Energy From Waste

C H A P T E R 14

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development Ishrat Mubeen, Alfons Buekens State Key Laboratory for Clean Energy Utilization, Institute for Thermal Power Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

1. Introduction Sustainable development is the need of the hour, as the annual human population on a global scale has a growth of around 75 million (1.1%). By the mid-2030s, the expected total global population will be 8.4 billion, and by the mid-2050s, it is expected to reach 9.6 billion [1]. The global demand for energy will increase by 37% by 2040 [2]. In modern times, a citizen requires a total throughput of about 86 tons per capita and year, for his or her private activities and transportation, while primitive humans during prehistoric times required only 6 tons per capita and year [3]. As a result, about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste were generated worldwide in 2012, which is expected to be doubled in 2025 [4]. The standard of living greatly influences greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. Rapid economic growth in developing countries has greatly influenced the shaping of urgent goals for sustainability [5,6]. Nowadays, in all discussions on sustainable development, energy is considered a key element on a steady supply of alternative energy sources that are affordable and clean is required, with minimum negative societal and environmental impact [7]. The Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities encourages a 40% reduction in GHGs in the urban environment by 2020, which could be achieved with sustainable and efficient production, conversion, and use of energy [8]. Conventional renewable energy sources include biomass, solar, wind, and hydropower, which can be replaced naturally. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a source of biomass, as it contains a significant portion of food waste, yard and wood trimmings, paper, cotton, leather, etc., and is considered a renewable source of energy. MSW also contains fossil fuelederived plastics, rubber, and fabrics. During the treatment of MSW, the nonrenewable part is either separated or used as fuel [9], and all the waste is considered Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64083-3.00014-2 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

283

284 Chapter 14 a renewable source after recycling and recovery of materials. Moreover, through suitable waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies, agricultural [10,11], domestic [12,13], and industrial [14e16] renewable waste materials are convertible to useful energy forms, like biohydrogen (hydrogen), biogas, bioalcohols, etc. So far, various value-added products such as electricity, heat, fuels, chemicals, and organic fertilizers have been produced through several energy recovery or WTE technologies, like anaerobic digestion (AD), incineration, refuse-derived fuel, and pyrolysis [17,18]. Most WTE technologies have the capacity to generate electricity, but now WTE plants are looking for combined heat and power generation. New innovative plants have the potential to produce transport fuel and a substitute for natural gas from waste. Most developed nations, such as some European countries and Japan, have adapted advanced waste management technologies focused on reducing the final disposal of wastes, while producing electricity and/or heat, thus saving energy resources elsewhere [19]. Mostly, waste incineration technology is adopted for energy recovery, and if this does not work, then as a final option, the waste is disposed off into landfills. There are certain risks associated with landfilling, such as the consumption of large areas of land and high risks of leakage to air, water, and soil and consequently less energy recovery compared with incineration. In contrast, incineration is considered to produce fewer emissions, particularly through WTE recovery technologies [20].

2. Current and Emerging Waste-to-Energy Technologies There are a number of available options for WTE technologies on the market [21], each with specific characteristics and, depending on regional conditions, more or less feasible. Table 14.1 shows an overview of current and emerging WTE technologies. In 2015, thermal treatment had a more than 90% share of the WTE market. However, a remarkable growth in biological treatment is predicted in a calculated time frame, due to improved environmental awareness. The global WTE technologies market, according to Statistics MRC, in 2016 had a worth of $31.9 billion and by 2023 is estimated to reach $56.87 billion, and expected growth at a compound annual growth rate from 2016 to 2023 is 8.6%. Thermochemical WTE technologies include incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification, while fermentation, AD, microbial fuel cells, and landfill gas capture are the most used technologies among the biochemical WTE processes. Incineration: In the presence of oxygen, MSW containing organic elements is destroyed and degraded through this technology. So, in this way nearly 70% of the total weight and 90% of the total volume of the waste is reduced. Mixed waste is burned at high temperatures (1000
C). During incineration, bottom and fly ash could influence the energy balance through its mean heat capacity [22]. However, the incineration technique

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 285 Table 14.1: Overview of Current and Emerging Waste-to-Energy Technologies Current and Future WTE Technologies Technology Thermochemical

Incineration

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Biochemical

Fermentation

Anaerobic digestion

Landfill with gas capture

Microbial fuel cell

Chemical

Esterification

Future technologies

Hydrothermal carbonization Dendro liquid energy

Process Mass burn: waste burning above 1000
C Cocombustion: with coal, biomass Refuse-derived fuel Conventional: at 750
C Plasma arc: passing waste into a kiln at 4000 e7000
C 500e800
C, at higher pressures and in the absence of oxygen Dark fermentation: organic waste is treated with bacteria in the absence of a light source Photo-fermentation: organic waste is treated with bacteria in the presence of a light source Conversion process carried out by microorganisms under anoxic conditions Extraction from existing landfill sites, by the natural decomposition of wastes Catalytic reaction of natural microorganisms and bacteria to convert the chemical energy content of organic matter Reaction of an alcohol and an acid to create an ester An acid-catalyzed chemical acceleration of the natural geothermal process Close to “zero-waste” technology A German innovation of biological waste treatment

Outcome Heat, power, combined heat and power

Hydrogen, methane, syngas

Char, gases, aerosols, syngas Ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel

Methane

Methane

Power

Ethanol, biodiesel

Carbon-dense material with properties of fossil fuels Syngas

286 Chapter 14 engenders toxic emissions such as sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon oxides (CO2, CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx); polyaromatic hydrocarbons; and heavy metals. Therefore, before final disposal, additional flue gas cleaning and treatment is needed, to avoid the severe threat to the environment and to human health posed by these pollutants. However, bottom ash can be used to recover ferrous and nonferrous metals, and by further treatment this ash could be utilized for the construction of roads and buildings [23]. Cocombustion: The simultaneous combustion of two or more fuels in the same plant for energy production is called cocombustion. It is a promising substitute for conventional coal combustion with both effective emissions control and economic benefits [24]. Pyrolysis: The decomposition of waste materials by thermochemical treatment in the absence of air, at high temperatures of 500e800
C is called pyrolysis, and major products include syngas, tar, and char. The temperature and rate of heating during pyrolysis affect the proportion and amount of final products, such as CH4, CO, H2, and other hydrocarbons [25]. Based on different temperature windows, the most common type of pyrolysis methods are conventional pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis, and flash pyrolysis, carried out in the range of 550e900K, 850e1250K, and 1050e1300K, respectively. Gasification: A thermal conversion technology in a controlled oxidizing atmosphere at a high temperature that converts organic materials into syngas (major product) is called gasification. Syngas obtained through thermal gasification, after cleaning, could be used for various applications, such as high-quality fuel and synthetic natural gas production. Synthetic natural gas has further applications, such as in a traditional burner connected to a boiler and steam turbine or in internal combustion engines or in gas turbines [26]. For recovery of renewable energy from MSW, gasification can be envisaged as an attractive alternative to well-established thermal treatment systems. Fermentation: In the absence of oxygen, when organic waste material is converted into an alcohol and an acid, it is called fermentation, and at the end a nutrient-rich residue is obtained [27]. Bioethanol production by fermentation is done on a large scale, and about 200,000 to 300,000 tons of ethanol per year is being produced. It can be manufactured from several food wastes, such as banana peel, grape pomace, potato peel waste, and household food waste. Fermentation is an achievable and attractive technology to synthesize ethanol from foodstuffs that reduces food waste and has a low carbon footprint. Anaerobic digestion: AD is a biological conversion process that takes place in the absence of oxygen [28]. Combined power and heat or biofuels can be generated from biogas, an energy-rich product obtained during the AD process. AD has been developed throughout the years but still is not economical, compared with other WTE technologies. This technology in the United Kingdom lacks a steady access to waste streams, although the market has a large capacity for AD. Efficient waste separation at source and also

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 287 prevention of the dumping of organic waste into landfills should be incentivized through proper regulations to enable better use of the AD capacity [29]. Landfill with gas capture: Owing to the natural decomposition of waste, biogas is produced in landfills, rather than in an anaerobic digester, and could be extracted [30]. There is a complex biochemical process for the conversion of waste into biogas in landfills. In general, five phases are included: (1) initial adjustment, (2) transition phase, (3) acid phase, (4) methane fermentation, and (5) maturation phase [31]. Microbial fuel cell: This is a process that converts the chemical energy content of waste to electrical energy via a catalytic reaction of indigenous microorganisms in waste. This could be used for wastewater treatment in combination with power generation [32e35]. The process involves aerobic and anaerobic treatments using microorganisms as an approach for the generation of biohydrogen. The microorganisms act as catalysts. As a fermentation substrate, various organic fractions such as domestic, animal waste, and wasted sludge can be utilized. Esterification: In the presence of a catalyst (like NaOH), when two reactants (typically a triglyceride and an alcohol) form an ester or a biodiesel and crude glycerol as reaction products, it is called esterification. These products have a characteristically pleasant fruity odor. There are three methods of biodiesel production: direct acid-catalyzed transesterification of oil, base-catalyzed trans-esterification (a more economical process), and fatty acids derived from oil and finally converted to biodiesel [36,37]. Hydrothermal carbonization: This is a wet biomass conversion technology. It is similar to natural coal formation, involving an acid-catalyzed chemical acceleration of the natural geothermal process. Moreover, hydrothermal carbonization technology is efficient in the chemical conversion of biowaste to dense carbon by using heat and pressure, either with similar or better properties than fossil fuels [38]. This technology, compared with other thermal WTE processes, uses waste feedstocks with high moisture content (>70%) and an acid catalyst (citric acid) to coalify organic material (including lignocellulosic materials) [38]. Fig. 14.1 shows a comparison of hydrothermal carbonization and other technologies for biofuel generation with the efficiency of carbon. Moreover, this WTE technology is highly efficient and environmentally sustainable for producing biofuels. Dendro liquid energy: This biological treatment is invented in Germany and its efficiency is four times higher than that of other WTE technologies, in terms of near-zero emissions in the process of electricity production, with no nuisances nor effluent issues at the site. After the completion of the treatment, 4%e8% inert residue is left, which could be used as aggregates or send to landfill [40]. This WTE is a low-cost process, as no combustion is involved, so no emissions control technology is needed to be installed. An inclusive variety of waste, whether wet or dry, can be used at moderate temperatures

288 Chapter 14

Figure 14.1 Carbon efficiency of various biofuel production processes [39].

(150e250
C), with high energy conversion efficiency (80%), and the resultant syngas is free of tar and particulates [41]. A number of WTE technologies have been explored for energy production, as the demand for alternative sources of energy has increased in recent years. The growing public environmental concerns and strong opposition to traditional WTE technologies have led to a search for advanced methods with the least environmental and health impact. To evaluate the environmental performances of different WTE technologies, life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used for such comparison and helps decision-makers to choose the best technology [42,43]. Previously, various WTE treatment processes were evaluated via the LCA tool. Consonni et al. [44] and Evangelisti et al. [45] studied WTE treatments of MSW (accounting for all steps, from materials collection to recovery and electricity generation). Moreover, the pyrolysisegasification process of MSW [46]; advanced treatment technologies for different wastes, including MSW and tires [47]; and gasification of MSW via the FischereTropsch process for the production of liquid transport fuel from gas product [48] were also studied through the LCA tool. Evangelisti et al. argued that a two-stage gasification and plasma process proved to be a better option for waste treatment, with overall better environmental performance than traditional WTE technologies [49]. Zaman [31] presented (Fig 14.2) a comparative LCA study, from an energy generation perspective, of four of the main WTE processes: (1) landfill gas generation, (2) incineration, (3) thermal gasification, and (4) AD. Aspects associated with the environment were also considered in this study. Depending on the region or country’s laws, waste is collected either in mixed bags or in separate designated bins for different wastes, and after collection the waste is transported to waste treatment facilities. Mixed waste goes to WTE plants (for incineration, gasification/pyrolysis, landfill gas capture, or AD), while waste

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 289

Figure 14.2 System boundary of selected waste-to-energy technologies in a life-cycle assessment. RDF, refuse-derived fuel.

collected separately will go to a materials reclamation facility. Next, the waste is disposed of in the treatment facilities and converted into energy (heat, electricity, and fuels), ash, and residues. In the final step of the LCA, ash and residues will end up in landfills.

3. Waste-to-Energy Technology Sustainability From an environmental point of view, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark are among the most advanced countries, with proper solid waste management systems, prevention of GHG emissions, pollutants reduction, conservation of resources, reduction of energy use, advanced green technologies, jobs creation, and economic benefits [50,51]. Compared with developed nations, developing countries could have reduced GHG emissions by moving from open dump sites to sanitary landfills (with no gas capture technology system for the landfill). However, a significantly better environmental impact

290 Chapter 14 has been achieved through modern WTE techniques, compared with old technologies [52,53]. As WTE technologies have improved, GHG emissions have reduced; for example, in the case of effective gas collection and flaring, GHG emission amounts to 0.19 ton CO2 eq/ton waste, compared with open dumping and landfill with no gas capture systems, with GHG emissions of 1.2 tons CO2 eq/ton waste. The GHG amount can be further reduced to 0.09 ton CO2 eq/ton waste, if the biogas is utilized for electricity generation. These values are higher than the values recorded in Europe; for example, for open dump site landfills, or if electricity is produced from biogas and if there is low organic carbon in the waste, the GHG emissions amount to 1, 0.3, and 0.07 ton CO2 eq/ton waste, respectively [54]. Pavlas et al. [55] proved, WTE technologies are the obvious alternatives for fossil fuels, through the analysis of primary energy savings achievable from various technological concepts during energy production. Heat or electricity generation through the utilization of biomass can be compared in terms of total energy production and associated positive impacts on the environment. In this sense, WTE technology surpasses alternative energy production systems that use fossil fuels. Moreover, there is a lower generation of CO, particulate matter, and NOx from the waste. Only SOx emissions were in high concentration, as a high content of sulfur was present in the incinerated waste. The choice for WTE technology to be implemented in a particular country depends on the composition of its waste stream (Fig 14.3), and it also largely depends on the volume and calorific value (energy content) of the waste. For developing and emerging nations, implementation of WTE technologies faces a specific challenge, in that they have to encounter many factors, such as significant water content, relatively high organic fraction, and a lack of sophisticated transportation and waste collection systems. Incineration could be a better option, when the waste materials have at least 7 MJ/kg on average net calorific value, which ensures a self-sustained combustion process, and the annual supply of the waste stream should at least amount to 100,000 tons/year [56]. If these conditions are not fulfilled, then biochemical methods of energy conversion could be a better option.

3.1 Waste-to-Energy Technology in Europe The energy value in European waste to be incinerated is 83% of the total embedded energy in the waste, and this comes from vegetable wastes and waste-derived biogas. In contrast, the waste going to landfill has 93% embedded energy [58]. Table 14.2 presents current and future scenarios of WTE technologies in Europe [50,59]. A WTE plant (KA3) in the Oslo suburb of Klemetsrud is an example of maximum energy recuperation through the latest process technology. This plant with the addition of new KA3 plant train, has an overall annual capacity of 320,000 tons with maximum heat

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 291

Figure 14.3 Waste composition of developed, developing, and poor countries [57]. Table 14.2: Current and Future Waste-to-Energy Technologies in Europe [50,59] WTE Technology

Heat (PJ) Electricity (PJ)

Biomethane

WTE incineration

275

110

e

Cement and lime plants

176

e

e

Anaerobic digestion

33

70

12

Total energy recovery in Europe

In 2013, w1.5% of the final energy consumption in the European Union (676PJ)

Future Exploitation of WTE 33% electricity efficiency 80% heat conversion efficiency 93% CHP efficiency Conversion efficiency could be up to 80%, optimized Electricity could be optimized from 18% to 26% e

CHP, combined heat and power; WTE, waste to energy.

recovery and electricity generation and a heating value of 12 MJ/kg and 20 tons/h combustion performance. Through steam reclamation from combustion, the plant can produce electricity and heat for the district. Conversion takes place in the turbine generator, consisting in a controlled low-pressure extraction-condensing turbine and taps for district heat recovery. To maintain the lowest emissions and ensure the safe separation of all the pollutants, this plant has a multistage flue gas cleaning system. In the first step, heavy metals and dust particles (99%) are removed from the flue gas through an electrostatic precipitator. Dioxins and mercury are adsorbed inside the scrubber (wet) and also before the scrubber, on lignite coke, and are discharged with the scrubber water.

292 Chapter 14 Heavy metals and acidic pollutant gases in the four-stage scrubber are separated in the first two stages. Aerosols and fine dust particles contained in the flue gas are removed through a ring jet stage (called venturi process). SO2 is dissolved in the neutral stage and N2O is disintegrated into its approximate constituents of air and water by the addition of ammonia. Moreover, dioxins are destroyed and reduced to the lowest threshold values through the catalytic convertor. The emissions are checked through a measuring system to keep within admissible limits before the cleaned flue gas leaves the plant, and wastewater from the scrubber is also treated through several stages before being released into the drainage system [60].

3.2 Waste-to-Energy Technology in the United States The Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility, USA, was established in 1987 and is located in the city of Rochester, Minnesota. This WTE unit has an annual capacity of 59,500 tons and has a mass burnetype processing unit. The facility consists of two MSW incineratoreboiler units with capacities of 100 and 200 tons/day and that are a mass-burn, water-cooled wall design with three steam turbine generators, an MSW receiving area, ash handling systems, air pollution control equipment, necessary auxiliary installations, and a natural gasefired backup boiler.

3.3 Waste-to-Energy Technology in China Like many emerging economies, the economy of China has been boosted tremendously and waste management has become a crucial subject. The annual waste generation in China is about 300 million tons, which is predicted to surpass half a billion tons by the year 2025 [61]. Landfills are discouraged in China, as the unavailability of land is becoming a major issue. Moreover, the landfill is a not an environmentally friendly option as it is a major source of CH4 emissions and causes groundwater contamination. Waste characteristics in China vary from those of European waste in terms of the low net average calorific value of 3e5 MJ/ kg (8e11 KJ/kg in Europe) and high moisture content. To counter such issues, China has put a lot of effort into waste management. Moreover, the heating value of the waste becomes more complicated when the supply of waste is not steady. Therefore, technology from the West is not a suitable option for low calorific value waste. The circulating fluidized-bed technology was developed in China, and is more suitable to recover the maximum energy from waste with a high moisture content and is an attractive technology for similar markets. The emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofuran are much lower than the EU emission standards. China likewise produces 40 million tons of sewage sludge per year and is capable of treating predried sewage sludge. More research is ongoing to integrate ash with predried MSW recovered from the incineration of sewage sludge and use this as part of the fuel for the plant [62]. Another example of a WTE facility in China is the Likeng WTE plant located in Guangzhou, the third largest city of Guangdong province in China. This city is a well-known national trading

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 293 point and transportation hub. The estimated MSW generation of Guangzhou is 17,800 tons/day and 6.5 million tons/year, accounting for 4.2% of the national MSW generation. This facility, for the first time, uses four technologies simultaneously, i.e.: 1. 2. 3. 4.

mid-temperature and pressure boiler; selective noncatalytic reduction denitrification technology; leachate from waste bunker treated in the WTE furnace; fly ash solidification for fixing volatile metals.

