LEME ET AL. (2014)

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

jo u r n al homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / resconrec

Techno imenergy MS

Marcio M aa,

Electo Ed MaCludio Ha NEST Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Itajub, Av. BPS 1303,Itajub, Minas Gerais State CEP: 37500-903, Brazilb CEMIG Electric Company of Minas Gerais State, TE/AE, Av. Barbacena 1200 16 andar B1 Belo Horizonte, MG CEP: 30190-131, Brazil

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 28 JuReceived in reAccepted 11 M

Keywords:Municipal SoliLandllBiogasWaste-to-EneTechno-econoLife cycle asse

1. Introdu

Solid waronment, mconsumptioopments. Tof residues

CorresponE-mail add

(M.H. Rocha).

http://dx.doi.o0921-3449/ e i n f o

ne 2013vised form 6 March 2014arch 2014

d Waste (MSW)

rgy (WtE)mic analysisssment (LCA)

a b s t r a c t

Due to the lack of appropriate policies in the last decades, 60% of Brazilian cities still dump their wastein non-regulated landlls (the remaining ones dump their trash in regulated landlls), which repre-sent a serious environmental and social problem. The key objective of this study is to compare, from atechno-economic and environmental point of view, different alternatives to the energy recovery from theMunicipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated in Brazilian cities. The environmental analysis was carried outusing current data collected in Betim, a 450,000 inhabitants city that currently produces 200 tonnes ofMSW/day. Four scenarios were designed, whose environmental behaviour were studied applying the LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. Theresults show the landll systems as the worst waste management option and that a signicant environ-mental savings is achieved when a wasted energy recovery is done. The best option, which presented thebest performance based on considered indicators, is the direct combustion of waste as fuel for electricitygeneration. The study also includes a techno-economical evaluation of the options, using a developedcomputer simulation tool. The economic indicators of an MSW energy recovery project were calculated.The selected methodology allows to calculate the energy content of the MSW and the CH4 generatedby the landll, the costs and incomes associated with the energy recovery, the sales of electricity andcarbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The studies were based on urban cen-tres of 100,000, 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants, using the MSW characteristics of the metropolitanregion of Belo Horizonte. Two alternatives to recovering waste energy were analyzed: a landll that usedlandll biogas to generate electricity through generator modules and a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilityalso with electricity generation. The results show that power generation projects using landll biogasin Brazil strongly depend on the existence of a market for emissions reduction credits. The WtE plantprojects, due to its high installation, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, are highly dependent onMSW treatment fees. And they still rely on an increase of three times the city taxes to become attractive.

2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ction

ste has emerged as a signicant pressure on the envi-ostly due to the population growth the changes inn habits and of the patterns of the communities devel-he Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the largest volume

produced worldwide; at the same time, the citizens

ding author. Tel.: +55 03536291413; fax: +55 03536291355.resses: [email protected], [email protected]

demands for an environmentally sound management of MSW havesignicantly increased during the last decades (Achillas et al., 2011;Cleary, 2009).

The Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) includes sev-eral solutions to achieving lower environmental and social impacts.This alternative combines different solutions such as the reduc-tion of waste generation, the materials recovery, the recycling, theenergy recovery and as a last option, the landlls. This practiceis incorporated to any modern strategy involving the MSW man-agement. The European Union (EU) has, for example, introducedtargets aiming to reduce the amount of landlled biodegradablewaste. The Landll Directive (EC, 1999) prevents the disposal of

rg/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.0032014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.-economic analysis and environmental recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (

ontagnana Vicente Lemea, Mateus Henrique Rochuardo Silva Loraa, Osvaldo Jos Venturinia, Brunoomero Ferreirabpact assessment ofW) in Brazil

,rciano Lopesb,

M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820 9

Nomenclature

a cost scale factor (dimensionless)C C0

Ga HHV k L0

LHV n P P0

PaPl Q t

organics in posted or dlandlling ountreated oe.g. Denmabeing madewastes (M

The incinsolution in aroused harof air pollutin this sectoever, new acontrol mafrom an envaged in muet al. (2009)produce ento-Energy (a point thaAgency (US

Public osuitable noperationala WtE facilias volume ragents in copublic opinthe installaally producincineratorssources of acid gases close to urconstructiogreater. Whinterrelated(Keramitsogand Nepal,

SpecicaBrazilian citlls. Unreguand leaches

cover. However, the biggest Brazilian cities use regulated landllsas an alternative, meaning that 74.9% of Brazilian MSW mass aredumped in regulated landlls which is considered by the Brazilianenvironmental regulations an environmentally sound alternative

2012ana

nal P obje

inclunts, tic in

NPS fedeon in, wit

was was

MSWiro etzil sted f

50 Nnside

sent otenerinra, 20ay, Bgas orizo) andial win a eringhyn,radaart ofo engible twastentlytivesk of sricesiatioeir h

to becapacity factor of the equipment ($/MWh)capacity factor of the equipment starting from ref-erence values ($/MWh)MSW garbage/food content (%)higher heating value (kJ/kg)decay rate of landll waste (1/year)methane generation potential from MSW (m3

CH4/Mg MSW)lower heating value (kJ/kg)economic lifetime of the system (years)freight on board (FOB) price of the equipments ($)FOB price of the equipments starting from referencevalues ($)MSW paper content (%)MSW plastic content (%)methane production (m3/year)time of waste disposal (years)

landlls by 2016; this fraction of MSW must be com-igested (Murphy and McKeogh, 2006). Furthermore,f certain types of waste such as combustible waste orrganic waste, are now illegal in some EU member states,rk, Sweden and Germany; also in the EU, great effort is

to identify alternatives to the landlling biodegradablenster and Lund, 2009).eration of MSW with energy recovery is a widespreadsome countries despite the fact that this alternativesh criticism in the 80s and 90s, due to the high emissionsants. For this reason, strict emission limits were appliedr, which repressed the installation of new plants. How-dvances in gas treatment technologies for air pollutionke the incineration, with energy recovery, attractiveironmental point of view and its use is being encour-

ch of the developed world. According to Psomopoulos incineration appears particularly attractive as a way toergy and reduce the MSW volume in so-called Waste-WtE) plants. The WtE emissions have been reduced tot in 2003 the United States Environmental Protection

EPA) considered WtE a cleaner source of energy.pinion is a most crucial factor in the selection of aal option for any ISWM scheme as well as during the

phase of a plant, especially for incineration of MSW in

(SNIS, icy to mNatiociples,waste,ernmeeconom

Theby theemissiactionsof solidby theicy for(Loure

Braproducrate ofand co2012),has a p(considand Lo

Todthe bioBelo Hbitantspotentwaste considLawrysbiodegonly pplied tit possin the

Recalternathe lacland pdeprecnear thwaste ty; it is clear that incineration presents advantages sucheduction, energy recovery and elimination of pathogenmparison with other waste treatments. However, theion in most countries is frequently concerned abouttion of MSW incinerators because dioxins are gener-ed in many combustion processes. Traditionally the

have been pointed out as one of the most importanttoxic emissions of not only dioxins, but also furans,and heavy metals. The WtE facilities need to be builtban conurbations, therefore, public objections to then of an MSW incineration facility becomes often muchat is revealed is that concerns are mainly focused on the

issues of public health and environmental protectionlou and Tsagarakis, 2013; Achillas et al., 2011; Jamasb

2010).lly in Brazil, in relation to ISWM, approximately 60% ofies still dump their solid waste in non-regulated land-lated landlls do not have drainage systems for gases

have lower sealing and sometimes even lack daily soil

those problThe Life

the entire liother wordduction andLora et al., 2the LCA is aucts and secompare thto provide strategies, gimpacts of

LCA hasate and coand LawrysCherubini eBergsdal etwell-establtive assessm). Only recently Brazil has implemented its rst pol-ge the MSW; the Law N 12.305/2010, establishes theolicy on Solid Waste (NPSW), which provides the prin-ctives and instruments for the management of solidding the responsibilities of producers and the local gov-he guide to the management of hazardous waste and thestruments to be applied.

