Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

Estimation of energy recovery and reduction of

CO2 emissions in municipal solid waste power
generation

Suehiro Otoma a,*, Yasufumi Mori a, Atsushi Terazono a,

Tomonori Aso b, Ryoji Sameshima b
a
Social and En6ironmental Systems Di6ision, National Institute for En6ironment Studies,
Onogawa 16 -2, Tsukuba 305, Japan
b
Technical De6elopment Di6ision, Takuma Co. Ltd., Kinrakuji 2 -2 -33, Amagasaki 660, Japan

Received 21 January 1997; accepted 8 March 1997

Abstract

Using the heat from waste incineration to generate electricity requires the addition of
generating equipment, while the manufacture, construction, and operation of this equipment
also uses energy. And owing to the problem of superheater tube corrosion caused by the
hydrogen chloride and other substances formed in conjunction with waste combustion,
municipal solid waste (MSW) power generation cannot raise steam temperature very much,
and generating efficiency is said to be low, at between 10 and 15%. However, we have found
that, in terms of life cycle energy balance, MSW generation is about the same as currently
operating commercial power plants. We also examined life cycle energy balance in relation
to repowering, which is meant to increase MSW generating efficiency, and reburning, which
is aimed at limiting both NOx and dioxin emissions. We found that these are effective
methods for energy recovery, and that the gas turbines combined with waste incinerators for
repowering have an optimum size that will improve overall efficiency. © 1997 Elsevier
Science B.V.

Keywords: MSW generation; Repowering; Reburning; Recycling; LCA

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 81 298 502420; fax: +81 298 502420; e-mail: otoma@nies.go.jp.

0921-3449/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S 0 9 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 1 2 - 8
96 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

1. Introduction

In recent years we have been finding it necessary to effectively utilize untapped

energy sources because of energy resource depletion and to protect the global
environment. At the same time, Japan generates about 135 000 tons of municipal
solid waste (MSW) daily, about 75% of which is incinerated for reasons of
sanitation. Incineration produces high temperatures, so it is useful to recover this
heat and generate electricity. But ordinary MSW power generation cannot allow
very high steam temperatures owing to the hydrogen chloride and other substances
produced during waste combustion, which corrode superheater pipes. This holds
generating efficiencies down to between 10 and 15% at best, resulting in low
assessments of the potential of MSW generation. Researchers are therefore consid-
ering ways of improving generating efficiency, and one method being closely
watched is repowering, which involves the addition of a gas turbine to MSW
incinerators to raise steam temperature and pressure. This method is already in use
at three plants in Japan.
Meanwhile, toxic gas controls grow stronger year by year, and at the same time
exhaust gas treatment equipment increases in sophistication, size, and energy
consumption. Reburning, a new way of dealing with toxic gases, involves injecting
natural gas into incinerators to reduce NOx and dioxins, while at the same time
recovering the energy of that natural gas as steam.
MSW generation, along with repowering and reburning, are considered effective
ways of recovering energy, but one needs to add generating equipment to obtain
power from MSW, and new equipment is likewise needed for repowering and
reburning. Furthermore, manufacturing and construction for this equipment re-
quire additional energy inputs. In this research we investigated the extent to which
MSW generation, as well as repowering and reburning, reduce energy and CO2
emissions over the life cycle of the required facilities.

2. Life cycle energy assessment of ordinary MSW power generation [1]

2.1. Assessment method

Unless especially noted, the following discussion is an energy analysis, and

basically CO2 is also subjected to an energy analysis. Energy calculations are for
primary energy. Fig. 1 is a conceptual diagram of the MSW generation energy
balance.
MSW generation has inputs of electricity consumed on site (A), the energy
required for the construction, maintenance, and dismantling of equipment needed
for incineration facilities excluding MSW generation equipment (below, ‘plant
proper’), the manufacture of collection vehicles, and the collection of wastes (B),
the energy required for the construction, maintenance, and dismantling of the
equipment needed for power generation, i.e., boilers, generators, and steam con-
densing equipment (below, equipment’) (C), and the caloric energy of
wastes (D), while the output is the electricity generated (E).
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 97