All of the technologies have resulted in a high thermal efficiency of the plant (24%) and enhanced financial growth due to the sale of electricity, i.e., US$26.8 (average revenew), which is rare in China because of the very low heating value of Chinese MSW.

3.4 Waste-to-Energy Technology in Ethiopia An incineration plant has been established in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This WTE plant with a capacity of 50 MW is built on a landfill site called “Koshe,” the lie on 5.3 ha of land. The total cost of this project was around US$118.5 million and it has an annual processing capacity of 350,000 tons of waste. This project is the pioneer WTE plant in sub-Saharan Africa [63,64] and in Ethiopia and is expected to provide electricity (24 h) for at least 330 days of the year. This technology is considered an effective approach for environmental protection and similar projects are under consideration after feasibility studies in Adama, Mekelle, and Dire Dawa. However, the current plant faces the following challenges: • • • • • •

low net calorific value of incoming waste; low power output (as much as 44%); local technical experts are not available for the plant operations; there will be a continuous struggle to balance the costs of the plant and its operation over the time; Addis Ababa has an underdeveloped system of waste management; collection of waste by private companies costs US$0.47/month to the citizens (not affordable by many).

However, this plant is a great hope for the development of Ethiopia’s waste management in Addis Ababa. The waste stream will be maintained by a collaboration of the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation and the city’s administration. Nearly 100 skilled personnel will be hired at the plant and hundreds of jobs will be created for waste collection from the city. The development and operation are crucial to monitor in the first 5 years to evaluate the progress and success of this plant.

3.5 Waste to Energy in Saudi Arabia There are two different scenarios in which WTE facilities in Saudi Arabia are carried out, namely: refuse-derived fuel with biomethanation and incineration. There is a high

294 Chapter 14 percentage of food waste (37% by volume) in the total MSW that ensures the availability of feedstock and makes it highly feasible for WTE technology with higher efficiency (25% e30%) and minimum annual capital ($0.10e0.14/ton) and operational cost. There is great hope for WTE technologies in Saudi Arabia, which could make a substantial contribution to renewable energy production as well as alleviating the cost of land filling and its associated environmental impacts.

4. Key Elements for the Future Sustainability of Waste to Energy According to a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization [65] report, the world population is expected to increase to 8.1 billion by the year 2025 from 7 billion in the year 2011. This rapid population growth coupled with economic development has led to massive urbanization and industrialization, and it has changed waste generation patterns and proliferation at an alarming rate. Kumar and Smaddar [66] argued that the solid waste generation rate is directly proportional to the gross domestic product of any country. Moreover, this development poses a serious threat to conventional sources of energy (such as fossil fuels) and creates a great concern with respect to sustainable development for future generations. Fig. 14.4 shows an integrated approach for WTE and Fig. 14.5 presents key elements for sustainable development.

Figure 14.4 Integrated waste-to-energy approach. ICT, information and communication technologies.

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 295

Figure 14.5 Key elements for future sustainable development including waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities. WM, waste management.

4.1 Economics and Markets The International Renewable Energy Agency [67] reported that the world has the potential of generating 13 GW of energy from the WTE sector alone. In 2013, the global WTE market had a total worth of US$25.32 billion (88.2% share of thermal conversion WTE technology), with a 5.5% growth rate compared with the previous year. Europe dominates the WTE market, with 47.6% revenue generation from the most sophisticated and largest WTE technologies. Among European countries, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and the Netherlands lead the list of WTE markets in Europe, with stringent Europe-wide waste legislations and increasing industrial waste being the main factors. After Europe, China has the fastest market growth rate, and in the short time period of just 2011e15, the WTE industry there more than doubled [68]. The

296 Chapter 14 United States in 2012 generated 14.5 million MWh of energy (electricity) from 84 WTE plants. The WTE market of the AsiaePacific region is dominated by Japan, and 60% of its waste is incinerated in about 1900 incineration plants, but only 190 waste incinerators have the technology to convert heat energy to electricity [69]. 4.1.1 Trends in Waste Generation With the growing population, massive urbanization, higher consumption of resources, and high energy demands, waste management and recovery of energy from waste have become crucial for sustainable development. Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata [57] investigated waste generation per capita in various regions. As shown in Table 14.3, waste generation depends on a region’s population and economic conditions and also the composition of waste strongly depends on the economy of a country (Fig 14.3). Interestingly, by 2025, the OECD (developed countries) will generate less MSW compared with developing countries, as these countries already have efficient waste management, while developing countries will experience an increase in per-capita waste generation until 2075 [70]. 4.1.2 Investment Costs To decide on the best WTE technology for a certain region to operate for a lifetime is highly influenced by capital and investment cost to construct and operate the facility. Waste incineration is still the preferred economic option in the market among WTE facilities and more than 90% incineration is being done in Europe alone. The cost of a WTE facility depends on which technology is being used, the plant size, the site implementation, the location, and the land availability. For example, in China, two WTE plants had an annual US$282 investment cost of per-capacity ton, one in Foshan city (annual capacity of 462,000 tons) and the second in Shanghai city (annual capacity of 495,000 tons); also, WTE facilities even using the same technology have lower investment costs in developing countries like China [71]. Table 14.3: Urban Municipal Solid Waste Generation in 2012 and by 2025 [57]

Region

Total Urban Population (Millions)

Total Urban MSW Generation (tons/day)

Urban MSW Generation per Capita (kg/day)

Year

2012

2025

2012

2025

2012

2025

Africa East Asia and Pacific Eastern and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean Middle East and North Africa OECD South Asia