W was the basis to xing the steps to route the planningral government to reduce the Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Brazil; however, this policy does not specify mandatoryh targets and timetables, neither for the managementte nor for the recovery of energy or the gases generatedte sector. The lack of such adequate management pol-

will have serious nationwide negative consequences al., 2013; Cndido et al., 2011).ill recovers only a small fraction of the energy that isrom the biogas emitted by the landlls. Assuming am3 of CH4/tonne of MSW (Themelis and Ulloa, 2007)ring a production of 141,700 tonne/day of MSW (SNIS,to regulated landlls, it is possible to estimate that Braziltial of about 660 MW of electric power from landllsg 30% of efciency in the energy conversion) (Salomon09).razil produces 69 MW of power through the use offrom landlls in So Paulo (11,244,369 inhabitants),nte (2,375,444 inhabitants), Salvador (2,676,606 inha-

Uberlndia (619,536 inhabitants) (ANEEL, 2012). Thisill be greater if we consider the incineration of saidWtE process, with a calculated potential of 1750 MW,

18% of energy conversion efciency (Assamoi and 2012) and a LHV of 7.10 MJ/kg; because, rst, only theble part of the MSW is converted into biogas and also

the biogas from the landlls can be captured and sup-ines or turbines. Additionally, burning the waste makeso recover the energy content of other materials presente (plastics and rubber)., some Brazilian cities have started searching for other

to dispose their wastes other than landlls, because ofpace in the surroundings of big cities and also the high, the high cost of long distance waste transportation,n associated to the refusal of people to having landllsomes. All of those are clear reasons for the burning of

constantly evaluated by city authorities as a solution toems (Fehr et al., 2009).Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology that considersfe cycle of products and services from cradle to grave, ins, from acquisition of raw material, going through pro-

use until the disposal of the residues (Ning et al., 2013;011; Rocha et al., 2008, 2010). Its possible to state that

holistic methodology applicable to the analysis of prod-rvices, proven to be a systematic tool to measure ande environmental impacts of human activities, being ablean overview of the environmental prole of differentiving additionally a comparison of the environmental

all the options. been used extensively by different authors to evalu-mpare various scenarios for ISWM systems (Assamoihyn, 2012; Ning et al., 2013; Cleary, 2009; Khoo, 2009;t al., 2008; Emery et al., 2007; Aye and Widjaya, 2006;

al., 2005), the use of LCA in decision making is alsoished, having been used successfully for the compara-ent of MSW systems. The key point, in an LCA, is that

10 M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820

all compared products or services should have the same function,so they can be compared on the same units bases (Finnveden et al.,2000). An ISWM approach does not depend on a single tool or agentto solve all problems, but a rational approach must consider thesystem as amultiple m

So, the abecause thethe waste mnomical poapproach penced by an

The keyenvironmenery, differenwithout prThe paper ll system Internal Coelectricity aery in a Wttakes place

The worsensitivity the viabilityand the LCAenvironmensystems wa

The type(LCIA) incluPotential (GToxicity Pophication Pthe analysisrecently be

2. Method

2.1. Techno

In the eduction wereciprocatinpre-existingbiogas norm18.019.0 Mto produce gas from a the landllan energy celectricity.

The secoin a contro8701200

to produce eration redu(Ofori-Boatrepresent alandlls, crconsidered recovery.

In each cases, withtem and weconomic e

implion.

ers 1/da

tion 00

day. stud

of Bee 1. Flife o

in 2e owlies

rateecaugrounte wn of ableen i

cell g w

landlly).eneride r

langy ging ts senso it tion

ashesidered.

omputer programme was developed to analyze these sce-, able to evaluate the technical and economic performance ofne. The main goal of the programme developed is to assist incision making for projects, focused on energy recovery frombased on indicators commonly used in economic feasibilityis, such as, cash ow, Net Present Value (NPV) and Internalf Return (IRR) (Barros et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2010).ng the information referred to the waste generated in thee software tool is able to estimate the energy potential ofW, producing balance sheets based on the data supplied byr. The energy potential of a landll depends on the amountproduced, which is a function of the quantity of degrad-

rganic carbon present in the MSW. Mathematical modelseveloped to estimate the production of this gas per landlls. whole and seek solutions through the employment ofethods and collaboration among all stakeholders.pproach used in this paper differs from past studies

modelling conducted through software tool can aid inanagement from a combined environmental and eco-

ints of view, adapted to the Brazilian conditions. Theroposed in the study reported in this paper, is not inu-y particular technology of MSW treatment and disposal.

objective of this work is to evaluate, in terms of thetal impacts and economic assessment of energy recov-t alternatives for MSW, based on the Brazilian context,

oposing substantial modications to MSW collection.compares two MSW disposal alternatives: the land-with the use of the biogas generated in reciprocatingmbustion Engines (ICE) and in gas turbines to producend the incineration of the MSW, with the energy recov-E facility; in both cases no sorting phase or recycling.k focuses in providing an economic assessment, withanalysis, of the most signicant parameters affecting

of the proposed energy recovery from MSW scenarios; methodology was used to perform and to compare thetal impacts between different MSW energy recoverys used.s of impact studied by the Life Cycle Impact Assessmentded Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), Global WarmingWP), Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP), Humantential (HTP), Acidication Potential (ACP) and Eutro-otential (ETP), this tool is not often used in Brazil for

of waste management, studies like this have only verygun to emerge.

ology

-economic assessment

conomic assessment two scenarios for energy pro-re evaluated; the rst one with the installation of ag ICE power plant, that uses the biogas produced in a

landll managed by the city municipality; the landllally comprises 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 (energy content ofJ/Nm3) it is trapped, scrubbed and combusted in orderelectricity (Ofori-Boateng et al., 2013), to get the bio-preexisting landll it is necessary to drill wells withins, then conduct the gas through pipes to feed it intoonversion station with specic technology to generate

nd option refers to a WtE facility that burns the MSWlled massburn grate incinerator; at a temperature ofC, for the oxidation of all organic material in the MSW,high pressure steam for power generation. Waste incin-ces its volume and weight by 90% and 70%, respectively

eng et al., 2013); the ashes from the incinerator, whichbout 10% of the original waste, are usually dumped ateating another environmental hazard. Fig. 1 shows thescenarios for economic assessment of the MSW energy

scenario, the study was conducted for hypothetical a different number of inhabitants, served by the sys-ith a corresponding waste production rates. For thevaluation three scenarios were analyzed: Scenario 1

Fig. 1. Sutilizati

considof MSWgenera1,000,0MSW/

Theregionin Tabluseful endingventurexemp

Thetime, bbeing of wasfunctiodegradat a givvidualcoverinyear ofannua

In gthis wfor theof eneraccordMSW iment, This opthe yare con

A cnarioseach othe deMSW, analysRate o

Usicity, ththe MSthe useof CH4able owere ded owsheet of energetic scenarios for economic assessment of MSW

00,000 inhabitants with the generation of 126.5 tonney, Scenario 2 considers 500,000 inhabitants with theof 632.0 tonne MSW/day and Scenario 3 considers

inhabitants with the generation of 1265.0 tonne of

y used the MSW characteristics for the metropolitanlo Horizonte. The average MSW composition is shownor scenario 1 the waste is disposed in a landll, with af 20 years, considering its operation starting in 2013 and032. The landll belongs to the city municipality and aed the legal rights to use the produced biogas, which

the situation that normally occurs in Brazilian cities. of biogas production in a landll is not constant over these the site is constantly lled, with quantities of MSWded at different periods of time; as a result, each cell

ill have different capacities to produce CH4, being it aits residence time inside the landll and the amount of

organic carbon. The total biogas produced by a landllnstant, is the sum of individual capacities of each indi-inside the landll. The consequence of this system ofaste is an increased production of biogas, until the lastll operation (if similar amounts of MSW are deposited

al, there are no technologies that can handle efcientlyange of energy input variation. The solution proposeddll scenarios is the utilization of a variable numberenerators modules, which are installed and uninstalledo the biogas input available on site. For Scenario 2 thet to a private WtE facility responsible for the waste treat-receives municipalitys fees to take care of the garbage.

does not interrupt the use of a landll, so the slag ands are sent to a near inert landll and the related costs


Table 1Characteristics of MSW produced in the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte.

Components [%] Proximate analysis and heating value Elemental composition % (dry basis)

Food waste 52.0 Moisture [%] 37.0Metals and o 45.0 C 40.0Plastics 18.0 H 5.0Paper 13,064 O 25.0Wood 6772 N 1.0Textiles 15.0 S 0.2Rubber 10.0 Ash 28.0

In general, which t tthese curve(1)) (ThompCastilhos J

Q = L0(1 The prog

the IPCC (20Reductionsopment Mefor landll ACM0002 (has a net calICE module

The carbthe programmass (Table50.0 g/tonnthan CO2, ato the BrazAccording tChange (UNios were refthe possible

In relatienergy contLHV of the wthe LHV of ematical mlead to satisaccount thein the wastlished withthe MSW.

