Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery

systems A UK preliminary study
Christopher J. Lupa a,, Lois J. Ricketts b, Andy Sweetman a, Ben M.J. Herbert b
a
b

Lancaster Environment Centre, University of Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4YQ, UK

Stopford Energy and Environment, Lancaster Environment Centre, University of Lancaster, Lancashire LA1 4YQ, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 November 2010
Accepted 4 April 2011
Available online xxxx

a b s t r a c t
With 2020 energy targets set out by the EU fast approaching, the UK is trying to source a higher proportion of its energy from renewable resources. Coupled with this, a growing population and increasing
trends in consumer demand have resulted in national waste loads increasing. A possible solution to both
issues is energy-from-waste (EfW) technologies. Many studies have focused on municipal solid waste
(MSW) as a potential feedstock, but appear to overlook the potential benets of commercial and industrial waste (C&IW). In this study, samples of C&IW were collected from three North West waste management companies and Lancaster University campus. The samples were tested for their gross and net
caloric value, moisture content, ash content, volatile matter, and also elemental composition to determine their suitability in EfW systems. Intra-sample analysis showed there to be little variation between
samples with the exception two samples, from waste management site 3, which showed extensive variation with regards to net caloric value, ash content, and elemental analysis. Comparisons with known
fuel types revealed similarities between the sampled C&IW, MSW, and refuse derived fuel (RDF) thereby
justifying its potential for use in EfW systems. Mean net caloric value (NCV) was calculated as 9.47 MJ/
kg and concentrations of sulphur, nitrogen, and chlorine were found to be below 2%. Potential electrical
output was calculated using the NCV of the sampled C&IW coupled with four differing energy generation
technologies. Using a conventional incinerator with steam cycle, total electrical output was calculated as
24.9 GWh, based on a plant operating at 100,000 tpa. This value rose to 27.0 GWh when using an integrated gasication combined cycle. A nal aspect of this study was to deduce the potential total national
electrical output if all suitable C&IW were to be used in EfW systems. Using incineration coupled with a
steam turbine, this was determined to be 6 TWh, 1.9% of the national demand thereby contributing 6.5%
towards the UKs 2020 renewable electricity target.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There is little doubt that waste management has emerged itself
as a major challenge in modern society. Urbanisation, population
increase, and higher consumer demand, has put pressure on waste
management companies, landll operators, and local authorities.
As a result, many landll sites are reaching their stated capacities.
At present, the UK produces approximately 335 million tonnes of
waste per annum. Of this, 100 million tonnes results from minerals
extraction, which is not subject to control under the EU Waste
Framework Directive (Defra, 2006a). The remaining 225 million
tonnes is predominantly composed of municipal solid waste
(MSW, waste derived from domestic/household sources, e.g. foodstuffs and packaging), commercial and industrial waste (C&IW,
waste derived from commerce and industry, e.g. packaging, paper,
metals, and catering), and Construction and Demolition Waste
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 07764926480.
E-mail address: c.lupa@lancaster.ac.uk (C.J. Lupa).

(C&DW, waste containing insulation, wiring, and rubble). Although

alternative recovery options are available, a large proportion is
landlled with approximately 100 million tonnes is disposed of
in this way each year (Defra, 2006b). The EU, and its member
states, is attempting to face this predicament via implementation
of strict environmental legislation, in addition to introducing monetary incentives for waste diversion (including the Renewables
Obligation Order (ROO), discussed in Section 4). Parallel to this,
depletion of fossil fuel resources, combined with climate change
and instability in energy prices, has led there to be heightened
interest in renewable energy generation. Energy-from-waste
(EfW), a process that converts waste into energy for use in thermal
or electrical applications, has been posed as a possible answer to
both problems. Initial thermal treatment of wastes can be achieved
via several routes including incineration, gasication and pyrolysis.
Once the waste has undergone thermal treatment, energy can be
produced via several routes. The heat can be used to convert water
to steam for use in a steam turbine, or the derived synthetic gas
(syngas) can be used to generate electricity via energy conversion

0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

C.J. Lupa et al. / Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

technologies (e.g. gas engine). However, not all wastes can be used
in EfW technologies. In order to achieve good process dynamics
and a favourable economic return, the feedstock must be of certain
standard to gain suitability for EfW processes. For example, an
ideal feedstock should be of high caloric value (CV, largely related
to organic content), low moisture, and low inorganic content. Furthermore, elemental composition should be low with respect to
sulphur, nitrogen, and chlorine as they can preclude thermal conversion and produce undesirable products (detailed in Section 3.2).
As a result, C&DW, which makes up 32% of the UKs total waste
arisings (Defra, 2006a), is not suitable for EfW processes due to
its low CV and high inorganic content. The two key waste streams
that are suitable, however, are MSW, and C&IW. National waste
arisings show that MSW and C&IW are not the largest contributing
streams (9% and 25%, respectively) (Defra, 2006a), but appear to receive a disproportionate amount of attention and legislation, largely as a result of their recovery potential.
As a result of its high organic content, and therefore CV, many
studies have focused on MSW for EfW processes (Baggio et al.,
2008; Lawrence, 1998; Nakamura et al., 2010; Psomopoulos
et al., 2009). In spite of this, C&IW accounts for a larger proportion
of the total annual waste arisings in the UK and is thought to contain a comparable organic content. Two major sub categories of
C&IW, which are not too dissimilar from MSW, are Mixed Ordinary
waste (undifferentiated, similar to MSW), and Non-Metallic waste
(paper, wood, food, glass, etc.). Although much of the Non-Metallic
component will have been removed for recycling, a substantial
proportion remains in the residual stream as a result of contamination from liquid residues thereby deeming it unrecoverable. These
two sub categories make up an estimated 43% of UK C&IW arisings,
approximately 36 million tonnes (FoE, 2003), and are suitable feedstocks for EfW applications. Other C&IW sub-categories include;
Metallic, Chemical, Mineral, and Healthcare wastes all of which
are not widely accepted as suitable waste streams for EfW.
Previous studies have shown that C&IW is being somewhat neglected for use in EfW processes (Envirolink Northwest, 2009). Furthermore, lack of characterisation data has meant little is known
about its true thermal recovery potential. With increasing pressures from environmental NGOs and the EU, it is likely that
C&IW will be an important resource for future energy generation.
This paper examines North West (NW) UK C&IW samples to determine the suitability of this waste stream in EfW systems. