Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Assessment of energy generation potentials of MSW in Delhi

under different technological options
Monojit Chakraborty a,b, Chhemendra Sharma a,⇑, Jitendra Pandey b, Prabhat K. Gupta a
a
CSIR-National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi 110012, India
b
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221005, India

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

Article history: Municipal solid waste (MSW) is an important source of methane emission which is a greenhouse gas
Received 4 March 2013 (GHG) and has high potential for its use as energy source. A study has been carried out to find out the
Accepted 19 June 2013 energy generation potential of MSW being dumped in Delhi’s three landfills viz. Ghazipur (GL), Bhalswa
(BL) and Okhla (OL). Five technologies for waste to energy generation, namely biomethanation, inciner-
ation, gasification/pyrolysis, refused derived fuel (RDF) and plasma arc gasification have been evaluated
Keywords: for computation of possible energy (WTE) generation potential of MSW under ideal conditions using the
Municipal solid waste
MSW specific characteristic parameters. Bulk waste with and without pre-segregation of reusable high
Landfills
Greenhouse gas
carbonaceous materials have been considered to develop range of energy generation potentials under
Energy generation potential two scenarios of with and without segregation of MSW. USEPA-LandGem model version 3.02 has been
Thermo-chemical process used to get LFG generation potential of Delhi’s landfills. The potential of biomethanation process for pro-
ducing energy has been found to be in the range of 3–10, 3–8 and 2–8 MW/day from the MSW deposited
in GL, BL and OL respectively. The energy generation potentials of the MSW deposited in GL, BL and OL
have been found to be in the range of 8–24, 7–22 and 7–19 MW/day for incineration process; 17–32,
16–29 and 11–25 MW/day from gasification/pyrolysis process; 9–19, 8–18 and 6–15 MW/day for RDF
process; and 17–35, 16–32 and 11–28 MW/day for plasma arc gasification process respectively. The
lower values in these ranges depict the energy generation potential for segregated waste while the higher
values are for the bulk waste. These values are based on theoretical ideals and help in identifying the opti-
mal WTE technique.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) increases with
socio-economic development of urban population. In an emerging
economy like India, rapid population growth has further added to
the intensity of waste generation. The generated MSW in urban
areas is predominantly managed by depositing it in the low lying
areas, called landfills. As landfilling is a low cost management op-
tion, it is the most popular mode of waste management. However,
unlike landfills in developed countries, only few properly managed
landfills exist in India. The Indian Municipal Solid Wastes (Man-
agement and Handling) Rules, 2000 states that, ‘‘Landfilling shall
be restricted to non-biodegradable, inert waste and other waste
that are not suitable either for recycling or for biological process-
ing.’’ The deposition of MSW in the landfills results into generation
of greenhouse gases (GHGs, mainly methane). Methane (CH4) is a
potential source of energy. Some efforts have already been initi-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 1145609387; fax: +91 1145609310.
E-mail address: csharma@nplindia.org (C. Sharma).
ated in India to harness the locked energy resource from the organ-
ic fraction of MSW. Adoption of environment-friendly waste-to-
energy (WTE) technologies is one such effective way which could
also help in reducing the GHG emissions into the atmosphere.
In India, mainly three technologies are being used for energy
recovery, albeit on a small scale, from MSW viz. refused derived
fuel (RDF), biomethanation and incineration. The RDF pellet is an
efficient fuel with comparative advantages over the coal due to
its high calorific value (0.145 kW/kg) [1]. It is a clean, energy effi-
cient, eco friendly alternative fuel for coal based industries, includ-
ing power generation. Biomethanation is an anaerobic process
which produces landfill gas (LFG) containing 50–60% methane. It
is estimated that 0.075 kW energy can be generated from a cubic
meter of biogas in the biomethanation process in Indian MSW
[2]. Incineration is the process of direct burning of waste in the
presence of excess air (oxygen) at temperatures of P800 °C that
liberates heat energy besides generating inert gases and ash. In
practice, about 65–80% of the energy content of the organic matter
can be recovered as heat energy, which can be utilized either for
direct thermal applications, or for producing power via steam tur-
bine generators [3].

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.027
250 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255
Saini et al. has estimated the total potential for energy genera-
tion from MSW in India as about 3000 MW in 2020 [4]. In India, 27
waste-to-energy plants have been installed in different cities by
2005 based on gasification/pyrolysis having the total installed
capacity of 45.5 MW [5], RDF based plants at Vijaywada, Hydera-
bad, Chennai, Chandigarh, Jaipur, Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore, etc.
and biomethanation plants at Chennai, Pune, Vijaywada, Guntur,
Vishakapattanam, Kottayam, Tiruvanthapuram, Kochi, Allahabad,
etc.[6–10].
