy produced (US$/
MWh)
the tariff values, the viability is achieved even with bigger
system prices. As in the case of tariff of US$ 215.54/MWh,
in that the NPV would not present negative value even with
SPVS price of about US$ 2.25/W.
It was applied also the subgroup A4 tariffs, with the
green hourly seasonal tariff structure, whereas the energy
produced by the SPVS would be totally used at off-peak
hours. Therefore, considering the energy tariff of June 2017
with taxes, of US$ 136.45/MWh [21], the NPV would result
negative (−US$ 300,000), when considering the same initial
SPVS cost as US$ 2.06/W. At this value, the relations with
variation of energy tariff present similar behavior (linear),
as shown in Fig. 15, and NPV would reach positive values
when the photovoltaic system cost reaches values close to
US$ 1.38/W.
However, regarding the modules and inverters costs,
which correspond to approximately 60% of the total sys-
tem costs, there is a trend to reduction, mainly related to
the photovoltaic modules, which already showed signifi-
cant costs reduction in recent years worldwide. Even face
smaller energy tariff values, this decrease in the photovoltaic
system costs could result in favorable economically values
to the entrepreneurship. For instance, Fraunhofer ISE [50]
verified from data of photovoltaic system costs, future sce-
narios for modules costs between US$ 0.14/Wp and US$
0.36/Wp in 2050. Concerning inverters, Fraunhofer ISE [50]
preconized that these costs could be between US$0.021 and
US$ 0.042/W depending on the scenario. In fact, when con-
sidering the highest modules and inverters values from the
scenarios of [50], and the energy tariff value of US$ 136.45/
MWh, the NPV value would become positive (US$ 91,000).
The tendency of the photovoltaic technology is becoming
increasingly favorable. From the analyses of the case study
carried out, there is a great potential for energy exploita-
tion of the landfill area for energy production by renewable
sources. It would be possible to generate approximately
162.1 GWh from the LFG use for 30 years and 15.1 GWh,
for 25 years, by the installation of a photovoltaic power
plant.
Conclusions
The present study analyzed the potential of energy use in a
sanitary landfill from a TPP by LFG during its useful life-
time, and after 10 years of its closure, from an SPVS over the
landfill’s platform. This technique has recently been applied
by some countries, as there is a great potential to use con-
taminated areas, such as MSW landfills, civil construction,
or even industrial landfills. Such use may become important
in the Brazilian scenario future, since the use of landfills is
increasing in the country.
From the results of this case study, there is economic
viability both, of TPP by LFG and, of an SPVS on the closed
sanitary landfill. The best results of economic viability were
obtained by considering the energy tariff from the distribu-
tor, i.e., by the benefits from the Brazilian ANEEL Resolu-
tion no. 482/2012 [11] updated by Resolution 687/2015 [12]
for renewable sources of energy up to 5 MW. In this case,
from an economic point of view, the expenses before the
energy use by these generation proposed systems could be
considered as revenue.
The studies have shown that the CIMASAS landfill con-
sortium could generate, during the period of MSW receipt-
ing and after its closure, a considerable amount of energy
from these two renewable sources of energy. In addition, it
was demonstrated the impact of benefits given by the Bra-
zilian ANEEL Resolutions regarding the micro- and mini-
distributed energy generation. These impacts were observed,
especially in the cases of medium and small-scale landfill
consortium and SPVS over small underutilized areas. These
benefits would be able to become economically viable an
SPVS system that otherwise would not be financially attrac-
tive by the currently auctions tariffs.
13

1600
Acknowledgments  The authors are grateful to the Brazilian National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Cnpq; in Por-
tuguese), for granting to Matheus Martins Lopes the Master of Science
scholarship, and a research scholarship to Prof. Regina Mambeli Barros
(PQ2, Process number: 303805/2018-8 and 301986/2015-0) and Prof.
Electo Eduardo Silva Lora (1B). The authors also want to thank the
Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Per-
sonnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Supe-
rior, Capes; in Portuguese) for granting the Master of Science scholar-
ship and the Doctorate scholarship to Ivan Felipe da Silva dos Santos.