When considering a waste incineration plant as a facility to recover energy from

wastes, one can assess MSW generation by comparing the energy needed by the
generating equipment for recovery with the electricity generated. If the energy
required by generating equipment is larger than the energy produced, energy is not
being recovered. In other words, MSW power generation is chosen on the condition
that the following expression holds:

E/C \1

On the other hand, when considering a waste incineration plant as an energy-pro-

ducing facility (i.e., a generating plant), one compares all the energy needed by a
waste incineration plant other than the wastes’ caloric energy, i.e., the energy
required for the construction and operation of the waste incineration plant, and for
waste collection, with the transmitted electric energy (E− A), and if the former is
larger than the latter, it means that MSW generation is losing energy. In other
words, MSW power generation is chosen on the condition that the following
expression holds:

(E −A)/(B +C) \1

If one substitutes CO2 emissions and CO2 emission cuts for energy, the same
comparisons are possible for CO2 emissions.
When evaluating a waste incineration plant as an energy-recovery facility, one
assesses electricity generation under the assumption that waste incineration is the
main purpose. However, when evaluating a waste incineration plant as an energy-
producing facility, the MSW generation assessment is broader, also considering
whether wastes should be burned from an energy perspective. In both cases
assessments should cover the whole life cycle, including even maintenance
dismantling.

Fig. 1. Energy balance of MSW (municipal solid waste) power generation.

98 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

Fig. 2. Method of summing up energy consumed through the life cycle of the plant.

2.2. Calculation conditions

Our assumed waste incineration plant had a capacity of 600 t/day per incinerator,
using the full continuous feed stoker system. With standard waste quality of 2300
kcal/kg and steam conditions at 30 kgf/cm2 and 300°C, power generated comes to
10 300 kW (generating end efficiency, 15.4%). Plant service life was set at 15 years.
Assumptions for MSW collection vehicles were 2.0 t capacity, distance of 20 km per
trip [2], gasoline-powered engines with fuel efficiency of 5 km/l [3], and 100 000 km
lifetime distance traveled.

2.3. Study and calculation methods

We performed a study on each piece of equipment comprising the MSW

incineration plant, which involved questioning manufacturers about the energy
needed for equipment. The summing up approach was used to calculate energy
consumed through the entire life cycle (Fig. 2).
Energy consumed in processing and assembly was assumed to be proportional to
energy for materials, so we decided to treat them as a single quantity. Responses to
our questions showed considerable variation in the ratio of energy actually used for
processing and assembly (i.e., the value obtained when dividing processing/assem-
bly energy by energy for materials), while some responses included transportation
energy and others did not. For these reasons we set the processing/assembly energy
ratio at the somewhat large value of 50%, which includes transportation energy.
This assumption assesses MSW power generation rather conservatively. Regarding
the manufacture of collection vehicles we assumed a weight of 1.5 t [4], and used
values already calculated. For waste incineration plant maintenance, we assumed
that the building itself would need no repairs, but that the incinerator’s stoker
would be replaced five times in 15 years, while 10% of the other parts would be
replaced. We determined these figures on the basis of interviews conducted at waste
incineration plants and the lifetime of such facilities, but they are estimates because
the available data are insufficient. A large part materials after dismantling is
usually recycled for other purposes. Energy used for dismantling is likely to be
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 99

proportional to the weight of materials. Because of insufficient data we assumed for

our purposes that energy needed for dismantling equals energy recovered by
recycling of the materialised energy, which makes a total energy of dismantling and
recycling energy zero.

2.4. Material energy intensity

The following two methods were used to calculate the energy needed to manufac-
ture materials. The first is the summing up approach [5], which necessitates a great
deal of work, and sometimes data needed for calculations are not available.
Nevertheless, it can be used for any kind of material and it provides comparatively
accurate results. The second is input-output analysis, which uses input-output tables
to calculate the quantities of goods that must be transferred for material manufac-
ture, and then estimates energy consumption from the quantities of goods moved.
Although input-output analysis entails little work, the values it yields are averages
for the products in certain manufacturing sectors, and not necessarily the values for
specific materials. We used values from the summing up approach when available,
and those from input-output analysis in other cases (Table 1).

