2014 International Symposium on Technology Management and Emerging Technologies (ISTMET 2014), May 27 - 29, 2014,
Bandung, Indonesia
Waste-to-Energy: Solution for Municipal Solid
Waste Challenges- Global Perspective
Omar K. M. Ouda1*
1
Department of Civil Engineering,
Prince Mohamed Bin Fahd University
Al-Khobar, KSA
Email: oouda@pmu.edu.sa
Abstract— Current global Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
generation level is 1.3 billion tons per year, and is expected to
increase to approximately 2.2 billion tons per year in 2025. This
amount may result in significant health, environmental, aesthetic,
land-use resources, and economic concerns if not managed
properly. Waste to Energy (WTE) is a viable option for disposal
of MSW and energy generation. This paper presents a brief
review of WTE technologies; reviews the current market status
of the WTE; and forecasts the potential global annual investment
in this sector. The research findings show that incineration is the
dominant technology utilized to date. Advanced technologies
such as Plasma Arc Gasification are gaining momentum in
developed countries, whereas biomethanation technology is
expanding at a high rate in developing countries in the last
decade. Globally, WTE will play a significant role in minimizing
MSW challenges and will contribute to the emerging renewable
energy market in the near future.
Keywords— Waste-to-Energy; Municipal Solid Waste;
Renewable Energy
I. INTRODUCTION
The 2013 world population was about 7.2 billion and is
projected to increase by 1 billion by the year 2025 with an
average growth rate of 1% per year. The growth will be
mainly in developing countries, with more than half in Africa
[1]. Urban population increases at a higher rate than population
growth where the world urban population is expected to grow
roughly 1.5% per year in the same period [2]. The increase in
urban population will be mainly in developing countries, with
majority in Asia, where industrialization has caused population
shift form villages to cities. Population growth, urbanization,
and the increase in the standards of living are the three
ingredients that govern the increase of municipal solid waste
(MSW) generation [3, 4]. Current global MSW generation
level is 1.3 billion tons per year, and is expected to increase to
approximately 2.2 billion tons per year by 2025 [5]. This
resulted from population growth and the increase of per capita
waste generation rates from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day
in the next fifteen years [5]. Worth to mention that global
averages are broad estimates only, as the rates varies
considerably by region, country, city, and even within cities.
For example MSW generation ranges from 0.9 to 1.6 kg/day in
European Union and Asia and 0.7 to 1.5 kg/day [4]. These
results in millions of tons of MSW produced globally every
978-1-4799-3704-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
Syed A. Raza2
2
Department of Electrical Engineering
Prince Mohamed Bin Fahd University
Al-Khobar, KSA
Email: snaqvi@pmu.edu.sa
day [3]. The main purposes of municipal solid waste (MSW)
management strategies are to handle the health, environmental,
aesthetic, land-use resources, and economic concern related to
improper disposal of waste [6-8]. The proper handling and
disposal of MSW is necessary not only from sanitation point of
view but also due to its economic value, including the
contribution to the energy sector [9]. Despite this fact,
landfilling remains the world’s most implemented method of
MSW disposal. WTE is a proven and efficient option to handle
the MSW disposal challenges and has the capacity to
contribute to the ever increasing global energy demand. This
paper presents a brief review of WTE, review of the current
market status of the WTE and forecasts the potential growth in
this sector.
II. WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
A. Incineration
Incineration is the production of energy from waste through
combustion. There are a number of well-developed techniques
across the globe [10, 11]. Incineration has remained to be the
most integral part of MSW management in many countries. In
the incineration process, waste feedstock is mixed thoroughly
to maintain a more constant heating value and then loaded into
a large hopper, bunker, or other delivery system. Feedstock is
then delivered along a conveyor or other mechanism into the
furnace, typically onto a graded stoker or other bed for
combustion. This consists of directly burning the waste in
excess oxygen with temperatures in excess of 800˚C. As the
waste is incinerated, released heat travels upward and heats
water in a boiler system, which in turn drives a steam cycle and
steam turbine. The most important byproduct of incineration is
the bottom ash which consists of silicon, iron, calcium,
aluminum, sodium and potassium in their oxide state. These
materials are present within a range of 80-87% by mass in the
bottom ash [12]. This process also has the advantage of
reducing waste by 80% and mass by 70% and relatively lower
cost in comparison to other technologies [13]. Additionally,
this process can handle all type of waste including organic
materials and requires a low level of technology and human
resource skills. The major drawback of incinerator is the
generation of high levels of air and waterborne pollutants.