References
1. Peters Michael, Schmidt Tobias S, Wiederkehr David, Schneider
Malte (2011) Shedding light on solar technologies—a techno-
economic assessment and its policy implications. Energy Policy
39(10):6422–6439
2. González-González A, Collares-Pereira M, Cuadros F, Far-
taria T (2014) Energy self-sufficiency through hybridization of
biogas and photovoltaic solar energy: an application for an Ibe-
rian pig slaughterhouse. J Clean Prod 65:318–323. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2013.08.021
3. Szabó S, Bódis K, Kougias I, Moner-Girona M, Jäger-Waldau A,
Barton G, Szabó L (2017) A methodology for maximizing the
benefits of solar landfills on closed sites. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 76:1291–1300. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.117
4. Brazil. Law no.12,305, of August 2, 2010. Establishes the National
Policy for Solid Waste, amends the Law no. 9,605, of February 12,
1998; and provides other requirements. Official Federal Gazette,
Brasília (3 Aug 2010). Planalto Portal. [10 Aug 2012]. http://
www.plana​lto.gov.br/ccivi​l_03/_Ato20​07-2010/2010/Lei/L1230​
5.htm. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
5. Brazil. Decree no.7,404, of December 23, 2010. Regulates the
Law no 12,305 of August 2, 2010, which establishes the National
Solid Waste Policy, creates the Interministerial Committee of the
National Solid Waste Policy and the Guidance Committee for the
Implementation of Reverse Logistics Systems, and provides other
requirements. Official Federal Gazette, Brasília (23 Dec 2010).
Planalto Portal. [10 Aug 2012]. https​://www.plana​lto.gov.br/ccivi​
l_03/_ato20​07-2010/2010/decre​to/d7404​.htm. Accessed 3 Dec
2015
6. Barros RM (2013) The treaty on solid waste: management, usage,
and sustainability. Rio de Janeiro, Interciência; Minas Gerais,
Acta. p 376. ISBN 978-85-7193-295-1
7. Fodor Z, Klemeš JJ (2012) Waste as alternative fuel—minimizing
emissions and effluents by advanced design. Process Saf Environ
Prot 90(3):263–284. ISSN 0957-5820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2011.09.004
8. Leme MMV, Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Lopes BM,
Ferreira CH (2014) Techno-economic analysis and environmen-
tal impact assessment of energy recovery from Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) in Brazil. Resour Conserv Recycl 87:8–20. ISSN
0921-3449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2014.03.003
9. The Brazilian Association of cleaning companies and special
waste—ABRELPE (2016) Overview of solid waste in Bra-
zil—2015. São Paulo: ABRELPE. ISSN 2179-8303. http://www.
abrel​pe.org.br/Panor​ama/panor​ama20​15.pdf. Accessed 18 Jul
2017
10. Townsend TG et al (2015) Sustainable practices for landfill design
and operation, 1st edn. Springer, New York
11. The Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency—ANEEL
(2012) Normative Resolution no. 482 of 17 April 2012.
Arranges down the general conditions for the access of
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601
microgeneration and minigeneration distributed to the electrical
power distribution systems, the compensation system of electri-
cal power, and takes other measures. Brasilia: Official Gazette
of the Union, April 19, 2012
12. The Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency—ANEEL
(2015a) Normative Resolution no. 687 of 24 November 2015.
Changes the Normative Resolution No. 482 of 17 April 2012,
and Modules 1 and 3 Distribution Procedures—PRODIST. Bra-
silia: Official Gazette of the Union, 02 December 2015
13. Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, da Silva TR (2014) The electric
energy potential of landfill biogas in Brazil. Energy Policy
65:150164. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol​.2013.10.028
14. Salomon KR, Lora EES (2009) Estimate of the electric energy
generating potential for different sources of biogas in Brazil.
Biomass Bioenergy 33(9):1101–1107. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomb​ioe.2009.03.001
15. Santos IFS (2015) Proposta de um método para a motorização
de aterros sanitários para fins de geração de energia elétrica.
