- Email: [email protected]
Waste-to-energy status in Serbia
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Waste-to-energy status in Serbia Bojana Ž. Bajić n, Siniša N. Dodić, Damjan G. Vučurović, Jelena M. Dodić, Jovana A. Grahovac University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technology, Department of Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Bulevar cara Lazara 1, Novi Sad 21000, Vojvodina, Serbia
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 24 February 2014 Received in revised form 8 May 2015 Accepted 26 May 2015
Serbia is a country located at the crossroads of Central and Southeastern Europe, covering the southern part of the Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. After eight years of strong economic growth (average of 4.45% per year), the economy of the country has been affected by the global economic crisis and Serbia entered the recession in 2009 with a negative growth of 3% and again in 2012 with 1.7%. Reserves of oil and gas are limited so the country is heavily dependent on the import of oil. The country's economy has been under serious strain and the balance of the country's budget has been deteriorating due to the oil import bill. Environmental pollution, the import of fossil fuels as well as the ever-growing demand for energy are the reasons why investments and developments of renewable energy source technologies, as well as waste management procedures are crucial. Since Serbia is in the process of joining the European Union, it is extremely important to develop an adequate system of waste management together with the development of society and economy as a whole. The waste-to-energy process is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and has strong potential to produce energy from communal and industrial waste, which are currently unused resources. In addition, it is necessary to integrate waste management procedures with waste quantity reduction. In this study, an attempt has been made to give suggestions for better utilization of municipal solid waste in Serbia through comprehensive reviews of commonly used municipal waste practices as well as data on waste generation, types and the amounts of communal and industrial waste. By exploiting the energy potential of municipal solid waste the country can ensure sustainable development as well as energy security. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Waste Energy Waste-to-energy Vojvodina Serbia
Contents 1. 2. 3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worldwide status of waste-to-energy (WTE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of waste management practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Thermal conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3. Gasification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Biochemical conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Waste generation in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Policy and program recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.Ž. Bajić).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.079 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1438 1438 1439 1439 1439 1440 1440 1440 1441 1441 1442 1443 1443 1443
1438
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
1. Introduction Serbia is a country located at the crossroads of Central and Southeastern Europe, covering the southern part of the Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. Serbia has an emerging market economy in the upper-middle income range. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Serbian nominal GDP (gross domestic product) in 2013 is officially estimated at USD 43.7 billion or USD 6017 per capita while purchasing power parity GDP was USD 80.467 billion or USD 11,085 per capita. The economy is dominated by service industry that account for 63.8% of GDP, followed by industry with 23.5% of GDP, and agriculture at 12.7% of GDP. The economy has been affected by the global economic crisis. After eight years of strong economic growth (average of 4.45% per year), Serbia entered the recession in 2009 with negative growth of 3% and again in 2012 with 1.7%. As the government was fighting the effects of this crisis, the public debt has doubled in 4 years: from pre-crisis level of 29.2–61.5% of GDP. The energy sector is one of the largest and most important sectors to the country's economy. The country depends heavily on the import of oil since its own reserves of oil and gas are limited. The country's economy is under serious strain and the balance of its budget has been deteriorating because of the oil import bill. The energetic security of the country has become increasingly more dependent on fossil fuels, most of which is imported oil that is vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility [1–6]. Major resources which will provide Serbia with most of its renewable energy in the future are hydropower, wind power, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass, biogas and biofuels [7–12]. Serbia has a total energy dependence of 40% which is considered average when compared to other EU countries. The energy sector is a major polluter in Serbia, mainly due to the use of domestic lignite, which is burned using old equipment without abatement technology. Energy utilization in Serbia is very inefficient, since it uses five times the amount of energy to produce one unit of GDP compared to the EU average. The largest share in energy commodities' production in the Republic of Serbia in 2012 related to the production of coal, 45.76%. Oil and oil derivates made up of 50.23% of import in 2012, and electricity made up 54.46% of export. In 2012, when total consumption is taken into account, coal was most consumed in the section of industry (40.41%), oil derivates were most consumed in the transport section (60.55%), electricity was most consumed in the household section (53.44%) and natural gas in the industry section (64.70%) [13]. The topic of biofuels has been repeatedly addressed, which reflects a worldwide goal to rapidly develop and implement more renewable fuels and other improved energy technologies. Public perception of the central importance of bioenergy has caused people to disregard the inherent limitations of biofuels and focus solely on their positive aspects. The only way biofuels can make a real contribution toward a more sustainable world is through a methodical life cycle approach that would allow researchers to thoroughly cover all phases of production – from planting to the actual production and use. By becoming more aware of the problems and limitations and having identified the weak points, it is increasingly possible to test and implement improved practices to prevent or to minimize the negative impacts of bioenergy production and use [14–18]. However, increased waste and pollution combined with the decline of the economy can occur if optimal resource utilization is not properly supervised. In addition to the fact that it can negatively affect the economy, it can take a toll on our health and lead to large-scale environmental pollution through harmful emissions. Therefore, it is of great importance to constantly carefully monitor utilization and recovery of resources. But on the
other hand, if the energy potential of waste is properly utilized the country can ensure sustainable developement as well as energy security. Towns and cities have not been able to keep up with the uncontrolled urbanization in Serbia. They lack basic amenities like proper sewage, drainage, solid waste management systems etc. [19,20]. A change in lifestyles over the years has led to a significant change in the amount of generated waste [22]. The government, local authorities and the urban local communities have been under increased pressure to manage the collection, processing and disposal of waste [23]. The most common practice of managing waste today is to deposit it in landfills, which poses a huge threat to the environment in the form of greenhouse gases (GHG), leakage in the form of CO2 and CH4 and leachate production, and therefore it is necessary to improve this technique [24]. It is extremely necessary to come up with a solid waste management process that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. One such process, that holds strong potential to derive energy from unused resources, i.e., waste, but has been overlooked so far, is waste-to-energy (WtE) process. Waste-toEnergy is a process of recovering energy, in the form of electricity and/or heat, from waste. In the past, in order to reduce waste volume and destroy harmful substances (and thereby prevent human health risks) waste incineration was the technology of choice. Nowadays, since the importance of energy recovery has increased, it is an integral part of waste incineration [25]. Waste management practices have evolved over many centuries. While hygienic considerations were on top of the priority list in the beginning, in today's societies rapidly rising amounts and complexity of waste has made waste management one of the main issues. Together with economic development, waste management went through several stages to reach the high technological level that is seen today. Sophisticated collection systems, combined with efficient separation processes, allow high recovery and recycling rates. In addition, a large fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) is treated in waste-to-energy plants, and the most toxic organic wastes are destroyed in hazardous waste incinerators [26]. The objective of this study was to provide ideas how to better utilize municipal solid waste in Serbia through comprehensive reviews of commonly used municipal waste practices as well as data on waste generation, types and the amounts of communal and industrial waste. By exploiting the energy potential of municipal solid waste the country can ensure sustainable development as well as energy security.
2. Worldwide status of waste-to-energy (WTE) The concept of waste-to-energy has developed significantly over the last few decades. Developed countries have started successfully implementing it in order to ensure effective waste management as well as energy security. Constantly increasing amounts of generated waste are the result of lifestyle changes that derive from urban development. Many countries have realized the potential of the waste-toenergy process and started using waste to produce energy. Notable examples of the use of waste-to-energy techniques throughout history have been USA, Japan and Germany. In USA in 1990, an estimated 394 trillion BTUs of consumed energy were produced from municipal solid waste (MSW). According to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW), since late 1991 there have been 102 operational waste incineration plants for electricity production, all of which are still operational. In addition, in Germany in the 90's there were many working waste-to-energy plants.
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
Since 1985 there has been a 90% reduction in Swedish incineration plant emissions due to the use of cleaner fuels and modern incineration technology. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in their 70th report very clearly stated the importance of modern technology in the field of waste to energy [27]. With initial developments in the 90's, today's waste-to-energy techniques have been greatly modernized as well as prioritized. The type of used feedstock has also been diversified. Current global practices of waste-to-energy are described in the following section. Poland has been using agricultural biomass to generate electricity. By the end of 2012, in Poland there were 29 operational agricultural biogas plants with an average installed capacity of 1 MW [28]. There has been a lot of development in Malaysia as far as WTE techniques are concerned. In 2010, methane emissions from Malaysian landfills were sufficient to produce 2.20 109 kW h of electricity and were expected to generate USD 219.5 million. The estimates for 2015 and 2020 are USD 243.63 million and USD 262.79 million, respectively [29,30]. Italy has installed many anaerobic co-digestion plants with a capacity range between 50 kW and 1 MW [31]. In multiple African countries, including Ghana, agricultural biomass has been used as feedstock for the production of decentralized rural energy with a total output of 12.5 kW of electric energy using two generators rated 5 kV A and 7.5 kV A. The produced electricity was supplied to the community using a local 230 V grid for 12 h per day [32]. The city of Thessaloniki in Greece has been following the integrated solid waste management system as well as producing energy for a significant period of time, taking advantage of innovations such as the use of biocells to better utilize the produced biogas [33]. Singapore has been focusing on recovering energy from food waste and has formulated many policies to promote this program in accordance with this [34]. In addition, Canada has been developing systems to convert food waste to energy and has been putting a lot of effort into designing various systems that could meet the required standards. Its current operational system has been able to produce 134.6 MWh of surplus energy per year [35]. The Central European Union countries require models and tools necessary to rationalize their management strategies and technological choices, as opposed to the Southern European Union countries, which need to develop additional measures in order to implement more integrated solid waste management procedures that meet EU directives. Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden represent environmentally advanced countries. Proper waste management procedures have significant benefits, some of which are the prevention of greenhouse gases emission, reduction of pollutants, recovery of energy, conservation of resources, creation of new jobs, development of green technologies and economic opportunities [36–38]. The world is rapidly adapting this technology that not only helps countries with their waste management, but also aids with their energy security. Therefore, the time is ideal for the underdeveloped as well as developing countries to start following the example of developed countries and move in the direction of sustainable MSW management practices.