HHV = 112where Ga ipaper continformationcal consumenergy balatricity that the life timduce only ebased on thMartin, 200WtE plants63% for heawith its intebe as high a

Conventenergy conefciency operature an

heat transfer surfaces subject to severe high temperatureion, caused both by the high concentration of HCl and SO2process gas and the chlorides and sulfate salts in the ashes deposited on the boiler tubes. The chlorine and sulfur con-tion in the combustion gas depends entirely on the MSWsition (Lee et al., 2007). Another issue is the high parasitic

loads required by the advanced ue gas cleaning systemsbers, fabric lters, electrostatic precipitators, ue gas desul-ation, selective catalytic reduction, catalytic destruction ofs and furans, heavy metals sorbent removal, etc.) mandatorye facilities (Stehlk, 2009).

costs considered in this work were obtained through aal revout nancbtainom A

O&Marize

estition

es: wanints (eqThe ke lansumostsing ccostsues 2012rounispo

ipalit

of CO

ll biogeld ineringroject

annu

eld mtationthers 16.7 Volatiles [%] 16.0 Ash [%] 10.0 High heating value [kJ/kg] 3.0 Lower heating value [kJ/kg] 2.0 C fossil [%] 0.4 C biogenic [%]

these models were formulated from usual techniques,heoretical curves with experimental results; usually,s are described by a rst order kinetics equation (Eq.son et al., 2009; US EPA, 2008; Scharff and Jacobs, 2006;nior et al., 2003):

ekt) (1)

ramme estimates the landll CH4 generation based on06) methodology. The amount of Certicate Emissions

(CER), achieved by implementation of the Clean Devel-chanism (CDM) are calculated based on a methodologygas project activities ACM0001 (UNFCCC, 2004) andUNFCCC, 2006); two things were considered: that CH4oric value of 50,000 kJ/kg and the use of a reciprocating

in the landll scenarios.on offset credits of the scenarios were also estimated byme, based on the fossil carbon presented in the MSW

1). The average N2O emission of a WtE facility is aboute of MSW (IPCC, 2006), that has a GWP 292.0 greaternd the offset of carbon emissions due to electricity sentilian national grid, 0.52 tonne CO2/MWh (MCT, 2013).o the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateFCCC), the CDM methodologies, all the baseline scenar-erred to a landll without CH4 combustion to estimate

CERs.on to the WtE facilities, it is important to know theent in the MSW, which can be calculated based on theaste. This study uses a mathematical model to estimate

the MSW. According to Kathiravale et al. (2003), math-odels, based on the gravimetric composition of waste,factory HHV calculation (Eq. (2)). This model takes into

weight percentages of combustible materials presente and its energy contents. The LHV value can be estab-

information about the water and hydrogen content of

.157Ga + 183.386Pa + 288.737Pl + 5064.701 (2)s the MSW garbage/food content (%); Pa is the MSWent (%) and Pl is the MSW plastic content (%). With

about the LHV of the MSW and the internal electri-ption of the WtE facility, the programme calculates thence of the project and determines the amount of elec-will be sent to the public electric grid system duringe of the project. The WtE facility is considered to pro-lectricity, with a gross electricity conversion of 22%,e average value of the new WtE facilities (Gohlke and7). According to Stehlk (2009) the average traditional

efciency is about 18% for electricity generation and

makescorrosin the particlcentracompoenergy(scrubphurizdioxinin thes

Thenationtion abMaintewere oalso frannualsumm

Theinstallaincludgas cleponenBrazil. costs lie.g. cotional coperatnance of residFEAM (ity is aMSW dmunic

Table 2Average

LandWell EngineCDM p

Table 3Average

Well Flare st production. Higher efciency can be achieved in WtEgration on a cogeneration system, whose efciency cans 43%, with the use of regenerative cycles.ional incineration WtE facilities cannot achieve higherversion rates. As a usual thermodynamic cycle, thef energy conversion increases with higher steam tem-d pressure. Conversely, increasing steam temperature

Operatinglabour/SecInstrumenmaintenan

Qualifying foRegistrationBiogas powe

a This valueiew and adjusted to the Brazilian reality. The informa-the Costs of Investment (COI) and the Operation ande (O&M) costs for landll and WtE projects in Braziled mainly from US EPA (2008) and FEAM (2012), butlves (2000), ICLEI (2009) and GLA (2008). The COI and

costs for electricity generation from landll biogas ared in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.mated cost for the WtE facility is $ 117,373,000 for an

able to handle 650 tonnes of waste per day; this costaste receiving, waste burning, energy recovery, fuel

g and residues treatment. About 60% of the plant com-uipments) were considered as being manufactured inO&M costs of an incineration facility include the xedbour, insurance, permits and rates etc. and variable costsables, waste diversion, transport and landll opera-

. The typical range of the costs as a percentage of the totalost is: capital costs (3040%), labour (1523%), mainte-

(1525%), consumables and analysis (1012%), disposaland waste diversion (1115%) (GLA, 2008). According to) and GLA (2008), the O&M cost of an incineration facil-

d $ 80.00/tonne of treated MSW; the average gures forsal in Brazilian landlls are $ 10.00/tonne (managed byies) or $ 20.00/tonne (for private landlls). It is widely

I for electricity generation thought landll biogas.

as power plant $1,200,000/MWstallation $30,000/ha, legal and other professional services $200,000

registry $100,000

al O&M costs for electricity generation thought landll biogas usage.

aintenance 3% of eld cost maintenance 2% of station costurity/Administration/tce/Fees/Engineering

$95,000$165,000a

r CER $30,000 fees for CER 3% of annual creditsr plant O&M $17.0/MWh

varies according to the size of the landll.


Table 4Economic scale factor used in the economic evaluation.

Cost Scale factor

Landll ICE 0.85a

Landll others 0.70WtE plant 0.80ICE O&M 0.30bWtE O&M 0.30ba Calculated with US EPA (2008) data.b Used for equations described by Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006).

accepted, in engineering cost calculations, that the cost of a piece ofequipment economic sment, consithis work, twas employ

P = P0(

C

C0

)

By Eq. (3ment of a pscale factorand Panagiofactors usedcosts, indircorrelation.are shown i

The Levethe evaluatthe LCOE thow analysphysical deation dictatstructure ofThe most ccial model aprice at whthe breakevcounted cas

2.2. Environ

It shouldmental perand disposanomic assesassessmentronmental located in tBetim is a 4country andlandll begbe closed inated in the city, all garlandll with

Table 5Values of taxe

Parameter

Electricity CERs Waste TreatAnnual Disc

The tool used for the calculations is the one standardized bythe International Standard Organization (ISO) and correspond toISO 14040 and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006a,b). The objective of thisstudy is to compare different scenarios for the disposal and treat-ment of MSwaste gettilection, traof MSW, w1, correspowas considsteam for ano previous

2.nariol, whhere, thecy ain Scmaintiond dirge (D

boulogydll

for btainroadted tte in n areentsystem

unli burns glas

Scen/da

withgh, 2ate ahe fatalyter usfabri005)

the ined

of thavaleenication, for Sh ICE

of e sp

of this proportional to its capacity. For that reason speciccale factors are used, specically for the costs of equip-dering the typical conditions of the Brazilian market. Inhe parametric relationship described in Boehm (1987)ed:

a

(3)

) it is possible to estimate the price of the main equip-ower systems, starting from reference values and the

a, which can be found in El-Halwagi (2012), Tsilemoutakopoulos (2006). Table 4 shows the economic scale

in this study, based also on equipment costs, directect costs and maintenance costs, estimated using this

The values of taxes and prices considered in the studyn Table 5.lized Cost of Energy (LCOE) was also calculated for alled scenarios. There are several methods for calculatingat will be different for every case and consider: the cashis, the equations adapted to cash ow calculations, thepreciation over the life time of the facility, tax depreci-ed by federal policy or model of the detailed nancial

a project (IRENA, 2012; Townsend and Webber, 2012).ommon approach, adopted in this study, is the nan-pproach, where the LCOE is calculated as the minimumich energy must be sold in an energy project to reachen point (NPV equal to $ 0.00), when performing a dis-h ow analysis.

mental impact assessment

be noted that the data used to calculate the environ-formance of the different scenarios, for the treatmentl of MSW, differs from the data used to carry out the eco-sment. An economic evaluation was carried out over an

of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, the envi-study was performed using current data from a landllhe city of Betim (about 35 km from Belo Horizonte).41,748 inhabitants city located in the Southeast of the

produces about 52,000 tonnes of waste per year. Thean its operations in October 1996 and it is expected to

2016. The average characteristics of the MSW gener-city are shown in Table 6. Like in any ordinary Brazilianbage produced by its population is sent directly to theout any previous treatment.

in Fig. Sce

landlatmosp3 and 4efcienbines (of the producemittecovera

Thetechnothe lanis usedwere oand abassociaof wasductioof reagburn sration,beforesuch a

Forof MSWwaste,McKeotors grfrom tnon-cascrubbalso a et al., 2

Fordetermvalue Kathirof bioginformpower

Eac300 kWlife timqualitys and prices.