261 777 227 400 162 729 426

518 1,230 240 466 257 842 734

169,120 738,959 254,389 437,545 173,545 1,566,286 192,411

441,840 1,865,380 354,811 728,392 369,320 1,742,417 567,545

0.69 0.95 1.12 1.09 1.07 2.15 0.45

0.85 1.52 1.48 1.56 1.43 2.07 0.77

MSW, municipal solid waste; OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 297 4.1.3 Energy Security The energy security situation varies in different countries and regions and it depends on economic development and the reliability and availability of energy infrastructures. In Western Europe, there are great concerns about fluctuations on the supply side, and if these issues are not resolved, the population will suffer shortages of energy supply. Deregulation and privatization of energy markets further affect energy flow, as they then do not necessarily follow the original designs. According to World Energy Outlook, >95% of the population inhabiting Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the least developed countries lacks the use of current facilities, and more than 84%, among them live in rural areas [72]. To ensure energy security in various regions the following key points (not restricted to this list) should be considered: • •

• • •

Local stand-alone mini-grids, managed and operated locally by both public and private sectors, are a desirable alternative solution in developing countries. WTE has a limited impact on global energy security, especially in terms of electricity production, as most developing countries will rely on other resources for energy production. At the local level WTE facilities could have a positive impact on energy security. In remote areas of developing countries, the distance between the WTE plant and the available bioresource is crucial to maintain a steady supply. In remote areas, the required form of energy will vary, according to the end needs.

4.2 Socioeconomics Fig 14.6 elaborates the main elements of the socioeconomic aspects of WTE facilities. 4.2.1 Role of the Governments In the sustainable development of a WTE facility, the policies of local governments play a crucial role. For example, waste collection systems, recycling, and export/ import, etc., decided on by the local authorities ultimately would affect the feasibility of a WTE plant. For the development of WTE, subsidies such as renewable certificates and renewable heat incentives, and feed-in tariffs, zero-waste policies, carbon taxes, and renewable targets for WTE should be implemented. The biomass and policy target of Germany for the year 2020 is to achive 14% heating and for Indonesia by the year 2025 is 810 MW electricity generation [59]. Waste is the unwanted product of society and considered a problem; therefore, for future sustainability, energy recovery from waste should be prioritized in the power market. Society, as the producer of undesired waste, should spend its economic resources on collection, processing, and disposal in the form of tipping fees. WTE plants in the

298 Chapter 14

Figure 14.6 Socioeconomic elements for future sustainable development. WtE, waste-to-energy.

United Kingdom get 70% of their revenues from tipping fees [73,74]. High tipping fees affect selection for landfilling; in Sweden, despite land availability, high tipping fees (US$193.00/ton) have made landfilling the least favorable option for waste management. WTE plants should have integrated mechanical and biological treatment processes for material recovery for revenue generation and higher-grade fuel. Through wet-chemical (alkaline and/or acid washing) or thermochemical processes, various precious metals (Zn, Fe, Pb, Cu, Al, etc.) are potentially recoverable [75] from fly ash. Such an example exists in Switzerland, where there is a full-scale zinc recovery plant in operation, which extract the metal from air pollution control residues by electrolysis and solvent extraction; moreover, a mixture of Pb, Cd, and Cu is being recovered, too [76,77]. However, current low commodity prices from WTE plants make this a less attractive option and unviable for plant operations [78]. 4.2.2 Socioeconomic Impacts WTE facilities always face public resistance to being built near urban settlements [79e81] because of health-related issues. There is a wrong impression among the public about the

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 299 WTE market promoting more waste production, compared with the encouragement of waste recycling and zero-waste economy policies. However, there is no such evidence against WTE facilities above the fears of the public, as countries with the most advanced WTE technologies always encourage recycling and stricter policies for waste reduction. When implementing a WTE facility, there is a strong recommendation to consider all possible factors, such as the sociopolitical climate for a particular area. 4.2.3 Socioeconomic Benefits Ideally, a WTE facility in a densely populated area with a high rate of waste generation could be the best solution to reduce waste disposal in landfills and provide energy to the local community. The distance between the waste generation site and the end users has a direct influence on choosing WTE technology, e.g., bioresources (forestry/agriculture) are always far away from the end users. In this case biochemical treatments (AD) could be a better option, as the transportation of biogas and/or biofuel is easy. Moreover, waste treatment brings in employment, education, and other opportunities for locals [82e85] and thus helps in the betterment of society. 4.2.4 Safety There is always a great concern from public health agencies, the general public, and nongovernmental organization activists about WTE technologies, which has influenced the formulation of strict emission limits (incinerators in particular) for these facilities. Several studies have been carried out to check every possible effect from incinerator emissions on the public and general environment [86e89].

4.3 Environmental Impacts Extensive work [90e95] has been done on WTE facilities for environmental impact analysis. All studies have made strong recommendations for recycling and energy production from waste with high net calorific value, while landfill must be minimized to reduce its negative impacts on the environment. 4.3.1 Land Use Different technologies have different land requirements. Before the construction of a WTE facility, a careful assessment should be carried out to know how much land is needed. Also, finding a proper location to build a WTE facility is a difficult job. Some energy recovery plants have been built in urban areas for economic benefits where they have direct access to waste, while others have been built in specific areas designated for industrial applications (medium or high industry), hence mitigating negative effects on society and general environment [61]. Due to massive urbanization, most countries are facing a shortage of landfill sites. In such situation, WTE facilities are the ideal solution to

300 Chapter 14 save the land for other activities like housing or other infrastructures, or just being left unutilized for nature conservation. 4.3.2 Water Use WTE facilities require water for various applications, such as boilers, cleaning, cooling of slag, flue gas scrubbers, and sanitary uses of the workers. Effluents from WTE facilities contain high levels of chlorides and soluble heavy metals such as Cd, and also the storm/ cleaning water from the facility is heavily contaminated with organic compounds. The dirty water is treated in advance incinerators before being released into the environment [96,97]. 4.3.3 Emissions WTE facilities could help in reducing GHG emissions in various ways, for example, waste processing at the energy recovery unit will reduce emissions by dumping less waste in landfills. Pressure on fossil fuels for the generation of energy could be reduced (fewer GHG emissions). Moreover, material recovery from waste treatment also reduces pressure on their excavation, thus reducing mining-related emissions [97]. Before implementing a WTE facility, an environmental impact assessment is an important criterion for long-term sustainability. A comparative study between thermochemical, biochemical, chemical, or any emerging technologies could lead to better understanding before starting an energy recovery unit in a particular area.