The MSW to energy market in India is expected to grow at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.7% by 2013, according
to a report by market analysts Frost and Sullivan [11]. Hence there
is a need to assess the appropriateness of different technologies for
their use for Indian MSW. In this study, the energy generation po-
tential of MSW reaching to Delhi’s three landfills namely, Ghazipur
(GL), Bhalswa (BL) and Okhla (OL) under different technological op-
tions available for WTE generation has been assessed. The Delhi’s
landfills have been earlier estimated to emit 10.2 Gg of CH4 annu-
ally through field measurement studies [12] which could be signif-
icantly reduced by employing suitable WTE technologies.
2. Methodology
The energy generation potential of MSW reaching to Delhi’s
three landfills namely, Ghazipur (GL), Bhalswa (BL) and Okhla
(OL) has been assessed in this paper. The detailed characteristics
of three landfills have been given elsewhere [12]. The data related
to MSW quantity reaching to these three landfills has been col-
lected from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) which was
corrected for drainage silt addition as it was not incorporated in
original records because of the different data management system
followed by MCD. For the assessment of energy potential, the total
MSW (i.e. bulk MSW) and segregated MSW (after removal of recy-
clable materials) have been considered.
2.1. Estimation of methane generation from Delhi’s landfills
The annual methane emission from Delhi’s three landfills has
been estimated using the USEPA LandGEM model. The LandGEM
(landfill Gas Emissions Model, Version 3.02, USEPA) is based on a
first-order decomposition rate equation for quantifying emissions
from the decomposition of landfilled waste. The model is based
on the Eq. (i) for estimating methane emissions. It also provides
estimation of CO2 emissions and total landfill gas emissions based
on default values from US landfills. However, field test data can
also be used in place of model defaults when available. This model
is useful where conventional type of landfill practice occur viz.
leachate circulation or any liquid addition, aerobic decomposition
practice etc. are not practiced. The value of methane generation po-
tential (L0) of MSW has been derived using the Eqs. (ii) and (iii) of
the IPCC 2006 methodology [13] based on site specific characteris-
tics for use in LandGEM model. In addition, the mass of degradable
organic carbon (DOC) values for the different types of waste have
been taken from IPCC 2006 [13].
 
X
n X
1
M i ktij
Q CH4 ¼ kL0 e ðiÞ
i¼1 j¼0:1
10
where QCH4 is the annual methane generation in the year of the cal-
culation (Gg/y), i is the 1-year time increment, j is the 0.1-year time
increment, n is the (year of the calculation)  (initial year of waste
acceptance), k is the methane generation constant (y1), L0 is the
potential methane generation capacity (m3/Mg), Mi is the mass of
waste accepted in the ith year (Mg), tij is the age of the jth section
of waste mass Mi accepted in the ith year (decimal years, e.g.,
3.2 years).
L0 ¼ DDOCm  F  16=12 ðiiÞ
X
DDOCm ¼ DOCi;j;k...  W i;j;k...  DOCf  MCF ðiiiÞ
i;j;k...
where L0 is the CH4 generation potential (Gg CH4), DDOCm is the
P
mass of decomposable i,j,k. . .DOCi,j,k. . . deposited (Gg), F is the frac-
tion of CH4 in generated landfill gas (volume fraction), 16/12 is the
molecular weight ratio CH4/C (ratio), DOCi,j,k. . . is the mass of
degradable organic carbon in waste types i,j,k. . . (Gg C/Gg waste),
Wi,j,k. . . is the fraction of waste types i,j,k. . . by waste category, DOCf
is the fraction of DOC that can decompose anaerobically (fraction),
MCF is the CH4 correction factor for aerobic decomposition in the
year of deposition (fraction).
2.2. MSW composition analysis
Compositional analysis was carried out on samples collected on
random basis on two different days in each of the three landfills of
Delhi during the period of November 2011–March 2012. During
each sampling event, total truckloads of MSW, reaching to the
landfill sites during 10 AM to 4 PM on that day was accounted.
All of the MSW during the sampling events were segregated into
different constituents like cloths, jute bags, types of polythene,
plastic materials, glass items, foam, other packaging materials,
cardboard, metals, and wooden materials, etc. which were then
weighted to get the fraction of the different constituents of
MSW. The monthly values of total waste dumped into each of
the three landfills have been obtained from MCD.
2.3. Calorific value estimations bulk and segregated MSW
The calorific values of MSW have been estimated using the
bomb calorimeter. The bulk and segregated MSW samples were
collected from the three landfills of Delhi on random basis. Twelve
samples each of both bulk and segregated MSW have been col-
lected and brought back to laboratory. These samples were sun
dried and grinded using a soil pulveriser. The powdered samples
were converted in to pellets and subjected to bomb calorimeter
studies. The calorific values were determined by the following
equation:
CVs ¼ W  t  ðCVt  CVw Þ=M ðivÞ
where W is the water equivalent (2711.6 in benzoic acid), T is the
rise of temperature, CVt is the calorific value of thread, CVw is the
calorific value of wire, M is the mass of the sample.