2.5. Results

2.5.1. Material weight

The building structure of an MSW incineration plant itself accounts for by far
most of the plant’s weight (Table 2) because most of it is concrete, and over half the
steel in the plant is reinforcing rods and steel framing in the building. Parts of the
facility other than the plant proper account for more weight than the nucleus of the
plant, i.e., the incinerating equipment, and the flue gas treatment equipment is
especially massive. The boiler is the heaviest part of the generating equipment.

2.5.2. Energy needed for incineration plant construction and MSW collection
Energy for materials accounts for about 40% of the total energy needed for waste
incineration plant construction and waste collection, while processing and assembly
account for 20%, and maintenance accounts for about 6% (Fig. 3). Collection

Table 1
Energy consumption intensities for unit amounts of materials [1]

Material Unit energy intensity (Mcal/t) Method

Iron 5500 Summing up approach

Cast iron 5200 Summing up approach
Stainless steel 5500 Summing up approach
Aluminum 38 300 Summing approach
Nonferrous metal 20 000 Summing up approach
Brick 3421 Input-output
Concrete 463 Input-output
 100

Table 2
Weights of materials contained in components of an MSW incineration plant

Component Iron (t) Cast iron (t) Stainless steel (t) Aluminum (t) Non-ferrous metals Brick (t) Concrete (t)
(t)

1. Receiving/feeding equip- 297 0 0 0 0 0 0

ment
2. Incinerator 688 63 11 0 0 192 0
3. Boiler 729 2 0 0 0 115 0
4. Generator 78 2 0 0 0 0 0
5. Steam-transit 362 1 16 0 0 0 0
6. Exhaust gas treatement 1517 0 138 0 19 0 0
Subtotal (3 through 6) 2686 5 155 0 19 115 0

7. Draft 411 0 2 0 0 0 0
8. Ash treatment 90 0 6 0 0 0 0
9. Water supply 6 1 0 0 0 0 0
10. Drainage 25 0 25 5 0 0 0
11. Cable 0 0 0 0 121 0 0
12. Other 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
13. Building 4690 0 0 0 0 76 500
Grand total 8905 69 198 5 140 307 76 500
S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 101

Fig. 3. Energy consumption in MSW incineration plant installation and MSW collection.

vehicle manufacture and waste collection come to about 30% together. Since
two-thirds of the maintenance energy is also material energy, the latter accounts for
about 50% of the total.

2.5.3. Assessment of MSW generation as a means of energy reco6ery

We calculated the energy balance of the MSW incineration plant (Fig. 4).
presents the energy balance of the MSW incineration plant. Of the energy needed
for incineration plant construction and MSW collection, we considered that needed
for generation equipment — including processing/assembly and maintenance en-
ergy — separate from that for the plant proper.
The power generated is far larger than the energy for generation equipment. The
ratio between the two is

E/C =78.7

which is far than 1. If MSW generation is seen as a way of recovering energy,

it is very effective.
102 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

2.5.4. Assessment of MSW generation as a means of energy production

Little energy is needed for MSW incineration plant construction and operation,
and the ratio of this amount of energy to power transmitted is

(E −A)/(B +C) =9.5

which is more than 1 (see Fig. 4). Thus, if one builds an MSW incineration plant,
collects wastes as fuel, and generates electricity, then the overall result will be
energy production.

2.5.5. Effecti6eness in reducing CO2 emissions

We carried out the same analysis as above for CO2 emissions. Instead of the
material energy intensity in Table 1, we used the material CO2 emission intensity in
Table 3, and arrived at a 50% CO2 ratio for processing and related to
material manufacture.

Fig. 4. Energy balance around MSW incineration plant.