5. Conclusions and Perspectives Sustainable development is the need of the hour, as a global human population of 9.6 billion by the mid-2050s is expected. The global demand for energy will increase by 37% by 2040. For sustainable development energy is under great consideration and this requires a steady supply of affordable renewable energy and clean sources with minimum negative societal and environmental impacts. MSW is an attractive solution for renewable energy provision, as it contains a considerable fraction of biomass and its final volume to be dumped in landfills could be reduced. The global WTE technologies market will be increased tremendously by 2023. As the WTE technologies improve, the GHG emissions are reduced, and AD is expected to be a major WTE technology in the future. Despite being the least desirable option, landfilling will continue to be a major solution for waste management. From an environmental point of view, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark are among the most advanced countries, with proper solid waste management systems. However, developing countries will face the challenge of population growth, waste generation, and urbanization in the future. Conclusively, different regions would have thier specific challenges in adopting proper WTE technologies for efficient energy recovery from waste.

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 301 The world has the potential of generating 13 GW of energy from the WTE sector alone. Europe dominates the WTE market, with 47.6% revenue generation and the most sophisticated and largest WTE technologies. After Europe, China has the fastest market growth rate, while Japan dominates in the market of the AsiaePacific region. Waste incineration is still preferred as an economic option in the market among WTE facilities. There are great concerns about fluctuations on the supply side of waste in developed countries, and if these issues are not resolved, the population will suffer shortages of energy supply. To ensure energy security in different regions, the adaptation of suitable WTE facilities is a critical point, and the feasibility of an energy recovery plant largely depends on local planning and decision-making authorities. When implementing a WTE facility, there is a strong recommendation to consider all possible factors, such as the sociopolitical climate, in a particular area. Recycling and energy production from waste with high net calorific value is highly recommended by many researchers, while landfill must be minimized to reduce its negative impacts on the environment.

References [1] Population Reference Bureau, World Population Factsheet (PDF), Population Reference Bureau, 2013, www.pbr.org. [2] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2014, https://www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/WEO_2014_ES_English_WEB.pdf. [3] P.H. Brunner, H. Rechberger, Waste to energyea key element for sustainable waste management, Waste Management 37 (2015) 3e12. [4] Y. Sadef, A.S. Nizami, M. Batool, N. Chaoudary, O.K.M. Ouda, Z.Z. Asam, K. Habib, M. Rehan, A. Demirbas, Waste-to-energy and recycling value for developing an integrated solid waste management plan in Lahore, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy 11 (2016) 569e579. [5] R.B. Mangoyana, T.F. Smith, R. Simpson, A systems approach to evaluatingthe sustainability of bio fuel systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25 (2013) 371e380. [6] F. Cucchiella, I. D’Adamo, Issue onthe supply chain of renewable energy, Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 774e780. [7] V. Richa, V. Tyagi, A. Pathak, Waste-to-energy: a way from renewable energy sources to sustainable development, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 3164e3170. [8] S. Riffat, R. Powell, D. Aydin, Future cities and environmental Sustainability, Future Cities and Environment 2 (1) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40984-016-0014-2. [9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Electricity from Municipal Solid Waste (2006). http://www.epa. gov/cleanenergy/muni.htm. [10] S.A. Abbasi, P.C. Nipaney, M.B. Panholzer, Biogas production from the aquatic weed pistia (Pistiastratiotes), Bioresource Technology 37 (1991) 211e214. [11] B. Nirmala, D. Somayaji, S. Khanna, Biomethanation of banana peel and pineapple waste, Bioresource Technology 58 (1996) 73e76. [12] S.V. Ginkel, S.E. Oh, B.E. Logan, Biohydrogen production from food processing and domestic wastewaters, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1535e1542.

302 Chapter 14 [13] M. Okamoto, T. Miyahara, O. Mizuno, T. Noike, Biological hydrogen potential of materials characteristic of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, Water Science and Technology 41 (2000) 25e32. [14] H.S. Shin, J.H. Youn, S.H. Kim, Hydrogen production from food waste in anaerobic mesophilic and thermosphilicacidogenesis, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 1355e1363. [15] H. Yu, Z. Zhu, W. Hu, H. Zhang, Hydrogen production from rice winery wastewater in an upflow anaerobic reactor by mixed anaerobic cultures, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 27 (2002) 1359e1365. [16] H. Yokoi, R. Maki, J. Hirose, S. Hayashi, Microbial production of hydrogen from starch manufacturing wastes, Biomass and Bioenergy 22 (2002) 389e395. [17] O.K.M. Ouda, H.M. Cekirge, S.A. Raza, An assessment of the potential contribution from waste-toenergy facilities to electricity demand in Saudi Arabia, Energy Conversion and Management 75 (2013) 402e406. [18] O.K.M. Ouda, S.A. Raza, A.S. Nizami, M. Rehan, R. Al-Waked, N.E. Korres, Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 61 (2016) 328e340. [19] E. Dijkgraaf, H.R.J. Vollebergh, Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods, Ecological Economics 50 (2004) 233e247. [20] M.L. Miranda, B. Hale, Waste not, want not: the private and social costs of waste-to-energy production, Energy Policy 25 (1997) 587e600. [21] Waste to energy, World Energy Council, 2013. https://www.worldenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/ WER_2013_7b_Waste_to_Energy.pdf. [22] S. Consonni, F. Vigano`, Waste gasification vs. conventional Waste-to-Energy: a comparative evaluation of two commercial technologies, Waste Management 32 (2012) 653e666. [23] M. Grosso, et al., A quantitative estimate of potential aluminium recovery from incineration bottom ashes, in: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 55, 2011, pp. 1178e1184. [24] H. Rechberger, Incineration: Co-combustion in Solid waste technology & management, in: T.H. Christensen (Ed.), Solid Waste Technology & Management, vols. I & II, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch31. [25] L. Lombardi, E. Carnevale, A. Corti, A review of technologies and performances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste, Waste Management 37 (2015) 26e44. [26] H.Y. Yap, J.D. Nixon, A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK, Waste Management 46 (2015) 265e277. [27] D. Karakashev, I. Angelidaki, Emerging biological technologies: biofuels and biochemical, in: T.H. Christensen (Ed.), Solid Waste Technology & Management, vols. I & II, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch31. [28] I. Angelidaki, D.J. Batstone, Anaerobic digestion: process, in: T.H. Christensen (Ed.), Solid Waste Technology & Management, vols. I & II, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2011, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9780470666883.ch31. [29] Eunomia, Anaerobic Digestion Market Update e Addressing the Feedstock Famine, 2014. http://www. biogen.co.uk/upload/item/page30/file/Eunomia%20Anaerobic%20Digestion%20Report%20-%20June% 202014%20FINAL.pdf. [30] Z.Z. Noor, R.O. Yusuf, A.H. Abba, M.A.A. Hassan, M.F.M. Din, An overview for energy recovery from municipal solid wastes (MSW) in Malaysia scenario, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20 (2013) 378e384. [31] A.U. Zaman, Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment technologies using life cycle assessment method, International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology 7 (2010) 225e234. [32] B. Min, S. Cheng, B.E. Logan, Electricity generation using membrane and salt bridge microbial fuel cells, Water Research 39 (2005) 1675e1686. [33] L.V. Reddy, et al., Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) - a Novel Source of Energy for New Millennium, 2010. http://www.formatex.info/microbiology2/956-964.pdf.

