Environ. Eng. Res.

2024; 29(1): 230166 pISSN 1226-1025

https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2023.166 eISSN 2005-968X

Research

Utilization of methane from municipal solid waste landfills

Abiy Tadesse1, , Jechan Lee2,
1
National Research Development and Nuclear Reactor Research, Ministry of Innovation and Technology, Arada Sub-city, Churchel Road, 2490, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
2
Department of Global Smart City & School of Civil, Architectural Engineering, and Landscape Architecture, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066
Seobu-ro, Suwon, 16419, Republic of Korea

Received March 24, 2023 Revised May 17, 2023 Accepted May 17, 2023

ABSTRACT
Here, we analyzed the utilization efficiency of methane (CH4) gas from landfill sites associated with its power generation potential in different
systems; in addition, we analyzed the reduction in the amount of CH4 emitted from landfills of untreated waste, proposed an effective method
for site selection, and investigated the environmental issues caused by landfilling solid waste. Furthermore, we evaluated the geographical and
chemical characteristics, iteration variables of landfill operations, application of CH4, efficiencies of energy-converting systems, and reduction
in the CO2 emissions from other energy sources, with the landfill gas (LFG) being considered as the fuel. For efficient and quality extraction
of CH4 from LFG, we investigated the ideal landfill conditions (e.g., construction, geometry, weather, temperature, moisture, pH, and biodegradable
matter) and hydrogeological parameters that influence the generation of LFG and landfill leachate. The first order decay equation was used
to predict the CH4 generation from a single bulk municipal solid waste stream for various characteristic interims of geography and CH4 generation
capacity and potential. More CH4 is generated in the conventional clean air act condition than wet and arid conditions. Based on the analysis,
we suggest efficient and economical power generation systems for using the CH4 emissions from landfills.

Keywords: Energy converting efficiency, Landfill technology, Methane (CH4) gas, Municipal solid waste

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which per-
mits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © 2024 Korean Society of Environmental Engineers
†
Corresponding author
E-mail: abiy0120@yahoo.com (A.T.), jechanlee@skku.edu (J.L.)
Tel: +251920719936 (A.T.), +82-31-290-7512 (J.L.)
ORCID: 0000-0002-8568-7520 (A.T.), 0000-0002-9759-361X (J.L)

1
Abiy Tadesse and Jechan Lee
Graphical Abstract
1. Introduction
In most countries, rapid economic growth and urbanization cause
shortage of energy and infrastructure and limit the available land
and applicable methods for managing solid waste. In several devel-
oping countries, the increasing rate of urbanization has resulted
in issues related to energy shortage and municipal solid waste
(MSW) management [1]. Landfilling is one of the most convenient
MSW management method that is widely used in both developed
and developing countries [2]. Landfill gas (LFG) is a byproduct
of landfilling MSW, naturally produced through the decomposition
of organic matter in landfills [3]. As indicated in previous studies,
LFG has been used as a renewable energy source for local power
generation (via grid-connected energy systems) [4]. There are more
than 1000 LFG plants worldwide, with the majority of them being
in Europe and the United States of America (USA). At present,
South Africa has four LFG plants, and the demand for LFG technol-
ogy is increasing [5]. The Global Methane Initiative (GMI) offers
technical assistance for the deployment of energy projects that
use methane (CH4) gas worldwide, enabling partner nations develop
and implement programs for the recovery and utilization of CH4
[6].
In this study, we examined the global perspective of LFG con-
sumption and provide an overview of the CH4 generation and
utilization technologies. We focused on the potential for LFG to
produce energy and the possible social and economic effects of
using CH4. In addition, we analyzed the geographical and economic
growth implications on the characteristics and techno-economic
feasibility of LFG generation projects.
2
2. Global Scenario of Landfill Technology for
Waste Management and Energy Recovery
In accordance with a World Bank report, globally the average
daily waste generation reached 0.74 kg per capita [7]. Economic
development, in terms of the entity variables that have proportion-
ally increased historically, has increased the global waste gen-
eration, with 2.01 billion tons of MSW being annually generated
globally in 2018. Based on a projection (business as usual), this
number is expected to increase to 3.4 billion tons MSW by 2050
[7].
As shown in Fig. 1, the average global landfill content consists
of 37% of disposed waste, 33% dumped untreated waste, 19%
of waste hat undergoes compositing and recycling, and 11% that
undergoes partial thermal recovery, through modern mass burn
incinerators. Upper-middle income countries carry out waste treat-
ment and disposal in controlled landfill facilities. However, in
countries that have low incomes, 93% of the waste is disposed
via open dumping; while, in high-income countries, 2% of the
waste is disposed via open dumping [7].
The World Bank data indicates that the global picture of LFG
technology mostly spread after the industrial revolution.
Approximately 45% of the total waste generated in the European
Union (EU) is disposed in the landfill site. In China, landfilling
is the most actively chosen technology, and approximately 89%
of the country’s total solid waste is landfilled [8]. In England,
361 LFG utilization facilities were operational in 2015, over double
the number of facilities that operated in 2001. In 2015, these plants
produced 4106.4 GWh, using LFG technology. The LFG utilization
technology continued to advance, primarily in wealthy countries.