2.4. Heat to energy generation potential calculation by thermo-
chemical conversion of solid phase of MSW
The thermal de-composition of organic matter to produce heat
energy is useful for MSW containing high percentage of organic
non-biodegradable matter and low moisture content. An assess-
ment of the potential of recovered energy from MSW through dif-
ferent treatment methods can be made from knowledge of its
calorific value and organic fraction. The energy recovery potential
and power generation potential can be calculated using the follow-
ing Eqs. (v) and (vi) while the net power generation potential can
be calculated by the Eq. (vii). The conversion efficiency in these cal-
culations has been taken as 25%.
Energy recovery potentialðkW hÞ ¼ NCV  W  1000 ðvÞ
Power generation potentialðkWÞ ¼ 41:67  NCV  W ðviÞ
Conversion efficiency ¼ 25%
 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255
Net power generation potentialðkWÞ ¼ 10:42  NCV  W
where NCV is the Net Calorific Value, (kW/kg) and W is the dry
quantity of the MSW (ton).
2.5. Heat to energy generation potential calculation by bio-chemical
conversion for gas phase
The bio-chemical conversion processes, on the other hand, are
preferred for waste having high percentage of organic bio-degrad-
able matter and high level of moisture, which helps in microbial
activity. The typical conversion efficiency has been taken as 30%
and the net power generation potential of gas phase was calculated
using the Eq. (viii). The value of total LFG generation for use in this
calculation has been obtained from LandGEM model.
Energy recovery potential ðkW hÞ ¼ B  NCV=0:042
Typical conversion efficiency ¼ 30%
Net power generation potentialðkWÞ
¼ ðB  NCV  0:3Þ=ð0:042  24Þ
where B is the total LFG generation, Net Calorific Value (NCV) of LFG
is in the range of 0.194  0.242 kW/m3.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. MSW composition analysis
It has been found that about 4000–5000 TPD of MSW reached to
the Delhi’s landfills in the year 2011–2012, though it has been re-
ported that Delhi produces about 11,000 TPD of MSW [6], which
means more than 50% of waste undergoes recycling processes from
the storage bins before reaching to landfills. The major portion of
the MSW reaching to landfills, i.e. about 47–67% consists of readily
decomposable waste. The cloths and jute bags amount to 7–29%,
10–27%, 10–23% in the bulk waste reaching to GL, BL and OL
respectively. The plastic materials were found to be 1–3%, 0.9–
2.5% and 1.1–5.7% in the bulk waste reaching to GL, BL and OL
respectively. Rubber items were found to be 0.4–1.5%, 0.3–1.4%,
1.7–4% in the bulk waste reaching to GL, BL and OL respectively.
Whereas, the cardboard and wood contributed 0.04–0.8% in the
waste deposited into three landfills. The other items like metals,
glass, foam, disposable plates, packaging items were found to be
about 1% in the total waste. The garden and street sweepings waste
were found to be 4–12%, 4–8% and 11–23% in the GL, BL and OL
waste respectively. Other inert materials like cemented slab, con-
crete, brick part, soil, etc. were found to be 4–10%. Fig. 1 shows
the percentage share of different kinds of waste in MSW reaching
to Delhi’s landfills.
3.2. Methane generation from Delhi’s landfills
For the estimation of CH4 generation potential from Delhi’s
landfills, the user specified inputs values have been used in Land-
GEM model. The default DOC values for the different types of waste
materials have been used [13] on the wet waste basis while DOCf
value is taken as 0.77 based on expert judgement. Using the ana-
lyzed composition of MSW, methane generation potentials (L0)
for the bulk waste have been calculated as 79, 77 and 82 m3/t of
waste for GL, BL and OL respectively. Whereas, L0 of the segregated
waste have been calculated as 47, 48 and 51 for GL, BL and OL
respectively. The value of methane generation constant (k) has
been used as 0.09 per year on the basis of tropical type of climate
from the range of values given in the IPCC 2006 methodology. The
251
ðviiÞ
Fig. 1. Percent wise composition of MSW in Delhi’s landfills.