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 303 [34] M. Rahimnejad, A.A. Ghoreyshi, G. Najafpour, T. Jafary, Power generation from organic substrate in batch and continuous flow microbial fuel cell operations, Applied Energy 88 (2011) 3999e4004. [35] M. Rahimnejad, et al., Microbial fuel cell as new technology for bioelectricity generation: a review, Alexandria Engineering Journal 54 (2015) 245e756. [36] M. Nic, J. Jirat, B. Kosata (Eds.), “esters”. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology (Online ed.), 2006, ISBN 0-9678550-9-8, https://doi.org/10.1351/goldbook.E02219. [37] http://www.see.murdoch.edu.au/resources/info/Tech/waste/. [38] B. Stanley, Summary of waste conversion technologies, in: Environmental Research & Education Foundation, 2013. http://www.newmoa.org/events/docs/112_109/EREF_MSW_Conversion_Techs_ Aug2013.pdf. [39] World Energy Council, World Energy Resources Waste to Energy, 2016. https://www.worldenergy.org/ wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_Energy_2016.pdf. [40] M. Hernandez, Potentials of Hydrothermal Carbonisation Technology, Brussels, September 24, 2015, http://www.eubren.com/M.Hernandez.pdf. [41] B. Ghougassian, Waste to energy technologies, in: Arab Forum for Environment and Development, November 26, 2012. http://www.afedmag.com/english/ArticlesDetails.aspx?id¼12. [42] G. Moberg, G. Finnveden, J. Johansson, P. Lind, Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste-part 2: landfilling compared to other treatment methods, Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 231e240. [43] T.H. Christensen, G. Bhander, H. Lindvall, A.W. Larsen, T. Fruergaard, A. Damgaard, S. Manfredi, A. Boldrin, C. Riber, M. Hauschild, Experience with the use of LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) in waste management, Waste Management and Research 25 (2007) 257e262. [44] S. Consonni, M. Giugliano, M. Grosso, Alternative strategies for energy recovery from municipal solid waste part B: emission and cost estimates, Waste Management 25 (2005) 137e148. [45] S. Evangelisti, P. Lettieri, D. Borello, R. Clift, Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: a UK case study, Waste Management 34 (2014) 226e237. [46] A.U. Zaman, Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis gasification as an emerging municipal solid waste treatment technology, International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology 10 (2013) 1029e1038. [47] H.H. Khoo, Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies, Waste Management 29 (2009) 1892e1900. [48] P.N. Pressley, T.N. Aziz, J.F. DeCarolis, M.A. Barlaz, F. He, F. Li, A. Damgaard, Municipal solid waste conversion to transportation fuels: a life-cycle estimation of global warming potential and energy consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production 70 (2014) 145e153. [49] S. Evangelisti, C. Tagliaferri, R. Clift, P. Lettieri, R. Taylor, C. Chapman, Life cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy from- waste technologies for municipal solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production 100 (2015) 212e223. [50] A. Pires, G. Martinho, N.-B. Ni-Bin Chang, Solid waste management in European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques, Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1033e1050. [51] Eurostat, Generation and Treatment of Municipal Waste (1 000 T) by NUTS 2 Regions, 2012. http://epp. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database. [52] P. Stehlı´k, Contribution to advances in waste-to-energy technologies, Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009) 919e931. [53] A. Tabasova´, J. Kropa´c, V. Kermes, A. Nemet, P. Stehlı´k, Waste-to-energy technologies: impact on environment, Energy 44 (2012) 146e155. [54] S. Manfredi, D. Tonini, T.H. Christensen, H. Scharff, Landfilling of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions, Waste Management & Research 27 (2009) 825e836. [55] M. Pavlas, M. Tou, L. Be´bar, P. Stehlı´k, Waste to energy-An evaluation of the environmental impact, Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 2326e2332. [56] International Solid Waste Association, Guidelines: Waste-to-energy in Low and Middle Income Countries, 2013. www.iswa.org.