Modern technologies are available that help in minimizing the
environmental impacts. The cost of these environmental
270
Fig.1: Regional WTE Market for Incineration in million dollars for Asia,
Europe and North America for the years 2006, 2011 and 2021 [14].
protection methods constitutes about 40% to 70% of total
project cost. In spite of the public opposition to incineration
projects which are still a major barrier facing project
deployment; the relatively low cost, high efficiency and proven
technology made incineration as the dominant WTE in the
Global. Fig. 1 above shows the incineration market trend of in
Asia, Europe and North America.
B. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a thermal decomposition of waste into volatile
gases and solid char [15]. This technology consists of two
stages Pyrolysis and Gasification. Pyrolysis is generally
defined as the process of heating MSW in an oxygen-deficient
environment. Pyrolysis produces char consisting of carbon and
inorganic compounds in the feed. In Gasification stage, the
carbon reacts with steam to produce carbon dioxide and
hydrogen. The reaction between carbon and oxygen is
exothermic and provides the thermal energy required to drive
the process. The basic gasification reactions are either
endothermic or exothermic and their rates depend on
temperature, pressure and oxygen concentration [16].
Gasification converts carbonaceous material into a synthesis
gas or “syngas” composed primarily of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen. Theoretically following a cleaning process to
remove contaminants, this syngas can be used as a fuel to
generate electricity directly in a combustion turbine or engine.
The overall efficiency for this technology has been reported to
be around 17% [17]. The main disadvantages include cleanup
of byproducts which are produced through the anaerobic
reactions. These byproducts include corrosive gaseous
compounds such as tar, alkali metals and acidic gases [15]. As
a result, the metal tubes used in this process get corroded
quickly and have to be replaced in a regular basis reducing the
overall efficiency of the process and increasing the operation
and maintenance cost [18]. This has an effect on the operating
cost and as well as the maintenance cost [18]. Additionally, the
initial capital cost is also significantly high as compared to
other technologies, only less than plasma arc gasification. Asia
is taking the lead in Pyrolysis technology with 29 facilities in
Chain alone. Fig. 2 shows the Pyrolysis technology electricity
production capacity in MWth. Figure 2 shows a steady but
slow growth in Pyrolysis production capacity which can be
271
Fig.2: World gasification Capacity Growth since 2004 to 2015 with the trend
line [19].
referred to the relatively high initial capital cost.
C. Plasma Arc Gasification
Plasma is called the fourth state of matter, as it is distinctly
different from solid, liquid and gaseous states. Plasmas are hot
ionized gases created by an electrical discharge. Plasma can
create an ionized gas by electrical forces whereby the
temperatures can reach between 2000°C to 5000°C (3632°F to
9032°F) [20]. This reason promotes Plasma as very viable
option for waste treatment. For plasma to be used at
atmospheric pressure, plasma torches are used. The quality of
waste decomposition through plasma depends upon plasma
density and its temperature. During the process, hot plasma
gas flows into the gasifier/reactor to gasify municipal solid
waste (MSW) and melt the inorganic materials. The plasma
arc gasifier is operated with an injection of a carbonaceous
material like coal or coke into the plasma arc gasification
reactor. This material reacts quickly with the oxygen to
produce heat for the pyrolysis reactions in an oxygen-starved
environment. Steam is added to the reactor to promote syngas
reactions [21]. The combustion reactions (exothermic
reactions) supply heat with additional heat from the plasma arc
torches for the pyrolysis reactions (endothermic reactions)
yielding a temperature typically between 4000°C –7000°C.
The bottoms from the reactor results in a vitrified slag since
operating conditions are very high. The inorganic and mineral
elements present in the MSW produce a rock like by-product –
a vitrified slag typically of metals and silica glass. The
efficiency of this technology is reported as 32% [22]. The use
of plasma arc gasification for MSW has been mostly applied
in Japan, where their lack of space forced them to find
alternatives to landfilling. This technology requires a very
high capital cost and technological capabilities. This limits its
use and expansion in both developed and developing
countries.
D. Refused Derived Fuel
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is a clean and efficient method of
producing an eco-friendly and an alternative fuel for power
generating industries, which run on coal fuel [23]. The main
operations involved in RDF, sorting, casting or crushing,
drying operations and formation. Size reduction includes
shredding the waste to a manageable size, where sorting aims
to remove all protein containing materials from the waste
stream. The refuse utilized for RDF shall mainly contain
cardboard, paper, various plastic streams, glass, metallic and
non-metallic materials Crushing involves the process of
destructing the larger particles of municipal waste into smaller
particles for easy handling and transporting. Finally there are
drying and forming processes. The drying operation needs a
large quantity of energy, and the performance improvement
governs the energy efficiency of process. The RDF particles
are mixed thoroughly with binders such as calcium hydroxide.