Value Reference

$ 65.00/MWh CCEE (2013)$ 0.50/tonne CO2 ECX (2013)

ment Business (WTB) $ 22.50/tonne FEAM (2012)ount Rate (ADR) 7.11% BCB (2013)

efcient biolast up to 1the use of 4the remaintors it can kWh of eleand ScenarreciprocatinW with energy recovery in the Brazilian context. Theng into the system has no environmental loads (col-nsportation, etc.), and the functional unit is 1.0 tonneith the characteristics showed in Table 6. For Scenarionding to a WtE facility, a waste mass burning systemered, integrated with a boiler generating high pressure

conventional Rankine cycle; the waste is burned with treatment. The boundaries of this scenario are shown

2 corresponds to the current situation of the Betimere the generated biogas is liberated directly into the, without any emissions control systems. In Scenarios

biogas produced in the landll is collected with a 75%nd supplied to reciprocating ICE (in Scenario 3), gas tur-enario 4) and to a system of ares, as a backup in casestenance of the system and to get rid of biogas excess. Approximately 25% of the biogas is considered to beectly into the atmosphere, due to leaks in the landlli Trapani et al., 2013; Park and Shin, 2001).ndaries of Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are shown in Fig. 3. The

considered in this study is similar to the one used in of Betim, but in Scenarios 3 and 4, in which the biogaspower generation, information about main indicatorsed from data published about similar projects in Brazil

. In all the four Scenarios the direct environmental loads,o the consumption of diesel (for transport and pressingthe landll) and the indirect ones associated to its pro-

taken into account. Fossil fuel related to the production (urea and lime) is also considered. In Scenario 1, a mass

uses all the MSW, without prior treatment or prepa-ke a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) system that separates,ing, the combustible waste from non-combustibles,s and metals.ario 1 (WtE) the facility is able to treat 200 tonnesy and produces about 400 kWh of electricity/tonne of

18% of energy efciency (Stehlk, 2009; Murphy and006). The waste slag from the bottom of the incinera-nd the y ash are sent to a landll located about 54 kmcility. The emission control system includes a selectiveic reduction unit fed with urea for NOx control and a drying lime to remove acid gases, heavy metals and dioxins,c lter is installed to remove solid particles (Consonni.other Scenarios (2, 3 and 4), the biogas ow rate was

by the IPCC methodology (IPCC, 2002) and the calorice waste was calculated with the equations found in

et al. (2003) and Cortez et al. (2008). The proportion and fossil carbon in the MSW was estimated using

from IPCC (2002). The installed sequence and availablecenario 3 is presented in Fig. 4.

generating module has 33% of efciency, produceselectricity and has a useful life of 7 years. This smallan was established because of the limitations in thee biogas recovered from the produced biogas, but if angas cleaning system is used, the engines modules can5 years; the 9 modules installed in the landll ensure6% of the biogas produced for energy generation, whileing 29% is burned in the ares. Based on these indica-be concluded that this scenario is able to recover 162ctricity per tonne of MSW. As stated before, Scenario 4io 3 are very similar, the only difference being that theg ICE modules in the second one are replaced by gas


Table 6Characteristics of MSW generated in the city of Betim.

Components [%] Proximate analysis and heating value Elemental composition % (dry basis)

Food waste 54.0Plastics 16.0 Moisture [%] 35.0Metals and others 12.0 Volatiles [%] 51.0 C 44.0Paper 10.0 Ash [%] 14.0 H 5.5Textiles 4.0 High heating value [kJ/kg] 14,610 O 28.0Textiles 4.0 Lower heating value [kJ/kg] 7981 N 1.2Cardboard 3.0 C fossil [%] 11.0 S 0.2Rubber 1.0 C biogenic [%] 17.0 Ash 21.0

turbines. The installed and available power for Scenario 4 is pre-sented in Fig. 5.

In this Scenario each microturbine generator module has 28%efciency (Bove and Lunghi, 2006) and produces 300 kW of elec-tricity. The 7 modules installed in the landll ensure the use of 41%of the biogas produced; the remaining 34% is burned in the ares.

This Scenario was able to recover 125 kWh of energy/tonne of MSW.For both Scenarios (3 and 4), the modules schedule was optimizedto attain the best energy recovery situation.

Each biogas burning system has its own emission factors andpollutants destruction efciency, based on the current level of thetechnology. In Table 6 the data, as recommended by the US EPA (US

Fig. 2. Boundaries of the Scenario 1.

Fig. 3. Boundaries of the Scenarios 2, 3 and 4.Fig. 4. Variation of available gas and installed power, during the landll site useful life at Scenario 3 (reciprocating ICE).


Fig. 5. Variation of available gas and installed power on landll s

EPA, 2008) is shown. With this information the emissions for Sce-narios 3 and 4, related to the biogas combustion, were calculated.

The emissions to the atmosphere, the water and the soil,resources consumed and the generated electricity, were calculatedin relation emissions trange (60,0inventory ofrom (YokoEmissions fcompressiofrom (MCT,ios were calreport. Emi1996), accountil the stand the imagement byupdate fromet al., 2001impacts.

3. Results

3.1. Techno

In Fig. 6shown. TheIRR (0.4%) ifrom an eco(NPV = 0), itor the CREs

Table 7Emissions cha

Flare

IC Engine

Gas Turbine

Three gethe whole pgas produceeach genera

of 42the post anclud

2 ans timo aches, toive, dring

re stat regi

for a Scenrison

3,00R, mhreet life

landis $ 4ig. 8ted. this d du

biogatricitthe cally ud ne

facilipalitwith the functional unit. The information about theo water in landlls, at short range (100 years) and long00 years) were obtained from Doka (2007). The life cyclef urea was obtained from (Silva et al., 2006), of the limete, 2003) and of the electricity from (Coltro et al., 2003).rom the diesel used in transport and the machinery forn and movement of MSW in landlls, were obtained

2013). Emissions to the atmosphere in landll scenar-culated using the equations based on the US EPA (2008)ssions from WtE facility were obtained from (US EPA,rding to the technology applied. The LCIA was conductedage of characterization. The software SimaproTM 7.1.8pact assessment methodology CML 2000 (Chain Man-

Life Cycle Assessment) baseline 2000 v.2.03 that is an the CML 1992 method (Goedkoop et al., 2008; Guine) were used for the calculation of the environmental

-economic assessment

, the results for the case of 100,000 inhabitants are results of the NPV ($ 659,204) were negative and thes below the ADR, which makes this case not attractivenomic point of view. To make it economically feasible

is necessary that the electricity is sold at $ 82.60/MWh at $ 5.02/tonne CO2 (Table 7).

racteristics of biogas combustion in different systems (US EPA, 2008).

ciencyCOI of O&M cO&M iTables

Thiorder tmodulattractules duthe aprojecresults

ThecompaNPV ($the ADview. Tprojecby thefound

In Fpresenity. In installeof the of elec

All nomicshowea WtEmunicBiogas Burning Systems emissions and removal efciency

Pollutant Value Unit

NOx 19.3 g/kJCO 22.54 g/kJParticulates 7.28 g/kJDioxins/Furans 0.205 pg TEQ/kJPollutants removal efciency 99.7 %NOx 1077 g/kJCO 784.2 g/kJParticulates 21.5 g/kJPollutants removal efciency 97.2 %

s NOx 125.9 g/kJCO 393.2 g/kJParticulates 38.23 g/kJPollutants removal efciency 94.4 %

sibility (NP100,000 inh$ 71.90/ton

Althouglargest pop(through thting better negative inatively highThe carbon16.45/tonnthat this schagreement,ite for Scenario 4 (gas turbine).

nerator modules were used in the model considered forroject life time, which ensure the use of 42.5% of the bio-d by the landll to generate 103,154 MWh of electricity;tor module has a power of 400 kW and an electrical ef-.8%, according to the manufacturer datasheet. The totalroject was calculated at $ 1,828,329 and the annualizedt $ 2,059,040 (including income taxes). The indicatores all the landll operation costs and is presented in

d 3.e the generator modules schedule was arranged inieve the best economic results, the installation of more

increase the biogas utilization, is not economicallyue to the lack of enough biogas to operate another mod-

its entire life time (10 years). The CERs cost includestions construction and maintenance, the costs of CDMstry and CERs qualifying and registration. In Fig. 7 the

500,000 inhabitants Scenario is showed.ario for 500,000 inhabitants showed better results in

with the one of 100,000 inhabitants. The results of the4,678) were positive and the IRR (15.6%) is greater thanaking this case attractive from an economic point of

2000 kW generator modules were installed during thetime, ensuring the use of 42.4% of the biogas producedll to generate 515,781 MWh of electricity. The LCOE9.00/MWh., the results for the 1,000,000 inhabitants Scenario areThe results of the case show a good economic feasibil-Scenario, six 2000 kW power generator modules werering the project life time, which ensure the use of 42.4%s produced by the landll, to generate 1,031,542 MWhy. The LCOE found is $ 41.15/MWh.ases evaluated in the WtE facility Scenario were eco-nfeasible. The results are presented in Table 8. The casesgative results due to the high COI and O&M costs ofity and mainly to the low waste bill paid by Brazilianies, $ 22.50/tonne. To reach a minimum economic fea-

V = 0) the WTB should be $ 157.80/tonne for the case ofabitants, $ 92.10/tonne for the Scenario of 500,000 andne for the 1,000,000 inhabitants Scenario.h the NPV results demonstrate that the scenario of theulation has the worst performance, it can be notede LCOE) that the economic performance is in fact get-with the increasing population. The NPV is even more

this case simply because the initial investment is rel-er and revenues are not sufcient to cover the loss.