3. Types of waste management practices Waste management practices in Serbia are still in their initial development stages. These waste management practices are currently unable to cope with the rate of waste generation. This has attracted the attention of a large number of entrepreneurs, which has resulted in many innovations in the field of waste management. MSW consists of multiple components, as shown in Table 1.
1439
Based on the type, quantity and properties of feedstock, the desired form of energy, end-use requirements, economic conditions, environmental standards and project-specific factors, waste conversion processes can be sorted into various categories [20]. Commonly used waste conversion processes are thermal conversions (incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, and refuse-derived fuel), biochemical conversions (composting, vermicomposting, and anaerobic digestion/biomethanation) and chemical conversions (trans-esterification and other processes for the conversion of plant and vegetable oils to biodiesel) [20,21]. Each one of these conversions has their own advantages as well as limitations. This section describes the most commonly used types of conversions, as well as the ones that are only just beginning to be implemented. 3.1. Thermal conversions Thermal conversions of waste include incineration, pyrolysis and gasification techniques. These techniques result in the production of various by-products, which can be used in several energy and resource recovery techniques. 3.1.1. Incineration One of the most frequently used waste treatment techniques is incineration, thanks to its ability to reduce the mass of waste by 70% and its volume by up to 90%. The process of incineration contributes to energy recovery from waste by generating electricity from thermal energy [20,21]. The process can be separated into three main steps – incineration, energy recovery and air pollution control [39]. Even though the process produces an effectively sterile ash residue, air pollution and health hazards could occur as a result of the emissions from the process that contain air pollutants like sulfur, carbon and nitrogen oxides. For this reason, it is extremely important that the incinerator is equipped with emission control accessories. Incineration is performed in a temperature range between 750 and 1000 1C and can Table 1 MSW components. Component
Material
Compostable Recyclable Inert Toxic substances
Food waste, landscaping waste, tree trimmings, etc. Papers, plastics, glasses, metals, etc. Stones and silt, inorganic material, etc. Paints, pesticides, used batteries, medicine, etc.
Table 2 Operating parameters for pyrolysis process. Parameters
Conventional pyrolysis
Fast pyrolysis
Flash pyrolysis
Temperature (K) Heating rate (K/s) Particle size (s) Residence time (s)
550–900 0.1–1 5–50 300–3600
850–1250 10–200 o1 0.5–10
1050–1300 41000 o 0.2 o 0.5
Table 3 Composition of pyrolysis gas from MSW. Constituent
Amount (vol%)
CO CO2 CH4 H2 Calorific value (kcal/Nm3)
35.5 16.4 11.0 37.1 3430
1440
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
be combined with the processes of steam and electricity generation [20]. 3.1.2. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is a thermal waste treatment method carried out in an oxygen free environment. Depending upon operational parameters, the process of pyrolysis can be sorted into three types – conventional pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis and flash pyrolysis. Conventional and flash pyrolysis both suffer from technical limitations, although flash pyrolysis shows promising potential. Fast-pyrolysis technology is receiving incredible popularity due to its numerous advantages [40]. Operational parameters of these three pyrolysis types are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the composition of pyrolysis gases, which are product of the aforementioned pyrolysis processes. 3.1.3. Gasification The process of gasification constitutes partial combustion of biomass for production of gas and char. Product gases, mainly CO2 and H2O, are then reduced to CO and H2 using charcoal. The process, depending on reactor design and operational parameters, generates a certain amount of methane and other higher hydrocarbons (HC) [41]. In the presence of a gasification agent, various heterogeneous reactions convert the feedstock to gas [42–44]. The
produced combustible gas consists of CO, CO2, CH4, H2, H2O, inert gases present in the gasification agent, trace amounts of higher HCs and various contaminants such as small char particles, tar and ash [45]. An external energy source is necessary if the gasification process does not occur using an oxidizing agent. This is known as indirect gasification [46,47]. Steam is the most commonly used indirect gasification agent, due to its easy production as well as the ability to increase the hydrogen content of the produced combustible gas [46]. A gasification system consists of three main components: (1) the gasifier, which produces the combustible gas; (2) the clean-up system, which removes the hazardous components of the combustible gas; and (3) the energy recovery system [48]. 3.2. Biochemical conversion Compared to the previously discussed techniques, biochemical conversion of waste-to-energy is much more environmentally friendly. Waste is converted into energy using primarily enzymes of microorganisms. The techniques that fall under this category are anaerobic digestion and composting. In anaerobic digestion (AD), organic waste is used as feedstock for the process, which is then degraded by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen [49–53]. This reduces the amount of waste and produces biogas, which can be utilized as transport fuel or for
Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of different MSWM technologies. Technology
Advantages
Disadvantages
Anaerobic digestion
Energy recovery with production of high grade soil conditioner No power requirement for sieving and turning of waste pile Enclosed system enables trapping the gas produced for use Controls GHG emissions Free from bad odor, rodent and fly menace, visible pollution and social resistance Compact design needs less land area Net positive environmental gains Can be done in small scale Least cost option Gas produced can be utilized for power generation or direct thermal application Skilled personnel not required Natural resources are returned to the soil and recycled Can convert marshy lands to useful areas
Unsuitable for wastes containing less organic matter Requires waste segregation for improving digestion efficiency
Landfill gas recovery
Incineration
Pyrolysis/ gasification
Surface runoff during rainfall causes pollution Soil and groundwater may get polluted by the leachate
Yields only 30–40% of the total gas generated Large land area required Significant transportation costs Cost of pretretment to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality and leachate treatment may be significant Spontaneous explosion due to methane gas build up Most suitable for high calorific value waste Least suited for aqueous, high moisture content, low calorific value and chlorinated Unites with high throughput and continuous feed can be set up waste Toxic metal concentration in ash, particulate emissions, SOx, NOx, chlorinated Thermal energy for power generation or direct heating Relatively noiseless and odorless compounds, ranging from HCl to dioxins Low lands are required High capital and O&M costs Can be located within city limits, reducing transportation costs Skilled personnel required Hygienic Overall efficiency for small power stations is low Produced of fuel gas/oil, which can be used for various purposes Net energy recovery may suffer may in waste with excessive moisture Control of pollution superior as compared to incineration High viscosity of pyrolysis oil may be problematic for its burning and transportation
Table 5 Indicators regarding communal waste. Indicator
Total amount of generated waste (million tons) Amount of collected and disposed communal waste (million tons) Average daily amount of communal waste per capita (kg) Average annual amount of waste per capita (tons)
Year 2009
2010
2011
2012
2.63 1.58 0.98 0.36
2.65 1.89 0.99 0.36
2.71 2.09 1.01 0.37
2.62 1.83 0.99 0.36
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
combined heat and power (CHP). The remaining inert and inorganic waste are either gasified or incinerated. During the process, temperatures may rise as high as 65 1C, but will start to decrease within a couple of months [20]. By using controlled anaerobic digestion it has been estimated that 1 t of MSW will produce 2–4 times as much methane in 3 weeks than what 1 t of waste in a landfill will produce in 6–7 years [54,55]. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) defines composting as the biological decomposition of biodegradable solid waste under predominantly aerobic conditions to a state that is sufficiently stable for problem-free storage and handling and is sufficiently matured for safe agricultural use [21]. During composting a rise in temperature occurs due to energy released during oxidation. In the hierarchy of waste management, aerobic composting rates lower than anaerobic composting due to this energy loss. Composting waste of inconsistent composition results in low quality compost, which has lower quality and has the potential to introduce heavy metals into human food chain [56]. 3.3. Landfilling The EU does not condone landfills as a long-term solution and the best results have been achieved in countries with a high percentage of thermal waste treatment combined with a wellorganized recycling industry. The waste management system in Serbia is facing a period of fast and fundamental changes. Several years ago, the waste management system consisted of collecting and dumping waste into communal disposal sites, which mostly do not fulfill the sanitary requirements for landfills. In order to establish the basis for the development of a waste management system, one of the first steps would be to make an official log of all disposal sites in Serbia and to determine the amount of generated waste as well as its composition. Currently in Serbia there are more than 3500 dumping sites, out of which there are 180 official communal landfills [57]. In India more than 90% of generated MSW ends up on dumping sites, often in very unsanitary conditions [58]. Most of the time waste is simply dumped in areas outside cities without any sanitary precautions, which not only pollutes the environment Table 6 Generated industrial waste in Serbia. Industrial waste (kilotons)
Mining Manufacturing industry Supply of electricity, gas and steam Generated waste – total
Years 2010
2011
2012
26459 1147 6019 33,623
41,518 1113 6356 48,986
47,877 791 5744 54,431
1441
but also poses a severe health and safety issue for people in the vicinity. In many coastal areas, such unsanitary landfilling has led to heavy metals leaching into the water. The landfilling process of the municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is the most commonly used, despite the fact it is very unorganized and poorly implemented. The growing population (e.g. in Delhi) has reduced the amount of land available for such practices [59–63]. City limits are constantly expanding, which has led to landfills becoming a part of the city in many places, without any proper leakage preventive measures, such as compaction, leveling of waste and final covering by soil. These sites also lack a leachate collection system as well as a landfill gas monitoring and collection system [64]. Since there is no observed initial waste segregation in India, deposited waste often remains unsegregated at these sites, which leads to toxic substances remaining together with other waste. In addition, in many cases industrial waste can be found deposited at sites originally designated for domestic waste [65]. Since all the other techniques produce certain amounts of residue that must be landfilled, which requires following the principles of sanitation, it is evident that landfilling will continue to be the primary MSWM technique in the near future [66]. Table 4 shows the advantages and disadvantages of the different technological options.
