Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil
Marcio Montagnana Vicente Leme a , Mateus Henrique Rocha a, , Electo Eduardo Silva Lora a , Osvaldo Jos Venturini a , Bruno Marciano Lopes b , Cludio Homero Ferreira b
a NEST Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Itajub, Av. BPS 1303, Itajub, Minas Gerais State CEP: 37500-903, Brazil b CEMIG Electric Company of Minas Gerais State, TE/AE, Av. Barbacena 1200 16 andar B1 Belo Horizonte, MG CEP: 30190-131, Brazil

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Due to the lack of appropriate policies in the last decades, 60% of Brazilian cities still dump their waste in non-regulated landlls (the remaining ones dump their trash in regulated landlls), which represent a serious environmental and social problem. The key objective of this study is to compare, from a techno-economic and environmental point of view, different alternatives to the energy recovery from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated in Brazilian cities. The environmental analysis was carried out using current data collected in Betim, a 450,000 inhabitants city that currently produces 200 tonnes of MSW/day. Four scenarios were designed, whose environmental behaviour were studied applying the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. The results show the landll systems as the worst waste management option and that a signicant environmental savings is achieved when a wasted energy recovery is done. The best option, which presented the best performance based on considered indicators, is the direct combustion of waste as fuel for electricity generation. The study also includes a techno-economical evaluation of the options, using a developed computer simulation tool. The economic indicators of an MSW energy recovery project were calculated. The selected methodology allows to calculate the energy content of the MSW and the CH4 generated by the landll, the costs and incomes associated with the energy recovery, the sales of electricity and carbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The studies were based on urban centres of 100,000, 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants, using the MSW characteristics of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte. Two alternatives to recovering waste energy were analyzed: a landll that used landll biogas to generate electricity through generator modules and a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facility also with electricity generation. The results show that power generation projects using landll biogas in Brazil strongly depend on the existence of a market for emissions reduction credits. The WtE plant projects, due to its high installation, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, are highly dependent on MSW treatment fees. And they still rely on an increase of three times the city taxes to become attractive. 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 28 June 2013 Received in revised form 6 March 2014 Accepted 11 March 2014 Keywords: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landll Biogas Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Techno-economic analysis Life cycle assessment (LCA)

1. Introduction Solid waste has emerged as a signicant pressure on the environment, mostly due to the population growth the changes in consumption habits and of the patterns of the communities developments. The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is the largest volume of residues produced worldwide; at the same time, the citizens

Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 03536291413; fax: +55 03536291355. E-mail addresses: mateus0@yahoo.com.br, mateus.nest@hotmail.com (M.H. Rocha). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.003 0921-3449/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

demands for an environmentally sound management of MSW have signicantly increased during the last decades (Achillas et al., 2011; Cleary, 2009). The Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) includes several solutions to achieving lower environmental and social impacts. This alternative combines different solutions such as the reduction of waste generation, the materials recovery, the recycling, the energy recovery and as a last option, the landlls. This practice is incorporated to any modern strategy involving the MSW management. The European Union (EU) has, for example, introduced targets aiming to reduce the amount of landlled biodegradable waste. The Landll Directive (EC, 1999) prevents the disposal of

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

Nomenclature a C C0 Ga HHV k L0 LHV n P P0 Pa Pl Q t cost scale factor (dimensionless) capacity factor of the equipment ($/MWh) capacity factor of the equipment starting from reference values ($/MWh) MSW garbage/food content (%) higher heating value (kJ/kg) decay rate of landll waste (1/year) methane generation potential from MSW (m3 CH4 /Mg MSW) lower heating value (kJ/kg) economic lifetime of the system (years) freight on board (FOB) price of the equipments ($) FOB price of the equipments starting from reference values ($) MSW paper content (%) MSW plastic content (%) methane production (m3 /year) time of waste disposal (years)

organics in landlls by 2016; this fraction of MSW must be composted or digested (Murphy and McKeogh, 2006). Furthermore, landlling of certain types of waste such as combustible waste or untreated organic waste, are now illegal in some EU member states, e.g. Denmark, Sweden and Germany; also in the EU, great effort is being made to identify alternatives to the landlling biodegradable wastes (Mnster and Lund, 2009). The incineration of MSW with energy recovery is a widespread solution in some countries despite the fact that this alternative aroused harsh criticism in the 80s and 90s, due to the high emissions of air pollutants. For this reason, strict emission limits were applied in this sector, which repressed the installation of new plants. However, new advances in gas treatment technologies for air pollution control make the incineration, with energy recovery, attractive from an environmental point of view and its use is being encouraged in much of the developed world. According to Psomopoulos et al. (2009) incineration appears particularly attractive as a way to produce energy and reduce the MSW volume in so-called Wasteto-Energy (WtE) plants. The WtE emissions have been reduced to a point that in 2003 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) considered WtE a cleaner source of energy. Public opinion is a most crucial factor in the selection of a suitable nal option for any ISWM scheme as well as during the operational phase of a plant, especially for incineration of MSW in a WtE facility; it is clear that incineration presents advantages such as volume reduction, energy recovery and elimination of pathogen agents in comparison with other waste treatments. However, the public opinion in most countries is frequently concerned about the installation of MSW incinerators because dioxins are generally produced in many combustion processes. Traditionally the incinerators have been pointed out as one of the most important sources of toxic emissions of not only dioxins, but also furans, acid gases and heavy metals. The WtE facilities need to be built close to urban conurbations, therefore, public objections to the construction of an MSW incineration facility becomes often much greater. What is revealed is that concerns are mainly focused on the interrelated issues of public health and environmental protection (Keramitsoglou and Tsagarakis, 2013; Achillas et al., 2011; Jamasb and Nepal, 2010). Specically in Brazil, in relation to ISWM, approximately 60% of Brazilian cities still dump their solid waste in non-regulated landlls. Unregulated landlls do not have drainage systems for gases and leaches have lower sealing and sometimes even lack daily soil

cover. However, the biggest Brazilian cities use regulated landlls as an alternative, meaning that 74.9% of Brazilian MSW mass are dumped in regulated landlls which is considered by the Brazilian environmental regulations an environmentally sound alternative (SNIS, 2012). Only recently Brazil has implemented its rst policy to manage the MSW; the Law N 12.305/2010, establishes the National Policy on Solid Waste (NPSW), which provides the principles, objectives and instruments for the management of solid waste, including the responsibilities of producers and the local governments, the guide to the management of hazardous waste and the economic instruments to be applied. The NPSW was the basis to xing the steps to route the planning by the federal government to reduce the Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission in Brazil; however, this policy does not specify mandatory actions, with targets and timetables, neither for the management of solid waste nor for the recovery of energy or the gases generated by the waste sector. The lack of such adequate management policy for MSW will have serious nationwide negative consequences (Loureiro et al., 2013; Cndido et al., 2011). Brazil still recovers only a small fraction of the energy that is produced from the biogas emitted by the landlls. Assuming a rate of 50 Nm3 of CH4 /tonne of MSW (Themelis and Ulloa, 2007) and considering a production of 141,700 tonne/day of MSW (SNIS, 2012), sent to regulated landlls, it is possible to estimate that Brazil has a potential of about 660 MW of electric power from landlls (considering 30% of efciency in the energy conversion) (Salomon and Lora, 2009). Today, Brazil produces 69 MW of power through the use of the biogas from landlls in So Paulo (11,244,369 inhabitants), Belo Horizonte (2,375,444 inhabitants), Salvador (2,676,606 inhabitants) and Uberlndia (619,536 inhabitants) (ANEEL, 2012). This potential will be greater if we consider the incineration of said waste in a WtE process, with a calculated potential of 1750 MW, considering 18% of energy conversion efciency (Assamoi and Lawryshyn, 2012) and a LHV of 7.10 MJ/kg; because, rst, only the biodegradable part of the MSW is converted into biogas and also only part of the biogas from the landlls can be captured and supplied to engines or turbines. Additionally, burning the waste makes it possible to recover the energy content of other materials present in the waste (plastics and rubber). Recently, some Brazilian cities have started searching for other alternatives to dispose their wastes other than landlls, because of the lack of space in the surroundings of big cities and also the high land prices, the high cost of long distance waste transportation, depreciation associated to the refusal of people to having landlls near their homes. All of those are clear reasons for the burning of waste to be constantly evaluated by city authorities as a solution to those problems (Fehr et al., 2009). The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology that considers the entire life cycle of products and services from cradle to grave, in other words, from acquisition of raw material, going through production and use until the disposal of the residues (Ning et al., 2013; Lora et al., 2011; Rocha et al., 2008, 2010). Its possible to state that the LCA is a holistic methodology applicable to the analysis of products and services, proven to be a systematic tool to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities, being able to provide an overview of the environmental prole of different strategies, giving additionally a comparison of the environmental impacts of all the options. LCA has been used extensively by different authors to evaluate and compare various scenarios for ISWM systems (Assamoi and Lawryshyn, 2012; Ning et al., 2013; Cleary, 2009; Khoo, 2009; Cherubini et al., 2008; Emery et al., 2007; Aye and Widjaya, 2006; Bergsdal et al., 2005), the use of LCA in decision making is also well-established, having been used successfully for the comparative assessment of MSW systems. The key point, in an LCA, is that