CERs prices have collapsed since June 2011 from $e to less than $ 1.40/tonne. Furthermore, it is doubtfuleme will be incorporated into a post-Kyoto multilateral

which will probably lower the appeal of investments in


Fig. 6. Energy and economic performance for the 100,000 inhabitants case (landll option).

Fig. 7. Energy and economic performance for the 500,000-inhabitant scenario (landll option).

Table 8Results of the WtE facility cases.

100,000 Inhabitants Scenario 500,000 Inhabitants Scenario 1,000,000 Inhabitants Scenario

Power output 2350 kW Power output 11,930 kW Power output 23,880 kWEnergy produced 488,800 MWh Energy produced 2,481,440 MWh Energy produced 4,967,040 MWh

Economic Results Economic Results Economic Results

NPV $ 73,857,512 NPV $ 189,861,280 NPV $ 269,667,068Total COI $ 28,952,471 Total COI $ 104,609,442 Total COI $ 182,181,518O&M costs $ 71,733,149 O&M costs $ 220,452,589 O&M Costs $ 358,107,897Energy sales $ 14,451,102 Energy sales $ 73,362,401 Energy Sales $ 146,847,789WTB $ 12,285,580 WTB $ 61,379,339 WTB $ 122,855,797CER sales $ 91,427 CER sales $ 459,011 CER sales $ 918,761CER cost $ 457,516 CER cost $468,544 CER cost $ 482,336LCOE [$/MWh] 397.00 LCOE [$/MWh] 233.40 LCOE [$/MWh] 184.40


inhab

new WtE prbiogas enerenues throuis crucial foet al., 2012)

To evalueconomic imated, one wone with a Ccarbon cred

Flare stasions and tHowever, tian laws anfor that reasout the CDMfound.

Landll reduces theNPV was bescenario wiincreases thlost during ios the CDMassociated the inexistetability. It10.00/tonneevaluated c

To evaluthe projectperformed.comes whechanged. Inthe main ection price oand the anin relation ity = $ 65.00

alysil and

horameV relacelace

mairve brvese speill b

es noe CERnueFig. 8. Energy and economic performance for the 1,000,000

ojects in the country (Tang et al., 2013). All the landllgy projects in Brazil are based on achieving good rev-gh CERs sales and it seems that the CDM mechanismr these projects to attain nancial support (Schwaiger.ate this issue, according to the previous results, the CDMportance was tested and three scenarios were evalu-

ith the current situation, one without CDM and the thirdERs price of $ 10.00/tonne CO2, an average price beforeit market crisis (Point Carbon, 2013).tions at landlls are necessary to control their gas emis-o guarantee the air quality near the landll region.hese stations are not compulsory according to Brazil-d ares are used only when the CDM are implemented;on its related cost was neglected in the scenarios with-. In Table 9 the results of the CDM inuence can be

The anLandlFig. 9.

Thethe parthe NPsame pare rep

Thethe cuThe cudeservvalue wanalysand thgreat iscenarios results demonstrate that the CDM, in fact, projects protability; in all the cases analyzed, thetter in the scenarios without the CDM. However, in theth CERs price of $ 10.00/tonne CO2, the CDM slightlye NPV, revealing its importance for the project success,the current CER price crisis. In the WtE facility Scenar-

did not show much inuence, due to the high COIwith a WtE facility. For the cases of high population,nce of the CDM takes down little of the projects pro-

was also evident that, in a Scenario with a price of $ CO2, there is an increase in the project return, for allases, of about 5.0%.ate the relative importance of input parameters overs economic results, a simple sensitivity analysis was

Sensitivity analyses measure the impact on project out-n input values about which there is some uncertainty are

this case, the sensitivity analysis was performed overonomic parameters of the model: the commercializa-f electricity, the price of CERs, the COI installation costnual O&M costs. A change in the parameters of 80%to the typical market values was considered: electric-/MWh, CERs = $ 10.00/tonne CO2, WTB = $ 80.00/tonne.

a great inuO&M costs the CERs p

The elecmainly dueis used to aIf the agentSPD price, aby the Chamset weekly hydroelectrvolatile andincreases thlimited annto a minim47.55/MWh

The pricmarket dembefore the c1.40/tonne $ 1.40.

In the sathat the curitants scenario (landll option).

s was performed for the 1,000,000 inhabitants cases for WtE facilities Scenarios. The results are presented in

izontal axis in Fig. 9 shows the percentage change ofter in relation to the base value. The vertical axis showssult. It can be observed that all curves intersect at the, which is the standard behaviour, when all variablesd with their base values.n aspect to take into consideration in this gure is howehaves regarding the variations in the horizontal axis.

that have higher gradient, either positive or negative,cial attention, because a small change in the expectede reected as large changes of the NPV. For the Landllte that the curves with greater gradient are electricitys, which obviously means that these parameters havence on the project viability, because their variation has

ence over the investment return. Moreover, the COI andare relatively static at short term, but the electricity andrices show a great variation at short term.tricity prices variation in Brazilian free market occurs

to the Settlement Price for Differences (SPD). Its valueppraise monthly energy balances of each market agent.

balance is negative it should buy more energy at thelso the agent sells this energy by SPD. This value is setber for Commercialization of Electrical Energy (CCEE),

and based on several factors, such as volume of Brazilianic reservoirs and expanding demand. It is signicantly

characterized by a high unpredictability, which greatlye risks of market companies, however these prices areually by ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency)um and a maximum price. In 2013 prices ranged: $

< SPD > $ 207.70/MWh (CCEE, 2013).es of CERs vary according to the type of the project, theand, the technology used in carbon offset and others;arbon credit crisis the prices of CERs ranged between $and $ 41.10/tonne, but today the current price is below

me way, it can be observed, for the WtE facility analysis,ves with greater gradients are the O&M cost and WTB.


Table 9Results of the CDM inuence.

Scenario 100,000 Inhabitants 500,000 Inhabitants 1,000,000 Inhabitants

NPV Result NPV Increase NPV Result NPV Increase NPV Result NPV Increase

Landll Current situation $ 659,204 $ 3,004Without CDM $ 56,357 91.5% $ 3,99CER at $ 10.00/tonne CO2 $ 727,077 210.3% $ 9,84

WtE Plant Current situation $ 73,857,512 $ 189Without CDM $ 73,497,965 0.5% $ 189CER at $ 10.00/tonne CO2 $ 72,172,517 2.3% $ 181

dll a

A WtE facilout the reaprojects mademonstratTable 10 shconsideringconclude thbreakeven pabout 2.8 ti

Brazilianin landlls (WtE facilitybigger citiethe benets

3.2. Environ

The resutonne of MSare showedresults. Fig.impact of th

The ADresources. Irecovered aavoids the

Table 10Breakeven poi

Parameter

Electricity CERs WTB COI O&M costs

a Negative vb Not applic

ces. red a

the l, Sc

Scennegaed i

l. GW

it to. The4 toFig. 9. Results of the sensitivity analysis (lan

ity usually has high O&M costs and it is hard to gurel costs in a Brazilian situation. On the other hand, thein concern should be the WTB, since this parameter hased to have high inuence on the return on investment.ows the breakeven point for the evaluated scenarios,

the base values of Tables 2, 3 and 5. It is possible toat an electricity price of $ 185.0/MWh means the actualoint for a WtE facility, but unfortunately it represents

mes its current value. municipalities pay a very low price to dispose its MSW$ 22.5/tonne), way below the price needed to reach the

project breakeven point of $ 72.2/tonne. However, for

resourrecovetion toof MSWand in imum consumlandl

Therelateseffectsthe CHs this value should be signicantly lower, considering of the power plants scales.

mental impact assessment

lts of the LCA characterization analysis, referred to 1.0W, for each selected impact category and each scenario

in Table 11, together with the potential energy recovery 10 shows the weighted valuations of environmentale LCA characterization.P measures the consumption of non-renewablen this evaluation it is considered that the energy isnd supplied to the Brazilian electric system, whichconsumption of scarce natural and non-renewable

nts for the sensitivity analysis.