 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 103

Table 3
Carbon dioxide emission intensities for unit amounts of materials [1]

Material Unit carbon dioxide emission intensities (kg-C/t) Method

Iron 415 Summing up approach

Cast iron 450 Summing up approach
Stainless steel 415 Summing up approach
Aluminium 2140 Summing up approach
Nonferrous metal 1280 Summing up approach
Brick 294 Input-output
Concrete 96 Input-output

For the CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated we used the average value
[6] calculated from the amount of power generated by commercial power plants in
Japan and the amount of fuel used to generate it. That is to say, CO2 emissions per
unit of power generated do not include CO2 emissions from power plant construc-
tion and other sources. And because calculations for hydropower and nuclear
power stations show no CO2 emissions, we either take into consideration the CO2
emissions from power plant construction and other sources, or, if we concern
ourselves with thermal power plants alone, the CO2 emissions per unit electricity
generated will be even larger. For our purposes, the CO2 emission reduction in
MSW generation was the value calculated assuming that the electricity generated by
a power plant lessens by the amount of electricity produced by MSW generation.
Emissions for materials accounted for about 50% of total CO2 emissions in waste
incineration plant construction and waste collection (Fig. 5), of which 81% was
from concrete for construction work on the facility. Emissions for processing and
assembly, and for maintenance were 25 and 4%, respectively. Collection vehicle
manufacture and MSW collection together made up about 20% of CO2 emissions.
Materials account for a larger percentage of CO2 emissions than energy, because
the ratio between the CO2 emission intensity and energy intensity of concrete is
larger than those for other materials. Because Limestone emits CO2 when it changes
into cement, the CO2 emission intensity of concrete is larger than its energy
intensity. Because we assumed that parts of the facility made mostly of concrete will
require no maintenance, the proportion of CO2 emissions derived from mainte-
nance will be smaller than that from energy use. Fig. 6 shows the CO2 balance of
the MSW incineration plant.
Of the CO2 emitted by incineration plant construction and MSW collection, we
considered that related to generation equipment—including processing/assembly
and maintenance energy — separate from that of the plant proper. MSW incinera-
tion plant construction and operation emit little CO2 (see Fig. 6), so the reduction
ratio achieved with power generation is
(E − A)/(B +C) =4.1
This value is smaller than that for energy, but still than 1. Thus, if one builds
an MSW incineration plant, collects wastes, and generates electricity, the overall
104 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

result will be reduced CO2 emissions. Wastes themselves give off CO2, but we did
not include CO2 from wastes in our calculations because they would emit CO2
eventually, whether burned or not.

3. Life cycle energy assessment of reburning and repowering systems [7,8]

3.1. Systems

We assessed life cycle energy and CO2 emissions for the following three systems
(Figs. 7 – 9), just as we assessed them for MSW power generation: case 1, a system
in which MSW generation and a gas turbine are installed separately; case 2, a
repowering system; case 3, a reburning/repowering system.
The left side of Fig. 7 is the MSW generating system, and the right side is the gas
turbine generating system. The gas turbine system likewise recovers its own waste
heat and generates electricity with a steam turbine just as the MSW generating
system does. Fig. 8 is a flow chart for a repowering system which uses the flue gas

Fig. 5. Carbon dioxide emissions from MSW incineration plant installation and MSW collection.
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 105

Fig. 6. Carbon dioxide balance associated with MSW incineration plant.

from a gas turbine to superheat the steam produced by the boiler, which is, in turn,
heated with waste heat from MSW incineration. The reburning/repowering system
illustrated in Fig. 9, in addition to repowering, scales down the flue gas treatment
equipment by injecting natural gas into the incinerator to reduce NOx.