Fig. 1. Waste disposal method for countries of different income levels (data source: [7])
However, the introduction of the Clean Development Mechanism
programs stimulated the development of LFG utilization technology
in underdeveloped countries as well [9]. In South Korea, the waste
sector contributes to 37.6% of the total CH4 emissions. In 2001,
approximately 465,000 tons of the total annual CH4 emissions
were from the waste sector [10].
Open dump, partially controlled, and sanitary landfills are the
most common types of landfills [11]. An open dump landfill is
a piece of land where MSW is dumped in the open, with the
area having access to fresh air. Most developing nations have
open dump landfills where the MSW is carelessly thrown into
low-lying open regions. Based on the type of wastes, the locations
of landfills and treatment facilities were discussed in detail in
previous studies (e.g., toxic chemicals, biohazards, household,
biomedical, and radioactive wastes, as well as construction, demoli-
tion, and renovation wastes) [12]. Notably, the essential parts of
a landfill include its foundation, bottom liner, and barrier cover,
collection systems for LFG and landfill leachate, gas flaring station,
and soil layers on the top of the landfill area, which provide minerals
and organic chemicals that can improve CH4 quality and quantity.
In general, LFG is removed from MSW dumps, using a blow-
er/flare system and several wells [5, 13]. Depending on the gas’s
intended use, this system routes the gathered gas to a central
location, where it can be processed. The gas can be vented at
this point or utilized advantageously in various LFG energy projects.
Numerous industrialized nations, including England, China,
Uruguay, Mexico, and the USA, harvest the gases produced from
landfills [3]. According to the Landfill Methane Outreach Program
(LMOP) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA), the CH4 generation potential (L0) denotes the CH4 (m3)
available for the site-specific variables per ton of waste. The compo-
sition of the waste, and to some extent, that of the organic matter
fraction of the waste are the determining factors of the CH4 gen-
eration rate (k). Notably, the L0 value can be determined based
on the carbon content of the waste, stoichiometric conversion
factor, and biodegradable carbon fraction. The typical values for
L0 range from 125 m3/t to 310 m3/t. The US EPA uses a default
L0 value of 170 m3/t. According to an analysis carried out in a
previous study [14], the production of LFG begins a few months
after the MSW is disposed and typically lasts for 10 years or longer,
depending on the composition of the waste and the amount and
distribution of moisture in the MSW. In several nations, full-size
3
Environmental Engineering Research 29(1) 230166
sanitary landfills yearly produce LFG between 5 L/kg and 40 L/kg.
The MSW generated in major Indian cities is rich in organic matter
and has the potential to produce 15–25 L/kg of gas annually, during
the course of its life (most LFG projects operate up to 30 years)
[13]. The gas collected from smaller landfills can be supplied
to nearby enterprises for direct use in internal combustion engines,
gas turbines, micro turbines, steam boilers, and other facilities.
Furthermore, the gas collected from large landfills can be ad-
vantageously used as a clean fuel for power generation [15].
The LFGcost-Web LFG Energy Cost Model [16] portrays the
overall economic analysis used to compare the costs of treatment
of waste (waste conversion) and the levelized cost of electricity,
or cost of fuel to determine the suitable layout configurations
for all ranges of LFG plants. The data on the capital, operational,
and maintenance costs were collected from literature survey and
estimated by considering the costs of existing technological facili-
ties in Ethiopia and through energy and mass balances as well.
3. LFG Production and Characteristics
In general, LFG is a naturally occurring gas that is produced from
the breakdown of organic matter in landfills. CO2, CH4 (the main
component of natural gas), and trace amounts of organic chemicals
make up the majority of LFG [17]. The CO2 contained in LFG
should be sequestrated [18], and landfill leachate needs to be
carefully treated [19]. The conversion of landfilled waste substances
into LFG occurs via waste decomposition and degradation. The
time duration and stage of CH4 generation amount generally have
many intrinsic and environmental determinant variables. Those
determinant variables are, temperature, moisture level, waste com-
position, and a variety of substrates for microbial degradation are
some of the variables that have an impact on this process. The
LFG synthesis process involves several chemical events, including
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, methanogenesis, and maturation [20, 21].
The overall LFG maturation cycle has five basic phases (shown
Fig. S1), as follows:
I. Aerobic decomposition: Aerobic decomposition involves
bacteria that digest garbage in the presence of oxygen. O2
is used to form CO2, as heat is created. The active duration
of the process can be anywhere between a few months
and a year, depending on the circumstances. Organic waste
Abiy Tadesse and Jechan Lee

Table 1. Characteristics of LFG components and their effect on the environment and human health (source: [22-24])
Component Volume (%) Characteristics Effects
• Methane is a gas that occurs naturally.
• It has no color or smell.
CH4 45–60 • Landfill fire primarily caused by global warming
• It is the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) and highly
combustible landfill gas (LFG) released from landfills
• Colorless, odorless, and mildly acidic gas
• It is present in the Earth’s atmosphere at a volumetric quantity • A significant contributor to ocean acidity and
CO2 40–60
of 0.04 (400 ppm). accelerates global warming
• It is a GHG.
• Approximately 80% of the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen • Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are harmful gases that
N2 2–5 (N). cause lung damage and respiratory issues and
• It doesn't have any color and is odorless. are a major contributor to smog and acid rain
• Iron rusts and landfill fire. Excessive oxygen
• Approximately 21% of the atmosphere is made up of oxygen.
O2 0.1–1 at partial pressure can cause serious health is-
• It doesn't have any color and is odorless.
sues
• Ammonia is a colorless gas that has a strong smell. • Coughing, skin irritation, eye irritation, and
NH3 0.1–1
• The gas is irritating and corrosive. nose, throat, and respiratory-tract burning
• NMOCs can form naturally or artificially through chemical
processes.
Non-meth- • Headaches, nausea, leukemia, and carcinogenic
• NMOCs typically found in landfills include acrylonitrile,
ane organic effects.
0.01–0.6 benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-cis trichloroethylene, di-
compounds • Several of the gases have a strong smell and
chloromethane, carbonyl sulfide, ethyl-benzene, hexane,
(NMOCs) are highly combustible
methyl ethyl ketone, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloro-
ethylene, vinyl chloride, and xylenes.
• Sulfides, which include hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide,
and mercaptans, are naturally occurring gases that are re-
• Breathing issues, poor memory, throat, eye, na-
Sulfides 0–1 sponsible for the “rotten-egg” odor of the LFG mixture.
sal irritation, and fatigue
• Even at very small amounts, sulfides can produce dis-
agreeable odor.
H2 0–0.2 • A tasteless, odorless, colorless, and highly-flammable gas • It is highly inflammable and explosive in nature
• Reduces the body’s ability to absorb oxygen,
which can lead to mortality.
CO 0–0.2 • A colorless and odorless gas • Can cause the production of smog, as well as
issues related to vision (eyesight) and motor
dexterity