10

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

all compared products or services should have the same function, so they can be compared on the same units bases (Finnveden et al., 2000). An ISWM approach does not depend on a single tool or agent to solve all problems, but a rational approach must consider the system as a whole and seek solutions through the employment of multiple methods and collaboration among all stakeholders. So, the approach used in this paper differs from past studies because the modelling conducted through software tool can aid in the waste management from a combined environmental and economical points of view, adapted to the Brazilian conditions. The approach proposed in the study reported in this paper, is not inuenced by any particular technology of MSW treatment and disposal. The key objective of this work is to evaluate, in terms of the environmental impacts and economic assessment of energy recovery, different alternatives for MSW, based on the Brazilian context, without proposing substantial modications to MSW collection. The paper compares two MSW disposal alternatives: the landll system with the use of the biogas generated in reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) and in gas turbines to produce electricity and the incineration of the MSW, with the energy recovery in a WtE facility; in both cases no sorting phase or recycling takes place. The work focuses in providing an economic assessment, with sensitivity analysis, of the most signicant parameters affecting the viability of the proposed energy recovery from MSW scenarios; and the LCA methodology was used to perform and to compare the environmental impacts between different MSW energy recovery systems was used. The types of impact studied by the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) included Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), Global Warming Potential (GWP), Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP), Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), Acidication Potential (ACP) and Eutrophication Potential (ETP), this tool is not often used in Brazil for the analysis of waste management, studies like this have only very recently begun to emerge.

Fig. 1. Simplied owsheet of energetic scenarios for economic assessment of MSW utilization.

2. Methodology 2.1. Techno-economic assessment In the economic assessment two scenarios for energy production were evaluated; the rst one with the installation of a reciprocating ICE power plant, that uses the biogas produced in a pre-existing landll managed by the city municipality; the landll biogas normally comprises 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 (energy content of 18.019.0 MJ/Nm3 ) it is trapped, scrubbed and combusted in order to produce electricity (Ofori-Boateng et al., 2013), to get the biogas from a preexisting landll it is necessary to drill wells within the landlls, then conduct the gas through pipes to feed it into an energy conversion station with specic technology to generate electricity. The second option refers to a WtE facility that burns the MSW in a controlled massburn grate incinerator; at a temperature of 8701200 C, for the oxidation of all organic material in the MSW, to produce high pressure steam for power generation. Waste incineration reduces its volume and weight by 90% and 70%, respectively (Ofori-Boateng et al., 2013); the ashes from the incinerator, which represent about 10% of the original waste, are usually dumped at landlls, creating another environmental hazard. Fig. 1 shows the considered scenarios for economic assessment of the MSW energy recovery. In each scenario, the study was conducted for hypothetical cases, with a different number of inhabitants, served by the system and with a corresponding waste production rates. For the economic evaluation three scenarios were analyzed: Scenario 1

considers 100,000 inhabitants with the generation of 126.5 tonne of MSW/day, Scenario 2 considers 500,000 inhabitants with the generation of 632.0 tonne MSW/day and Scenario 3 considers 1,000,000 inhabitants with the generation of 1265.0 tonne of MSW/day. The study used the MSW characteristics for the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte. The average MSW composition is shown in Table 1. For scenario 1 the waste is disposed in a landll, with a useful life of 20 years, considering its operation starting in 2013 and ending in 2032. The landll belongs to the city municipality and a venture owed the legal rights to use the produced biogas, which exemplies the situation that normally occurs in Brazilian cities. The rate of biogas production in a landll is not constant over the time, because the site is constantly lled, with quantities of MSW being grounded at different periods of time; as a result, each cell of waste will have different capacities to produce CH4 , being it a function of its residence time inside the landll and the amount of degradable organic carbon. The total biogas produced by a landll at a given instant, is the sum of individual capacities of each individual cell inside the landll. The consequence of this system of covering waste is an increased production of biogas, until the last year of landll operation (if similar amounts of MSW are deposited annually). In general, there are no technologies that can handle efciently this wide range of energy input variation. The solution proposed for the landll scenarios is the utilization of a variable number of energy generators modules, which are installed and uninstalled according to the biogas input available on site. For Scenario 2 the MSW is sent to a private WtE facility responsible for the waste treatment, so it receives municipalitys fees to take care of the garbage. This option does not interrupt the use of a landll, so the slag and the y ashes are sent to a near inert landll and the related costs are considered. A computer programme was developed to analyze these scenarios, able to evaluate the technical and economic performance of each one. The main goal of the programme developed is to assist in the decision making for projects, focused on energy recovery from MSW, based on indicators commonly used in economic feasibility analysis, such as, cash ow, Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) (Barros et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2010). Using the information referred to the waste generated in the city, the software tool is able to estimate the energy potential of the MSW, producing balance sheets based on the data supplied by the user. The energy potential of a landll depends on the amount of CH4 produced, which is a function of the quantity of degradable organic carbon present in the MSW. Mathematical models were developed to estimate the production of this gas per landlls.

M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820 Table 1 Characteristics of MSW produced in the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte. Components [%] Food waste Metals and others Plastics Paper Wood Textiles Rubber 52.0 16.7 16.0 10.0 3.0 2.0 0.4 Proximate analysis and heating value Moisture [%] Volatiles [%] Ash [%] High heating value [kJ/kg] Lower heating value [kJ/kg] C fossil [%] C biogenic [%] 37.0 45.0 18.0 13,064 6772 15.0 10.0 Elemental composition % (dry basis) C H O N S Ash 40.0 5.0 25.0 1.0 0.2 28.0

11

In general, these models were formulated from usual techniques, which t theoretical curves with experimental results; usually, these curves are described by a rst order kinetics equation (Eq. (1)) (Thompson et al., 2009; US EPA, 2008; Scharff and Jacobs, 2006; Castilhos Jnior et al., 2003): Q = L0 (1 ekt ) (1)