3.2. Calculation conditions

Repowering requires not only the equipment necessitated by ordinary MSW

power generation systems, but also the installation within the incineration plant of
gas turbine equipment and equipment to recover its waste heat. To estimate the
energy recovery and the effectiveness of CO2 emission reductions, we used case 1 as
the base case and compared it with cases 2 and 3. Estimate computation conditions,
and the methods for performing studies and calculations, were the same as those
used for MSW power generation. We explored three types of gas turbines: 6-, 15-,
and 40-MW classes. Table 4 shows the steam conditions for each.
The highest temperature of superheated steam in repowering limited by either
the gas turbine exhaust temperature or by the balance between the caloric energy of
106 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

Fig. 7. Case 1 system flow chart.

the gas turbine exhaust and the boiler-generated amount of steam. In this study, the
limiting factor that determines the superheated steam temperature was assumed to
be the caloric balance, and an efficient steam pressure was determined in consider-
ation of the steam turbine condensing pressure. Because a plant must be located in
consideration of its waste collection area, siting imposes a large constraint on the
steam turbine exhaust condensing system when gas turbines are added to waste
incineration plants. Experience indicates that it is hardly ever possible to obtain
sufficient cooling water, thus we assumed it would be air-cooled. However, we
assume that an independent gas turbine facility not be subject to the

Fig. 8. Case 2 system flow chart.

 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 107

Fig. 9. Case 3 system flow chart.

limitations imposed on a waste incineration plant, and that it would be cooled by

circulating water.

3.3. Results

3.3.1. Material weight

Table 5 shows the material weight ratios for the gas turbine capacities for each
case. The values given here are relative to the value for the 6-MW gas turbine in
case 1 (MSW generation and gas turbine installed separately), which was set at 1.0.
The weight of a gas turbine facility is small, accounting for 3–7% of total waste
incineration plant weight.

Table 4
Steam conditions

Pressure (kgf/cm2) Temperature (°C)

(A) MSW power generation 28 300

(B) Independent 6 MW 40 380
15 MW 40 380
40 MW 40
(C) Repowering 6 MW 32 320
15 MW 48 370
40 MW 62 420
 108

Table 5
Total weight ratio of each system installation

Gas turbing size

6 MW 15 MW 40 MW

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

MSW incineration plant 0.967 0.970 0.973 0.967 0.972 0.975 0.976 0.979 0.982
Gas turbine 0.033 0.028 0.028 0.035 0.036 0.063 0.049 0.049
Total 1 0.998 1.001 1.009 1.008 1.011 1.030 1.028 1.032
S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 109

Fig. 10. Repowering efficiency of independent, repowering, and reburning – repowering gas turbines.

3.3.2. Generating efficiency

Table 6 shows the power outputs and generating efficiencies for each case. Gas
turbine generating efficiencies for 6-, 15-, and 40-MW turbines were 28.1, 34.5, and
37.1%, respectively. The larger the gas turbine, the closer overall generating
efficiency (output and caloric input at the generating end) approaches gas turbine
generating efficiency. The last line in Table 6 shows the rate at which generated
power increases in response to the caloric input from fuel other than wastes (natural
gas; the efficiency of natural gas added as a supplement, termed ‘repowering’
below).
Fig. 10 shows the relationship between gas turbine capacity and the repowering
rate. In case 1, in which the gas turbine is installed separately, the repowering rate
improves as gas turbine size increases because gas turbine design improves with
increase in size. The gas turbine capacity at which the repowering rate attains its
highest value differs between repowering alone and repowering together with
reburning (see Fig. 10).

3.3.3. Energy reco6ery and reduction of CO2 emissions

Despite the differences in generated energy output between case 1, and cases 2
and 3, there are hardly any differences in energy input (Fig. 11). same tendency
holds for the 15- and 40-MW class gas turbines. The changes in both life cycle
Table 6
110

Power generation efficiency of each system

Gas turbine size

6 MW 15 MW 40 MW

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

(T cal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y) (Tcal/y)