is broken down into its lengthy molecular chains of complex
carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids by aerobic bacteria,
which can only exist in the presence of oxygen. CO2 is
the main byproduct of this process. Phase 1 continues until
there is no more oxygen left.
II. Acidogenic: Anaerobic conditions are established during
this stage, resulting in the formation of organic acids, CO2,
H2O, and hydrogen (H2). The anaerobic conditions cause
a low rate of energy release. The pH of the leachate can
go below 5, as a result of acid production. The anaerobic
bacteria transform substances produced by aerobic bacteria
into acetic, lactic, and formic acids, as well as alcohol prod-
ucts, such as methanol and ethanol, without the need for
oxygen. As the acids react with the moisture in the landfill
and nitrogen (N) is consumed, CO2 and H2 are formed.
III. Acetogenesis: At this stage, acids and alcohols are converted
to acetic acids, and CO2 and H2 are also formed. The acid
and leachate contents cause a noticeable rise in the chemical
oxygen demand (COD). The organic acids produced in phase
II are broken down by anaerobic bacteria into acetate, anoth-
er organic acid. By consuming the CO2 and acetate, this
process transforms the garbage into a more neutral environ-
ment, wherein the bacteria that produce CH4 can flourish.
IV. Methanogenesis: CH4 and CO2 are produced as byproducts
of the acetogenesis phase, and H2 is consumed. The available
substrates have an impact on the CH4 content. The pro-
duction rates and composition of LFG remain largely
consistent. Notably, LFG typically comprises of 50–55% CH4
by volume, 45–50% CO2, and 2–5% other gases, such as
sulfides. In phase IV, LFG is generated steadily for 20 years
(on average).
V. Maturation: At this phase, the gas production decreases
due to substrate depletion.
Table 1 provides an overview of each LFG component’s impact
on the environment and human health.