2015. 103 f. Dissertation (Master of Science in Engineering of
Energy)—Programa de pós-graduação em Engenharia de Ener-
gia, Universidade Federal de Itajubá-MG, Itajubá, Minas Gerais,
Brasil
16. Santos IFS, Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL (2018) Economic study
on LFG energy projects in function of the number of generators.
Sustain Cities Soc 41:587–600
17. Silva TR, Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, Santos IFS (2017)
Methodology for the determination of optimum power of a
Thermal Power Plant (TPP) by biogas from sanitary landfill.
Waste Management 65:7591. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​
n.2017.04.018
18. Kiatreungwattana K, Mosey G, Jones-Johnson S, Dufficy C, Bourg
J, Conroy A et al (2013) Best practices for siting solar photovolta-
ics on municipal solid waste landfills. Tech. rep., United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory—NREL
19. The Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency—ANEEL (2016)
Micro and minigeneration distributed: the compensation system
of electric energy. The National Electric Energy Agency, 2nd edn.
ANEEL, New York. p 31
20. ELETROBRAS (2011) Manual of electricity pricing. http://www.
mme.gov.br/docum​ents/10584​/19852​41/Manua​l%20de%20Tar​
if%20En%20El%20-%20Pro​cel_EPP%20-%20Ago​sto-2011.pdf.
Accessed 30 Nov 2016
21. The Energy Company of Minas Gerais—CEMIG (2017a) Tariffs
and taxes. http://www.cemig.​ com.br/pt-br/atendi​ mento​ /corpor​ ativ​
o/Pagin​as/tarif​as.aspx. Accessed Jan 2017
22. Gonçalves ATT (2007) The energetic potential of household
and commercial solid waste of the municipality of Itajubá-MG.
Dissertation (Master of Science). Program of Post-graduation in
Engineering of Energy, Federal University of Itajubá—UNIFEI.
Itajubá
23. The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistic (Instituto Bra-
sileiro de Geografia e Estatística—IBGE) (2015) Censo 1991,
2000 and 2010: Table 200 - Resident population by sex, situa-
tion and age groups. http://www.sidra​.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabel​a/lista​
bl.asp?z=t&c=200. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
24. Qasim SR (1985) Wastewater treatment plants: planning, design
and operation. Holt, Rinehart and Wiston, New York
25. Von Sperling M (2005) Introduction to water quality and waste-
water treatment. Belo Horizonte: DESA/UFMG, 2 edn. Revised,
v. 1, p 243
26. Brazil. The National Secretariat for Environmental Sanitation—
SNSA (2013) The National Information System on sanitation:
diagnosis in the management of municipal solid waste. MCI-
DADES.SNSA, Brasilia 2014. http://www.snis.gov.br/downlo​ ads/
diagn​ostic​os/rs/2013/DiagR​S2013​_XLS.zip. [10]
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2019) 21:1587–1601 1601
27. United States Environmental Protection Agency—USEPA (2005)
Landfill Gas Emission Model Version 3.02. User’s Guide. USEPA
2005. EPA-600/R-05. http://www.epa.gov/ttncat​ c1/dir1/landge​ m-
v302-guide​.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2011
28. Environmental Company of São Paulo—CETESB (2006) Biogas:
generation and energy use (Biogás Geração e uso Energético:
Aterros), v. 1.0. The Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technol-
ogy—Environmental Sanitation Technology Company (Com-
panhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental). CETESB, São
Paulo: MCT–SMA. http://www.cetesb​ .sp.gov.br/mudanc​ ascli​ mati​
cas/bioga​s/Softw​ares/16Sof​tware​s. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
29. Broun R, Sattler M (2016) A comparison of greenhouse gas emis-
sions and potential electricity recovery from conventional and
bioreactor landfills. J Clean Prod 112(2016):2664–2673. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2015.10.010
30. Goldstein L, Hedman B, Knowles D, Freedman SI, Woods
R, Schweizer T (2003) Gas-fired distributed energy resource
technology characterizations. United States: N. p. https​://doi.