The programme estimates the landll CH4 generation based on the IPCC (2006) methodology. The amount of Certicate Emissions Reductions (CER), achieved by implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are calculated based on a methodology for landll gas project activities ACM0001 (UNFCCC, 2004) and ACM0002 (UNFCCC, 2006); two things were considered: that CH4 has a net caloric value of 50,000 kJ/kg and the use of a reciprocating ICE module in the landll scenarios. The carbon offset credits of the scenarios were also estimated by the programme, based on the fossil carbon presented in the MSW mass (Table 1). The average N2 O emission of a WtE facility is about 50.0 g/tonne of MSW (IPCC, 2006), that has a GWP 292.0 greater than CO2 , and the offset of carbon emissions due to electricity sent to the Brazilian national grid, 0.52 tonne CO2 /MWh (MCT, 2013). According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the CDM methodologies, all the baseline scenarios were referred to a landll without CH4 combustion to estimate the possible CERs. In relation to the WtE facilities, it is important to know the energy content in the MSW, which can be calculated based on the LHV of the waste. This study uses a mathematical model to estimate the LHV of the MSW. According to Kathiravale et al. (2003), mathematical models, based on the gravimetric composition of waste, lead to satisfactory HHV calculation (Eq. (2)). This model takes into account the weight percentages of combustible materials present in the waste and its energy contents. The LHV value can be established with information about the water and hydrogen content of the MSW. HHV = 112.157Ga + 183.386Pa + 288.737Pl + 5064.701 (2)

makes heat transfer surfaces subject to severe high temperature corrosion, caused both by the high concentration of HCl and SO2 in the process gas and the chlorides and sulfate salts in the ash particles deposited on the boiler tubes. The chlorine and sulfur concentration in the combustion gas depends entirely on the MSW composition (Lee et al., 2007). Another issue is the high parasitic energy loads required by the advanced ue gas cleaning systems (scrubbers, fabric lters, electrostatic precipitators, ue gas desulphurization, selective catalytic reduction, catalytic destruction of dioxins and furans, heavy metals sorbent removal, etc.) mandatory in these facilities (Stehlk, 2009). The costs considered in this work were obtained through a national review and adjusted to the Brazilian reality. The information about the Costs of Investment (COI) and the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for landll and WtE projects in Brazil were obtained mainly from US EPA (2008) and FEAM (2012), but also from Alves (2000), ICLEI (2009) and GLA (2008). The COI and annual O&M costs for electricity generation from landll biogas are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The estimated cost for the WtE facility is $ 117,373,000 for an installation able to handle 650 tonnes of waste per day; this cost includes: waste receiving, waste burning, energy recovery, fuel gas cleaning and residues treatment. About 60% of the plant components (equipments) were considered as being manufactured in Brazil. The O&M costs of an incineration facility include the xed costs like labour, insurance, permits and rates etc. and variable costs e.g. consumables, waste diversion, transport and landll operational costs. The typical range of the costs as a percentage of the total operating cost is: capital costs (3040%), labour (1523%), maintenance costs (1525%), consumables and analysis (1012%), disposal of residues and waste diversion (1115%) (GLA, 2008). According to FEAM (2012) and GLA (2008), the O&M cost of an incineration facility is around $ 80.00/tonne of treated MSW; the average gures for MSW disposal in Brazilian landlls are $ 10.00/tonne (managed by municipalities) or $ 20.00/tonne (for private landlls). It is widely

where Ga is the MSW garbage/food content (%); Pa is the MSW paper content (%) and Pl is the MSW plastic content (%). With information about the LHV of the MSW and the internal electrical consumption of the WtE facility, the programme calculates the energy balance of the project and determines the amount of electricity that will be sent to the public electric grid system during the life time of the project. The WtE facility is considered to produce only electricity, with a gross electricity conversion of 22%, based on the average value of the new WtE facilities (Gohlke and Martin, 2007). According to Stehlk (2009) the average traditional WtE plants efciency is about 18% for electricity generation and 63% for heat production. Higher efciency can be achieved in WtE with its integration on a cogeneration system, whose efciency can be as high as 43%, with the use of regenerative cycles. Conventional incineration WtE facilities cannot achieve higher energy conversion rates. As a usual thermodynamic cycle, the efciency of energy conversion increases with higher steam temperature and pressure. Conversely, increasing steam temperature

Table 2 Average of COI for electricity generation thought landll biogas. Landll biogas power plant Well eld installation Engineering, legal and other professional services CDM project registry $1,200,000/MW $30,000/ha $200,000 $100,000

Table 3 Average annual O&M costs for electricity generation thought landll biogas usage. Well eld maintenance Flare station maintenance Operating labour/Security/Administration/ Instrument maintenance/Fees/Engineering Qualifying for CER Registration fees for CER Biogas power plant O&M
a

3% of eld cost 2% of station cost $95,000$165,000a

$30,000 3% of annual credits $17.0/MWh

This value varies according to the size of the landll.

12

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

Table 4 Economic scale factor used in the economic evaluation. Cost Landll ICE Landll others WtE plant ICE O&M WtE O&M
a b

Scale factor 0.85a 0.70 0.80 0.30b 0.30b

Calculated with US EPA (2008) data. Used for equations described by Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006).

accepted, in engineering cost calculations, that the cost of a piece of equipment is proportional to its capacity. For that reason specic economic scale factors are used, specically for the costs of equipment, considering the typical conditions of the Brazilian market. In this work, the parametric relationship described in Boehm (1987) was employed: P = P0 C C0
a

(3)

By Eq. (3) it is possible to estimate the price of the main equipment of a power systems, starting from reference values and the scale factor a, which can be found in El-Halwagi (2012), Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006). Table 4 shows the economic scale factors used in this study, based also on equipment costs, direct costs, indirect costs and maintenance costs, estimated using this correlation. The values of taxes and prices considered in the study are shown in Table 5. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) was also calculated for all the evaluated scenarios. There are several methods for calculating the LCOE that will be different for every case and consider: the cash ow analysis, the equations adapted to cash ow calculations, the physical depreciation over the life time of the facility, tax depreciation dictated by federal policy or model of the detailed nancial structure of a project (IRENA, 2012; Townsend and Webber, 2012). The most common approach, adopted in this study, is the nancial model approach, where the LCOE is calculated as the minimum price at which energy must be sold in an energy project to reach the breakeven point (NPV equal to $ 0.00), when performing a discounted cash ow analysis. 2.2. Environmental impact assessment It should be noted that the data used to calculate the environmental performance of the different scenarios, for the treatment and disposal of MSW, differs from the data used to carry out the economic assessment. An economic evaluation was carried out over an assessment of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, the environmental study was performed using current data from a landll located in the city of Betim (about 35 km from Belo Horizonte). Betim is a 441,748 inhabitants city located in the Southeast of the country and produces about 52,000 tonnes of waste per year. The landll began its operations in October 1996 and it is expected to be closed in 2016. The average characteristics of the MSW generated in the city are shown in Table 6. Like in any ordinary Brazilian city, all garbage produced by its population is sent directly to the landll without any previous treatment.
Table 5 Values of taxes and prices. Parameter Electricity CERs Waste Treatment Business (WTB) Annual Discount Rate (ADR) Value $ 65.00/MWh $ 0.50/tonne CO2 $ 22.50/tonne 7.11% Reference CCEE (2013) ECX (2013) FEAM (2012) BCB (2013)