percent volumes (F) of CH4 and CO2 in LFGs are considered to be
ðviiiÞ 50% each and the MCF value was taken as 0.4. Due to the fact that
these landfills are now running almost to their capacities, the clo-
sure period for GL and BL have been assumed as 2014 while for OL,
it has been assumed as 2018 in the model calculations. Two situa-
tions have been hypothesized for estimation of methane genera-
tion in Delhi’s landfills. In the first situation, it is assumed that
all the waste (i.e. bulk MSW) has been dumped into the landfills
without any segregation and hence total organic carbon contrib-
utes in the emission of LFGs from landfills. However, in second sit-
uation (i.e. for segregated MSW), the process of segregation takes
place before the dumping of MSW into the landfills under which
the total recyclable organic waste like cotton, cloths, cardboard,
paper, etc. are removed. This is the normal practice being followed
in Indian conditions. For the first situation (i.e. for dumping of bulk
waste into the landfills), the model output shows the GL with a to-
tal LFG emissions of 123 Gg containing CH4 and CO2 as 33 and
90 Gg in 2014 respectively. Total LFG emissions from the BL have
been estimated as 101 Gg containing 27 and 74 Gg CH4 and CO2
respectively in 2014. OL shows the lowest LFG emissions of
86 Gg with 23 Gg CH4 and 63 Gg CO2 (Fig. 2).
For the second situation when, only readily compostable and
street sweeping waste remained in the MSW, the CH4 generation
is reduced by 40–65%. Accordingly, for dumping of the segregated
waste into Delhi’s three landfills, GL shows total LFG, CH4 and CO2
emissions as 52, 14 and 38 Gg in 2014 respectively. Whereas, BL
shows 45, 12 and 33 Gg in 2014 as total LFG, CH4 and CO2 emis-
sions respectively. OL shows 30, 8 and 22 Gg in 2018 as total
LFG, CH4 and CO2 emissions respectively (Fig. 2).
3.3. Assessment of energy generation potentials of MSW in Delhi’s
landfills
The generated CH4 from MSW can be converted into energy
using the technologies like thermal and biochemical processes.
The thermal process consists of incineration, pyrolysis, gasification,
RDF and plasma arc gasification technologies. The biochemical pro-
cesses consist of biomethanation, composting and vermicompo-
sting. A comparison of these technologies in respect of land
requirements, technological efficiencies, capital cost, operating
cost of the plants, types of waste to sustain plants, etc. based on
the literature is given in Table 1 which shows that though bio-
methanation technology requires less area than the other technol-
ogies during installation but in long run, it requires huge land area.
Installation cost of plasma arc gasification technology is quite high
than the other technologies but net energy production is highest
252 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255

Fig. 2. Landfill gas generation estimation for bulk MSW (A–C) and segregated MSW (D–F) deposition in GL, BL and OL.

Table 1
Inter comparison of WTE technologies.

Technologies Land Capital Cost of power Type of waste acceptance Net energy Power Operating
requirement cost Rs. generation (Rs./ production (kW h/ generation cost (Rs./t of
(Ha)/2000 TPD Crore kW h) 100 t MSW) capacity (MW) waste)
Biomethanation 6c 180–200e 4.9g Source separated waste only – 30–40c <550h
Incineration 6–16c 130–140e 2.8 All waste since air cleaning technology 544a 20–30c >5460b
is good
Pyrolysis/ 6–16j 440–500e – Source separated dry waste only 571a 30–45c >3000d
gasification unless combined with better cleaning
technology
RDF 16–20f 110–120i – Inert segregated waste only – 60–70c <500f
Plasma arc 14c 600–700c 4.1 All type of waste is acceptable, even 816a 80–90c 750k
gasification non biomass solid waste also l
a
[4].
b
[19].
c
[24].
d
[31].
e
[32].
f
[33].
g
[39].
h
[40].
i
[41].
j
[42].
k
[43].
l
[45].

by this technology, whereas installation cost of RDF plant requires
minimal cost. All technologies require source separated waste ex-
cept plasma arc gasification which can accept all types of waste
including non biomass solid waste also. Operational cost is mini-
mal in RDF technology followed by plasma arc gasification, bio-
methanation, pyrolysis/gasification and incineration. The
comparisons of energy generation potentials of MSW in Delhi’s
three landfills using different technologies are discussed below:
3.3.1. Biomethanation
The LFG generation has been estimated using the LandGEM
model as 0.099, 0.081 and 0.051 Mm3/day from GL, BL and OL
respectively for segregated MSW, which otherwise would be
0.24, 0.2 and 0.15 Mm3/day from GL, BL and OL respectively for
bulk MSW. The corresponding energy generation potential for bio-
methanation process has been estimated for the segregated waste
to be 3–4, 3–4 and 2–3 MW/day and for the bulk waste to be 7–10,
 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255
6–8, 5–8 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively assuming calo-
rific value of LFG as 0.194–0.242 kW/m3 and gas phase to energy
generation efficiency as 30%. Thus it is found that energy genera-
tion potential for biomethanation process ranges from 3 to 10, 3
to 8, 2 to 8 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively with lower
values indicating the energy generation potential for segregated
waste and higher values for bulk waste.
Biomethanation has advantage due to low capital and operating
costs compared to other methods. But the main problem with this
method is of space, as it requires the covering of waste for develop-
ing anaerobic conditions and that cover cannot be opened for next
few years thereby making that space unavailable for further dump-
ing of MSW.