4. Waste generation in Serbia Data regarding the amount of generated communal waste is unreliable and incomplete, so the amounts of annual communal waste are calculated based on waste measurements in representative local communities. Table 5 shows indicators regarding communal waste in Serbia [67]. Based on data shown in Table 5, Serbia generates an average of 2.5 millions of tons of communal waste per year, whose energy potential is equal to electric energy production in the value of 2 billion euros. According to the morphological content of waste, organic waste (yard waste and miscellaneous biodegradable waste) makes up almost 50% of total communal waste, whereas there is about three times as much miscellaneous biodegradable waste (37.62%) than yard waste. Total plastic waste makes up 12.73%, cardboard waste 8.23%, glass waste 5.44%, paper waste 5.34%, textile waste 5.25%, diapers 3.65% and metal waste 1.38%. During 2012 industrial sectors of Serbia produced 54.4 million tons of waste, which was an 11.1% increase compared to the previous year according to data from the Research of industrial waste [68]. The amount of generated waste increased in the mining sector by 15.4%, while in the manufacturing industry sector waste was reduced by 28.9%, as well as a 9.6% decrease in the sector for supply of electricity, gas and steam.
Fig. 1. Generated industrial waste in Serbia.
1442
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
From a total 54,431 kt of generated industrial waste (Table 6, Fig. 1), the mining sector generated 47,897 kt (69.98% nonhazardous and 30.02% hazardous), the manufacturing sector generated 791 kt (91.21% non-hazardous and 8.79% hazardous) and the sector for supply of electricity, gas and steam generated 5744 kt (99.98% non-hazardous and 0.02% hazardous). Tables 7 and 8 show generated industrial waste in Serbia by aggregated statistical waste list and waste treatment by waste category and treatment category, respectively.
5. Policy and program recommendations Waste collecting and disposal, especially waste processing, was not of great interest in Serbia, although certain progress has been noticed lately. Communal waste is dumped in waste disposal sites, and small proportions of industrial waste are used. Due to the lack of proper data, the structure and amount of waste cannot be correctly estimated. The collected waste is not adequately treated and communal waste is mainly dumped at waste disposal sites without any prior treatment.
Table 7 Generated industrial waste in Serbia by aggregated statistical waste list. EWC Stata
01.1 01.2 01.3 01.4 02 03.1 03.2c 03.3c 05 06.1 06.2 06.3 07.1 07.2 07.3 07.4 07.5 07.6 07.7 08 08.1 08.41 09.1 09.2 09.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 11c 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.5 12.4 12.6 12.7c 12.8 13
a b c
Character of wasteb
Total Non-hazardous waste Hazardous waste Spent solvents Acid, alkaline or saline wastes
H N H Used oils H Chemical wastes N H Industrial wastewater sludge N H Sludges and liquid wastes from waste H treatment N Wastes from health care and biological waste N H Metal wastes, ferrous N Metal wastes, non–ferrous N Mixed metal wastes, ferrous and non- ferrous N Glass wastes N H Paper and cardboard wastes N Rubber wastes N Plastic wastes N Wood wastes N H Textile wastes N Waste containing PCBs H Discarded equipment (except 08.1, 8.41) N H Discarded vehicles N H Batteries and accumulators wastes N H Animal and mixed waste from the food N preparation Vegetal waste N Animal feces, urine and manure N Household and similar waste N Mixed and undifferentiated materials N H Sorting residues N H Sludges N Mineral waste from construction and N demolition H Other mineral waste N H Combustion waste N H Soils N H Excavated soil (Dredging spoils) N H Mineral waste from waste treatment and N stabilized waste H
2011
Generated waste, 2012 (tons) Total
Mining
Manufacturing industry
Supply of electricity, gas and steam
48,985,948 36,217,246 12,768,703 5 298 47,825 1776 1896 5823 7483 1691 52 34 13 0 60,464 3150 3776 22,990 – 16,989 1331 9451 33,181 1957 1190 68 526 646 114 18 110 2649 15,616
54,430,856 39,981,949 14,448,907 8 22 46,107 1497 3740 3343 1898 380 54 20 14 2 67,100 6407 9522 7334 – 26,545 6075 13,938 46,440 1892 3321 85 728 578 725 12 10 1373 19,167
47,896,172 33,517,717 14,378,455 – – – 118 0 50 – – – – – – 5262 59 3764 – – 17 5237 412 233 – 1 0 24 3 439 – 1 54 –
790,852 721,348 69,503 8 22 46,107 1078 2875 2903 1898 380 54 20 14 2 50,156 5773 5648 7334 – 26,461 777 12,898 44,984 1888 3320 79 121 453 39 7 8 1282 18,975
5,743,832 5,742,884 948 – – – 301 864 385 – – – – – – 11,681 574 109 – – 67 60 628 1222 3 – 5 583 121 247 5 1 37 192
180,931 1179 20,761 366,737 745 2 427 681 2247 81 29,910,603 12,700,906 6,548,372 4049 3461 1 3641 – – 3
130,550 6271 21,766 145,614 611 2 1 553 2697 12 33,533,764 14,379,592 5,925,217 13,346 2473 2 2 – – 45
– – 200 1419 – – – – 501 – 33,469,558 14,378,211 30,586 18 – – 2 – – –
130,550 6271 21,459 144,178 596 2 1 553 1 498 8 63,946 1310 169,830 13,328 1703 1 – – – 45
– – 107 16 15 – – – 698 4 261 71 5,724,801 – 770 1 – – – –
Statistical European waste classification (EWC-Stat), according to the European Commission statute (EC) 849/10. N – non-hazardous waste; H – hazardous waste. Dried sludges (EWC-Stat types 03.2, 03.3, 11 and 12.7).
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
Table 8 Waste treatment by waste category and treatment category.
Total amount (tons) Chemical and medical wastes Recyclable wastes Equipment Animal and vegetal wastes Mixed ordinary wastes Common sludges Mineral and solidified wastes Total amount Chemical and medical wastes Recyclable wastes Equipment Animal and vegetal wastes Mixed ordinary wastes Common sludges Mineral and solidified wastes
Energy recovery 2013
Incineration Recycling Landfilling Other disposal
55,773
223
1,015,314
55,232,895 4674
281
–
21,587
661
400
29,711 1 879
– – 223
729,829 7155 1935
394 8 6153
– – 3765
24,901
–
12,653
3329
–
– –
– –
441 241,713
257 280 55,222,092 229
2012 49,022 120
29 –
793,258 28,285
54,149,144 638
57,339 32
29,329 – 310
29 – –
467,998 12,800 151
329 – 4362
– – 13,469
19,052
–
–
195
–
210 –
– –
– 284,024
– 54,143,620
8 43,829
1443
9. Improving capacity and upgrading technical features of existing disposal sites. 10. The successful implementation of a non-linear management information system in order to optimize daily operating resource allotment and enable the Serbian solid waste management system to be sustainable and effective. 11. Make the MSWM system policy easier to implement.
6. Conclusion Waste-to-energy processes have been attempted at various Serbian cities numerous times, but have generally met with failure. A number of failures over the decades have instilled a negative opinion of the process in the general public as well as investors. The main causes of this lack of success are the absence of a strong policy framework for waste-to-energy process and little to none financial and logistical planning. However, there has been a positive change in the mindsets of the general public due to increasing development and education. In addition, an increase in fuel and energy prices has made such waste-to-energy projects much more appealing and viable. Thus, there have been many investments for pilot as well as large-scale plants throughout the country. From obtained data, it can be concluded that there is a need to integrate a waste management system with waste quantity reduction. Furthermore, the country can ensure energy security and sustainable development by exploiting the energy potential of MSW.