The tool used for the calculations is the one standardized by the International Standard Organization (ISO) and correspond to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006a,b). The objective of this study is to compare different scenarios for the disposal and treatment of MSW with energy recovery in the Brazilian context. The waste getting into the system has no environmental loads (collection, transportation, etc.), and the functional unit is 1.0 tonne of MSW, with the characteristics showed in Table 6. For Scenario 1, corresponding to a WtE facility, a waste mass burning system was considered, integrated with a boiler generating high pressure steam for a conventional Rankine cycle; the waste is burned with no previous treatment. The boundaries of this scenario are shown in Fig. 2. Scenario 2 corresponds to the current situation of the Betim landll, where the generated biogas is liberated directly into the atmosphere, without any emissions control systems. In Scenarios 3 and 4, the biogas produced in the landll is collected with a 75% efciency and supplied to reciprocating ICE (in Scenario 3), gas turbines (in Scenario 4) and to a system of ares, as a backup in cases of the maintenance of the system and to get rid of biogas excess production. Approximately 25% of the biogas is considered to be emitted directly into the atmosphere, due to leaks in the landll coverage (Di Trapani et al., 2013; Park and Shin, 2001). The boundaries of Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are shown in Fig. 3. The technology considered in this study is similar to the one used in the landll of Betim, but in Scenarios 3 and 4, in which the biogas is used for power generation, information about main indicators were obtained from data published about similar projects in Brazil and abroad. In all the four Scenarios the direct environmental loads, associated to the consumption of diesel (for transport and pressing of waste in the landll) and the indirect ones associated to its production are taken into account. Fossil fuel related to the production of reagents (urea and lime) is also considered. In Scenario 1, a mass burn system uses all the MSW, without prior treatment or preparation, unlike a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) system that separates, before burning, the combustible waste from non-combustibles, such as glass and metals. For Scenario 1 (WtE) the facility is able to treat 200 tonnes of MSW/day and produces about 400 kWh of electricity/tonne of waste, with 18% of energy efciency (Stehlk, 2009; Murphy and McKeogh, 2006). The waste slag from the bottom of the incinerators grate and the y ash are sent to a landll located about 54 km from the facility. The emission control system includes a selective non-catalytic reduction unit fed with urea for NOx control and a dry scrubber using lime to remove acid gases, heavy metals and dioxins, also a fabric lter is installed to remove solid particles (Consonni et al., 2005). For the other Scenarios (2, 3 and 4), the biogas ow rate was determined by the IPCC methodology (IPCC, 2002) and the caloric value of the waste was calculated with the equations found in Kathiravale et al. (2003) and Cortez et al. (2008). The proportion of biogenic and fossil carbon in the MSW was estimated using information from IPCC (2002). The installed sequence and available power, for Scenario 3 is presented in Fig. 4. Each ICE generating module has 33% of efciency, produces 300 kW of electricity and has a useful life of 7 years. This small life time span was established because of the limitations in the quality of the biogas recovered from the produced biogas, but if an efcient biogas cleaning system is used, the engines modules can last up to 15 years; the 9 modules installed in the landll ensure the use of 46% of the biogas produced for energy generation, while the remaining 29% is burned in the ares. Based on these indicators it can be concluded that this scenario is able to recover 162 kWh of electricity per tonne of MSW. As stated before, Scenario 4 and Scenario 3 are very similar, the only difference being that the reciprocating ICE modules in the second one are replaced by gas

M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820 Table 6 Characteristics of MSW generated in the city of Betim. Components [%] Food waste Plastics Metals and others Paper Textiles Textiles Cardboard Rubber 54.0 16.0 12.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 Proximate analysis and heating value Moisture [%] Volatiles [%] Ash [%] High heating value [kJ/kg] Lower heating value [kJ/kg] C fossil [%] C biogenic [%] 35.0 51.0 14.0 14,610 7981 11.0 17.0 Elemental composition % (dry basis)

13

C H O N S Ash

44.0 5.5 28.0 1.2 0.2 21.0

turbines. The installed and available power for Scenario 4 is presented in Fig. 5. In this Scenario each microturbine generator module has 28% efciency (Bove and Lunghi, 2006) and produces 300 kW of electricity. The 7 modules installed in the landll ensure the use of 41% of the biogas produced; the remaining 34% is burned in the ares.

This Scenario was able to recover 125 kWh of energy/tonne of MSW. For both Scenarios (3 and 4), the modules schedule was optimized to attain the best energy recovery situation. Each biogas burning system has its own emission factors and pollutants destruction efciency, based on the current level of the technology. In Table 6 the data, as recommended by the US EPA (US

Fig. 2. Boundaries of the Scenario 1.

Fig. 3. Boundaries of the Scenarios 2, 3 and 4.

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

14

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

Fig. 5. Variation of available gas and installed power on landll site for Scenario 4 (gas turbine).

EPA, 2008) is shown. With this information the emissions for Scenarios 3 and 4, related to the biogas combustion, were calculated. The emissions to the atmosphere, the water and the soil, resources consumed and the generated electricity, were calculated in relation with the functional unit. The information about the emissions to water in landlls, at short range (100 years) and long range (60,000 years) were obtained from Doka (2007). The life cycle inventory of urea was obtained from (Silva et al., 2006), of the lime from (Yokote, 2003) and of the electricity from (Coltro et al., 2003). Emissions from the diesel used in transport and the machinery for compression and movement of MSW in landlls, were obtained from (MCT, 2013). Emissions to the atmosphere in landll scenarios were calculated using the equations based on the US EPA (2008) report. Emissions from WtE facility were obtained from (US EPA, 1996), according to the technology applied. The LCIA was conducted until the stage of characterization. The software SimaproTM 7.1.8 and the impact assessment methodology CML 2000 (Chain Management by Life Cycle Assessment) baseline 2000 v.2.03 that is an update from the CML 1992 method (Goedkoop et al., 2008; Guine et al., 2001) were used for the calculation of the environmental impacts. 3. Results 3.1. Techno-economic assessment In Fig. 6, the results for the case of 100,000 inhabitants are shown. The results of the NPV ($ 659,204) were negative and the IRR (0.4%) is below the ADR, which makes this case not attractive from an economic point of view. To make it economically feasible (NPV = 0), it is necessary that the electricity is sold at $ 82.60/MWh or the CREs at $ 5.02/tonne CO2 (Table 7).
Table 7 Emissions characteristics of biogas combustion in different systems (US EPA, 2008). Biogas Burning Systems emissions and removal efciency Pollutant Flare NOx CO Particulates Dioxins/Furans Pollutants removal efciency NOx CO Particulates Pollutants removal efciency NOx CO Particulates Pollutants removal efciency Value 19.3 22.54 7.28 0.205 99.7 1077 784.2 21.5 97.2 125.9 393.2 38.23 94.4 Unit g/kJ g/kJ g/kJ pg TEQ/kJ % g/kJ g/kJ g/kJ % g/kJ g/kJ g/kJ %