4

4. LFG Design, Operation, and Characteristic
Parameters
A blower/flare (or vacuum) system and a series of wells can be
used to recover the LFG from MSW dumps [13]. Depending on
the gas’s intended use, this system routes the gathered gas to
a central location, where it can be processed. From here, the gas
can either be flared or utilized profitably in an LFG energy pro-
duction plant. The production of LFG often begins a few months
after waste disposal and lasts for 10 years, or even longer, depending
on the composition and characteristics of the waste and the avail-
ability and dispersion of moisture. Full-size sanitary landfills typi-
cally produce LFG of 5–40 L/kg.
Several nations base their estimates of LFG emissions primarily
on the first-order decomposition of organic matter in MSW [25].
LandGEM, which is a spreadsheet tool [26], has been used to
determine the total amount of CH4, CO2, and other miscellaneous
organic compounds produced through landfill waste decomposition.
First order decay equation is the most useful equation for estimating
LFG generation [27]. To measure the emissions from the breakdown
of landfilled waste in MSW landfills, the scholars used a first-order
decomposition rate equation in the LandGEM model. The software
offers a comparatively straightforward method for calculating the
LFG emissions, as reported by various LFG initiatives around the
world.
Theoretically, the first order decay methodologies can be ex-
pressed as Eq. (1) [27]:
(1)
where waste accepted in the year (megagram, Mg), , landfill are considered to be the general determining factors of
annual methane generation (m3/year), i = 1 󰠚 year time increment,
n = (year of the calculation) 󰠚 (initial year of waste acceptance),
j = 1 󰠚 year time increment, k = methan generation rate per
year, Lo = potential methane generation capacity (m3/Mg), = calculated according to Eq. (3).
section waste, Mi, accepted in ithyear.
The input data for LandGEM spreadsheet [26] can be correlated
directly with the specific geographical conditions of the landfill
region. LandGEM assumes that methane production peaks quickly
after the first disposal of waste (after a brief delay while anaerobic
conditions are created in the landfill). The model also predicts
that when organic material decomposes, the rate of landfill methane
generation will drop exponentially (first-order decay).
The estimated CH4 content was 40–60%. The first-order decom-
position rate equation applied in the LandGEM model could be
used to calculate the emissions; however, the results may not
be accurate if the content was lower or higher than 40–60%. The
production of CO2 was highly determined or affected by the concen-
tration of CH4 generation.
Eq. (2) was used to determine the production of CO2 (QCO2)
from the production of CH4 (QCH4) and the proportion of CH4 in
the atmosphere (PCH4) [27]:
5
Environmental Engineering Research 29(1) 230166
(2)
where QTotal is the total production of LFG.
Compared to natural gas, LFG is cheaper and contains nearly
50% of the calorific value (16,78–20,495 kJ/m3) of natural gas (35,406
kJ/m3) [28]. Thus, if we extract large amounts of LFG, the electricity
production using turbine or internal combustion engines would
be safe and efficient. Furthermore, we can improve the LFG heating
value by decreasing the contents of O2, N2, and CO2 in the LFG
[29].
For LFG generation estimation, we employed the LandGEM
spreadsheet software. This model can estimate LFG accurately
and determine the amounts of CH4 and CO2 generation, with respect
to opening and closure year of the landfill site. According to the
LandGEM software specification, the generation rate of CH4 during
annual MSW disposal can be used to calculate or estimate the
annual amount of CH4. The CH4 generation rate, k, is a country
and site-specific value used to determine the CH4 generation poten-
tial of MSW on specific landfill area. Thus, a higher k value indicates
a high volume of CH4 per kg of MSW [30]. Note that the L0 and
k values are strongly dependent on the landfill type (Table S1).
The capacity of CH4 generation of the waste also depends on
the characteristics of the MSW (Table S2). Site specific parameters
(e.g., inert-decomposable and semi-decomposable) are generally
used to characterize the MSW and its potential for CH4 generation
[2]. Each waste body has its own value of CH4 generation potential.
Food and yard waste are considered decomposable.
The LFG rate-of-generation value has different variables, which
determine its level of potential. For example, decomposable MSW
have higher CH4 generation potential than inert and semi decom-
posable solid waste in the landfill. The waste stream, temperature,
annual precipitation (moisture), and pH value of the soil in the
the generation rate of LFG [2].
The required area for the landfill site and its depth, together
with the level of bed in the lower end layer of the surface, were
(3)
where Wcollected average is the average annual collected waste in the
year of calculation, and V is the weight of the waste after compaction,
with the typical value being 800 kg/m3.
The required thickness of the cover and mixture soil for the
desired biological decomposition was assumed to be 20% of the
desired average 20-m depth of the desired solid-waste landfill
site. As indicated by a previous study [31], the overall size of
the landfill site was estimated using the volume of the waste after
compaction, while considering 20% additional volume on the layer
and mixing soil, as shown in Eq. (4):
(4)
The area of the landfill site was estimated using the total landfill
volume and its depth was also calculated, using Eq. (5):
Abiy Tadesse and Jechan Lee
Fig. 2. Comparison of CH4 generation potential between Conditions I, II, and III
(5)
After carrying out the geometrical analysis of the desired landfill
site, we estimated the LandGEM model parameters, based on the
waste amount and area.
5. CH4 Generation Potential
To estimate the CH4 generation potential at different CH4 generation
capacities and rates, we selected the following parameters and
year of optimum landfill operation. For the analysis, we assumed
that the annual MSW disposed in the landfill area was 100,000
tons. Furthermore, we assumed that the total landfill-site operating
duration was 30 years, based on the standard range from the US
EPA and LMOP. The analysis was carried out using a first order
decay equation and the LandGEM spreadsheet tool [26]. Notably,
three scenarios, Conditions I, II, and III, were considered. The
three scenarios are explained as follows.
Condition I: According to the EPA, standard values for CH4
generation rate (k) and L0 for the case of Controlled Air Act (CAA)
conventional value have a huge potential of CH4 generation.
According to the LMOP, the geographical area and MSW that
have conventional values of k (0.05/year) and L0 (170 m3/Mg) have
better potential of generating CH4, compared to arid and wet
conditions. The projects in this condition have an efficient economy
of scale, due to mass CH4 gas generation potential for power gen-
eration due to large amount methane generation through efficient
and matured decomposition cycle. In this condition, the soil and
environmental condition (moisture, soil characteristics and heat)
provides efficient generation of CH4.
As shown in Fig. S2, the CH4 generation potential of MSW
in the CAA conditions indicates and increase until the closing
year of operation, with a sharp decline in the closing year. The
estimated duration for the CH4 gas generation potential was consid-
ered to be 30 years. In general, the k value depends on the soil
characteristics and moisture (average annual rainfall level) and
organic contents of the MSW [32]. Fig. S3 portrays the CH4 gen-
6
eration from the total LFG generation in the closing year of the
landfill site, as per the CAA conditions. For the closing year, the
optimum ranges was based on the data acquired from ([22]). The
overall amount of produced LFG relies on the type of waste, environ-
ment of the site, and effectiveness of the LFG collection system.
Moreover, there are important sources that can determine the un-
certainties in the LFG generation, which are often related to the
data on the waste properties and site conditions.
Condition II: In this condition, the L0 value is similar to Condition
I conventional CAA value and k values is lower than CAA conven-
tional condition which determines the amount of CH4 obtained.
Climatic factors, like as rainfall, have a significant impact on the
production and properties of landfill leachate. The leachate pro-
duced in arid climates contain higher levels of contaminants than
that produced in humid settings [22]. Based on the LMOP, in
terms of the area-specific parameters for arid areas, we used the
k value of 0.02/year and L0 value of 170 m3/Mg. The total LFG
generation was directly proportional to the CH4 gas amount ob-
tained from the total collected LFG, as shown in Fig. S4. Note
that the primary sources of leachate depend on biological processes
and are impacted by the waste, rather than runoff and precipitation
(type, amount, moisture, and degree of compaction). As shown
in Fig. S5, the amount of CH4 utilization increased until the max-
imum capacity (in the closing year of the landfill area). Furthermore,
the CH4 production increased at higher k values (as long as the
landfill was still accepting new waste) and decreased swiftly once
the landfill closed. The amount of moisture in the waste, availability
of nutrients for the bacteria that produce CH4, pH, and temperature
affected the k value. As shown in Fig. S5, after closing the landfill
site, the total amount of CH4 obtained from the landfill decreased
rapidly.
Condition III: In this scenario, we assumed inventory wet con-
dition had a L0 value of 96 m3/Mg and k value of 0.7/year. The
dissimilated organic fraction and degradable organic carbon (DOC)
were transformed into LFG constantly (beginning in 2030) as in-
dicated in Fig. S6. The total amount of CH4 gas generated in the
inventory wet condition decreased sharply when the landfill site
reached closing year of the landfill, as shown in Fig. S7. Notably,
the power generated using this condition was less sustainable,