org/10.2172/150058​ 19. https:​ //www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04os​ ti/34783​
.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2019
31. PVsyst®: Software for the study and simulation of photovoltaic
systems’, PVsyst SA Geneva, Switzerland. www.pvsys​t.com
32. Monteiro MB, Costa MB (2006) Municipal sanitary landfill of
Itajubá. Closure of the enterprise. Technical Report New Environ-
ment Engineering & Consulting Ltda
33. Villalva MG, Gazoli JR (2012) Photovoltaic solar energy: con-
cepts and applications, 1st edn. Érica, São Paulo
34. Pinho JT, Galdino MA (2014) (org.) Manual of engineering for
photovoltaic systems (Manual de engenharia para sistemas foto-
voltaicos, in Portuguese). http://www.crese​sb.cepel​.br/publi​cacoe​
s/downl​oad/Manua​l_de_Engen​haria​_FV_2014.pdf. Accessed 13
Aug 2019
35. International Energy Agency—IEA (2014) Technology roadmap:
solar photovoltaic energy. https​://www.iea.org/publi​catio​ns/freep​
ublic​ation​s/publi​catio​n/Techn​ology​Roadm​apSol​arPho​tovol​taicE​
nergy​_2014e​ditio​n.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2016
36. Jordan DC, Kurtz SR (2012) Photovoltaic degradation rates—an
analytical review. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12o​sti/51664​.pdf.
Accessed 11 Apr 2016
37. Rangel MS, Santos IFS, Vieira NDB, Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL
(2019) Study of the costs and economic viability of the genera-
tion of electricity from renewable energies in Brazil. Submitted
to Energy in 02/2019. Under review
38. The Brazilian Association of Electrical and Electronics Indus-
try—ABINEE (2012) Proposals for insertion of photovoltaic solar
energy in the electrical matrix. ABINEE, p 176
39. PHOTON (2015) PHOTON inverter price index. http://www.
photon​ .info/newsle​ tter/​ docume​ nt/92078.​ pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2015
40. International Renewable Energy Agency—IRENA (2015) Renew-
able power generation costs in 2014. IRENA
41. Ministry of Mines and Energy—MME (2014) Energy Research
Company—EPE. Reserve Energy Auction 2014—Participation
of the enterprises solar photovoltaic: overview. EPE, Brasilia
42. The Brazilian Central Bank (2015) Information for economic
and financial analysis. http://www.bcb.gov.br/pt-br/#!/n/INFOA​
NAECO​FINAN​. Accessed 23 Dec 2015
43. Reichelstein S, Yorston M (2013) The prospects for cost com-
petitive solar PV power. Energy Policy 55:117–127. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol​.2012.11.003
44. Barnham K, Knorr K, Mazzer M (2013) Benefits of photovoltaic
power in supplying national electricity demand. Energy Policy
54:385–390. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol​.2012.10.077
45. Branker K, Pathak MJM, Pearce JM (2011) A review of solar
photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 15(9):4470–4482. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104
46. The Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency—ANEEL
(2015b) Auction no. 4/2015 ANEEL (Auction A-3). http://www.
aneel​.gov.br/aplic​acoes​/edita​is_gerac​ao/docum​entos​/EDITA​L_
Leil%C3%A3o_A%20-%203_2015%20-%20ver​s%C3%A3o%20
par​a%20pub​lica%C3%A7%C3%A3o.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2015
47. The Energy Company of Minas Gerais—CEMIG (2017b) Glos-
sary. http://ri.cemig​.com.br/stati​c/ptb/gloss​ario.asp?idiom​a=ptb.
Accessed 10 July 2017
48. The Brazilian Central Bank (2017b) Conversion of currencies.
http://www4.bcb.gov.br/pec/conve​rsao/conve​rsao.asp. Accessed
23 Dec 2015
49. The Brazilian Central Bank (2017a) Calculator of the citizen. https​
://www3.bcb.gov.br/CALCI​DADAO​/publi​co/exibi​rForm​Corre​
caoVa​lores​.do?metho​d=exibi​rForm​Corre​caoVa​lores​&aba=1.
Accessed 23 Dec 2015
50. FRAUNHOFER ISE (2015) Current and future costs of photo-
voltaics. Long-term scenarios for market development, system
prices and LCOE of utility-scale PV systems. Study on behalf of
Energiewende Now.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13