The average density of the fresh MSW has been found to be
366 ± 115 kg/m3 which increases to 720 ± 128 kg/m3 on compac-
tion, after exclusion of bulk materials. This means that total space
required would be 2000–3000 m2/d (where height of deposition is
taken as 1 m) for dumping of 1500–2000 TPD which is the average
dumping rate of MSW in Delhi’s three landfills. That means almost
6 Ha and 110 Ha areas are required for the dumping of MSW for
20 days and one year respectively. As the CH4 emission starts after
20 days of anaerobic decomposition [14], the MSW is required to
be covered 20 days before by the polythene sheet to create anaer-
obic condition for LFG generation and that cover cannot be opened
for at least next 4–7 years to get optimum energy generation po-
tential as the half-life of waste is 2–3.5 years in tropical climate
[15,16]. After 4–7 years, the methanation process becomes unvia-
ble due to low carbon content in the remaining waste. Therefore,
huge space is required to run biomethanation plants for treatment
of city’s daily MSW generation.
3.3.2. Incineration
This process can reduce the waste volume up to 90% [17] and
the capital cost of this process is lower than the cost of biometha-
nation process. In order to estimate energy potential of incinera-
tion process in Delhi’s MSW, calorific values of Delhi’s MSW
samples have been derived using bomb calorimeter. The calorific
values have been found to be 0.058–0.078 kW/kg for segregated
waste containing mixture of kitchen waste, litter with small
branch of shrubs, etc. and 0.092–0.126 kW/kg for the bulk waste
(excluding plastic, rubber, wooden materials and packing and
other inert materials). The calorific values obtained for Delhi’s
MSW are lower than the reported value of 2747 kCal/kg (i.e.
0.133 kW/kg) by Qudais and Qdais [18]. The moisture contents
have been found to be 2–5% in both the segregated and bulk waste.
Using these calorific values, the energy generation potentials of
MSW reaching to landfills in Delhi have been found to be 8–12,
7–11, 7–11 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively for segre-
gated waste and 18–24, 16–22, 14–19 MW/day from GL, BL and
OL respectively for bulk waste. Thus it is found that the WTE gen-
eration potentials for incineration process range from 8 to 24, 7 to
22, 7 to 19 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively.
The main disadvantages of this technology is the high recurring
cost of the tune of Rs. 5460/ton of waste processing in which 80% of
this cost is spent on fuel to burn the waste [19]. To sustain this
technology, the minimum 0.07 kW/kg calorific value of MSW is re-
quired which is difficult to get due to presence of high moisture
contents. Other major issues associated with this technology are
the emissions of gases like polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), hydro-
gen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, mercuric chloride, dioxins and fur-
ans (PCDD/F) which are extremely toxic and are considered to be
carcinogens which are harmful to human health [20].
3.3.3. Pyrolysis/gasification
It is anaerobic heating process which yields the by-products in
the form of solid (coke), liquid (tar and oil) and combustible gas.
253
Coke can be used as domestic fuel, while tar oil can substitute
the furnace oil and combustible gas can be used for steam genera-
tion. This method can significantly reduce the volume of MSW to
the tune of 50–90% [21]. In a typical mass balance approach, one
ton of waste yields 400 kg gas having a calorific value (CV) of about
12 MJ/kg (i.e. 0.139 kW/kg) and 240 kg coke of about 16 MJ/kg CV
(corresponding to 0.185 kW/kg). Although, 51 kg of metals, 61 kg
of inert, 10 kg of salts (mainly CaCl2 and NaCl), 20 kg of ash resi-
dues [22], 17–20 kg of hydrochloric acid, 6–9 kg of gypsum as well
as 140 kg of slag are also additionally recovered [23]. The net en-
ergy generation capacity of this technology is between 20 and
26 kW/t of MSW [24,25]. Using these values, the energy generation
potential from GL, BL and OL have been estimated to be in the
range of 17–21, 16–19, 11–13 from the segregated waste and
23–32, 20–29 and 18–25 MW/d from the bulk waste respectively,
assuming the moisture content as 20% as required for the pyrolysis
process. Thus, it is found that the WTE generation potentials for
pyrolysis/gasification process range from 17 to 32, 16 to 29, 11
to 25 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively.
The main disadvantage of this technology is the need for a
cleanup system for the control of corrosive gas phase compounds
such as tar, alkali metals and acidic gas (viz. HCl) [26–28]. The me-
tal tubes of the steam cycle boiler are prone to corrosion at high
temperature which results in a low electrical efficiency for the
plant [29]. Though the indirect gasification reduces the cost of en-
ergy recovery and gas cleanup systems but that is a complex pro-
cess which increases the investment costs [30] as well as
maintenance cost [31]. The commercial viability of a typical 1000
TPD waste-to-energy plant using this technology showed that
the capital cost of gasification plant is higher than biomethanation
(Rs. 2200 million vs. Rs. 900 million) while the value of net revenue
earning (i.e. Rs. 1510 million) would be similar for both the tech-
nologies [32].