IC Engine

Gas Turbines

Three generator modules were used in the model considered for the whole project life time, which ensure the use of 42.5% of the biogas produced by the landll to generate 103,154 MWh of electricity; each generator module has a power of 400 kW and an electrical efciency of 42.8%, according to the manufacturer datasheet. The total COI of the project was calculated at $ 1,828,329 and the annualized O&M cost at $ 2,059,040 (including income taxes). The indicator O&M includes all the landll operation costs and is presented in Tables 2 and 3. This time the generator modules schedule was arranged in order to achieve the best economic results, the installation of more modules, to increase the biogas utilization, is not economically attractive, due to the lack of enough biogas to operate another modules during its entire life time (10 years). The CERs cost includes the are stations construction and maintenance, the costs of CDM project registry and CERs qualifying and registration. In Fig. 7 the results for a 500,000 inhabitants Scenario is showed. The Scenario for 500,000 inhabitants showed better results in comparison with the one of 100,000 inhabitants. The results of the NPV ($ 3,004,678) were positive and the IRR (15.6%) is greater than the ADR, making this case attractive from an economic point of view. Three 2000 kW generator modules were installed during the project life time, ensuring the use of 42.4% of the biogas produced by the landll to generate 515,781 MWh of electricity. The LCOE found is $ 49.00/MWh. In Fig. 8, the results for the 1,000,000 inhabitants Scenario are presented. The results of the case show a good economic feasibility. In this Scenario, six 2000 kW power generator modules were installed during the project life time, which ensure the use of 42.4% of the biogas produced by the landll, to generate 1,031,542 MWh of electricity. The LCOE found is $ 41.15/MWh. All the cases evaluated in the WtE facility Scenario were economically unfeasible. The results are presented in Table 8. The cases showed negative results due to the high COI and O&M costs of a WtE facility and mainly to the low waste bill paid by Brazilian municipalities, $ 22.50/tonne. To reach a minimum economic feasibility (NPV = 0) the WTB should be $ 157.80/tonne for the case of 100,000 inhabitants, $ 92.10/tonne for the Scenario of 500,000 and $ 71.90/tonne for the 1,000,000 inhabitants Scenario. Although the NPV results demonstrate that the scenario of the largest population has the worst performance, it can be noted (through the LCOE) that the economic performance is in fact getting better with the increasing population. The NPV is even more negative in this case simply because the initial investment is relatively higher and revenues are not sufcient to cover the loss. The carbon CERs prices have collapsed since June 2011 from $ 16.45/tonne to less than $ 1.40/tonne. Furthermore, it is doubtful that this scheme will be incorporated into a post-Kyoto multilateral agreement, which will probably lower the appeal of investments in

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

15

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

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

Table 8 Results of the WtE facility cases. 100,000 Inhabitants Scenario Power output Energy produced Economic Results NPV Total COI O&M costs Energy sales WTB CER sales CER cost LCOE [$/MWh] $ 73,857,512 $ 28,952,471 $ 71,733,149 $ 14,451,102 $ 12,285,580 $ 91,427 $ 457,516 397.00 2350 kW 488,800 MWh 500,000 Inhabitants Scenario Power output Energy produced Economic Results NPV Total COI O&M costs Energy sales WTB CER sales CER cost LCOE [$/MWh] $ 189,861,280 $ 104,609,442 $ 220,452,589 $ 73,362,401 $ 61,379,339 $ 459,011 $468,544 233.40 11,930 kW 2,481,440 MWh 1,000,000 Inhabitants Scenario Power output Energy produced Economic Results NPV Total COI O&M Costs Energy Sales WTB CER sales CER cost LCOE [$/MWh] $ 269,667,068 $ 182,181,518 $ 358,107,897 $ 146,847,789 $ 122,855,797 $ 918,761 $ 482,336 184.40 23,880 kW 4,967,040 MWh

16

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

Fig. 8. Energy and economic performance for the 1,000,000 inhabitants scenario (landll option).

new WtE projects in the country (Tang et al., 2013). All the landll biogas energy projects in Brazil are based on achieving good revenues through CERs sales and it seems that the CDM mechanism is crucial for these projects to attain nancial support (Schwaiger et al., 2012). To evaluate this issue, according to the previous results, the CDM economic importance was tested and three scenarios were evaluated, one with the current situation, one without CDM and the third one with a CERs price of $ 10.00/tonne CO2 , an average price before carbon credit market crisis (Point Carbon, 2013). Flare stations at landlls are necessary to control their gas emissions and to guarantee the air quality near the landll region. However, these stations are not compulsory according to Brazilian laws and ares are used only when the CDM are implemented; for that reason its related cost was neglected in the scenarios without the CDM. In Table 9 the results of the CDM inuence can be found. Landll scenarios results demonstrate that the CDM, in fact, reduces the projects protability; in all the cases analyzed, the NPV was better in the scenarios without the CDM. However, in the scenario with CERs price of $ 10.00/tonne CO2 , the CDM slightly increases the NPV, revealing its importance for the project success, lost during the current CER price crisis. In the WtE facility Scenarios the CDM did not show much inuence, due to the high COI associated with a WtE facility. For the cases of high population, the inexistence of the CDM takes down little of the projects protability. It was also evident that, in a Scenario with a price of $ 10.00/tonne CO2 , there is an increase in the project return, for all evaluated cases, of about 5.0%. To evaluate the relative importance of input parameters over the projects economic results, a simple sensitivity analysis was performed. Sensitivity analyses measure the impact on project outcomes when input values about which there is some uncertainty are changed. In this case, the sensitivity analysis was performed over the main economic parameters of the model: the commercialization price of electricity, the price of CERs, the COI installation cost and the annual O&M costs. A change in the parameters of 80% in relation to the typical market values was considered: electricity = $ 65.00/MWh, CERs = $ 10.00/tonne CO2 , WTB = $ 80.00/tonne.

The analysis was performed for the 1,000,000 inhabitants cases for Landll and WtE facilities Scenarios. The results are presented in Fig. 9. The horizontal axis in Fig. 9 shows the percentage change of the parameter in relation to the base value. The vertical axis shows the NPV result. It can be observed that all curves intersect at the same place, which is the standard behaviour, when all variables are replaced with their base values. The main aspect to take into consideration in this gure is how the curve behaves regarding the variations in the horizontal axis. The curves that have higher gradient, either positive or negative, deserve special attention, because a small change in the expected value will be reected as large changes of the NPV. For the Landll analyses note that the curves with greater gradient are electricity and the CERs, which obviously means that these parameters have great inuence on the project viability, because their variation has a great inuence over the investment return. Moreover, the COI and O&M costs are relatively static at short term, but the electricity and the CERs prices show a great variation at short term. The electricity prices variation in Brazilian free market occurs mainly due to the Settlement Price for Differences (SPD). Its value is used to appraise monthly energy balances of each market agent. If the agent balance is negative it should buy more energy at the SPD price, also the agent sells this energy by SPD. This value is set by the Chamber for Commercialization of Electrical Energy (CCEE), set weekly and based on several factors, such as volume of Brazilian hydroelectric reservoirs and expanding demand. It is signicantly volatile and characterized by a high unpredictability, which greatly increases the risks of market companies, however these prices are limited annually by ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) to a minimum and a maximum price. In 2013 prices ranged: $ 47.55/MWh < SPD > $ 207.70/MWh (CCEE, 2013). The prices of CERs vary according to the type of the project, the market demand, the technology used in carbon offset and others; before the carbon credit crisis the prices of CERs ranged between $ 1.40/tonne and $ 41.10/tonne, but today the current price is below $ 1.40. In the same way, it can be observed, for the WtE facility analysis, that the curves with greater gradients are the O&M cost and WTB.

M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820 Table 9 Results of the CDM inuence. Scenario 100,000 Inhabitants NPV Result Landll Current situation Without CDM CER at $ 10.00/tonne CO2 Current situation Without CDM CER at $ 10.00/tonne CO2 NPV Increase $ 659,204 $ 56,357 $ 727,077 $ 73,857,512 $ 73,497,965 $ 72,172,517 500,000 Inhabitants NPV Result 91.5% 210.3% 0.5% 2.3% NPV Increase $ 3,004,678 $ 3,995,251 $ 9,847,419 $ 189,861,280 $ 189,997,741 $ 181,536,285 1,000,000 Inhabitants NPV Result 33.0% 227.7% 0.1% 4.4% NPV Increase $ 8,793,264 $ 10,052,847 $ 22,210,891 $ 269,667,068 $ 270,110,035 $ 252,734,302

17

WtE Plant

14.3% 152.6% 0.2% 6.3%

Fig. 9. Results of the sensitivity analysis (landll and WTE cases).