Acknowledgment Even though this waste contains a large percentage of organic waste, no composting is performed. In addition, waste is not incinerated, used as alternative fuel nor separated at the source (primary recycling) [57]. The situation regarding industrial waste is slightly better, but only 19% of it is treated. Responsible waste management and a good combination of recycling and thermal waste treatment in Serbia can create possibilities for generating thermal and electrical energy from waste, create new jobs and additional communal income. Suggested key recommendations for realizing Serbia's WtE potential are: 1. A need for micro or local base plans which can supply details for the organization of routes, timing, equipment and manpower in order to achieve a desired level of collection, transportation, treatment and disposal. 2. A new opportunity for the existing MSWM system in Serbia could be achieved by primary (door-to-door) collection and separation at the household level on a regular basis. 3. Proper initial waste separation. 4. Increasing public participation in MSWM by conducting awareness campaigns and capacity building programs. The ultimate goal would be to find a way of educating the public and spreading awareness to the general public about the benefits of proper and hygienic MSWM, as well as the hazardous effects of improper MSWM. 5. The informal policy of encouraging the public to separate MSW and market it directly to the informal network appears to be a better option. 6. Encourage and promote personal participation in MSWM as well as the involvement of the public and the private sector through non-government organizations (NGOs), which could improve MSWM efficiency. 7. Proper infrastructural facilities and street sweepers training. 8. Infrastructural development for waste collection at bus stands, taxi stands, marketplaces and other public places.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia within the framework of TR-31002 project. References [1] Government of Vojvodina, Provincial Secretariat for Energy and Mineral Resources, The programme of realisation of energetic strategy of Serbia in AP Vojvodina (2007-2012), Novi Sad; 2007. [2] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z, Jevtić-Mučibabić R. Bioethanol production from thick juice as intermediate of sugar beet processing. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:822–7. [3] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Potential contribution of bioethanol fuel to the transport sector of Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2197–200. [4] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O. Definition, characteristic and state of indicators of sustainable development in countries of Southeastern Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2009;130:67–74. [5] Vučurović D, Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Grahovac J. Process model and economic analysis of ethanol production from sugar beet raw juice as part of the cleaner producion concept. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:367–72. [6] Dodić S, Zekić V, Rodić V, Tica N, Dodić J, Popov S. Situation and perspectives of waste biomass application as energy source in Serbia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3171–7. [7] Ranković J, Dodić J, Dodić S, Popov S. Bioethanol production from intermediate products of sugar beet processing with different types of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q 2009;15(1):13–6. [8] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O, Dodić S, Dodić J. Perspectives of sustainable development in southeastern European countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2079–87. [9] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Potential development of bioethanol production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2722–7. [10] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z, Golušin M. An overview of biomas energy utilization in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:550–3. [11] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Biomass energy in Vojvodina: market conditions, environment and food security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(2):862–7. [12] Golušin M, Dodić S, Popov S. Sustainable energy management. San Diego: Academic Press; 2013. p. 402.
1444
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
[13] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Stat.Yearb.Serb.; 2012. [14] Blottnitz HV, Curran MA. A review of assessments conducted on bioethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 2006;15:607–19. [15] Bonilla SH, CMVB Almeida, Biagio F, Giannetti BF, Huisingh D. The roles of cleaner production in the sustainable development of modern societies: an introduction to this special issue. J Clean Prod 2010;18:1–5. [16] Dodić S, Vučurović D, Popov S, Dodić J, Zavargo Z. Concept of cleaner production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(6):1629–34. [17] Golušin M, Munitlak Ivanović O, Domazet S, Dodić S, Vučurović D. Assessment of the effectiveness of policy implementation for sustainable energy development in South East Europe. J Renew Sustain Energy 2011;3:6. [18] Dodić S, Vučurović D, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J. Cleaner bioprocesses for promoting zero-emission biofuels production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3242–6. [19] Kalyani KA, Pandey KK. Waste to energy status in India. A short review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:113–20. [20] Singh RP, Tyagi VV, Allen T, Ibrahim MH, Kothari R. An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(9):4797–808. [21] Annepu RK. Sustainable solid waste management in India. NewYork: Columbia University in the city of NewYork, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering; 2012. [22] Sharholy M, Vaishya R, Gupta R, Ahmad K. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Allahbad, India. Waste Manag 2007;29(4):490–6. [23] Beede DN, Bloom DE. The economics of MSW. World Bank Res Obs 1995;10 (2):113–50. [24] Qudais AM, Qudais AH. Energy content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers Manag 2000;41:983–91. [25] Bosmans A, Vanderreydt I, Geysen D, Helsen L. The crucial role of Waste-toEnergy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J Clean Prod 2013;55:10–23. [26] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 2015 (In press). [27] Wolpert, Vladimir M. Incineration of municipal solid waste combined with energy production–latest developments. Renew Energy 1994;5:782–5. [28] Justyna CM, Szymanska D. Agricultural biogas plants-achamce for diversification of agriculture in Poland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:514–8. [29] Zainura NZ, Rafiu YO, Ahmad AH, Mohd HA, Mohd FM. An overview for energy recovery from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Malaysia scenario. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:378–84. [30] Anwar J, Ahmed SI, Haslenda H, Habib A, Ramli M. Economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2907–12. [31] Pantaleo A, Gennaro BD, Shah N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic codigestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:57–70. [32] Mohammed YS, Mokhtar AS, Bashir N, Saidur R. A nover view of agricultural biomass for decentralized rural energy in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:15–22. [33] Christopher J, Koroneos, Nanaki EA. Integrated solid waste management and energy production a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of Thessaloniki. J Clean Prod 2012;27:141–50. [34] Hsien KH, Teik LZ, Reginald TB. Food waste conversion options in Singapore: environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:1367–73. [35] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:200–9. [36] Pires A, Martinho G, Chang N-B. Solid waste management in European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J Environ Manag 2011;92:1033–50. [37] Eurostat. Municipal waste statistics; 2011. [38] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Sustainable management of waste-toenergy facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:719–28. [39] Lee V, Kwok K, Cheung W, McKay G. Operation of a municipal solid waste cocombustion pilot plant. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng 2007;2:631–9. [40] Jahirul MI, Rasul MG, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N. Biofuels production through biomass pyrolysis -a technological review. Energies 2012;5:4952–5001.
[41] Appel H, Fu Y, Friedman S, Yavorsky PM, & Wender, I. Converting organic waste stooil. USB ureau of Mines Report of Investigation; 1971. [42] DiBlasi C. Dynamic behaviour of stratified down draft gasifier. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:2931–44. [43] Barducci G. The RDF gasifier of florentine area (GreveinChiantiItaly). In: Proceedings of the the first Italian–Brazilian symposium on sanitary and environmental engineering; 1992. [44] Baykara S, Bilgen E. A feasibility study onsolar gasification of albertan coal. In: Alternative Energy Resources IV, vol. 6; 1981, New York: Ann Arbor Science. [45] US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Evaluation of gasification and novel processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste; 1996. [46] Hauserman W, Giordano N, Lagana M, Recupero V. Biomass gasifiers for fuel cells systems. LaChimicaL’Industria, vol. 2; 1997. p. 199–206. [47] Staniewski E. Gasification- the benefits of thermo chemical conversion over combustion. Hazard Mater Manag 1995. [48] Juniper. Pyrolysis & gasification of waste. worldwide technology & business review. Uley, UK: Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd.; 2000. [49] Igoni A, Ayotamuno M, Eze C, Ogaji S, Probert S. Designs of anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste. Appl Energy 2008;85:430–8. [50] Braber K. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste: a modern waste disposal optionon the verge of break through. Biomass Bioenergy 1995;9:365–76. [51] Iglesias J, Castrilloa L, Pelaez N, Marana E, Maison O, Andres H. Biomethanization of municipal solid waste in a pilot plant. Water Res 2000;34:447–54. [52] Ambulkar A, Shekdar A. Prospects of biomethanation technology in the Indian context: a pragmatic approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 2004;40:111–28. [53] Elango D, Pulikesi M, Bakaralingam P, Ramamurthi V, Sivanesan S. Production of biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage. J Hazard Mater 2007;141:301–4. [54] Saxena R, Adhikari D, Goyal H. Biomass based energy fuel through biochemical routes: areview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:167–78. [55] Ahsan N. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian J Environ Prot 1999;19(2):90–5. [56] Pinamonti F, Stringari G, Gasperi F, Zorzi G. The use of compost: its effects on heavy metal levels in soil and plants. Resour Conserv Recycl 1997:21. [57] Urošević S, Pejčić B, Đorđević D. Contemporary tendencies in waste management in Serbia. Econ Manag Inf Technol 2012;1:159–66. [58] Das D, Srinivasu, Bandopadhyay M. Solid state acidification of vegetable waste. Indian J Environ Health 1998;40(4):333–42. [59] Mor S, Ravindra K, Visscher A, Dahiya R, Chandra A. Municipal solid waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: a case study. J Sci Total Environ 2006;1:1–10. [60] Siddiqui T, Siddiqui F, & Khan E. Sustainable development through integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) approach: a case study of Aligarh district. In: prcoeedings of then ational conference of advanced in mechanical engineering. New Delhi; 2006. p. 1168–75. [61] Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi R. Development of prediction models form unicipal solid waste generation for Delhicity. In: proceedings of the national conference of advanced in mechanical engineering. New Delhi; 2006. p. 1176–86. [62] Gupta S, Krishna M, Prasad R, Gupta S, Kansal A. Solid waste management in India: options and opportunities. Resour Conserv Recycl 1998;24:137–54. [63] Kansal A. Solid waste management strategies for India. Indian J Environ Prot 2002;22(4):444–8. [64] Bhide A, Shekdar A. Solid waste management in Indian urban centres. ; 1998, Wien, Austria; p. 26–8. [65] Datta M. Waste disposal in engineered landfills. NewDelhi: Narosa Publishing House; 1997. [66] Dayal G. Solid wastes: sources, implications and management. Indian J Environ Prot 1994;14(9):669–77. [67] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia,Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Serbia from 2010 to 2019, no.29/10. [68] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Release, Industrial waste in the Republic of Serbia, Number 167, Year LXIII, ISSN 0353-9555.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Waste-to-energy status in Serbia Bojana Ž. Bajić n, Siniša N. Dodić, Damjan G. Vučurović, Jelena M. Dodić, Jovana A. Grahovac University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technology, Department of Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Bulevar cara Lazara 1, Novi Sad 21000, Vojvodina, Serbia
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 24 February 2014 Received in revised form 8 May 2015 Accepted 26 May 2015