304 Chapter 14 [57] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, What a waste e a review of solid waste management, in: World Bank Urban Development Series, No. 15 Knowledge Papers, 2012. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf. [58] H. Saveyn, P. Eder, M. Eamsay, G. Thonier, K. Warren, M. Hestin, Towards a Better Exploitation of the Technical Potential of Waste to Energy JRC Science for Policy Report, 2016. http://publications.jrc.ec. europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104013/WTE%20report%20full%2020161212.pdf. [59] Eurostat, Each Person in the EU Generated 475 Kg of Municipal Waste in 2014, March 22, 2016. http:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7214320/8-22032016-AP-EN.pdf/eea3c8df-ce89-41e0-a9585cc7290825c3. [60] Oslo/Norway Energy-from-Waste Plant. http://www.hz-inova.com/cms/wp content/uploads/2014/11/hzi_ ref_oslo_new_en.pdf. [61] Coolsweep, In-depth analyses of the waste-to-energy field, D 1.4 Approved analytical reports for six European regions involved in the COOLSWEEP consortium. http://coolsweep.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/03/Deliverable-1.4-Approved-analytical-reports-for-six-European-regions-in-the-COOLSWEEPconsortium-.pdf. [62] Zhejiang University, Energy from Waste: Opportunities and Challenges, 2015. http://www.eepco.gov.et/ project.php?pid¼27&pcatid¼9. [63] http://www.eepco.gov.et/project.php?pid¼27&pcatid¼9. [64] F.A.O. Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Food and Rural Affairs, 2013 for countries of varying levels of economic development: a model. J. Solid Waste, https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/. [65] A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder, A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste, Waste Management 69 (2017) 407e422. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284612/pb14130-energy-waste201402.pdf. [66] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Renewable Energy Statistics, 2016. http://www.irena. org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Statistics_2016.pdf. [67] B. Yuanyuan, Chinese Waste-to-energy market experiences rapid growth during last five years, in: Renewable Energy World, April 28, 2015. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/04/ chinese-waste-to-energy-market-experiences-rapid-growth-during-last-five-years.html. [68] C. Montejo, C. Costa, P. Ramos, M. del Carmen Ma´rquez, Analysis and comparison of municipal solid waste and reject fraction as fuels for incineration plants, Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 2135e2140. [69] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, C. Kennedy, Environment: waste production must peak this century, in: Nature, October 30, 2013. http://www.nature.com/news/environment-waste-production-must-peak-thiscentury-1.14032. http://www.eepco.gov.et/project.php?pid¼27&pcatid¼9. [70] N.J. Themelis, C. Mussche, Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the United States, China and Japan, in: 2nd International Academic Symposium on Enhanced Landfill Mining, October 14e16, 2013. http://elfm.eu/Uploads/ELFM/FILE_73D907E9-8225-4B93-91F810F71F59B793.PDF. [71] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2015. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/ energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/. [72] M. Hicks, S. Rawlinson, Cost model: energy from waste, in: Building Magazine, April 23, 2010. http:// www.building.co.uk/cost-model-energy-from-waste/3162156.article. [73] M. Williams, Waste-to-Energy Success Factors in Sweden and the United States, 2011. http://www.acore. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/WTE-in-Sweden-and-the-US-Matt-Williams.pdf.  Langova´, B. Nowak, F. Winter, Thermal and hydrometallurgical recovery methods of [74] L. Kubonova´, S. heavy metals from municipal solid waste fly ash, Waste Management 33 (2013) 2322e2327. [75] S. Schlumberger, J. Buhler, MetallruckgewinnungausFilterstauben der thermischenAbfallbehandlungnachdem FLUREC-Verfahren, in: T. Kozmiensky (Ed.), Aschen e Schlacken e StaubeausAbfallverbennung und Metallurgie TK Verlag Karl Thome-Kozmiensky, 2013, pp. 377e396. Neuruppin, Germany.

Energy From Waste: Future Prospects Toward Sustainable Development 305 [76] L.S. Morf, R. Gloor, O. Haag, M. Haupt, S. Skutan, F. Di Lorenzo, D. Bo¨ni, Precious metals and rare earth elements in municipal solid waste e sources and fate in a Swiss incineration plant, Waste Management 33 (2013) 634e644. [77] G. Meylan, A. Spoerri, Eco-efficiency assessment of options for metal recovery from incineration residues: a conceptual framework, Waste Management 34 (2014) 93e100. [78] X. Ren, Y. Che, K. Yang, Y. Tao, Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested Wasteto-Energy facility, Waste Management 48 (2016) 528e539. [79] K.A. Kalyani, K.K. Pandey, Waste to energy status in India: a short review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31 (2014) 113e120. [80] C. Achillas, C. Vlachokostas, N. Moussiopoulos, G. Banias, G. Kafetzopoulos, A. Karagiannidis, Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2011) 857e863. [81] M. Medina, Effect of income on municipal solid waste generation rates for countries of varying levels of economic development: a model, Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 24 (1997) 149e155. [82] Defra, Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2013) Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste, 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste.pdf. [83] T. Michaels, The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Facilities, 2014. http://energyrecoverycouncil. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/ERC_2014_Directory.pdf. [84] D. Khan, A. Kumar, S.R. Samadder, Impact of socioeconomic status on municipal solid waste generation rate, Waste Management 49 (2016) 15e25. [85] J. Thomson, H. Anthony, The health effects of waste incinerators, in: 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine, 2008. http://www.bsem.org.uk/uploads/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf. [86] M. Obermoser, J. Fellner, H. Rechberger, Determination of reliable CO2 emission factors for waste-toenergy plants, Waste Management and Resources 27 (2009) 907e913. [87] L. Giusti, A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health, Waste Management 29 (2009) 2227e2239. [88] J.D. Murphy, E. McKeogh, Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste, Renewable Energy 29 (2004) 1043e1057. [89] C. Liamsanguan, S.H. Gheewala, Environmental assessment of energy production from municipal solid waste incineration, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (2007) 529e536. [90] P. Baggio, M. Baratieri, A. Gasparella, G.A. Longo, Energy and environmental analysis of an innovative system based on municipal solid waste (MSW) pyrolysis and combined cycle, Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 136e144. [91] D. Panepinto, V. Tedesco, E. Brizio, G. Genon, Environmental performances and energy efficiency for MSW gasification treatment, Waste Biomass Valorization 6 (2014) 123e135. [92] M.M.V. Leme, M.H. Rocha, E.E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, B.M. Lopes, C.H. Ferreira, Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil, Resource Conservation Recycling 87 (2014) 8e20. [93] H.A. Arafat, K. Jijakli, A. Ahsan, Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production 105 (2015) 233e240. [94] H.K. Jeswani, A. Azapagic, Assessing the environmental sustainability of energy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK, Waste Management 50 (2016) 346e363. [95] C. Aracil, P. Haro, J. Giuntoli, P. Ollero, Proving the climate benefit in the production of biofuels from municipal solid waste refuse in European, Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 2887e2900. [96] T. Malkow, Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal, Waste Management 24 (2004) 53e79. [97] UNEP, Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy Framework, United Nations Environmental Programme, 2010. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/Waste%26ClimateChange/ Waste%26ClimateChange.pdf.