A WtE facility usually has high O&M costs and it is hard to gure out the real costs in a Brazilian situation. On the other hand, the projects main concern should be the WTB, since this parameter has demonstrated to have high inuence on the return on investment. Table 10 shows the breakeven point for the evaluated scenarios, considering the base values of Tables 2, 3 and 5. It is possible to conclude that an electricity price of $ 185.0/MWh means the actual breakeven point for a WtE facility, but unfortunately it represents about 2.8 times its current value. Brazilian municipalities pay a very low price to dispose its MSW in landlls ($ 22.5/tonne), way below the price needed to reach the WtE facility project breakeven point of $ 72.2/tonne. However, for bigger cities this value should be signicantly lower, considering the benets of the power plants scales. 3.2. Environmental impact assessment The results of the LCA characterization analysis, referred to 1.0 tonne of MSW, for each selected impact category and each scenario are showed in Table 11, together with the potential energy recovery results. Fig. 10 shows the weighted valuations of environmental impact of the LCA characterization. The ADP measures the consumption of non-renewable resources. In this evaluation it is considered that the energy is recovered and supplied to the Brazilian electric system, which avoids the consumption of scarce natural and non-renewable
Table 10 Breakeven points for the sensitivity analysis. Parameter Electricity CERs WTB COI O&M costs
a b

Units $/MWh $/t CO2 $/t $ $/t

Landll 41.2
a b

WtE 185.0 152.4 72.2

a

63,122,736 3.4

15.9

Negative values are necessary to reach an NPV = 0. Not applicable in this case.

resources. Thus, WtE plant performance was better because it recovered a larger amount of energy per tonne of waste in relation to the landll Scenarios. Scenario 1 recovered 400 kWh/tonne of MSW, Scenario 3 (162 kWh/tonne), Scenario 4 (125 kWh/tonne) and in Scenario 2 there is no energy recovery. Scenario 2 has a minimum negative effect (5.60E-6 kg Sb-eq./tonne), due to the diesel consumed in the transport of the waste and its compaction in the landll. The GWP quanties the contribution of GHG emissions and relates it to the increase in the global warming and climate change effects. The lack of an emission control system in Scenario 2 causes the CH4 to be emitted directly into the atmosphere, in this scenario CH4 emissions are responsible for 92% of the GWP results, the remaining 8% is related to other substances, mainly the CFC12 with 7.7%. In Scenarios 3 and 4 the CH4 is partially destructed but still 25% of it is released directly into the atmosphere as a result of fugitive emissions from the landll. The small difference between Scenarios 3 and 4 are due to the higher energy recovery in Scenario 3. In Scenario 1 (WtE facility) the potential impact is diminished by 86% compared to Scenario 2, the GHG emissions of this scenario are a result of the combustion of fossil carbon components in the MSW, e.g., plastics and rubber. For the landll Scenarios the main pollutant is the CFC-12, which accounts for 93% of the ODP impact category. These emissions are a consequence of aerosol cans and polyurethane foam. According to Hodson et al. (2010) in the United Kingdom, the landlls CFC-12 emissions account for 6% of the total ozone layer depleting pollutants emitted in the country. In Scenario 3 and 4 part of the CFC-12 is destroyed in the generator modules and ares, the pollutants removal efciency of reciprocating ICE is slightly better than the one of the gas turbines, so Scenario 3 achieves a result 4% better than Scenario 4. In the WtE facility there are no harmful emissions into the ozone layer. In relation to HTP the main pollutant in Scenarios 2 and 3 is the emission of barium into the ground and surface waters, which accounts for approximately 53% of the impact in these Scenarios

18

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

Table 11 Electricity production and LCA characterization for evaluated scenarios. Scenario Energy recovery ADP Units Scenario 1 WtE Scenario 2 Landll Scenario 3 Landll reciprocating ICE Scenario 4 gas turbines kWh/tonne MSW 400.0 0.0 162.0 125.0 % 18.0 0.0 7.4 5.7 LCA characterization GWP kg Sb-eq. 0.21 0.00 0.12 0.10 ODP kg CO2 -eq. 285.0 2052 464.0 478.0 HTP kg CFC-11-eq. 0.00 0.0132 0.0036 0.0037 ACP kg 1,4 DB-eq 331.9 182.4 175.7 175.4 ETP kg SO2 -eq. 0.68 0.00 11.87 11.65
3 kg PO -eq 4

0.66 2.53 2.57 2.51

Fig. 10. Proportion of the values in a characterization in a LCA.

and 28% in Scenario 1 (WtE facility). The difference between Scenario 1 and the other two is mainly due to the air emission of dioxins during incineration, which is 134 times greater than in the landll Scenarios. Emissions to water from the inert landll in Scenario 1, is responsible for 73% of the total impact load, the remaining corresponds to dioxins (20%), mercury (2%), arsenic (2%) and hexa-chromium-benzene (HCB) (2%). The differences between the landll scenarios are due to the diverse biogas pollutants removal efciency in each one. In relation to ACP the landll gas is rich in compounds that contain sulphur. In Scenarios 3 and 4 the burning of these compounds generate gaseous SO2 emissions, gas responsible for almost the whole of the impacts (97%). Scenario 4 attains better results than Scenario 3 due to the lower emissions of NOx in the gas turbines. In Scenario 1, the impacts correspond to the SOx and NOx formation during the waste combustion. The results in Scenario 2 are related to the diesel consumption in the landll machinery, which is relatively modest in comparison to the impact load in other scenarios. In relation to the ETP, the difference between landll and WtE facility scenarios, arise because of the high organic load of liquid efuents from the landlls, characterized specically by a high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and emissions of NH3 , NO 3

4. Discussion and conclusions The economic assessment was carried out for two alternatives to MSW energy recovery according to the Brazilian conditions, a landll biogas power plant and a WtE facility mass-burn grate incinerator. The study was conducted based on hypothetical cases of three different urban centres of 100,000, 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants, using as a reference the MSW characteristics of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte. The results for the landll Scenarios reveal that the scale factor is very important to make a landll biogas project successful, conrmed when the cases of 500,000 and 1,000,000 inhabitants show good economic revenues. The WtE facility option is not economically feasible in all the evaluated scenarios, because of the high COI and O&M costs, but also and mainly due to the low WTB paid by Brazilian municipalities. To achieve an economic feasibility, the higher COI and O&M costs of the facility should be compensated by savings on the variable energy costs. A sensitivity analysis was performed for the main economic model parameters: the selling price of electricity, the price of CERs, the total COI and annual O&M costs; the results of such evaluation shows that, for landlls, the prices of electricity and the CERs have great inuence, because their variations have a decisive inuence on the return on investment. For the WtE facility the main factor is the WTB, as a consequence of the insufcient amount of money paid by the Brazilian cities, which is always below the WtE facility economic breakeven point; only in cases of the biggest cities are lower WTB values satisfactory, due to the WtE power plants size. The Kyoto protocol, by the CDM, is a key factor for the Brazilian landll energy projects, highly improving its protability in the

3 and PO 4 . In the landll scenarios the main contributions to the impact load is the COD (69%), but ammonia (18%) and nitrate (11%) have signicant values. These differences correspond to the different NOx emissions between gas turbines and reciprocating ICE. The organic load in the liquid efuents of an inert landll, used in Scenario 1, is signicantly lower compared to a common landll.