3.3.4. Refused derived fuel (RDF)
This is one of WTE process where installation costs as well as
maintenance costs are lowest among all the available methods.
Other benefits associated with this technology are the higher heat-
ing value (0.145–0.194 kW/kg) which also remains fairly constant
in the presence of 3–8% moisture content [33], the homogeneity
of physico-chemical composition, the ease of storage, handling,
and transportation, the lower pollutant emissions and a reduced
excess air requirement during combustion [34–36]. The high calo-
rific value of RDF is due to its higher density (700 kg/m3) com-
pared to the other forms of waste. It has been estimated that
160–180 ton of garbage are required to produce 40 ton of pellets
[33]. The use of this technology is estimated to generate electricity
from the segregated waste in the range of 9–15, 8–13 and 6–
12 MW/day and 12–19, 11–18 and 8–15 MW/day from the bulk
waste from GL, BL and OL respectively. Thus it is found that the
WTE generation potentials for RDF process range from 9 to 19, 8
to 18, 6 to 15 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively.
3.3.5. Plasma arc gasification
Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter containing a
significant number of electrically charged particles. This is the core
of a process system where waste materials are gasified via pyroly-
sis inside a special refractory lined reactor. A plasma arc torch in-
creases the temperatures in the reactor gasification vessel to as
high as 3300–6000 °C and even as high as 15,000 °C [37,38]. The
two process viz. gasification by means of partial combustion with
oxygen [C6H10O4 + 3O2 = 3CO + 3CO2 + 4H2 + H2O + 54 kW (assum-
ing zero reactor heat loss)] and gas turbine combustion with suffi-
cient oxygen [3CO + 4H2 + 3.5O2 = 3CO2 + 4H2O + 62.5 kW
(assuming no turbine heat loss)] produce high energy from per unit
quantity of MSW. Though the average efficiency of this technology
254 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255
has been reported as 42% by Janajreh et al. [44], in the present esti-
mation, an average efficiency of 25% has been assumed. This tech-
nology is estimated to generate electricity from segregated waste
in the range of 17–23, 16–21 and 11–14 MW/day and 24–35, 22–
32, 19–28 MW/day from the bulk waste from GL, BL and OL respec-
tively (assuming utilization of completely dry MSW). Thus it is
found that the WTE generation potentials for plasma arc gasifica-
tion process range from 17 to 35, 26 to 32, 11 to 28 MW/day from
GL, BL and OL, respectively.
4. Conclusion
The MSW are the important source of methane which could be
harnessed as a potential energy source that would also contribute
to the climate change mitigation efforts. Delhi has three landfills
which have been estimated using LandGEM model to emit 14, 12
and 8 Gg CH4 from GL, BL and OL respectively from the dumping
of segregated MSW, which could have been 33, 27, 23 Gg CH4 from
GL, BL and OL respectively for the deposition of bulk waste in these
landfills. The calorific values have been found to be 0.058–
0.078 kW/kg for segregated MSW and 0.092–0.126 kW/kg for the
bulk waste (MSW) being deposited in Delhi’s landfills.
The MSW deposited in Delhi’s landfills have been subjected to
composition analysis which revealed that its major constituent is
readily decomposable material, followed by recyclable material
and moderately decomposable material. It has also been found that
almost 50% of the recyclables were being removed prior to the
MSW reached to the landfills. To assess the energy generation po-
tential from the MSW reaching to Delhi’s three landfills, two situ-
ations have been hypothesized; (i) bulk MSW waste is subjected to
five available technologies namely biomethanation, incineration,
gasification/pyrolysis, refused derived fuel (RDF) and plasma arc
gasification and (ii) the segregated waste reaching to the landfill
sites is subjected to above mentioned five technologies for waste
to energy recovery.