Serbia is a country located at the crossroads of Central and Southeastern Europe, covering the southern part of the Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. After eight years of strong economic growth (average of 4.45% per year), the economy of the country has been affected by the global economic crisis and Serbia entered the recession in 2009 with a negative growth of 3% and again in 2012 with 1.7%. Reserves of oil and gas are limited so the country is heavily dependent on the import of oil. The country's economy has been under serious strain and the balance of the country's budget has been deteriorating due to the oil import bill. Environmental pollution, the import of fossil fuels as well as the ever-growing demand for energy are the reasons why investments and developments of renewable energy source technologies, as well as waste management procedures are crucial. Since Serbia is in the process of joining the European Union, it is extremely important to develop an adequate system of waste management together with the development of society and economy as a whole. The waste-to-energy process is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and has strong potential to produce energy from communal and industrial waste, which are currently unused resources. In addition, it is necessary to integrate waste management procedures with waste quantity reduction. In this study, an attempt has been made to give suggestions for better utilization of municipal solid waste in Serbia through comprehensive reviews of commonly used municipal waste practices as well as data on waste generation, types and the amounts of communal and industrial waste. By exploiting the energy potential of municipal solid waste the country can ensure sustainable development as well as energy security. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Waste Energy Waste-to-energy Vojvodina Serbia
Contents 1. 2. 3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worldwide status of waste-to-energy (WTE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of waste management practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Thermal conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Pyrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3. Gasification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Biochemical conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Landfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Waste generation in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Policy and program recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.Ž. Bajić).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.079 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1438 1438 1439 1439 1439 1440 1440 1440 1441 1441 1442 1443 1443 1443
1438
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
1. Introduction Serbia is a country located at the crossroads of Central and Southeastern Europe, covering the southern part of the Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. Serbia has an emerging market economy in the upper-middle income range. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Serbian nominal GDP (gross domestic product) in 2013 is officially estimated at USD 43.7 billion or USD 6017 per capita while purchasing power parity GDP was USD 80.467 billion or USD 11,085 per capita. The economy is dominated by service industry that account for 63.8% of GDP, followed by industry with 23.5% of GDP, and agriculture at 12.7% of GDP. The economy has been affected by the global economic crisis. After eight years of strong economic growth (average of 4.45% per year), Serbia entered the recession in 2009 with negative growth of 3% and again in 2012 with 1.7%. As the government was fighting the effects of this crisis, the public debt has doubled in 4 years: from pre-crisis level of 29.2–61.5% of GDP. The energy sector is one of the largest and most important sectors to the country's economy. The country depends heavily on the import of oil since its own reserves of oil and gas are limited. The country's economy is under serious strain and the balance of its budget has been deteriorating because of the oil import bill. The energetic security of the country has become increasingly more dependent on fossil fuels, most of which is imported oil that is vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility [1–6]. Major resources which will provide Serbia with most of its renewable energy in the future are hydropower, wind power, solar energy, geothermal energy, biomass, biogas and biofuels [7–12]. Serbia has a total energy dependence of 40% which is considered average when compared to other EU countries. The energy sector is a major polluter in Serbia, mainly due to the use of domestic lignite, which is burned using old equipment without abatement technology. Energy utilization in Serbia is very inefficient, since it uses five times the amount of energy to produce one unit of GDP compared to the EU average. The largest share in energy commodities' production in the Republic of Serbia in 2012 related to the production of coal, 45.76%. Oil and oil derivates made up of 50.23% of import in 2012, and electricity made up 54.46% of export. In 2012, when total consumption is taken into account, coal was most consumed in the section of industry (40.41%), oil derivates were most consumed in the transport section (60.55%), electricity was most consumed in the household section (53.44%) and natural gas in the industry section (64.70%) [13]. The topic of biofuels has been repeatedly addressed, which reflects a worldwide goal to rapidly develop and implement more renewable fuels and other improved energy technologies. Public perception of the central importance of bioenergy has caused people to disregard the inherent limitations of biofuels and focus solely on their positive aspects. The only way biofuels can make a real contribution toward a more sustainable world is through a methodical life cycle approach that would allow researchers to thoroughly cover all phases of production – from planting to the actual production and use. By becoming more aware of the problems and limitations and having identified the weak points, it is increasingly possible to test and implement improved practices to prevent or to minimize the negative impacts of bioenergy production and use [14–18]. However, increased waste and pollution combined with the decline of the economy can occur if optimal resource utilization is not properly supervised. In addition to the fact that it can negatively affect the economy, it can take a toll on our health and lead to large-scale environmental pollution through harmful emissions. Therefore, it is of great importance to constantly carefully monitor utilization and recovery of resources. But on the
other hand, if the energy potential of waste is properly utilized the country can ensure sustainable developement as well as energy security. Towns and cities have not been able to keep up with the uncontrolled urbanization in Serbia. They lack basic amenities like proper sewage, drainage, solid waste management systems etc. [19,20]. A change in lifestyles over the years has led to a significant change in the amount of generated waste [22]. The government, local authorities and the urban local communities have been under increased pressure to manage the collection, processing and disposal of waste [23]. The most common practice of managing waste today is to deposit it in landfills, which poses a huge threat to the environment in the form of greenhouse gases (GHG), leakage in the form of CO2 and CH4 and leachate production, and therefore it is necessary to improve this technique [24]. It is extremely necessary to come up with a solid waste management process that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. One such process, that holds strong potential to derive energy from unused resources, i.e., waste, but has been overlooked so far, is waste-to-energy (WtE) process. Waste-toEnergy is a process of recovering energy, in the form of electricity and/or heat, from waste. In the past, in order to reduce waste volume and destroy harmful substances (and thereby prevent human health risks) waste incineration was the technology of choice. Nowadays, since the importance of energy recovery has increased, it is an integral part of waste incineration [25]. Waste management practices have evolved over many centuries. While hygienic considerations were on top of the priority list in the beginning, in today's societies rapidly rising amounts and complexity of waste has made waste management one of the main issues. Together with economic development, waste management went through several stages to reach the high technological level that is seen today. Sophisticated collection systems, combined with efficient separation processes, allow high recovery and recycling rates. In addition, a large fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) is treated in waste-to-energy plants, and the most toxic organic wastes are destroyed in hazardous waste incinerators [26]. The objective of this study was to provide ideas how to better utilize municipal solid waste in Serbia through comprehensive reviews of commonly used municipal waste practices as well as data on waste generation, types and the amounts of communal and industrial waste. By exploiting the energy potential of municipal solid waste the country can ensure sustainable development as well as energy security.
2. Worldwide status of waste-to-energy (WTE) The concept of waste-to-energy has developed significantly over the last few decades. Developed countries have started successfully implementing it in order to ensure effective waste management as well as energy security. Constantly increasing amounts of generated waste are the result of lifestyle changes that derive from urban development. Many countries have realized the potential of the waste-toenergy process and started using waste to produce energy. Notable examples of the use of waste-to-energy techniques throughout history have been USA, Japan and Germany. In USA in 1990, an estimated 394 trillion BTUs of consumed energy were produced from municipal solid waste (MSW). According to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW), since late 1991 there have been 102 operational waste incineration plants for electricity production, all of which are still operational. In addition, in Germany in the 90's there were many working waste-to-energy plants.
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
Since 1985 there has been a 90% reduction in Swedish incineration plant emissions due to the use of cleaner fuels and modern incineration technology. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in their 70th report very clearly stated the importance of modern technology in the field of waste to energy [27]. With initial developments in the 90's, today's waste-to-energy techniques have been greatly modernized as well as prioritized. The type of used feedstock has also been diversified. Current global practices of waste-to-energy are described in the following section. Poland has been using agricultural biomass to generate electricity. By the end of 2012, in Poland there were 29 operational agricultural biogas plants with an average installed capacity of 1 MW [28]. There has been a lot of development in Malaysia as far as WTE techniques are concerned. In 2010, methane emissions from Malaysian landfills were sufficient to produce 2.20 109 kW h of electricity and were expected to generate USD 219.5 million. The estimates for 2015 and 2020 are USD 243.63 million and USD 262.79 million, respectively [29,30]. Italy has installed many anaerobic co-digestion plants with a capacity range between 50 kW and 1 MW [31]. In multiple African countries, including Ghana, agricultural biomass has been used as feedstock for the production of decentralized rural energy with a total output of 12.5 kW of electric energy using two generators rated 5 kV A and 7.5 kV A. The produced electricity was supplied to the community using a local 230 V grid for 12 h per day [32]. The city of Thessaloniki in Greece has been following the integrated solid waste management system as well as producing energy for a significant period of time, taking advantage of innovations such as the use of biocells to better utilize the produced biogas [33]. Singapore has been focusing on recovering energy from food waste and has formulated many policies to promote this program in accordance with this [34]. In addition, Canada has been developing systems to convert food waste to energy and has been putting a lot of effort into designing various systems that could meet the required standards. Its current operational system has been able to produce 134.6 MWh of surplus energy per year [35]. The Central European Union countries require models and tools necessary to rationalize their management strategies and technological choices, as opposed to the Southern European Union countries, which need to develop additional measures in order to implement more integrated solid waste management procedures that meet EU directives. Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden represent environmentally advanced countries. Proper waste management procedures have significant benefits, some of which are the prevention of greenhouse gases emission, reduction of pollutants, recovery of energy, conservation of resources, creation of new jobs, development of green technologies and economic opportunities [36–38]. The world is rapidly adapting this technology that not only helps countries with their waste management, but also aids with their energy security. Therefore, the time is ideal for the underdeveloped as well as developing countries to start following the example of developed countries and move in the direction of sustainable MSW management practices.