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

19

last years. The CDM economic importance was evaluated in three Scenarios and the results conrm that the low current prices of CERs are in fact reducing the projects protability. However, the scenario with a CERs price at a pre-crisis value, slightly increases the NPV, making clear the major importance of this mechanism for the project viability, especially for small cities. Further work can also include external costs (externalities), like costs associated with medical care and other social and environmental impacts, using a valuable method to properly link these results. External costs are those that are not reected in the price, but which society as a whole must bear. For example, the biggest damage to human health is caused by emissions of particulate matter, O3 , CO, SOx , NOx , and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), hydrocarbons (Cx Hy ), dioxins, etc. There are also costs associated with non-health impacts. SO2 is the main pollutant of concern for building-related damage, though ozone also does affect certain materials. The secondary pollutants formed from SO2 , NOx and NMVOC also impact on crops and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. According to Eshet et al. (2006), from the social point of view, it seems that incineration is a more expensive option; however this can change if the benets to avoided burdens in the energy generation are in focus. The environmental study was performed using real data from a landll located in the city of Betim. The results show that landlls (the solution for nal MSW disposal that Brazilian cities are trying to implement in their territory to get rid of non-regulated landlls) have greater environmental impacts in ve of the six categories selected in this study. The energy recovery from biogas slightly lowered the environmental load of landll. As most Brazilian cities use landlls, it can be concluded that this option could contribute to reduce the impacts of MSW treatment and disposal in a short period; as the Cherubini et al. (2009) results in Italy conclude, the higher the yields of energy recovered from wastes disposal, the greater the environmental savings. It is clear that the worlds policies tend to eradicate the landlls, favouring the implementation of the hierarchy of waste, as it is foreseen in the NPSW, directed to reduce the waste and to recover and recycle materials and energy content; landlls generate countless burdens for the future generations and should be considered only as a transitory option, with no future. The incineration of waste is still seen in Brazil as a highly polluting technology for MSW treatment and most of the population does not approve of its utilization; on the other hand, the lack of space for new landlls in metropolitan areas, is forcing the cities to rethink the use of WtE options; the results of many studies conrm that WtE facility is environmentally superior to landlls, being more efcient in energy recovery and having less environmental impacts. More studies using a life cycle approach tool should be encouraged in the country; future work should include other waste management options, such as recycling and advanced technologies for energy recovery, such as the gasication and the pyrolysis of the MSW. In addition to the fear about air pollution, a further obstacle to the widespread WtE plant is the high COI of such facilities. Nevertheless, due to the increase in regulatory barriers for the disposal of waste in landlls and the increasing cost of this option, electricity generation through the combustion of MSW is becoming a highly appealing alternative for the country (Menezes et al., 2000).

Assessment of Technological Options for Electricity Generation from Municipal Solid Waste and Tree and Shrub Cutting, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank the Brazilian National Research and Development Council (CNPq). The Research Support Foundation of the Minas Gerais State (FAPEMIG) and the Coordinating Body for the Improvement of Postgraduate Studies in Higher Education (CAPES) for the funding of R&D projects. The support of graduate students and the production grants that allowed the accomplishment of the research projects whose results are included in this paper.

References
Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G, Kafetzopoulos G, Karagiannidis A. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resour Conserv Recy 2011;55(910):85763. Alves JWS. Master Thesis in Energy Diagnstico tcnico institucional da recuperac o e uso energtico do biogs gerado pela digesto anaerbia de resduos [Technical diagnosis of the recovery and energetic utilization of biogas generated by the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste] Master Thesis in Energy. So Paulo: So Paulo University; 2000. p. 142 (in Portuguese). ANEEL Agncia Nacional de Energia Eltrica (National Electric Energy Agency). Banco es sobre gerac o (BIG) [National database of energy genernacional de informac ation. Public documents]; 2012, http://www.aneel.gov.br (accessed 29.08.12) (in Portuguese). Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landlling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manage 2012;32(5):101930. Aye L, Widjaya ER. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage 2006;26(10):118091. Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, da Silva TR. The electric energy potential of landll biogas in Brazil. Energy Policy 2014;65:15064. Bergsdal H, Strmman AH, Hertwich EG. Environmental assessment of two waste incineration strategies for central Norway. Int J Life Cycle Ass 2005;10(4):26372. BCB Brazilian Central Bank. Selic Rate Brazilian Central Bank reference interest rate; 2013, http://www.bcb.gov.br/?SERIETEMP (accessed 18.06.13) (in Portuguese). Boehm RF. Design Analysis of Thermal Systems. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. p. 288. Bove R, Lunghi P. Electric power generation from landll gas using traditional and innovative technologies. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47(1112):1391401. Cndido L, Kindlein W, Demori R, Carli L, Mauler R, Oliveira R. The recycling of materials as a design project tool. J Clean Prod 2011;19(13):143845. Castilhos Jnior AB, Medeiros PA, Firta IN, Lupatini G, da Silva JD. Principais processos de degradac o de resduos slidos urbanos. In: Castilho Jnior, editor. o de resduos slidos urbanos para pequenas comuAlternativas de disposic nidades [Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives for Small Communities]. Santa Catarina: PROSABE; 2003. p. 1950 (in Portuguese). CCEE Chamber for Commercialization of Electrical Energy (CCEE). Commercialization Rules of Energy that can be used during the whole day, during the supplying period; 2012, http://www.ccee.org.br (accessed 18.06.13) (in Portuguese). Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landlling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 2009;34(12):211623. Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment of urban waste management: energy performances and environmental impacts. The case of Rome, Italy. Waste Manage 2008;28(12):255264. Cleary J. Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: a comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ Int 2009;35(8):125666. Coltro L, Garcia EEC, Queiroz GC. Life cycle inventory for electric energy system in Brazil. Int J Life Cycle Ass 2003;8(5):2906. Consonni S, Giugliano M, Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery from municipal solid waste Part A: Mass and energy balances. Waste Manage 2005;25(2):12335. Cortez LAB, Lora EES, Gmez EO. Biomassa para Energia [Biomass to Energy]. Campinas, Brazil: Editora da UNICAMP; 2008. p. 728 (in Portuguese). Di Trapani D, Di Bella G, Viviani G. Uncontrolled methane emissions from a MSW landll surface: inuence of landll features and side slopes. Waste Manage 2013;33(10):210815. Doka G. Ecoinvent report n 13 Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services Ecoinvent report n 13. Dbendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Doka Life Cycle Assessments; 2007. European Community. Council Directive on the landll of waste (1999/31/EEC), L182/1. European Commission; 1999. ECX (European Climate Exchange). ECX Historical Data Certied Emissions Reduction Futures Contracts ECX Historical Data; 2013, http://www.ecxeurope.com (accessed 18.06.13). El-Halwagi MM. Sustainable design through process integration: fundamentals and applications to industrial pollution prevention, resource conservation and protability enhancement. Massachusetts: Elsevier; 2012. p. 422.

Acknowledgments The authors are very grateful to the nancial support provided by the Electrical Company of Minas Gerais (CEMIG) through the Research and Development project (R&D) ANEEL/CEMIG N D194,