Units Landll WtE

$/MWh 41.2 185.0$/t CO2 a 152.4$/t b 72.2$ 63,122,736 a

$/t 3.4 15.9

alues are necessary to reach an NPV = 0.able in this case.

nario CH4 ethe remain12 with 7.7but still 25result of fuence betwerecovery intial impactGHG emissof fossil caber.

For the laccounts foa consequeto Hodson eemissions aants emitteis destroyeremoval efone of the than Scenarinto the ozo

In relatithe emissioaccounts fo,678 $ 8,793,264 5,251 33.0% $ 10,052,847 14.3%7,419 227.7% $ 22,210,891 152.6%,861,280 $ 269,667,068 ,997,741 0.1% $ 270,110,035 0.2%,536,285 4.4% $ 252,734,302 6.3%

nd WTE cases).

Thus, WtE plant performance was better because it larger amount of energy per tonne of waste in rela-andll Scenarios. Scenario 1 recovered 400 kWh/tonneenario 3 (162 kWh/tonne), Scenario 4 (125 kWh/tonne)ario 2 there is no energy recovery. Scenario 2 has a min-tive effect (5.60E-6 kg Sb-eq./tonne), due to the dieseln the transport of the waste and its compaction in the

P quanties the contribution of GHG emissions and the increase in the global warming and climate change

lack of an emission control system in Scenario 2 causes be emitted directly into the atmosphere, in this sce-

missions are responsible for 92% of the GWP results,ing 8% is related to other substances, mainly the CFC-%. In Scenarios 3 and 4 the CH4 is partially destructed% of it is released directly into the atmosphere as agitive emissions from the landll. The small differ-en Scenarios 3 and 4 are due to the higher energy

Scenario 3. In Scenario 1 (WtE facility) the poten- is diminished by 86% compared to Scenario 2, theions of this scenario are a result of the combustionrbon components in the MSW, e.g., plastics and rub-

andll Scenarios the main pollutant is the CFC-12, whichr 93% of the ODP impact category. These emissions arence of aerosol cans and polyurethane foam. Accordingt al. (2010) in the United Kingdom, the landlls CFC-12ccount for 6% of the total ozone layer depleting pollut-d in the country. In Scenario 3 and 4 part of the CFC-12d in the generator modules and ares, the pollutantsciency of reciprocating ICE is slightly better than the

gas turbines, so Scenario 3 achieves a result 4% betterio 4. In the WtE facility there are no harmful emissionsne layer.on to HTP the main pollutant in Scenarios 2 and 3 isn of barium into the ground and surface waters, whichr approximately 53% of the impact in these Scenarios


Table 11Electricity production and LCA characterization for evaluated scenarios.

Scenario Energy recovery LCA characterization

ADP GWP ODP HTP ACP ETP

Units k

Scenario 1 0Scenario 2 0Scenario 3

reciprocat0

Scenario 4 0

and 28% in nario 1 anddioxins durthe landllin Scenarioremaining cand hexa-chthe landllremoval ef

In relaticontain sulpounds genthe whole than Scenarbines. In Scformation d2 are relatewhich is relscenarios.

In relatifacility scenuid efuenhigh Chemiand PO34 . Iimpact load(11%) have different NICE. The orused in Scelandll.kWh/tonne MSW % kg Sb-eq. kg CO2-eq.

WtE 400.0 18.0 0.21 285.0 Landll 0.0 0.0 0.00 2052 Landlling ICE

162.0 7.4 0.12 464.0

gas turbines 125.0 5.7 0.10 478.0 Fig. 10. Proportion of the values in a characteriz

Scenario 1 (WtE facility). The difference between Sce- the other two is mainly due to the air emission ofing incineration, which is 134 times greater than in

Scenarios. Emissions to water from the inert landll 1, is responsible for 73% of the total impact load, theorresponds to dioxins (20%), mercury (2%), arsenic (2%)romium-benzene (HCB) (2%). The differences between

scenarios are due to the diverse biogas pollutantsciency in each one.on to ACP the landll gas is rich in compounds thatphur. In Scenarios 3 and 4 the burning of these com-erate gaseous SO2 emissions, gas responsible for almostof the impacts (97%). Scenario 4 attains better resultsio 3 due to the lower emissions of NOx in the gas tur-enario 1, the impacts correspond to the SOx and NOxuring the waste combustion. The results in Scenariod to the diesel consumption in the landll machinery,atively modest in comparison to the impact load in other

on to the ETP, the difference between landll and WtEarios, arise because of the high organic load of liq-

ts from the landlls, characterized specically by acal Oxygen Demand (COD) and emissions of NH3, NO

3

n the landll scenarios the main contributions to the is the COD (69%), but ammonia (18%) and nitratesignicant values. These differences correspond to theOx emissions between gas turbines and reciprocatingganic load in the liquid efuents of an inert landll,nario 1, is signicantly lower compared to a common

4. Discussi

The econto MSW enlandll bioincineratorof three difinhabitantsmetropolita

The resuis very imprmed whegood econoically feasibCOI and O&by Brazilianhigher COI savings on

A sensitmodel parathe total COshows that,great inueon the retuis the WTB,paid by theeconomic blower WTB

The Kyoian landll g CFC-11-eq. kg 1,4 DB-eq kg SO2-eq. kg PO34 -eq

.00 331.9 0.68 0.66

.0132 182.4 0.00 2.53

.0036 175.7 11.87 2.57

.0037 175.4 11.65 2.51ation in a LCA.

on and conclusions

omic assessment was carried out for two alternativesergy recovery according to the Brazilian conditions, agas power plant and a WtE facility mass-burn grate. The study was conducted based on hypothetical casesferent urban centres of 100,000, 500,000 and 1,000,000, using as a reference the MSW characteristics of then region of Belo Horizonte.lts for the landll Scenarios reveal that the scale factorortant to make a landll biogas project successful, con-n the cases of 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants showmic revenues. The WtE facility option is not econom-le in all the evaluated scenarios, because of the highM costs, but also and mainly due to the low WTB paid

municipalities. To achieve an economic feasibility, theand O&M costs of the facility should be compensated bythe variable energy costs.ivity analysis was performed for the main economicmeters: the selling price of electricity, the price of CERs,I and annual O&M costs; the results of such evaluation

for landlls, the prices of electricity and the CERs havence, because their variations have a decisive inuencern on investment. For the WtE facility the main factor

as a consequence of the insufcient amount of money Brazilian cities, which is always below the WtE facilityreakeven point; only in cases of the biggest cities are

values satisfactory, due to the WtE power plants size.to protocol, by the CDM, is a key factor for the Brazil-energy projects, highly improving its protability in the


last years. The CDM economic importance was evaluated in threeScenarios and the results conrm that the low current prices ofCERs are in fact reducing the projects protability. However, thescenario with a CERs price at a pre-crisis value, slightly increasesthe NPV, mathe project

Further wcosts assocmental impresults. Extbut which sdamage to hter, O3, CO, S(NMVOC), hassociated concern forcertain matand NMVOCtems. Accorit seems ththis can chgeneration

The envilandll loca(the solutioto implemehave greateselected in lowered theuse landllsto reduce tperiod; as thigher the greater the

It is cleafavouring tforeseen in and recycleless burdenonly as a tra

The inciluting techndoes not apspace for nto rethink trm that Wmore efcieimpacts.