CaO is added to the refuse during the RDF production [24].
CaO reacts with water to become Ca(OH)2. When flue gas is
used as the drying gas, Ca(OH)2 is reacted with CO2 to be
CaCO3 [25]. Then it is converted into pellets into required size
and shapes. The RDF is formed into a chalk-like shape or
pellet with a diameter at 15mm to 50mm long. A RDF pellet
having about 11% or more particulate calcium hydroxide is
utilized in a combustible mixture. Combustion of the mixture
is effective to produce an effluent gas from the combustion
zone having a reduced SO2 and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon content of effluent gas from similar
combustion materials not containing the calcium hydroxide.
The overall efficiency for this methodology is reported to be
around 18% [26]. RDF technology is globally popular. The
growth of RDF in Europe is tremendously fast from 1.4
million tons per annum (Mtpa) in year 2000 to 12.4 Mtpa in
year 2005 [27]. In Austria alone there are around 180
industrial facilities which co-incinerate more than 1.8 million
tpa of secondary fuels and/or RDF [27]. In Asia, Japan
currently has 1900 incineration plants and most of the RDF
plants are near to these incineration plants [28]. In India, with
RDF alone generates up to 7.5MW of electricity [29]. RDF is
mostly utilized for pulp, paper industry and the wood industry
waste, followed by the saw-mill industry. Accordingly the
RDF facilities are relatively small and utilized specifically by
industrial sector.
E. Biomethanation
Biomethanation converts the Organic Fraction of
Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) into useful energy [29].
The basic raw materials for biomethanation may vary and
studies show that this may contain vegetable market waste,
agricultural waste, whey, dairy waste and restaurant waste [30,
31]. The biomethanation process consists of three anaerobic
organisms, which convert waste to methane. The initial stage
is known as ‘hydrolysis’ which converts complex organic
matter like carbohydrates, proteins and fats in the waste to
soluble organic molecules which contain sugars, amino and
fatty acids. The second stage of the process is ‘fermentation’
and the organisms involved in this stage further breakdown the
organic structures of first stage to acetic acid, hydrogen and
carbon dioxide. Finally, the methanogenesis stage, where
organism covert the acetic acid and hydrogen to hydrogen to
methane [32]. The effective efficiency of this technology is
around 25% [33]. The low cost of this technology and ease of
272
operation has made Biomethanation to be the most popular
techniques for waste disposal and methane gas generation in
rural areas in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa
specifically for agricultural waste treatment. This technology
has been applied on a limited scale in Europe on mixed MSW
and on a larger scale on source separated organics (SSO) or
agricultural-based processes, but there is very limited
commercial-scale application in any form in North America.
The glaring disadvantage of using this process is with the
space requirement. The waste that is collected for this
technique has to be properly covered for the anaerobic
processes to take place and cannot be opened for the next few
years, making that space unavailable for the next lot of MSW
[34]. This fact has limited its application in urban areas.
III. WTE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Management of MSW may include source reduction, reuse,
recycling and compositing, combustion with or without energy
recovery, and finally landfilling. Integrated MSW management
approach aims to help guide decisions about the generation of
wastes, waste source reduction, reuse, recycling of materials,
and ultimate disposal of the waste residues with optimum
objective to increase diversion rates from landfills. Most of
European and North American counties have developed new
policies embracing integrated MSW management solutions.
MSW policy changes in the rest of the world are slower but the
momentum of change exists and is growing. The slow policy
changes resulted from underdeveloped status of waste
management infrastructure and the socio-economic condition
in these countries. Population and Urbanization growth,
international agreement such as Kyoto protocol, international
financial institutional pressures will motivate developing
countries to accelerate the development of new MSW policies.
MSW policy reform will result in substantial growth in WTE
market annual investment from about 2.1 billion US dollar in
2010 to about 26.1 billion US dollar in 2025 as shown in Fig.3.
This situation, if occurred, will trigger massive development in
WTE market and technologies across the globe.
WTE technologies are a viable option for WTE disposal
based on its environmental values and energy generation
potential. Identifying the proper technology for a certain area
shall depend on the: MSW management maturity level, waste
characteristics, land area availability, available capital,
technological complexity coupled with labor skill
requirements, geographical locations of the plants and
technology’s efficiency. Incineration fits both urban and rural
areas and utilizes all type of waste. It has a relatively low
capital requirements and labor skill levels in comparison
Plasma Arc Gasification, Pyrolysis and RDF technologies. It
has also a good efficiency of about 27%. These reasons make
incineration the most dominant technology in the world.