Input
MSW heat 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504 504
(a)
Gas heat 168 168 168 298 298 298 792 792 792
Reburn — — 51 00 00 51 00 00 51
Total (b) 672 672 723 802 802 853 1296 1296 1347
Output
MSW 78 100 120 78 123 145 78 169 197
steam tur- (103 MW) (13 MW) (16 MW) (10 MW) (16 MW) (19 MW) (10 MW) (22 MW) (26 MW)
bine (c)
Gas end 47 47 47 103 103 103 294 294 294
turbine (6 MW) (MW) (6 MW) (14 MW) (14 MW) (14 MW) (39 MW) (39 MW) (39 MW)
Gas steam 21 (3 MW) — — 34 (6 MW) — — 81 — —
turbine (11 MW)
Total 145 147 167 215 226 247 452 463 491
power gen-
eration (d)
Total effi- 21.7(%) 21.9(%) 23.1(%) 26.8(%) 28.1(%) 29.0(%) 34.9(%) 35.7(%) 36.5(%)
ciency
S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

(d/b)
Repowering 40.4(%) 41.2(%) 40.8(%) 45.9(%) 49.6(%) 48.7(%) 47.3(%) 48.6(%) 49.1(%)
efficiency
(d-c)/(b-a)
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 111

energy balance and CO2 emission reduction with gas turbine size (Fig. 12 and Fig.
13), were similar to those in repowering efficiency (see Fig. 10). Just as with the
repowering rate, there are gas turbine sizes at which energy recovery and CO2
emission reduction peak.

4. Discussion

4.1. Assessing MSW power generation

4.1.1. Comparison with ordinary thermal generating plants

Few ordinary power plants have been subjected to life cycle assessments. Here we
used the energy balance analysis for ordinary power plants of Uchiyama et al. [9].
Their study differs from ours, in that they used values from the literature for
material weight, but their methods were nearly the same. According to Uchiyama
et al., the ratio of transmitted power to equipment energy (energy balance ratio,
which does not include fuel energy), i.e.,
(E −A)/(B +C)

Fig. 11. Life cycle balances of repowering and reburning systems with 6 MW gas turbine,
including energy for construction and maintenance.
112 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

Fig. 12. Life cycle energy input–output ratios for gas turbines of various sizes, including energy for
installation, construction and maintenance.

is 20.75 for oil-fired plants, 17.15 for coal-fired plants, and 5.61 for LNG-fired
plants. In this ratio we see that their assessment attached most importance to
transmitted power.
We estimate this ratio to be 9.5 for MSW generation (see Section 2.5.4), or about
half that for oil- and coal-fired plants, and about twice that of LNG-fired plants.
Indeed, the ratio of transmitted power to equipment energy for MSW generation is
of similar magnitude to about the same as that for thermal power generation.
We anticipated that the life cycle energy balance ratio of MSW generation, which
has low generating efficiency (E − A)/D, would be much lower than that of thermal
power, but while thermal power expends a great deal of energy on fuel extraction
and transport, MSW generation has no need for these expenditures. We found that
it therefore has about the same ratio as the life cycle energy balance generating
efficiency. The major difference is that ordinary thermal power uses fossil fuel,
while MSW generation uses discarded wastes. Here the energy balance ratio does
not take into consideration the energy in the fuel and wastes themselves. Oil and
other fuels are non-renewable resources and have other uses. Thus, if we assume
that thermal power includes fuel in inputs, but does not include wastes because,
regardless of whether they are used for power generation, they will sooner or later
have to be incinerated, the energy balance of MSW generation as compared to
that of thermal power will be even better.
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 113

4.1.2. The generating efficiency that makes MSW generation pay

A power generating efficiency is often defined as a ratio of transmitted power to
energy in the fuel or waste incinerated, i.e.,
(E −A)/D.
When regarding MSW power generation as a means of energy recovery, the power
generated must be greater than that required by the generating plant. The waste
incineration plant assumed in this research satisfies this condition at a generating
efficiency of 0.2% or higher. Similarly, a generating efficiency of 0.3% or more is
enough to cut CO2 emissions. It should be noted that most MSW power generation
plants in operation have a generating efficiency of between 10 and 15%.
When seeing MSW generation as a means of producing energy, it is an overall
energy producer if the incineration facility is built, wastes collected, and power
generated with a generating efficiency of at least 6.4% (the energy in wastes is
excluded from consideration, however). Similarly, CO2 emissions can be cut if
generating efficiency is at least 7.8%. Recent improvements in generating efficiency
by raising steam temperature and pressure are very effective ways to achieve this
goal.