3. Types of waste management practices Waste management practices in Serbia are still in their initial development stages. These waste management practices are currently unable to cope with the rate of waste generation. This has attracted the attention of a large number of entrepreneurs, which has resulted in many innovations in the field of waste management. MSW consists of multiple components, as shown in Table 1.
1439
Based on the type, quantity and properties of feedstock, the desired form of energy, end-use requirements, economic conditions, environmental standards and project-specific factors, waste conversion processes can be sorted into various categories [20]. Commonly used waste conversion processes are thermal conversions (incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, and refuse-derived fuel), biochemical conversions (composting, vermicomposting, and anaerobic digestion/biomethanation) and chemical conversions (trans-esterification and other processes for the conversion of plant and vegetable oils to biodiesel) [20,21]. Each one of these conversions has their own advantages as well as limitations. This section describes the most commonly used types of conversions, as well as the ones that are only just beginning to be implemented. 3.1. Thermal conversions Thermal conversions of waste include incineration, pyrolysis and gasification techniques. These techniques result in the production of various by-products, which can be used in several energy and resource recovery techniques. 3.1.1. Incineration One of the most frequently used waste treatment techniques is incineration, thanks to its ability to reduce the mass of waste by 70% and its volume by up to 90%. The process of incineration contributes to energy recovery from waste by generating electricity from thermal energy [20,21]. The process can be separated into three main steps – incineration, energy recovery and air pollution control [39]. Even though the process produces an effectively sterile ash residue, air pollution and health hazards could occur as a result of the emissions from the process that contain air pollutants like sulfur, carbon and nitrogen oxides. For this reason, it is extremely important that the incinerator is equipped with emission control accessories. Incineration is performed in a temperature range between 750 and 1000 1C and can Table 1 MSW components. Component
Material
Compostable Recyclable Inert Toxic substances
Food waste, landscaping waste, tree trimmings, etc. Papers, plastics, glasses, metals, etc. Stones and silt, inorganic material, etc. Paints, pesticides, used batteries, medicine, etc.
Table 2 Operating parameters for pyrolysis process. Parameters
Conventional pyrolysis
Fast pyrolysis
Flash pyrolysis
Temperature (K) Heating rate (K/s) Particle size (s) Residence time (s)
550–900 0.1–1 5–50 300–3600
850–1250 10–200 o1 0.5–10
1050–1300 41000 o 0.2 o 0.5
Table 3 Composition of pyrolysis gas from MSW. Constituent
Amount (vol%)
CO CO2 CH4 H2 Calorific value (kcal/Nm3)
35.5 16.4 11.0 37.1 3430
1440
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
be combined with the processes of steam and electricity generation [20]. 3.1.2. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is a thermal waste treatment method carried out in an oxygen free environment. Depending upon operational parameters, the process of pyrolysis can be sorted into three types – conventional pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis and flash pyrolysis. Conventional and flash pyrolysis both suffer from technical limitations, although flash pyrolysis shows promising potential. Fast-pyrolysis technology is receiving incredible popularity due to its numerous advantages [40]. Operational parameters of these three pyrolysis types are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the composition of pyrolysis gases, which are product of the aforementioned pyrolysis processes. 3.1.3. Gasification The process of gasification constitutes partial combustion of biomass for production of gas and char. Product gases, mainly CO2 and H2O, are then reduced to CO and H2 using charcoal. The process, depending on reactor design and operational parameters, generates a certain amount of methane and other higher hydrocarbons (HC) [41]. In the presence of a gasification agent, various heterogeneous reactions convert the feedstock to gas [42–44]. The
produced combustible gas consists of CO, CO2, CH4, H2, H2O, inert gases present in the gasification agent, trace amounts of higher HCs and various contaminants such as small char particles, tar and ash [45]. An external energy source is necessary if the gasification process does not occur using an oxidizing agent. This is known as indirect gasification [46,47]. Steam is the most commonly used indirect gasification agent, due to its easy production as well as the ability to increase the hydrogen content of the produced combustible gas [46]. A gasification system consists of three main components: (1) the gasifier, which produces the combustible gas; (2) the clean-up system, which removes the hazardous components of the combustible gas; and (3) the energy recovery system [48]. 3.2. Biochemical conversion Compared to the previously discussed techniques, biochemical conversion of waste-to-energy is much more environmentally friendly. Waste is converted into energy using primarily enzymes of microorganisms. The techniques that fall under this category are anaerobic digestion and composting. In anaerobic digestion (AD), organic waste is used as feedstock for the process, which is then degraded by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen [49–53]. This reduces the amount of waste and produces biogas, which can be utilized as transport fuel or for
Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of different MSWM technologies. Technology
Advantages
Disadvantages
Anaerobic digestion
Energy recovery with production of high grade soil conditioner No power requirement for sieving and turning of waste pile Enclosed system enables trapping the gas produced for use Controls GHG emissions Free from bad odor, rodent and fly menace, visible pollution and social resistance Compact design needs less land area Net positive environmental gains Can be done in small scale Least cost option Gas produced can be utilized for power generation or direct thermal application Skilled personnel not required Natural resources are returned to the soil and recycled Can convert marshy lands to useful areas
Unsuitable for wastes containing less organic matter Requires waste segregation for improving digestion efficiency
Landfill gas recovery
Incineration
Pyrolysis/ gasification
Surface runoff during rainfall causes pollution Soil and groundwater may get polluted by the leachate
Yields only 30–40% of the total gas generated Large land area required Significant transportation costs Cost of pretretment to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality and leachate treatment may be significant Spontaneous explosion due to methane gas build up Most suitable for high calorific value waste Least suited for aqueous, high moisture content, low calorific value and chlorinated Unites with high throughput and continuous feed can be set up waste Toxic metal concentration in ash, particulate emissions, SOx, NOx, chlorinated Thermal energy for power generation or direct heating Relatively noiseless and odorless compounds, ranging from HCl to dioxins Low lands are required High capital and O&M costs Can be located within city limits, reducing transportation costs Skilled personnel required Hygienic Overall efficiency for small power stations is low Produced of fuel gas/oil, which can be used for various purposes Net energy recovery may suffer may in waste with excessive moisture Control of pollution superior as compared to incineration High viscosity of pyrolysis oil may be problematic for its burning and transportation
Table 5 Indicators regarding communal waste. Indicator
Total amount of generated waste (million tons) Amount of collected and disposed communal waste (million tons) Average daily amount of communal waste per capita (kg) Average annual amount of waste per capita (tons)
Year 2009
2010
2011
2012
2.63 1.58 0.98 0.36
2.65 1.89 0.99 0.36
2.71 2.09 1.01 0.37
2.62 1.83 0.99 0.36
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
combined heat and power (CHP). The remaining inert and inorganic waste are either gasified or incinerated. During the process, temperatures may rise as high as 65 1C, but will start to decrease within a couple of months [20]. By using controlled anaerobic digestion it has been estimated that 1 t of MSW will produce 2–4 times as much methane in 3 weeks than what 1 t of waste in a landfill will produce in 6–7 years [54,55]. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) defines composting as the biological decomposition of biodegradable solid waste under predominantly aerobic conditions to a state that is sufficiently stable for problem-free storage and handling and is sufficiently matured for safe agricultural use [21]. During composting a rise in temperature occurs due to energy released during oxidation. In the hierarchy of waste management, aerobic composting rates lower than anaerobic composting due to this energy loss. Composting waste of inconsistent composition results in low quality compost, which has lower quality and has the potential to introduce heavy metals into human food chain [56]. 3.3. Landfilling The EU does not condone landfills as a long-term solution and the best results have been achieved in countries with a high percentage of thermal waste treatment combined with a wellorganized recycling industry. The waste management system in Serbia is facing a period of fast and fundamental changes. Several years ago, the waste management system consisted of collecting and dumping waste into communal disposal sites, which mostly do not fulfill the sanitary requirements for landfills. In order to establish the basis for the development of a waste management system, one of the first steps would be to make an official log of all disposal sites in Serbia and to determine the amount of generated waste as well as its composition. Currently in Serbia there are more than 3500 dumping sites, out of which there are 180 official communal landfills [57]. In India more than 90% of generated MSW ends up on dumping sites, often in very unsanitary conditions [58]. Most of the time waste is simply dumped in areas outside cities without any sanitary precautions, which not only pollutes the environment Table 6 Generated industrial waste in Serbia. Industrial waste (kilotons)
Mining Manufacturing industry Supply of electricity, gas and steam Generated waste – total
Years 2010
2011
2012
26459 1147 6019 33,623
41,518 1113 6356 48,986
47,877 791 5744 54,431
1441
but also poses a severe health and safety issue for people in the vicinity. In many coastal areas, such unsanitary landfilling has led to heavy metals leaching into the water. The landfilling process of the municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is the most commonly used, despite the fact it is very unorganized and poorly implemented. The growing population (e.g. in Delhi) has reduced the amount of land available for such practices [59–63]. City limits are constantly expanding, which has led to landfills becoming a part of the city in many places, without any proper leakage preventive measures, such as compaction, leveling of waste and final covering by soil. These sites also lack a leachate collection system as well as a landfill gas monitoring and collection system [64]. Since there is no observed initial waste segregation in India, deposited waste often remains unsegregated at these sites, which leads to toxic substances remaining together with other waste. In addition, in many cases industrial waste can be found deposited at sites originally designated for domestic waste [65]. Since all the other techniques produce certain amounts of residue that must be landfilled, which requires following the principles of sanitation, it is evident that landfilling will continue to be the primary MSWM technique in the near future [66]. Table 4 shows the advantages and disadvantages of the different technological options.