The result shows that different technologies for harnessing the
energy from the MSW have different potentials. It has also been
found that the segregation process reduces the energy production
potential by 40–60% compared to bulk MSW. The plasma arc gasi-
fication technology shows the highest potential for energy genera-
tion in the ranges of 17–35, 16–32 and 11–28 MW/day from GL, BL
and OL respectively as compared to the other technologies like gas-
ification/pyrolysis technology (17–32, 16–29 and 11–25 MW/day
from GL, BL and OL respectively), incineration process (17–32,
16–29 and 11–25 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respectively), RDF
process (9–19, 8–18 and 6–15 MW/day from GL, BL and OL respec-
tively), biomethanation process (3–10, 3–8, 2–8 MW/day from GL,
BL and OL respectively). Thus, the plasma arc gasification seems to
have highest energy generation potential but a number of other
factors like installation cost, handling of by-products, environmen-
tal regulations, etc. are required to be considered for identifying
the most viable technology for WTE. The values derived in this pa-
per are based on theoretical ideals which provide indicative poten-
tial values that may differ from actual field measurement values
due to the number of factors which influence the methane gener-
ation process.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Dr. T.K. Mandal, Mr. Rhotash S. Garwal,
Mrs. Sulakshina Bhat, Ms. Richa Singh, and Mr. Neelesh Kumar Lod-
hi, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Bimlesh Kumar for their kind help in
the study. Authors are also thankful to Mr. Toufel Ahemed (SLF-
Er.), Mr. Haider and Mr. Ravinder of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(MCD) for their cooperation. Authors acknowledge the encourage-
ment provided by Dr. M.V.S.N. Prasad, Head-RASD and Prof. R.C.
Budhani, Director, CSIR-NPL. Monojit Chakraborty is also thankful
to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for providing
research fellowship.
References
[1] Bhatnagar D, Basak PR. Electricity from municipal solid waste (MSW) – the first
of its kind in the country; 2004. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://
www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/O105UF1325.pdf>.
[2] Kameswari KSB, Velmurugan B, Thirumaran K, Ramanujam RA.
Biomethanation of vegetable market waste – untapped carbon trading
opportunities; 2007. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/IntlConf/
Data/ICSSWM%20web/FullPaper/Session%20VI-B/
6_BA10%20_Balakameswari_.pdf>.
[3] Manual on municipal solid waste management, Central Public Health and
Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO), Ministry of Urban
Development, New Delhi; 2000.
[4] Saini S, Rao P, Patil Y. City based analysis of MSW to energy generation in India,
calculation of state-wise potential and tariff comparison with EU. Procedia Soc
Behav Sci 2012;37:407–16.
[5] NSTEDB (National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development
Board), Energy Recovery from Wastes; 2008. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://
www.techno-preneur.net/technology/new-technologies/energy/
pyrolysis.html>.
[6] Annepu RK. Sustainable solid waste management in India [dissertation]. Earth
Resources Engineering Department: Columbia University; 2008.
[7] Mazumdar NB. MSW to energy in India: the scenario and expectations; 2008.
[Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www.setatwork.eu/events/slides/india/
nbmazumdar_fp6.pdf>.
[8] NREDCAP (New & Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra
Pradesh Ltd.), Municipal Waste Power Projects. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://
nedcap.gov.in/Municipal_Waste_Power_Projects.aspx>.
[9] TEDA (Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency), Bioenergy. [Cited 01.03.13].
<http://www.teda.in>.
[10] Kumar S, Bhattacharyya JK, Vaidya AN, Chakrabarti T, Devotta S, Akolkar AB.
Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities,
state capitals, class I cities, and class II towns in India: an insight. Waste
Manage 2009;29:883–95.
[11] Indian Waste to Energy Market Set for Stella Growth; 2011. [Cited 01.03.13].
<http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2011/04/indian-waste-
to-energy-market-set-for-stella-growth.html>.
[12] Chakraborty M, Sharma C, Pandey J, Singh N, Gupta PK. Methane emission
estimation from landfills in Delhi: a comparative assessment of different
methodologies. Atmos Environ 2011;45:7135–42.
[13] IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; 2006. [Cited
10.12.12]. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html>.
[14] Griffin ME, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L. Methanogenic population
dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid
waste and biosolids. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998;57:342–55.
[15] Wangyao K, Towprayoon S, Chiemchaisri C, Gheewala SH, Nopharatana A.
Application of the IPCC waste model to solid waste disposal sites in tropical
countries: case study of Thailand. Environ Monit Assess 2009;164:249–61.
[16] Machado SL, Carvalho MF, Gourc JP, Orencio MV, Nascimento JCFD. Methane
generation in tropical landfills: simplified methods and field results. Waste
Manage 2009;29:153–61.
[17] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3816–24.
[18] Qudais MA, Qdais HAA. Energy content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and
its potential utilization. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41(9):983–91.
[19] MGBEPS (Malaysian Green and Blue Environment Protection Society), MSW
Manual; 2012. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://greenbluegroup.blogspot.in/2012/04/
incinerator-for-municipal-solid-waste.html>.
[20] Karagiannidis A, Bilitewski B, Tchobanoglous G, Themelis NJ, Wittmaier M,
Tsatsarelis T. Waste to energy: on thermal treatment & energetic utilization of
solid wastes. In: Golish TV, editor. Waste management research trends. New
York: Nova Science Publisher; 2008. p. 105–63.
[21] Roy GK. Municipal solid waste recycle – an economic proposition for a
developing nation. Indian J Environ Prot 1988;8(1):51–4.
[22] Malkow T. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for
energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Manage
2004;24:53–79.