4.1.3. MSW power generation assessment

Assessment of energy recovery by MSW generation in the form of life cycle
assessment revealed the following:

Fig. 13. Life net ratios for carbon dioxide emission from gas turbines including those associated
with installation, construction and maintenance.
114 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

1. when MSW generation is regarded as a means of recovering energy, the power

generated is 78.7 times that needed by the generating plant, showing that MSW
generation is highly effective in recovering energy;
2. when MSW generation is regarded as a means of producing energy, the quantity
of electricity transmitted is 9.5 times larger than the energy needed for construc-
tion and operation of the MSW incineration plant, so MSW generation is also
a very effective way of recovering energy;
3. when MSW generation is regarded as a means of recovering energy, the amount
by which CO2 emissions are reduced is 45.3 times the CO2 emissions required by
the generating facility, which shows that MSW generation is an effective way of
reducing CO2 emissions;
4. when MSW generation is regarded as a means of producing energy, the amount
by which CO2 emissions are reduced is 4.1 times the CO2 emissions required for
construction and operation of the waste incineration plant, demonstrating that
MSW generation reduces CO2 emissions;
5. the energy balance of MSW power generation is nearly the same as that of
conventional thermal power generation;
6. even when generating efficiency is quite low, MSW generation is an effective
way of recovering energy and decreasing CO2 emissions.

4.2. Reburning/repowering assessment

4.2.1. Natural gas operating energy

Few data on the operating energy of natural gas, which includes extraction,
liquefaction, and transport, have been released. Thus on this occasion we excluded
these considerations from inputs to the repowering and reburning energy balance.
While there is little research in this area, Uchiyama et al. [10] have investigated the
energy consumed in the processes of generating plant construction, fuel processing,
and transport, as well as in generating electricity and other processes, and per-
formed an analysis of plant energy (Fig. 14) which assessed the energy input
(equipment and operating energy) for each type of plant to produce 1 kWh/year.
For LNG-fired power plants, 98.7% of the energy input is the operating energy
of natural gas. Because the comparison in our investigation assumes that all three
cases use natural gas to about the same extent, it seems that differences among the
cases in natural gas operating energy would have little overall effect on the results,
but this would have to be more completely considered in comparisons with
high-efficiency generating systems that do not use natural gas (such as increased
steam temperature and pressure achieved with corrosion-resistant superheater tub-
ing materials) and with systems that use substantially different amounts of natural
gas (such as combustion-type independent superheater systems).

4.2.2. Optimum gas turbine size

When using repowering, or both reburning and repowering, there is a gas turbine
size at which the highest life cycle energy efficiency and CO2 emission decrease are
achieved, and we found that these peaks differ somewhat from one instance to the
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 115

Fig. 14. Energy input to each power plant [11].

next. We can infer that this is due to differing total caloric inputs. When using
reburning, the total caloric input of the waste boiler is 1.1 times that of the other
cases (cases 1 and 2), so for reburning we made comparisons by correcting gas
turbine size. This corrected size was obtained in the following manner.

Corrected size =gas turbine size/1.1

A comparison of life cycle energy efficiency relative to gas turbine size with
corrected size taken into consideration reveals that the peak for repowering is close
to that for reburning and repowering (Fig. 15). Our research indicates that for the
amount of steam generated by a 600-t/day waste incinerator burning waste with
energy content averaging 2300 kcal/kg, the optimum gas turbine size is between 15
and 20 MW, but when the amount of waste burned (the amount of steam
generated) differs, the curve will probably peak for a different turbine size. This
topic will require further research.