Pyrolysis has the least pollution emissions and produces the
best environmental value in comparison to other technologies
except Plasma Arc gasification. This make the technology best
fit for developed countries with high public awareness level

Fig. 3: Growth of All WTE technologies globally with a conservative forecast
up to 2025.
such as Germany. Plasma Arc Gasification is the most
technologically advanced and expensive technology.
Characterized by low land area requirements and has the
highest efficiency. This technology best fits for highly
developed countries with limited land resources such as Japan.
RDF technology cannot handle organic waste with high protein
contents but has a relatively low cost and good efficiency. The
technology is also very cost efficient at a small scale. This
makes it the best technology for industrial waste handling and
disposal. Biomethanation characterized by low capital
requirements, unsophisticated technology and ease of
operation, very efficient with organic waste, highest land area
requirement, and can be developed in all sizes. These
conditions make Biomethanation as the optimum technology
for rural and agricultural area in developed and developing
countries.
IV. CONCLUSION
Current global Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation
level is 1.3 billion tons per year, and is expected to increase to
approximately 2.2 billion tons per year in 2025. This amount
may result in significant health, environmental, aesthetic,
land-use resources, and economic concerns if not managed
properly. Integrated MSW management approach aims to help
guide decisions about the generation of wastes, waste source
reduction, reuse, recycling of materials, and ultimate disposal
of the waste residues with optimum objective to increase
diversion rates from landfills is prevailing globally. Waste to
Energy (WTE) is a viable option for disposal of MSW and
energy generation. This paper presents a brief review of WTE
technologies; reviews the current market investment of the
WTE; and forecasts the potential global annual investment in
this sector. The research findings show that MSW policy
reform is spreading globally in each and every nation. The
reform rate is varied among countries based on the status of
MSW infrastructure and the socio- economic characteristics.
The MSW policy reform will result in substantial growth in
WTE market annual investment from about 2.1 billion US
dollar in 2010 to about 26.1 billion US dollar in 2025. This
situation, if occurred, will trigger massive development in
WTE market and technologies across the globe.
273
Identifying the proper technology for a certain area shall
depend on the: MSW management maturity level, waste
characteristics, land area availability, available capital,
technological complexity coupled with labor skill
requirements, geographical locations of the plants and
technologies efficiency. Incineration is the dominant
technology utilized to date and is expected to continue in the
next decade. Advanced technologies such as Plasma Arc
Gasification are gaining momentum in developed countries,
whereas biomethanation technology is expanding in rural and
agricultural areas.
REFERENCES
[1] United Nations (2012), Department of Social and Economic Affairs,
Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision.
ST/ESA/SER.A/345, United Nations, New York.
[2] Global Health Observatory, World Health Organization, Available
Online,
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population
_growth_text/en/, Accessed online on 20th January 2014,
[3] M. Sharholy, K. Ahmad, G. Mahmood, R.C. Trivedi, “Municipal solid
waste management in Indian cities – A review”, Waste Management 28
(2008) 459–467.
[4] O.K.M. Ouda, “Assessment of the Environmental Values of Waste-to-
Energy in the Gaza Strip”, Current World Environment 8(3), 335-364,
2013.
[5] Urban Development Series-Knowledge Papers 2012., A Global Review
of Solid Waste Management, Available Online:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Reso
urces/336387-1334852610766/Chap3.pdf. Accessed on 20th Jan 2013
[6] N.L. Nemerow, “Environmental Engineering: Environmental Health and
Safety for Municipal Infrastructure, Land Use and Planning, and
Industry”, Sixth ed., Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.; 2009.
[7] D.C. Wilson, “Development drivers for waste management”, Waste
Management & Research 25(3), 198-207; 2007.
[8] R. E. Marshall, K. Farahbakhsh, “Systems approaches to integrated solid
waste management in developing countries”, Journal of Waste
Management 33, 988-1003; 2013.
[9] S. Rathi, “Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste
management in Mumbai, India”, Journal of Waste Management 26 (10),
1192–1200, 2006.
[10] J.C. Frigon and S.R. Guiot, “Biomethanation production from starch and
lignocellulosic crops: a comparative review”, Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining, vol.4 (4), pp.447-458, 2010.
[11] O.K.M. Ouda, H.M. Cekridge, S.A. Raza, “An assessment of the
potential contribution from waste to energy facilities to electricity
demand in Saudi Arabia”, Energy Conversion and Management 75, 402-
406, 2012.