[23] Baumgärtel G. The Siemens thermal waste recycling process—a modern
technology for converting waste into usable products. J Anal Appl Pyrol
1993;27(1):15–23.
[24] Banwari L, Reddy MRVP. Wealth from waste, The Energy & Resources Institute;
2011.
[25] Alexander K, Nickolas JT. Energy recovery from municipal solid wastes by
gasification; 2003. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/
wtert/sofos/NAWTEC-gasification-klein.pdf>.
[26] Quaak P, Knoef H, Stassen H. Energy from biomass: a review of combustion
and gasification technologies, World Bank technical paper no. 422; 1999.
[Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/
 M. Chakraborty et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 249–255
WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/07/08/000094946_99033105581764/
Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf>.
[27] Bridgwater AV. Catalysis in thermal biomass conversion. Appl Catal A
1994;116:5–47.
[28] Larson ED. Biomass-gasifier/gas turbine cogeneration in the pulp and paper
industry. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 1992;114:665–74.
[29] Belgiorno V, Feo GD, Rocca CD, Napoli RMA. Energy from gasification of solid
wastes. Waste Manage 2003;23:1–15.
[30] Hauserman WB, Giordano N, Lagana M, Recupero V. Biomass gasifiers for fuel
cells systems. La Chimica L Industria 1997;2:199–206.
[31] Feasibility study of thermal treatment options for waste in the limerick/clare/
kerry region; 2005. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www.managewaste.ie/docs/
WMPNov2005/FeasabilityStudy/LCK%20Thermal%20Feasibility%20Report-
Ful%20(web).pdf>.
[32] National Master Plan for Development of Waste-to-Energy in India, Technical
Memorandum on Waste-to-Energy Technologies; 2006. [Cited 01.03.13].
<http://ebookbrowse.com/national-master-plan-technical-memorandum-on-
study-of-government-infrastructure-pdf-d348576610>.
[33] Sikka P. Energy from MSW RDF Pelletization a Pilot Indian Plant; 2000. [Cited
01.03.13]. <http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/energy-from-
msw-rdf-pelletization-a-pilot-indian-plant-2080/view-comments>.
[34] Chang YH, Chen WC, Chang NB. Comparative evaluation of RDF and MSW
Incineration. J Hazard Mater 1998;58:33–45.
[35] Saxena SC, Rao NS. Fluidized-bed incineration of refused-derived fuel pellets.
Energy Fuels 1993;7(2):273–8.
[36] Gupta AK, Rohrbach EM. Refuse derived fuels: technology, processing, quality
and combustion experiences, FACT-refused derived fuel (RDF): quality,
standard and processing. ASME 1991;13:49–58.
[37] Zhang L, Charles C, Champagne P. Overview of recent advances in thermo-
chemical conversion of biomass. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:969–82.
255
[38] Makled AH, Grotke EJ. Plasma arc gasification for solid waste disposal; 2008.
[Cited 01.03.13]. doi: 10.1115/NAWTEC16-1901.
[39] MERC Order (Case 65 of 2009), MERC Order for SBSPL for Determination of
Tariff for the Power generated from Municipal Solid Waste; 2010. [Cited
01.03.13]. <http://mercindia.org.in/pdf/Order%2058%2042/
Order_65_of_2009_Sept_9_2010.pdf>.
[40] Khandelwal KC, Gupta V, Dhussa AK. Techno-economic feasibility of municipal
solid waste based biomethanation and landfill gas power projects; 2010.
[Cited 01.03.13]. <http://web.iitd.ac.in/~vkvijay/Techno-
economic%20feasibility%
20of%20municipal%20solid%20waste%20based%20biomethanation%20 and
%20l andfill%20gas%20power%20projects_Dr.%20K%20C%20Khandelwal,
%20Jaipur.pdf>.
[41] Ramakrishna GV. Electricity generation from municipal solid waste – CDM
perspective. [Cited 01.03.13]. <http://www.epco.in/pdf/
Electricity_Generation_from.pdf>.
[42] Last S. An introduction to waste technologies, the processes used to recycle,
treat and divert municipal solid waste away from landfills; 2012. <http://
www.ebooks.waste-technologies.co.uk/>.
[43] Bhasin KC. Plasma arc gasification for waste management, Electronics For You,
vol. 41, no. 2; 2009. p. 123–30. <http://www.electronicsforu.com/EFYLinux/
efyhome/cover/February2009/Plasma-Arc-2.pdf>.
[44] Janajreh I, Raza SS, Valmundsson AS. Plasma gasification process: modeling,
simulation and comparison with conventional air gasification. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;65:801–9.
[45] Mountouris A, Voutsas E, Tassios D. Solid waste plasma gasification:
equilibrium model development and exergy analysis. Energy Convers
Manage 2006;47:1723–37.