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of using LFG as fuel for power generation
Application Discussion
• This entails converting LFG to natural gas grade
[36].
Source of natural gas
• The natural gas network can be used to supply
refined LFG for domestic use
• The second most frequent method for using LFG.
Boiler system • LFG is used by boilers as a fuel source, to create • Relatively cheaper
steam and hot water [37]
Furnace, dryers, and • This involves using landfill gas directly as a fuel
kilns [36]
• According to a study, raw LFG can be collected,
Vehicle fuel cleaned, dried, and compressed to a suitable pres-
sure gauge for use as car fuel [38]
• Reciprocating internal combustion engines, steam
turbines, organic Rankine cycles, Stirling cycle en- • Can be a source of electricity
Source of electricity
gines, molten carbonate, and solid oxide fuel cells for global energy systems
are all used to generate electricity [39]
in terms of the utilization of CH4 gas, at the end of the landfill
site in the closing year, with no CH4 generation potential, compared
to that in the CAA arid and conventional conditions.
In Conditions I, II, and III, we observed variable CH4 generation
potentials and capacities for the same landfill area. As shown
in Fig. 2, the CAA conventional condition provides more CH4
gas than that obtained in the CAA arid and inventory wet conditions.
From this comparison, we can deduce that the CH4 gas generation
potentials and rates at different conditions varies significantly;
thus, LFG projects need to consider the characteristic parameters
of LFG sites and the chemical properties of MSWs. According
to the US EPA, the recommended value for L0 is 56.6–198.2 m3/Mg.
The value for the L0 largely depends on the type and characteristics
of garbage present in the landfill, with the exception of arid areas,
wherein a lack of moisture may limit the CH4 generation.
6. LFG Power Generation and Environmental
Benefits
LFG is used as a power generation energy source, especially in
large-scale power plants, for economic gain. The LFG with a CH4
content of approximately 40–65% in volume can be employed
to produce electricity, using internal combustion engines (1–3
MW), turbines (greater than 5 MW), micro-turbines (30–250 kW),
and fuel cells. However, the gas must be flared if its CH4 content
drops below 35–40 vol% [33, 34].
Several factors, such as technical and economic characteristics,
as well as environmental impacts, may influence the type of energy
technology applied at landfill sites [35]. Due to their numerous
advantages and high electrical efficiency, internal combustion en-
gines are widely utilized to produce energy from LFG. Table 2
compares the benefits and drawbacks of several commonly used
LFG energy systems.
7
Environmental Engineering Research 29(1) 230166
Advantages Disadvantages
• Can be used as a source of heat • Costly and necessitates the ap-
in enterprises and for cooking plication of LFG processing
at home methods
• Cost and pipeline length are
related
• Limitations in LFG usage, if
• Cheap and easy to install
used seasonally
• Due to the cost of refining, the
• Use as a fuel source for cars
raw LFG converted to motor
and trucks
fuels may be expensive
• Operational costs are rela-
tively higher
• High degree of skill and tech-
nology required
6.1. LFG Power Generation Potential
The economics in the selection of electricity-generation LFG tech-
nologies mostly rely on external factors, such as the available
tax credits (e.g., renewable revenue streams and certificates on
renewable energy technologies) and the price at which electricity
can be sold [22]. The power purchase agreement is a convenient
way of receiving more revenue, with renewable portfolio standards.
Several systems, including internal combustion engines (ICEs),
turbines, micro turbines, and gradual oxidizers (GOs), have been
used to generate energy from LFG [40]. The Brayton cycle is the
underlying mechanism of the operation of gas and micro turbines
[41]. It was computed the gross power generation potential in
a particular year after predicting the yearly LFG generation [13]
using Eq. (6):
(6)
where GPGPT is the gross power generation potential, is the system
collection system (the average value is 85%), is LFG energy content
(calorific value, typically 500 BTU/ft3), and is the heat rate of
equipment. Then, by directly considering the parasitic load, we
determined the net potential of power generation. We assumed
that the auxiliary equipment energy loss was 6% for steam/gas
turbine and 2% for reciprocating combustion engine [13].
The LFGcost-Web [16] was employed to estimate the average
generation cost of the LFG, compared to other sources, such as
steam, hydro, diesel, geothermal, combined cycle, and turbine
generation. The average electricity-generation cost of LFG from
MSW was calculated as USD 0.0604/kWh, which is higher than
that of hydro power (USD 0.0018/kWh) and steam power (USD
0.0415/kWh) generation, but lower than that of geothermal (USD
0.0637/kWh), combined cycle power (USD 0.0763/kWh), diesel
(USD 0.1773/kWh), and gas turbine (USD 0.1966/kWh) generation
[42].
To produce electricity or convert the form of energy, the required
Abiy Tadesse and Jechan Lee
Table 3. Average power-generation cost for different technologies (source: [43])
Electricity generation technology
Gas or oil power plant (combined cycle)
Photovoltaic (fixed)
Onshore wind
Conventional hydropower
Coal (with SOx and NOx controls)
Advanced nuclear
Fuel cells
capital cost is the basic constrain when selecting the fuel technology
[43]. We compared the cost of electricity production from different
technologies in Table 3; the LFG generation (CH4 is more advanta-
geous than combined power cycle with oil and fuel cells with
economy of scale as well). International Methane Pledge (IMP)
suggests national to use methane gas for power generation due
to its advantage when we use in large amount.
LFG yields lower CO2 emissions (0.27 × 10−9 kg/kWh) than
others energy sources, such as fuel oil (0.85 kg/kWh), gas (0.85
kg/kWh), and coal (1.18 kg/kWh). Furthermore, LFG has lower
CO2 emission, compared to other primary fuels in the global energy
systems [44]. ICEs are commonly used electricity-generation auxil-
iary components for LFG projects. They have high efficiency and
low cost, when installed directly in the gas output of the LFG
layout [22]. In the USA, more than two third (>66%) of landfills
generate electricity using this technology. ICEs are highly efficient
than gas turbine and can convert LFG (50% CH4) to electricity
effectively.
The steam and gas turbines applied for municipality LFG elec-
tricity production use compressed gas and heat; the gas expands
in the turbine then, rotates the generator, to produce electricity.
Similar to reciprocating engines, gas turbines have a lifetime of
25 years and steam turbines have a lifetime of 50 years [45]. For
large LFG-to-energy plants, with capacities more than 1 MW, tur-
bines are often employed. Micro turbines are ideal for small applica-
tions and operate at low combustion temperatures and compression
ratios [41]. Micro turbines have an electric yield of about 30%,
with an operational availability of up to 95% and the ability to
use LFG with the CH4 concentration exceeding 35%; nonetheless,
they require expensive and substantial maintenance services every
eight years for continuous operation [42].
Gradual oxidizers (GOs) are recently developed appliances that
function at lower temperatures. They have 95% operational avail-
ability, 29% electric energy production, and can function with
LFG containing CH4 at concentrations as low as 1.5%. Notably,
GOs need substantial and expensive servicing every 9 years, for
continuous operation [45, 46]. Without a doubt, GOs seem to be
the only practical replacements for LFGs (i.e., LFG with low CH4
concentration that cannot be used with traditional technologies).
With the application of controlled heat pump, it is possible to
achieve a higher efficiency, using the exhaust heat to heat water,
and the low-pressure steam from the engine cooling system heat
exchanger can also be used to produce electricity [47].
ICEs may be viable for LFG-to-electricity generation, due to
its low capital cost compared to gas turbine and boiler. This technol-
ogy comprises of a consolidated advantage, with minimum econom-
Power generation capacity capital cost (USD/kW) in 2019
1000
1800
1600
2752
3500– 3800
600
7200
ical risks [39]. Gas turbines is the most commonly used technology
in LFG-to-energy projects, after ICEs, with lower performance and
higher loss than ICE, based on the same thermodynamic cycles.
Moreover, ICEs are easy to transport and have a flexible design
[28]. Based on the overall cost and efficiency correlation for the
targeted application of LFG, ICEs are efficient at converting LFG
into electricity [48], attaining electrical efficiency of 30–40%. Note
that cogeneration, also known as combined heat and power (CHP)
applications, in which the waste heat from the engine cooling
system is recovered to produce hot water, or from the exhaust
to produce low-pressure steam, offers a higher efficiency.
6.2. Cost of Power Generation from LFG
The price of producing electricity from CH4 gas depends on several
variables, e.g., whether a gas recovery system is present or not,
the size of the waste, and the conversion technology used. In
addition to the equipment costs, soft expenditures and grid con-
nectivity charges are frequently included in the project cost compo-
nents [32]. In addition to these expenses, the collection system
and generation equipment also have operation and maintenance
costs.
The price of producing 1-kWh electricity can vary from as little
as USD 3.4 to as much as USD 10. Where a collection infrastructure
is in place, energy production is typically significantly more
cost-effective. Do reduce the cost of systems that convert CH4
to energy, it is important to include government incentives, as
such incentives can directly affect LFG utilization and thus, global
and regional GHG emissions. According to the amount of CH4
gas collected in each year, there is economy of scale (under conven-
tional CAA condition there is incremental generation of methane
gas until the closing year of the landfill), and additional reciprocat-
ing engines are required each year on the existed connecting units
assembled (additional ICs, gas turbines, and boilers installed in
the initial years of energy generation) for energy generation [49].
The electricity generation from LFG gas can increase each year,
due to population growth and the resulting increase in waste
generation. Therefore, the total annual cost for each income-level
of the population and the amount of CH4 gas from the collected
MSW will vary significantly.
6.3. Environmental Benefits of LFG Power Generation
With an atmospheric life of only approximately 12 years, CH4
is a powerful GHG (more than 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide
over a 100-year span). Thus, one of the best strategies to limit
human influence on global climate change is to reduce the CH4
8