4.2.3. Reburning and repowering assessment

An assessment, in the form of life cycle assessment including construction and
operation, of a waste incineration plant with a gas turbine with a repowering
system or with a reburning/repowering system revealed the following:
1. Over the life cycles of power and waste incineration plants, more energy was
recovered from 6-, 15-, and 40-MW gas turbine plants using repowering and
reburning/repowering, than from similar plants operating similar incinera-
tion and gas turbines separately without repowering or reburning/repowering.
116 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117

2. Over the life cycles of power and waste incineration plants, CO2 emissions from
6-, 15-, and 40-MW gas turbine plants using either repowering or reburning/re-
powering were in both cases lower than those from similar plants operating
similar waste incineration and gas turbines separately without repowering or
reburning/repowering.
3. When employing repowering and reburning/repowering, there are optimum gas
turbine sizes with respect to the repowering rate, energy recovery effectiveness,
and CO2 emission decrease, but that size differs from one instance to another.
However, the curves peak at about the same position with respect to a waste
boiler’s total caloric input, which suggests that optimum gas turbine size will
differ in accordance with the magnitude of waste boiler total caloric input (the
amount of steam generated).

5. Conclusion

This study demonstrated that even though MSW power generation has low
efficiency when calculated by conventional methods, comparisons according to life
cycle energy balance reveal efficiency rivaling that of commercial power plants,
which demonstrates the usefulness of waste-derived energy. One looks forward to
the development of technologies that put this energy to good use.

Fig. 15. cycle energy balances for gas turbines of various sizes, including installation and correcting
turbine size Section 4.2.2.
 S. Otoma et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 20 (1997) 95–117 117

On the other hand, calculations for this life cycle assessment did not include
waste management occurring outside waste incineration plants, such as landfilling
of ashes and treatment of polluted effluent. Much study remains to be done on
facility maintenance and dismantling as well. We intend to further improve the
accuracy of life cycle energy assessment by collecting data on these items and by
studying natural gas operating energy.

References

[1] Mori Y, Otoma S, Kondo Y, Sameshima R, Morimoto H. Estimates of energy recovery and CO2
emission reduction by MSW generation (in Japanese). Energy Resources 1994;15(6):73 – 80.
[2] Ministry of Health and Welfare, Environmental Health Bureau, Water Supply and Environmental
Sanitation Department. Appropriateness Study on Vehicle-Based Waste Collection Systems, 1982
(in Japanese).
[3] Ministry of Health and Welfare, Environmental Health Bureau, Water Supply and Environmental
Sanitation Department. Appropriateness Study on Vehicle-Based Waste Collection Systems, 1983
(in Japanese).
[4] Kondo Y, Moriguchi Y, Shimizu H, Ishitani H. Carbon dioxide emission intensities of material
production, and their application to motor vehicle manufacturing processes. In: Proc. Eighth
Conference of Energy and Resources Society on Energy Systems and Economics, 1992:309 – 314 (in
Japanese).
[5] Kondo Y, Moriguchi Y, Shimizu H. Time-course analysis of CO2 emissions according to input-out-
put tables, and an examination of error by number of sectors in the analysis (in Japanese). Energy
Resources 1994;15(2):77–85.
[6] Environment Agency, Global Environment Division Report on Carbon Dioxide Emission Study,
1992 (in Japanese).
[7] Mori Y, Otoma S, Sameshjima R, Aso T. Optimization of repowering and reburning municipal
solid waste incineration plants with respect to life-cycle energy consumption and carbon dioxide
eemissions. IEW/JSER ’96, 1996:331 – 336.
[8] Aso T, Sameshjima R, Otoma S, Mori Y. Energy recovery and CO2 emission reduction by
repowering systems in municipal solid waste incinerators. In: Proc. Sixth Environmental Engineer-
ing Symposium ’96, 1996:277–280 (in Japanese).
[9] Uchiyama Y, Yamamoto H. Analysis of the Energy Balance in Generating Plants. Research Report
Y90015, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry Reports, Y90015, 1991 (in Japanese).
[10] Uchiyama Y. Life cycle analysis of the energy balance in generating plant systems. Research Report
Y94009, Central Research Institute of Electric Power 1995 (in Japanese).
[11] Kagaku-kogyo-nippo-sha. Chemical Daily. Practical Life Cycle Assessment, 1996 (in Japanese).