More stuaged in thmanagemengies for eneof the MSW

In additithe widesprtheless, duewaste in langeneration appealing a

Acknowled

The authby the ElecResearch an

Assessment of Technological Options for Electricity Generationfrom Municipal Solid Waste and Tree and Shrub Cutting, whosesupport is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank the BrazilianNational Research and Development Council (CNPq). The Research

rt Fonatin

Edu gradcomped in

nces

Ch, Vnidis

urbaS. Mao eneriagnorobic Paulo gnciaonal d. Publugues

B, Leratio;32(5idjayaraditioM, Tiaazil. El H, Ste inc;10(4ilian C, httpF. Desns; 19Lunghvative

L, Kinerials s Jnios de rnativdes [Ma Cataambe

Rulesod; 20ni F, agem;34(1

ni F, Bgy perage 20. Lifes: a co;35(8

, Garciil. Int i S, Giicipal;25(2

AB, Lo Brazilni D, ll su;33(1EcoinnventCycle n Com/1. European

Futuressed agi MMicatioility eking clear the major importance of this mechanism forviability, especially for small cities.ork can also include external costs (externalities), like

iated with medical care and other social and environ-acts, using a valuable method to properly link theseernal costs are those that are not reected in the price,ociety as a whole must bear. For example, the biggestuman health is caused by emissions of particulate mat-Ox, NOx, and non-methane volatile organic compoundsydrocarbons (CxHy), dioxins, etc. There are also costs

with non-health impacts. SO2 is the main pollutant of building-related damage, though ozone also does affecterials. The secondary pollutants formed from SO2, NOx

also impact on crops and terrestrial and aquatic ecosys-ding to Eshet et al. (2006), from the social point of view,at incineration is a more expensive option; howeverange if the benets to avoided burdens in the energyare in focus.ronmental study was performed using real data from ated in the city of Betim. The results show that landllsn for nal MSW disposal that Brazilian cities are tryingnt in their territory to get rid of non-regulated landlls)r environmental impacts in ve of the six categoriesthis study. The energy recovery from biogas slightly

environmental load of landll. As most Brazilian cities, it can be concluded that this option could contribute

he impacts of MSW treatment and disposal in a shorthe Cherubini et al. (2009) results in Italy conclude, theyields of energy recovered from wastes disposal, theenvironmental savings.r that the worlds policies tend to eradicate the landlls,he implementation of the hierarchy of waste, as it isthe NPSW, directed to reduce the waste and to recover

materials and energy content; landlls generate count-s for the future generations and should be considerednsitory option, with no future.

neration of waste is still seen in Brazil as a highly pol-ology for MSW treatment and most of the populationprove of its utilization; on the other hand, the lack ofew landlls in metropolitan areas, is forcing the citieshe use of WtE options; the results of many studies con-tE facility is environmentally superior to landlls, beingnt in energy recovery and having less environmental

dies using a life cycle approach tool should be encour-e country; future work should include other wastet options, such as recycling and advanced technolo-

rgy recovery, such as the gasication and the pyrolysis.on to the fear about air pollution, a further obstacle toead WtE plant is the high COI of such facilities. Never-

to the increase in regulatory barriers for the disposal ofdlls and the increasing cost of this option, electricitythrough the combustion of MSW is becoming a highlylternative for the country (Menezes et al., 2000).

gments

ors are very grateful to the nancial support providedtrical Company of Minas Gerais (CEMIG) through thed Development project (R&D) ANEEL/CEMIG N D194,

SuppoCoordiHigherport ofthe acinclud

Refere

Achillasgianin an

Alves JWe uscal danaeSo

ANEEL AnaciationPort

Assamoiincin2012

Aye L, Wfor t

Barros Rin Br

Bergsdawas2005

BCB Braz2013

Boehm R& So

Bove R, inno

Cndidomat

CastilhocessAltenidaSant

CCEE Chtionperi

Cherubiman2009

CherubienerMan

Cleary Jtem2009

Coltro LBraz

Consonnmun2005

Cortez Lnas,

Di Trapaland2013

Doka G. EcoiLife

EuropeaL182

ECX (Eution(acc

El-Halwappltabundation of the Minas Gerais State (FAPEMIG) and theg Body for the Improvement of Postgraduate Studies incation (CAPES) for the funding of R&D projects. The sup-uate students and the production grants that allowedlishment of the research projects whose results are

this paper.

lachokostas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G, Kafetzopoulos G, Kara-A. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plantn area. Resour Conserv Recy 2011;55(910):85763.ster Thesis in Energy Diagnstico tcnico institucional da recuperac ogtico do biogs gerado pela digesto anaerbia de resduos [Techni-sis of the recovery and energetic utilization of biogas generated by thedigestion of municipal solid waste] Master Thesis in Energy. So Paulo:University; 2000. p. 142 (in Portuguese).

Nacional de Energia Eltrica (National Electric Energy Agency). Bancoe informac es sobre gerac o (BIG) [National database of energy gener-ic documents]; 2012, http://www.aneel.gov.br (accessed 29.08.12) (ine).awryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landlling vs.n of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manage):101930.

ER. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal optionsnal markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage 2006;26(10):118091.go Filho GL, da Silva TR. The electric energy potential of landll biogasnergy Policy 2014;65:15064.trmman AH, Hertwich EG. Environmental assessment of twoineration strategies for central Norway. Int J Life Cycle Ass):26372.entral Bank. Selic Rate Brazilian Central Bank reference interest rate;://www.bcb.gov.br/?SERIETEMP (accessed 18.06.13) (in Portuguese).ign Analysis of Thermal Systems. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley87. p. 288.i P. Electric power generation from landll gas using traditional and

technologies. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47(1112):1391401.dlein W, Demori R, Carli L, Mauler R, Oliveira R. The recycling of

as a design project tool. J Clean Prod 2011;19(13):143845.or AB, Medeiros PA, Firta IN, Lupatini G, da Silva JD. Principais pro-degradac o de resduos slidos urbanos. In: Castilho Jnior, editor.as de disposic o de resduos slidos urbanos para pequenas comu-unicipal Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives for Small Communities].rina: PROSABE; 2003. p. 1950 (in Portuguese).r for Commercialization of Electrical Energy (CCEE). Commercializa-

of Energy that can be used during the whole day, during the supplying12, http://www.ccee.org.br (accessed 18.06.13) (in Portuguese).Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste

ent strategies: landlling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy2):211623.argigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment of urban waste management:formances and environmental impacts. The case of Rome, Italy. Waste08;28(12):255264.

cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management sys-mparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ Int):125666.a EEC, Queiroz GC. Life cycle inventory for electric energy system inJ Life Cycle Ass 2003;8(5):2906.ugliano M, Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery from

solid waste Part A: Mass and energy balances. Waste Manage):12335.ra EES, Gmez EO. Biomassa para Energia [Biomass to Energy]. Campi-: Editora da UNICAMP; 2008. p. 728 (in Portuguese).Di Bella G, Viviani G. Uncontrolled methane emissions from a MSWrface: inuence of landll features and side slopes. Waste Manage0):210815.vent report n 13 Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services

report n 13. Dbendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DokaAssessments; 2007.munity. Council Directive on the landll of waste (1999/31/EEC),ropean Commission; 1999.

Climate Exchange). ECX Historical Data Certied Emissions Reduc-es Contracts ECX Historical Data; 2013, http://www.ecxeurope.com18.06.13).. Sustainable design through process integration: fundamentals and

ns to industrial pollution prevention, resource conservation and pro-nhancement. Massachusetts: Elsevier; 2012. p. 422.


Emery A, Davies A, Grifths A, Williams K. Environmental and economic modeling:a case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. ResourConserv Recy 2007;49(3):24463.

Eshet T, Ayalon O, Shechter M. Valuation of externalities of selected waste man-agement alternatives: a comparative review and analysis. Resour Conserv Recy2006;46(4):33564.

FEAM Fundac o Estadual do Meio Ambiente (Environmental Agency of MinasGerais State). Diretoria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento. Gerncia de Energiae Mudanc as Climticas. FEAM/DEPED/GEMUC Aproveitamento energtico deresduos slidos urbanos: Guia de orientac es para governos municipais deMinas Gerais [Energy recovery from municipal solid waste: Guidelines for munici-pal governments of Minas Gerais State] Diretoria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento.Gerncia de Energia e Mudanc as Climticas. FEAM/DEPED/GEMUC. Belo Hori-zonte: FEAM; 2012. p. 163 (in Portuguese).

Fehr M, Pereira AFN, Barbosa AKA. Supporting waste and water management withproactive

Finnveden G, Solid WasPlant Scien

GLA. Greater Lfrom-wast

Goedkoop M, Library. Th

Gohlke O, MaManage Re

Guine JB, GorAssessmenCenter of E

Hodson EL, Mozone-depChem Phy

ICLEI. Local GoVolume 1lls). SecreSo Paulo:

IPCC Intergovehouse GasK, editors.Japan: IGE

IPCC Intergovors. CH4 and UnceJapan: Inhttp://ww

IRENA. IRENASolar Pownologies: CIssue 2/5. C2012. p. 41

ISO: 14040. Intcycle asses

ISO: 14044. Intcycle asses

Jamasb T, Ncost-bene2010;54(1

Kathiravale S, heating va

Keramitsoglouscheme to5567.

Khoo HH. LifeWaste Ma

Lee S-H, Themboilers. J T

Lora EES, Escoconsider, eEnergy 20

Loureiro SM, Rgreenhousde Janeiro

MCT Ministrysion Factoaverage emfactors; 20Portugues

Menezes RAA, Gerlach JL, Menezes MA. Estgio Atual da Incinerac o no Brasil. In: VIISeminrio Nacional de Sesduos Slidos e Limpeza Pblica [VII Brazilian seminaron solid waste and public cleaning]. Brazilian Association on Public Cleaning(ABPL); 2000 (in Portuguese).