emissions from MSW landfills. Also, as CH4 is produced in all
landfills, there is higher potential in reducing the CH4 emissions
by flaring or collecting the LFG for energy production.
In general, the LFG from MSW landfill is collected using a
connection of blowers and series of walls in general vacuum
systems. The gas collected through this system and accumulated
in the central unit point undergoes treatment according to the
final target of LFG utilization. In most cases, LFG projects use
this gas for direct flaring, for electricity or non-electricity generating
units [50]. The environmental benefits of LFG can be calculated
separately for the projects that consider and do not consider elec-
tricity generation, as follows:
CH4 collected and destroyed: The total amount of CH4 collected
each year (m3/Year), which is either burned by flaring or used
in the LFG energy project, can be calculated using Eq. (7):
=
(7)
Direct CH4 reduction: The total amount of CH4 collected each
year, measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
per year, (MMTCO2E/Year), is either burned by flaring or used
in the LFG energy project and can be calculated using Eq. (8):
= generates massive amounts of CH4 gas, compared to Conditions
(8)
where, is methane gas global warming potential which is directly
reduced with the volume utilized and this direct methane reduction
have an indirect methane reduction advantage by energy sub-
stitution through the energy system (fossil fuel or biomass).
CH4 utilized: This is the amount of CH4 that the LFG energy
project or other end goals use in one million metric tons per year,
(MMTCO2E/Year), which can be calculated using Eq. (9):
(9)
where GWP of CH4 in utilized methane is global warming potential
through direct emission in the open landfill area to the environment.
CH4 utilized for energy or other end target is calculated through
actual gas utilized in the project and its amount of direct relieved
effect on the environment.
Depending on the efficiency and design of the system, during
its operational lifetime, an LFG energy project will likely capture
between 60% and 90% of the CH4 produced by a landfill. As
the gas is burned to produce electricity or heat, the CH4 collected
will be converted to water and carbon dioxide [24]. Furthermore,
non-renewable resources (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) can
9
Environmental Engineering Research 29(1) 230166
produce the same amount of energy as that produced from LFG.
Gradual LFG use and collection at landfills can enhance regional
air quality which can allow the global targeted protocols and agree-
ments to maintain the global temperature.
Low amounts of NMOCs in LFG are eliminated or transformed
during burning, thus, lowering the potential health hazards asso-
ciated with LFG. If fossil-fuel combustion at utility power plants
is avoided, there will be less pollution; thus, the emissions of
SO2 (a major contributor to acid rain), particulate matter (a respira-
tory health concern), nitrogen oxides (which can contribute to
local ozone and smog formation), and trace hazardous air pollu-
tants, which are released into the air from the power plants, can
be reduced.
7. Summary and Outlook
In general, LFG is a result of the breaking down of organic waste
in landfills. LFG consists of a minor quantity of non- CH4 chemical
molecules, 50% CO2, and 50% CH4 (the main component of natural
gas). CH4, which is a powerful GHG, traps the heat in the atmosphere
for up to 28–36 times longer than CO2. The implication of CH4
generation potential is dependent on soil characteristics, moisture,
decomposable portion of MSW in the landfill, temperature, and
CH4 generation potential and capacity in arid, conventional, and
wet areas. In CAA, conventional landfill (Condition I) operation
II and III in arid and wet conditions, with variable k (CH4 generating
potential) and L0 (CH4 generation capacity) of each geographical
condition.
The LFG market share is expected to reach approximately USD
3178.3 million, projected to register a compound annual growth
rate of 8.1% from 2022 to 2030. With the concomitant loss of
production, significant unanticipated expenses, and, in some cir-
cumstances, loss of life, the occurrence of catastrophic operational
failures resulting from garbage slides, long-lasting fires, and flood-
ing conditions could be less likely with the use of this strategy.
Notably, LFG generation has a higher operating and maintenance
cost than other feedstock types. Because of the high capital and
operational expenses associated with LFG generation, we can an-
ticipate a decline in the market’s demand for LFG throughout
the projected period.
The future landfill might be a better instrumented structure
that updates the operator on its performance and status in real-time
monitoring and optimization features. This strategy may assist
in lowering the likelihood of significant failures, loss of pro-
ductivity, and fatalities. Furthermore, LFG can be used as a low-car-
bon and environment-friendly substitute for traditional fossil fuels.
Upon combustion, LFG creates bioenergy, which is a clean fuel
for energy production. In the future, the generation of bioenergy
from biomass and LFG will most likely increase with the energy
demand, which expand the market. Therefore, governments and
decision makers must encourage the use of CH4 emissions from
landfills for power generation because it is a renewable source
of energy and can reduce the emissions of GHGs.
Abiy Tadesse and Jechan Lee
Conflict-of-Interest Statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author contributions
A.T. (Product Engineer) collected and analyzed data and wrote
the manuscript. J.L. (Associate Professor) wrote and revised the
manuscript.
References
1. Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K. Systems approaches to integrated
solid waste management in developing countries. Waste
Manage. 2013;33:988-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2012.12.023.
2. Ebert EE, Gallus WA. Toward better understanding of the con-
tiguous rain area (CRA) method for spatial forecast verification.
Weather Forecast. 2009;24:1401-1415. https://doi.org/10.1175/
2009WAF2222252.1.
3. Mokhtari M, Ebrahimi AA, Rezaeinia S. Prediction of green-
house gas emissions in municipal solid waste landfills using
LandGEM and IPCC methods in Yazd, Iran. J. Environ. Health
Sustain. Develop. 2020;5:1145-1154. https://doi.org/10.18502/
jehsd.v5i4.4964.
4. Han J, Byun J, Kwon O, Lee J. Climate variability and food
waste treatment: analysis for bioenergy sustainability. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 2022;160:112336. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2022.112336.
5. Urase T, Okumura H, Panyosaranya S, Inamura A. Emission
of volatile organic compounds from solid waste disposal sites
and importance of heat management. Waste Manage. Res.
2008;26:534-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x07084321.
6. Global Methane Initiative (GMI) [Internet]. 2021 [cited 23
February 2023]. Available from: https://www. globalmethane.org.
7. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, van Woerden F. What a waste
2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050.
In: Urban Development Series. Washington, DC, USA: World
Bank Group; 2018.
8. Hoornweg D, Lam P. Solid waste management in China: issues
and options. Waste: The Social Context 2005:261-271.
9. Karekezi S. Poverty and energy in Africa—a brief review. Energy
Policy 2002;30:915-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215
(02)00047-2.
10. Larney C, Heil M, Ha G-A. Case studies from the climate technol-
ogy partnership: landfill gas projects in South Korea and lessons
learned. Golden, CO, USA: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; 2006.
11. Narayana T. Municipal solid waste management in India: from
waste disposal to recovery of resources? Waste Manage. 2009;
29:1163-1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.038.
12. Haeming H, Bretthauer F, Heyer K-U, Stegmann R, Quicker
P. Waste, 8. landfilling and deposition. In: Ullmann's
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH; 2021. p.
10
1-54.
13. Jaramillo P, Matthews HS. Landfill-gas-to-energy projects: anal-
ysis of net private and social benefits. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2005;39:7365-7373. https://doi.org/10.1021/es050633j.
14. Wikramanayake ED, Ozkan O, Bahadur V. Landfill gas-powered
atmospheric water harvesting for oilfield operations in the
United States. Energy 2017;138:647-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.07.062.
15. Sinha S. What India needs: landfill gas recovery and its
utilization. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2013;2:1981-1984. https://
doi.org/10.17577/ijertv2is80817.
16. LFGcost-Web — landfill gas energy cost model (ver. 3.5)
[Internet]. 2021 [cited 23 February 2023]. Available from:
https://www.epa.gov/lmop/lfgcost-web-landfill-gas-energy-cost-
model#three.
17. Gour AA, Singh SK. Solid waste management in India: a
state-of-the-art review. Environ. Eng. Res. 2023;28:220249-0.
https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2022.249.
18. Ko D. Comparison of carbon molecular sieve and zeolite 5A
for CO2 sequestration from CH4/CO2 mixture gas using vacuum
pressure swing adsorption. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2021;38:
1043-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-021-0771-y.
19. Ghanbari F, Khatebasreh M, Mahdavianpour M et al. Evaluation
of peroxymonosulfate/O3/UV process on a real polluted water
with landfill leachate: feasibility and comparative study.
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2021;38:1416-1424. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11814-021-0782-8.
20. Popov V, Power H. Landfill emission of gases into the atmos-
phere: boundary element analysis. WIT Press; 1999.
21. White J, Robinson J, Ren Q. Modelling the biochemical degrada-
tion of solid waste in landfills. Waste Manage. 2004;24:227-240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.11.009.
22. LFG energy project development handbook. Washington, DC,
USA: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2021.
23. Schulte-Uebbing L, Hansen G, Hernández AM, Winter M.
Chapter scientists in the IPCC AR5—experience and lessons
learned. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015;14:250-256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.012.
24. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories
- volume 5. waste. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
Hayama, Japan: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
2006.
25. Aghdam EF, Fredenslund AM, Chanton J, Kjeldsen P, Scheutz
C. Determination of gas recovery efficiency at two Danish land-
fills by performing downwind methane measurements and sta-
ble carbon isotopic analysis. Waste Manage. 2018;73:220-229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.049.
26. US EPA, Landfill gas emissions model (LandGEM) (ver. 3.03).
2020, https://www.epa.gov/catc/clean-air-technology-center-
products#software (accessed on Feb. 23, 2023).
27. Scharff H, Jacobs J. Applying guidance for methane emission
estimation for landfills. Waste Manage. 2006;26:417-429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.11.015.
28. Bade Shrestha SO, Narayanan G. Landfill gas with hydrogen
addition – a fuel for SI engines. Fuel 2008;87:3616-3626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2008.06.019.
29. Wang Y, Levis JW, Barlaz MA. Life-cycle assessment of a regu-