20

M.M.V. Leme et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87 (2014) 820 Menezes RAA, Gerlach JL, Menezes MA. Estgio Atual da Incinerac o no Brasil. In: VII Seminrio Nacional de Sesduos Slidos e Limpeza Pblica [VII Brazilian seminar on solid waste and public cleaning]. Brazilian Association on Public Cleaning (ABPL); 2000 (in Portuguese). Mnster M, Lund H. Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport challenges when performing energy system analysis. Energy 2009;34(5):63644. Murphy JD, McKeogh E. The benets of integrated treatment of wastes for the production of energy. Energy 2006;31(23):294310. Ning S-K, Chang N-B, Hung M-C. Comparative streamlined life cycle assessment for two types of municipal solid waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 2013;53(8):5666. Ofori-Boateng C, Lee LT, Mensah M. The prospects of electricity generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Ghana: a better waste management option. Fuel Process Technol 2013;110(6):94102. Park J-W, Shin H-C. Surface emission of landll gas from solid waste landll. Atmos Environ 2001;35(20):344551. Point Carbon. Point Carbon Organization. European carbon prices and carbon market insights; 2013, http://www.pointcarbon.com/ (accessed 18.06.13). Psomopoulos CS, Bourka A, Themelis NJ. Waste-to-energy: a review of the status and benets in USA. Waste Manage 2009;29(5):171824. Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Escobar JCP, Santos JJCS, Moura AG. Use of the life cycle assessment (LCA) for comparison of the environmental performance of four alternatives for the treatment and disposal of bioethanol stillage. Int Sugar J 2010;112(1343):61122. Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ. Life cycle analysis of different alternatives for the treatment and disposal of ethanol vinasse. Zuckerindustrie 2008;133(2):8893. Salomon KR, Lora EES. Estimate of the electric energy generating potential for different sources of biogas in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33(9):11017. Scharff H, Jacobs J. Applying guidance for methane emissions estimation for landlls. Waste Manage 2006;26(4):41729. Schwaiger H, Tuerk A, Pena N, Sijm J, Arrasto A, Kettner C. The future European emission trading scheme and its impact on biomass use. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;38(3):1028. Silva GA, Ribeiro PH, Kulay LA. Evaluation of Environmental Performance of Chemical Fertilizers in Brazil. In: XVI Brazilian Congress of Chemical Engineering, Santos. Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Congress of Chemical Engineering; 2006. p. 12. SNIS Sistema Nacional de Informac es sobre Saneamento (National Sanitation Information System). Diagnstico do manejo de resduos slidos urbanos 2006 [Diagnosis of municipal solid waste management]. Ministrio das Cidades, Braslia: SNSA, SNIS; 2012, http://www.snis.gov.br (in Portuguese). Stehlk P. Contribution to advances in waste-to-energy technologies. J Clean Prod 2009;17(10):91931. Tang B-J, Shen C, Gao C. The efciency analysis of the European CO2 future markets. Appl Energy 2013;112:15447. Themelis NJ, Ulloa PA. Methane generation in landlls. Renew Energy 2007;32(7):124357. Thompson S, Sawyer J, Bonam R, Valdivia JE. Building a better methane generation model: validating models with methane recovery rates from 35 Canadian landlls. Waste Manage 2009;29(7):208591. Townsend AK, Webber ME. An integrated analytical framework for quantifying the LCOE of waste-to-energy facilities for a range of greenhouse gas emissions policy and technical factors. Waste Manage 2012;32(7):136677. Tsilemou K, Panagiotakopoulos D. Approximate cost functions for solid waste treatment facilities. Waste Manage Res 2006;24(4):31022. UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. CDM Executive Board. Revision to the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0002. Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources. UNFCCC/CCNUCC; 2006. p. 25, http://cdm-en.ccchina.gov.cn/UpFile/File665.PDF UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ACM0001 Approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0001. Consolidated baseline methodology for landll gas project activities. UNFCCC; 2004. p. 11, http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/eb15repan1.pdf USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-08-116 Background information document for updating AP42 Section 2.4 for estimating emissions from municipal solid waste landlls EPA/600/R-08-116. Eastern Research Group, Inc; 2008. p. 249, Contract Number: EP-C-07-015. US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal. 2. 1 Refuse Combustion, Final Section Supplement B; 1996. Yokote AY. Master Thesis in Chemical Engineering Inventrio do Ciclo de Vida da Distribuic o de Energia Eltrica no Brasil [Life Cycle Inventory of the electric energy in Brazil] Master Thesis in Chemical Engineering. So Paulo University; 2003. p. 369 (in Portuguese). Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China the case of Chongqing. Resour Conserv Recy 2010;54(6):37789.

Emery A, Davies A, Grifths A, Williams K. Environmental and economic modeling: a case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resour Conserv Recy 2007;49(3):24463. Eshet T, Ayalon O, Shechter M. Valuation of externalities of selected waste management alternatives: a comparative review and analysis. Resour Conserv Recy 2006;46(4):33564. FEAM Fundac o Estadual do Meio Ambiente (Environmental Agency of Minas Gerais State). Diretoria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento. Gerncia de Energia as Climticas. FEAM/DEPED/GEMUC Aproveitamento energtico de e Mudanc resduos slidos urbanos: Guia de orientac es para governos municipais de Minas Gerais [Energy recovery from municipal solid waste: Guidelines for municipal governments of Minas Gerais State] Diretoria de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento. as Climticas. FEAM/DEPED/GEMUC. Belo HoriGerncia de Energia e Mudanc zonte: FEAM; 2012. p. 163 (in Portuguese). Fehr M, Pereira AFN, Barbosa AKA. Supporting waste and water management with proactive legal instruments. Resour Conserv Recy 2009;54(1):217. Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Morbeg . Life Cycle Assessment of Energy from Solid Waste. Stockholm University, Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences; 2000. p. 168, FMS 137, FOA-B00-00622-222SE. GLA. Greater London Authority. Cost if incineration and non-incineration energyfrom-waste technologies. London: Mayor of London; 2008. p. 72. Goedkoop M, Oele M, Schryver A, Vieira M. SimaPro Database Manual: Methods Library. The Netherlands: PR Consultants; 2008. p. 225. Gohlke O, Martin J. Drivers for innovation in waste-to-energy technology. Waste Manage Res 2007;25(3):2149. Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al. Life Cycle Assessment. An operational Guide to the ISO standards. Leiden, The Netherlands: Center of Environmental Science, Leiden University (CML); 2001. Hodson EL, Martin D, Prinn RG. The municipal solid waste landll as a source of ozone-depleting substances in the United States and United Kingdom. Atmos Chem Phys 2010;10(4):1899910. ICLEI. Local Governments for Sustainability. Manual para aproveitamento do biogs: Volume 1Aterros Sanitrios (Guidelines to biogas recovery: Volume 1 Landlls). Secretariado para Amrica Latina e Caribe, Escritrio de projetos no Brasil. So Paulo: ICLEI; 2009. p. 80. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Japan: IGES; 2006. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Friland JE, Pipatti R, editors. CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2002. p. 41939 http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5 1 CH4 Solid Waste.pdf IRENA. IRENA Working Paper. Volume 1: Power Sector, Issue 2/5. Concentrating Solar Power International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost analysis Series IRENA Working Paper. Volume 1: Power Sector, Issue 2/5. Concentrating Solar Power. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: IRENA; 2012. p. 41. ISO: 14040. International Standard Organization. Environmental Management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework. Genve: ISO; 2006a. ISO: 14044. International Standard Organization. Environmental Management Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines. Genve: ISO; 2006b. Jamasb T, Nepal R. Issues and options in waste management: a social cost-benet analysis of waste-to-energy in the UK. Resour Conserv Recy 2010;54(12):134152. Kathiravale S, Yunus MNM, Sopian AH, Samsuddin AH, Rahman RA. Modeling the heating value of Municipal Solid Waste. Fuel 2003;82(9):111925. Keramitsoglou K, Tsagarakis KP. Public participation in designing a recycling scheme towards maximum public acceptance. Resour Conserv Recy 2013;70: 5567. Khoo HH. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion technologies. Waste Manage 2009;29(6):1892900. Lee S-H, Themelis NJ, Castaldi M. High-temperature corrosion in waste-to-energy boilers. J Therm Spray Technol 2007;16(1):10410. Lora EES, Escobar JCP, Rocha MH, Ren MLG, Venturini OJ, Almazn OO. Issues to consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments. Energy 2011;36(4):2097110. Loureiro SM, Rovere ELL, Mahler CF. Analysis of potential for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in municipal solid waste in Brazil in the state and city of Rio de Janeiro. Waste Manage 2013;33(5):130212. MCT Ministry of Science and Technology. Archives of emission factors CO2 Emission Factors for uses that need Brazils National Interconnected Systems average emission factor, such as corporate inventories Archives of emission factors; 2013, http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/307509.html (in Portuguese).