4. Waste generation in Serbia Data regarding the amount of generated communal waste is unreliable and incomplete, so the amounts of annual communal waste are calculated based on waste measurements in representative local communities. Table 5 shows indicators regarding communal waste in Serbia [67]. Based on data shown in Table 5, Serbia generates an average of 2.5 millions of tons of communal waste per year, whose energy potential is equal to electric energy production in the value of 2 billion euros. According to the morphological content of waste, organic waste (yard waste and miscellaneous biodegradable waste) makes up almost 50% of total communal waste, whereas there is about three times as much miscellaneous biodegradable waste (37.62%) than yard waste. Total plastic waste makes up 12.73%, cardboard waste 8.23%, glass waste 5.44%, paper waste 5.34%, textile waste 5.25%, diapers 3.65% and metal waste 1.38%. During 2012 industrial sectors of Serbia produced 54.4 million tons of waste, which was an 11.1% increase compared to the previous year according to data from the Research of industrial waste [68]. The amount of generated waste increased in the mining sector by 15.4%, while in the manufacturing industry sector waste was reduced by 28.9%, as well as a 9.6% decrease in the sector for supply of electricity, gas and steam.
Fig. 1. Generated industrial waste in Serbia.
1442
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
From a total 54,431 kt of generated industrial waste (Table 6, Fig. 1), the mining sector generated 47,897 kt (69.98% nonhazardous and 30.02% hazardous), the manufacturing sector generated 791 kt (91.21% non-hazardous and 8.79% hazardous) and the sector for supply of electricity, gas and steam generated 5744 kt (99.98% non-hazardous and 0.02% hazardous). Tables 7 and 8 show generated industrial waste in Serbia by aggregated statistical waste list and waste treatment by waste category and treatment category, respectively.
5. Policy and program recommendations Waste collecting and disposal, especially waste processing, was not of great interest in Serbia, although certain progress has been noticed lately. Communal waste is dumped in waste disposal sites, and small proportions of industrial waste are used. Due to the lack of proper data, the structure and amount of waste cannot be correctly estimated. The collected waste is not adequately treated and communal waste is mainly dumped at waste disposal sites without any prior treatment.
Table 7 Generated industrial waste in Serbia by aggregated statistical waste list. EWC Stata
01.1 01.2 01.3 01.4 02 03.1 03.2c 03.3c 05 06.1 06.2 06.3 07.1 07.2 07.3 07.4 07.5 07.6 07.7 08 08.1 08.41 09.1 09.2 09.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 11c 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.5 12.4 12.6 12.7c 12.8 13
a b c
Character of wasteb
Total Non-hazardous waste Hazardous waste Spent solvents Acid, alkaline or saline wastes
H N H Used oils H Chemical wastes N H Industrial wastewater sludge N H Sludges and liquid wastes from waste H treatment N Wastes from health care and biological waste N H Metal wastes, ferrous N Metal wastes, non–ferrous N Mixed metal wastes, ferrous and non- ferrous N Glass wastes N H Paper and cardboard wastes N Rubber wastes N Plastic wastes N Wood wastes N H Textile wastes N Waste containing PCBs H Discarded equipment (except 08.1, 8.41) N H Discarded vehicles N H Batteries and accumulators wastes N H Animal and mixed waste from the food N preparation Vegetal waste N Animal feces, urine and manure N Household and similar waste N Mixed and undifferentiated materials N H Sorting residues N H Sludges N Mineral waste from construction and N demolition H Other mineral waste N H Combustion waste N H Soils N H Excavated soil (Dredging spoils) N H Mineral waste from waste treatment and N stabilized waste H
2011
Generated waste, 2012 (tons) Total
Mining
Manufacturing industry
Supply of electricity, gas and steam
48,985,948 36,217,246 12,768,703 5 298 47,825 1776 1896 5823 7483 1691 52 34 13 0 60,464 3150 3776 22,990 – 16,989 1331 9451 33,181 1957 1190 68 526 646 114 18 110 2649 15,616
54,430,856 39,981,949 14,448,907 8 22 46,107 1497 3740 3343 1898 380 54 20 14 2 67,100 6407 9522 7334 – 26,545 6075 13,938 46,440 1892 3321 85 728 578 725 12 10 1373 19,167
47,896,172 33,517,717 14,378,455 – – – 118 0 50 – – – – – – 5262 59 3764 – – 17 5237 412 233 – 1 0 24 3 439 – 1 54 –
790,852 721,348 69,503 8 22 46,107 1078 2875 2903 1898 380 54 20 14 2 50,156 5773 5648 7334 – 26,461 777 12,898 44,984 1888 3320 79 121 453 39 7 8 1282 18,975
5,743,832 5,742,884 948 – – – 301 864 385 – – – – – – 11,681 574 109 – – 67 60 628 1222 3 – 5 583 121 247 5 1 37 192
180,931 1179 20,761 366,737 745 2 427 681 2247 81 29,910,603 12,700,906 6,548,372 4049 3461 1 3641 – – 3
130,550 6271 21,766 145,614 611 2 1 553 2697 12 33,533,764 14,379,592 5,925,217 13,346 2473 2 2 – – 45
– – 200 1419 – – – – 501 – 33,469,558 14,378,211 30,586 18 – – 2 – – –
130,550 6271 21,459 144,178 596 2 1 553 1 498 8 63,946 1310 169,830 13,328 1703 1 – – – 45
– – 107 16 15 – – – 698 4 261 71 5,724,801 – 770 1 – – – –
Statistical European waste classification (EWC-Stat), according to the European Commission statute (EC) 849/10. N – non-hazardous waste; H – hazardous waste. Dried sludges (EWC-Stat types 03.2, 03.3, 11 and 12.7).
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
Table 8 Waste treatment by waste category and treatment category.
Total amount (tons) Chemical and medical wastes Recyclable wastes Equipment Animal and vegetal wastes Mixed ordinary wastes Common sludges Mineral and solidified wastes Total amount Chemical and medical wastes Recyclable wastes Equipment Animal and vegetal wastes Mixed ordinary wastes Common sludges Mineral and solidified wastes
Energy recovery 2013
Incineration Recycling Landfilling Other disposal
55,773
223
1,015,314
55,232,895 4674
281
–
21,587
661
400
29,711 1 879
– – 223
729,829 7155 1935
394 8 6153
– – 3765
24,901
–
12,653
3329
–
– –
– –
441 241,713
257 280 55,222,092 229
2012 49,022 120
29 –
793,258 28,285
54,149,144 638
57,339 32
29,329 – 310
29 – –
467,998 12,800 151
329 – 4362
– – 13,469
19,052
–
–
195
–
210 –
– –
– 284,024
– 54,143,620
8 43,829
1443
9. Improving capacity and upgrading technical features of existing disposal sites. 10. The successful implementation of a non-linear management information system in order to optimize daily operating resource allotment and enable the Serbian solid waste management system to be sustainable and effective. 11. Make the MSWM system policy easier to implement.
6. Conclusion Waste-to-energy processes have been attempted at various Serbian cities numerous times, but have generally met with failure. A number of failures over the decades have instilled a negative opinion of the process in the general public as well as investors. The main causes of this lack of success are the absence of a strong policy framework for waste-to-energy process and little to none financial and logistical planning. However, there has been a positive change in the mindsets of the general public due to increasing development and education. In addition, an increase in fuel and energy prices has made such waste-to-energy projects much more appealing and viable. Thus, there have been many investments for pilot as well as large-scale plants throughout the country. From obtained data, it can be concluded that there is a need to integrate a waste management system with waste quantity reduction. Furthermore, the country can ensure energy security and sustainable development by exploiting the energy potential of MSW.