Mnster M, Lund H. Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport challengeswhen performing energy system analysis. Energy 2009;34(5):63644.

Murphy JD, McKeogh E. The benets of integrated treatment of wastes for the pro-duction of energy. Energy 2006;31(23):294310.

Ning S-K, Chang N-B, Hung M-C. Comparative streamlined life cycle assessment fortwo types of municipal solid waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 2013;53(8):5666.

Ofori-Boateng C, Lee LT, Mensah M. The prospects of electricity generation frommunicipal solid waste (MSW) in Ghana: a better waste management option.Fuel Process Technol 2013;110(6):94102.

Park J-W, Shin H-C. Surface emission of landll gas from solid waste landll. AtmosEnviron 2001;35(20):344551.

rbon. Phts; 2oulos beneH, Lore asse

altern0;112H, Lortment

KR, Lnt sou, Jacote Maer H, sion ;38(3

, Ribeiilizerseedinema Nion SygnosisA, SNI. Con;17(1, Shenl Eners NJ,;32(7

on S, modells. Wnd AKE of watechnu K, Pat facil. Unite Boa0002gener://cdm. Unitrovedmeth://cdmnitednd insionsarch GUnited

I, ChalemeY. M

ribuic azil] M(in Po, Leefcling our Colegal instruments. Resour Conserv Recy 2009;54(1):217.Johansson J, Lind P, Morbeg . Life Cycle Assessment of Energy fromte. Stockholm University, Department of Ecology, Environment andces; 2000. p. 168, FMS 137, FOA-B00-00622-222SE.ondon Authority. Cost if incineration and non-incineration energy-e technologies. London: Mayor of London; 2008. p. 72.Oele M, Schryver A, Vieira M. SimaPro Database Manual: Methodse Netherlands: PR Consultants; 2008. p. 225.rtin J. Drivers for innovation in waste-to-energy technology. Wastes 2007;25(3):2149.re M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. Life Cyclet. An operational Guide to the ISO standards. Leiden, The Netherlands:nvironmental Science, Leiden University (CML); 2001.artin D, Prinn RG. The municipal solid waste landll as a source ofleting substances in the United States and United Kingdom. Atmoss 2010;10(4):1899910.vernments for Sustainability. Manual para aproveitamento do biogs:Aterros Sanitrios (Guidelines to biogas recovery: Volume 1 Land-tariado para Amrica Latina e Caribe, Escritrio de projetos no Brasil.

ICLEI; 2009. p. 80.rnmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Green-

Inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.S; 2006.ernmental Panel on Climate Change.Friland JE, Pipatti R, edit-emissions from solid waste disposal. Good Practice Guidancertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.stitute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2002. p. 41939w.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5 1 CH4 Solid Waste.pdf

Working Paper. Volume 1: Power Sector, Issue 2/5. Concentratinger International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Tech-ost analysis Series IRENA Working Paper. Volume 1: Power Sector,oncentrating Solar Power. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: IRENA;.ernational Standard Organization. Environmental Management Lifesment Principles and framework. Genve: ISO; 2006a.ernational Standard Organization. Environmental Management Lifesment Requirements and guidelines. Genve: ISO; 2006b.epal R. Issues and options in waste management: a socialt analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK. Resour Conserv Recy2):134152.Yunus MNM, Sopian AH, Samsuddin AH, Rahman RA. Modeling thelue of Municipal Solid Waste. Fuel 2003;82(9):111925.

K, Tsagarakis KP. Public participation in designing a recyclingwards maximum public acceptance. Resour Conserv Recy 2013;70:

cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies.nage 2009;29(6):1892900.elis NJ, Castaldi M. High-temperature corrosion in waste-to-energyherm Spray Technol 2007;16(1):10410.bar JCP, Rocha MH, Ren MLG, Venturini OJ, Almazn OO. Issues toxisting tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments.

11;36(4):2097110.overe ELL, Mahler CF. Analysis of potential for reducing emissions ofe gases in municipal solid waste in Brazil in the state and city of Rio. Waste Manage 2013;33(5):130212.

of Science and Technology. Archives of emission factors CO2 Emis-rs for uses that need Brazils National Interconnected Systemsission factor, such as corporate inventories Archives of emission

13, http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/307509.html (ine).

Point Cainsig

Psomopand

Rocha McyclfourJ 201

Rocha Mtrea

Salomonfere

Scharff HWas

Schwaigemis2012

Silva GAFertProc

SNIS Sistmat[DiaSNS

Stehlk P2009

Tang B-JApp

Themeli2007

Thompstionland

TownseLCOand

Tsilemomen

UNFCCCutivACMity http

UNFCCCAppline http

USEPA UgrouemisRese

US EPA umeSupp

Yokote ADistin Br369

Zhao WrecyResooint Carbon Organization. European carbon prices and carbon market013, http://www.pointcarbon.com/ (accessed 18.06.13).CS, Bourka A, Themelis NJ. Waste-to-energy: a review of the statusts in USA. Waste Manage 2009;29(5):171824.a EES, Venturini OJ, Escobar JCP, Santos JJCS, Moura AG. Use of the lifessment (LCA) for comparison of the environmental performance ofatives for the treatment and disposal of bioethanol stillage. Int Sugar(1343):61122.a EES, Venturini OJ. Life cycle analysis of different alternatives for the

and disposal of ethanol vinasse. Zuckerindustrie 2008;133(2):8893.ora EES. Estimate of the electric energy generating potential for dif-rces of biogas in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33(9):11017.bs J. Applying guidance for methane emissions estimation for landlls.nage 2006;26(4):41729.Tuerk A, Pena N, Sijm J, Arrasto A, Kettner C. The future Europeantrading scheme and its impact on biomass use. Biomass Bioenergy):1028.ro PH, Kulay LA. Evaluation of Environmental Performance of Chemical

in Brazil. In: XVI Brazilian Congress of Chemical Engineering, Santos.gs of the XVI Brazilian Congress of Chemical Engineering; 2006. p. 12.acional de Informac es sobre Saneamento (National Sanitation Infor-stem). Diagnstico do manejo de resduos slidos urbanos 2006

of municipal solid waste management]. Ministrio das Cidades, Braslia:S; 2012, http://www.snis.gov.br (in Portuguese).tribution to advances in waste-to-energy technologies. J Clean Prod0):91931.

C, Gao C. The efciency analysis of the European CO2 future markets.gy 2013;112:15447.

Ulloa PA. Methane generation in landlls. Renew Energy):124357.Sawyer J, Bonam R, Valdivia JE. Building a better methane genera-l: validating models with methane recovery rates from 35 Canadianaste Manage 2009;29(7):208591.

, Webber ME. An integrated analytical framework for quantifying theste-to-energy facilities for a range of greenhouse gas emissions policy

ical factors. Waste Manage 2012;32(7):136677.nagiotakopoulos D. Approximate cost functions for solid waste treat-ities. Waste Manage Res 2006;24(4):31022.ed Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. CDM Exec-rd. Revision to the approved consolidated baseline methodology. Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electric-ation from renewable sources. UNFCCC/CCNUCC; 2006. p. 25,-en.ccchina.gov.cn/UpFile/File665.PDF

ed Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ACM0001 consolidated baseline methodology ACM0001. Consolidated base-odology for landll gas project activities. UNFCCC; 2004. p. 11,.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/eb15repan1.pdf

States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-08-116 Back-formation document for updating AP42 Section 2.4 for estimating

from municipal solid waste landlls EPA/600/R-08-116. Easternroup, Inc; 2008. p. 249, Contract Number: EP-C-07-015.

States Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Vol-pter 2: Solid Waste Disposal. 2. 1 Refuse Combustion, Final Section nt B; 1996.aster Thesis in Chemical Engineering Inventrio do Ciclo de Vida dao de Energia Eltrica no Brasil [Life Cycle Inventory of the electric energyaster Thesis in Chemical Engineering. So Paulo University; 2003. p.

rtuguese).tink RB, Rotter VS. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for thef construction and demolition waste in China the case of Chongqing.nserv Recy 2010;54(6):37789.

exemplo.pdfLEME ET AL. (2014)Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil1 Introduction2 Methodology2.1 Techno-economic assessment2.2 Environmental impact assessment

3 Results3.1 Techno-economic assessment3.2 Environmental impact assessment

4 Discussion and conclusionsAcknowledgmentsReferences

LEME ET AL. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of LEME ET AL. (2014)