[12] C. S. Psomopoulos, A. Bourka, N. J. Themelis, “Waste-to-energy: A
review of the status and benefits in USA”, Waste Management 29,
1718-1724, 2009.
[13] M. J. Rogoff, and F. Screve, “Waste to Energy”, second edition,
Elsevier, New York, 2011.
[14] “Waste to Energy Technology SBI Energy White Paper”, Available
Online, http://www.sbireports.com/about/inthenews.asp?id=1843,
Accessed on 30th December 2014.
[15] “Manual on municipal solid waste management, Central Public Health
and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO)”, Ministry of
Urban Development, New Delhi; 2000.
[16] G. Li and Y. Hu, “Comparisons of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
Residues Management in China and Europe”, International Conference
on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering (MACE), 2010.
[17] A.V. Bridgwater, “The future for biomass pyrolysis and gasification:
status, opportunities and policies for Europe”, Nov.2012. Available
online,
 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/bioenergy/2002_repor
t_p536.pdf , Accessed on 25th December 2013.
[18] G.K. Roy, “Municipal solid waste recycle – an economic proposition
for a developing nation”, Indian J Environ Prot 1988;8(1):51–4.
[19] D.R. Simbeck and H.E. Johnson, “World Gasification Survey: Industry
Trends and Developments.”Paper presented at Gasification
Technologies Conference, San Francisco, 8 October, 2001.
[20] J. R. Tavares, L. Rao, C. Derboghossian, P. Carabin, A. Kaldas, P.
Chevalier, and G. Holcroft, “Large-Scale Plasma Waste Gasification”,
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 39 (11) pp.2908-2909,
November 2011.
[21] J. Heberlein, “Generation of thermal and pseudo-thermal plasmas,” Pure
Appl. Chem., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 629–636, 1992.
[22] J. Heberlein and B. A. Murphy, “Thermal plasma waste treatment,” J.
Phys. D, Appl. Phys., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1–20, Mar. 2008.
[23] Y. Nabeshima, "Technical Evaluation of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)”,
Waste Manag. Res., 7, 294- 304 (1996)
[24] K.L Churney, A. E. Ledford, T. J. Buckley and E. S. Domalski,
“Chlorine Mass Balance in the Combustion of Refuse-Derived Fuel”,
Resource Conservation, 14, 249-256 (1989)
[25] C.E. Weinell, P. I. Jensen, K. Dam-Johansen and H. Livbjerg,
“Hydrogen Chloride Reaction with Lime and Limestone: Kinetics and
Sorption Capacit”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 31, 164-171 (1992)
[26] Metro Waste Authority, “Alternative Disposal Feasibility”, Report,
2013.
274
[27] G.V. Ramakrishn, “Electricity generation from municipal solid waste –
CDM perspective”, Available Online: http://www.epco.in/pdf/
Electricity_Generation_from.pdf, Accessed on 24th December 2013.
[28] K.S.B. Kameswari, B. Velmurugan, K. Thirumaran, R.A. Ramanujam,
“Biomethanation of vegetable market waste – untapped carbon trading
opportunities”, Available Online:
http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/IntlConf/Data/ICSSWM%20web/FullPaper/Se
ssion%20VI-B/ 6_BA10%20_Balakameswari_.pdf, Accessed on 24th
December 2013.
[29] M. Chakraborty, C. Sharma, J. Paney, P. K. Gupta, “Assessment of
energy generation potentials of MSW in Delhi under different
technological option”, Energy Conversion and Management 75(2013),
June 2013, pp. 249-255.
[30] A. Malakahmad, S. M. Zain, N. Ezlin A. Basri, “Biomethanation of
Kitchen waste and Sewage Sludge in Anaerobic Baffled Reactor”, IEEE
symposium on humanities, science and engineering research, 2012.
[31] M. Gotmare, R.M. Dhoble, A.P. Pittule, “Biomethanation of Dairy
Waste Water through UASB at Mesophilic Temperature Range”,
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and
Technologies, 8(1):001-009, 2011.
[32] J.C. Frigon and S.R. Guiot, “Biomethanation production from starch and
lignocellulosic crops: a comparative review”, Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining, vol.4 (4), pp.447-458, 2010.
[33] “Alternate Disposal Feasibility”, Report prepared by Metro Waste
Authority, 2013.
[34] M. Krishania and V. K. Vijay, “Comparison of Various Pretreatments of
Wheat Straw for Biomethanation”, World Congress of Sustainable
Technologies, WCST 2012.