Acknowledgment Even though this waste contains a large percentage of organic waste, no composting is performed. In addition, waste is not incinerated, used as alternative fuel nor separated at the source (primary recycling) [57]. The situation regarding industrial waste is slightly better, but only 19% of it is treated. Responsible waste management and a good combination of recycling and thermal waste treatment in Serbia can create possibilities for generating thermal and electrical energy from waste, create new jobs and additional communal income. Suggested key recommendations for realizing Serbia's WtE potential are: 1. A need for micro or local base plans which can supply details for the organization of routes, timing, equipment and manpower in order to achieve a desired level of collection, transportation, treatment and disposal. 2. A new opportunity for the existing MSWM system in Serbia could be achieved by primary (door-to-door) collection and separation at the household level on a regular basis. 3. Proper initial waste separation. 4. Increasing public participation in MSWM by conducting awareness campaigns and capacity building programs. The ultimate goal would be to find a way of educating the public and spreading awareness to the general public about the benefits of proper and hygienic MSWM, as well as the hazardous effects of improper MSWM. 5. The informal policy of encouraging the public to separate MSW and market it directly to the informal network appears to be a better option. 6. Encourage and promote personal participation in MSWM as well as the involvement of the public and the private sector through non-government organizations (NGOs), which could improve MSWM efficiency. 7. Proper infrastructural facilities and street sweepers training. 8. Infrastructural development for waste collection at bus stands, taxi stands, marketplaces and other public places.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia within the framework of TR-31002 project. References [1] Government of Vojvodina, Provincial Secretariat for Energy and Mineral Resources, The programme of realisation of energetic strategy of Serbia in AP Vojvodina (2007-2012), Novi Sad; 2007. [2] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z, Jevtić-Mučibabić R. Bioethanol production from thick juice as intermediate of sugar beet processing. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:822–7. [3] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Potential contribution of bioethanol fuel to the transport sector of Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2197–200. [4] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O. Definition, characteristic and state of indicators of sustainable development in countries of Southeastern Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2009;130:67–74. [5] Vučurović D, Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Grahovac J. Process model and economic analysis of ethanol production from sugar beet raw juice as part of the cleaner producion concept. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:367–72. [6] Dodić S, Zekić V, Rodić V, Tica N, Dodić J, Popov S. Situation and perspectives of waste biomass application as energy source in Serbia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3171–7. [7] Ranković J, Dodić J, Dodić S, Popov S. Bioethanol production from intermediate products of sugar beet processing with different types of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q 2009;15(1):13–6. [8] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O, Dodić S, Dodić J. Perspectives of sustainable development in southeastern European countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2079–87. [9] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Potential development of bioethanol production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2722–7. [10] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z, Golušin M. An overview of biomas energy utilization in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:550–3. [11] Dodić S, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J, Zavargo Z. Biomass energy in Vojvodina: market conditions, environment and food security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(2):862–7. [12] Golušin M, Dodić S, Popov S. Sustainable energy management. San Diego: Academic Press; 2013. p. 402.
1444
B.Ž. Bajić et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015) 1437–1444
[13] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Stat.Yearb.Serb.; 2012. [14] Blottnitz HV, Curran MA. A review of assessments conducted on bioethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 2006;15:607–19. [15] Bonilla SH, CMVB Almeida, Biagio F, Giannetti BF, Huisingh D. The roles of cleaner production in the sustainable development of modern societies: an introduction to this special issue. J Clean Prod 2010;18:1–5. [16] Dodić S, Vučurović D, Popov S, Dodić J, Zavargo Z. Concept of cleaner production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(6):1629–34. [17] Golušin M, Munitlak Ivanović O, Domazet S, Dodić S, Vučurović D. Assessment of the effectiveness of policy implementation for sustainable energy development in South East Europe. J Renew Sustain Energy 2011;3:6. [18] Dodić S, Vučurović D, Popov S, Dodić J, Ranković J. Cleaner bioprocesses for promoting zero-emission biofuels production in Vojvodina. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3242–6. [19] Kalyani KA, Pandey KK. Waste to energy status in India. A short review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:113–20. [20] Singh RP, Tyagi VV, Allen T, Ibrahim MH, Kothari R. An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(9):4797–808. [21] Annepu RK. Sustainable solid waste management in India. NewYork: Columbia University in the city of NewYork, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering; 2012. [22] Sharholy M, Vaishya R, Gupta R, Ahmad K. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Allahbad, India. Waste Manag 2007;29(4):490–6. [23] Beede DN, Bloom DE. The economics of MSW. World Bank Res Obs 1995;10 (2):113–50. [24] Qudais AM, Qudais AH. Energy content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Convers Manag 2000;41:983–91. [25] Bosmans A, Vanderreydt I, Geysen D, Helsen L. The crucial role of Waste-toEnergy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J Clean Prod 2013;55:10–23. [26] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste management. Waste Manag 2015 (In press). [27] Wolpert, Vladimir M. Incineration of municipal solid waste combined with energy production–latest developments. Renew Energy 1994;5:782–5. [28] Justyna CM, Szymanska D. Agricultural biogas plants-achamce for diversification of agriculture in Poland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:514–8. [29] Zainura NZ, Rafiu YO, Ahmad AH, Mohd HA, Mohd FM. An overview for energy recovery from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Malaysia scenario. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:378–84. [30] Anwar J, Ahmed SI, Haslenda H, Habib A, Ramli M. Economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2907–12. [31] Pantaleo A, Gennaro BD, Shah N. Assessment of optimal size of anaerobic codigestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the province of Bari (Italy). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:57–70. [32] Mohammed YS, Mokhtar AS, Bashir N, Saidur R. A nover view of agricultural biomass for decentralized rural energy in Ghana. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:15–22. [33] Christopher J, Koroneos, Nanaki EA. Integrated solid waste management and energy production a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of Thessaloniki. J Clean Prod 2012;27:141–50. [34] Hsien KH, Teik LZ, Reginald TB. Food waste conversion options in Singapore: environmental impacts based on an LCA perspective. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:1367–73. [35] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:200–9. [36] Pires A, Martinho G, Chang N-B. Solid waste management in European countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J Environ Manag 2011;92:1033–50. [37] Eurostat. Municipal waste statistics; 2011. [38] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Sustainable management of waste-toenergy facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:719–28. [39] Lee V, Kwok K, Cheung W, McKay G. Operation of a municipal solid waste cocombustion pilot plant. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng 2007;2:631–9. [40] Jahirul MI, Rasul MG, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N. Biofuels production through biomass pyrolysis -a technological review. Energies 2012;5:4952–5001.
[41] Appel H, Fu Y, Friedman S, Yavorsky PM, & Wender, I. Converting organic waste stooil. USB ureau of Mines Report of Investigation; 1971. [42] DiBlasi C. Dynamic behaviour of stratified down draft gasifier. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:2931–44. [43] Barducci G. The RDF gasifier of florentine area (GreveinChiantiItaly). In: Proceedings of the the first Italian–Brazilian symposium on sanitary and environmental engineering; 1992. [44] Baykara S, Bilgen E. A feasibility study onsolar gasification of albertan coal. In: Alternative Energy Resources IV, vol. 6; 1981, New York: Ann Arbor Science. [45] US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Evaluation of gasification and novel processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste; 1996. [46] Hauserman W, Giordano N, Lagana M, Recupero V. Biomass gasifiers for fuel cells systems. LaChimicaL’Industria, vol. 2; 1997. p. 199–206. [47] Staniewski E. Gasification- the benefits of thermo chemical conversion over combustion. Hazard Mater Manag 1995. [48] Juniper. Pyrolysis & gasification of waste. worldwide technology & business review. Uley, UK: Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd.; 2000. [49] Igoni A, Ayotamuno M, Eze C, Ogaji S, Probert S. Designs of anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste. Appl Energy 2008;85:430–8. [50] Braber K. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste: a modern waste disposal optionon the verge of break through. Biomass Bioenergy 1995;9:365–76. [51] Iglesias J, Castrilloa L, Pelaez N, Marana E, Maison O, Andres H. Biomethanization of municipal solid waste in a pilot plant. Water Res 2000;34:447–54. [52] Ambulkar A, Shekdar A. Prospects of biomethanation technology in the Indian context: a pragmatic approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 2004;40:111–28. [53] Elango D, Pulikesi M, Bakaralingam P, Ramamurthi V, Sivanesan S. Production of biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage. J Hazard Mater 2007;141:301–4. [54] Saxena R, Adhikari D, Goyal H. Biomass based energy fuel through biochemical routes: areview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:167–78. [55] Ahsan N. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian J Environ Prot 1999;19(2):90–5. [56] Pinamonti F, Stringari G, Gasperi F, Zorzi G. The use of compost: its effects on heavy metal levels in soil and plants. Resour Conserv Recycl 1997:21. [57] Urošević S, Pejčić B, Đorđević D. Contemporary tendencies in waste management in Serbia. Econ Manag Inf Technol 2012;1:159–66. [58] Das D, Srinivasu, Bandopadhyay M. Solid state acidification of vegetable waste. Indian J Environ Health 1998;40(4):333–42. [59] Mor S, Ravindra K, Visscher A, Dahiya R, Chandra A. Municipal solid waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: a case study. J Sci Total Environ 2006;1:1–10. [60] Siddiqui T, Siddiqui F, & Khan E. Sustainable development through integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) approach: a case study of Aligarh district. In: prcoeedings of then ational conference of advanced in mechanical engineering. New Delhi; 2006. p. 1168–75. [61] Sharholy M, Ahmad K, Mahmood G, Trivedi R. Development of prediction models form unicipal solid waste generation for Delhicity. In: proceedings of the national conference of advanced in mechanical engineering. New Delhi; 2006. p. 1176–86. [62] Gupta S, Krishna M, Prasad R, Gupta S, Kansal A. Solid waste management in India: options and opportunities. Resour Conserv Recycl 1998;24:137–54. [63] Kansal A. Solid waste management strategies for India. Indian J Environ Prot 2002;22(4):444–8. [64] Bhide A, Shekdar A. Solid waste management in Indian urban centres. ; 1998, Wien, Austria; p. 26–8. [65] Datta M. Waste disposal in engineered landfills. NewDelhi: Narosa Publishing House; 1997. [66] Dayal G. Solid wastes: sources, implications and management. Indian J Environ Prot 1994;14(9):669–77. [67] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia,Waste Management Strategy of the Republic of Serbia from 2010 to 2019, no.29/10. [68] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Release, Industrial waste in the Republic of Serbia, Number 167, Year LXIII, ISSN 0353-9555.