latory compliant U.S. municipal solid waste landfill. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2021;55:13583-13592. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.
1c02526.
30. Njoku PO, Odiyo JO, Durowoju OS, Edokpayi JN. A review
of landfill gas generation and utilisation in Africa. Open Environ.
Sci. 2018;10:1-15. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876325101810010001.
31. Hatzichristos T, Giaoutzi M. Landfill siting using GIS, fuzzy
logic and the Delphi method. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manage.
2006;6:218-231. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijetm.2006.008263.
32. SCS Engineers, Economic and financial aspects of landfill gas
to energy project development in California. Sacramento, CA,
USA: California Energy Commission; 2002.
33. Lombardi L, Carnevale EA. Analysis of an innovative process
for landfill gas quality improvement. Energy 2016;109:1107-
1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.071.
34. Aguilar-Virgen Q, Taboada-González P, Ojeda-Benítez S,
Cruz-Sotelo S. Power generation with biogas from municipal
solid waste: prediction of gas generation with in situ parameters.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2014;30:412-419. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.014.
35. Colpan CO, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. The reduction of green-
house gas emissions using various thermal systems in a landfill
site. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2009;1:89-105. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijgw.2009.027083.
36. Hans C. Energy recovery from landfill gas in Denmark and
worldwide. Corpus ID: 52888272; 2002.
37. International best practices guide for landfill gas energy
projects. Washington, DC, USA: Global Methane Initiative,
International Solid Waste Association, & United States
Environmental Protection Agency; 2012.
38. Borray E, Smith G, Deane G. Process and apparatus for purifica-
tion and compression of raw landfill gas for vehicle fuel. US
Patent No. 5,727,903; 1998.
39. Bove R, Lunghi P. Electric power generation from landfill gas
using traditional and innovative technologies. Energy Convers.
Manage. 2006;47:1391-1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2005.08.017.
11
Environmental Engineering Research 29(1) 230166
40. Manasaki V, Palogos I, Chourdakis I, Tsafantakis K, Gikas P.
Techno-economic assessment of landfill gas (LFG) to electric
energy: selection of the optimal technology through field-study
and model simulation. Chemosphere 2021;269:128688. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128688.
41. Catalog of CHP technologies: section 5. technology character-
ization - microturbines. Washington, DC, USA: United States
Environmental Protection Agency; 2015.
42. Darrow K, Tidball R, Wang J, Hampson A, Catalog of CHP
technologies. Washington, DC, USA: United States Environmental
Protection Agency; 2017.
43. Vimmerstedt L, Akar S, Mirletz B et al. Annual technology
baseline: the 2021 electricity update. Golden, CO, USA:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2021.
44. Swaminathan R, Johannes I. Power generation from landfill
gas and a case study. Int. J. Energy Power Eng. 2020;9:81-85.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijepe.20200905.12.
45. Hansen TA, Ringler E. Demonstration and verification of a
turbine power generation system utilizing renewable fuel: land-
fill gas. Durham, NC, USA: Southern Research Institute; 2013.
46. Ener-Core [Internet]. 2018 [cited 23 February 2023]. Available
from: https://www.ener-core.com.
47. Barisano D, Canneto G, Nanna F et al. Steam/oxygen biomass
gasification at pilot scale in an internally circulating bubbling
fluidized bed reactor. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016;141:74-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.06.008.
48. Kohn MP, Lee J, Basinger ML, Castaldi MJ. Performance of
an internal combustion engine operating on landfill gas and
the effect of syngas addition. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011;50:
3570-3579. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101937s.
49. Chen C. Is landfill gas green energy?. New York, NY, USA:
Natural Resources Defense Council; 2003.
50. Hajinezhad A, Ziaee Halimehjani E. Study landfill development
in Rasht And latex management in order to reduce pollution
Anzali Lagoon. Iranian J. Ecohydrol. 2015;2:11-22. https://do-
i.org/10.22059/ije.2015.55125.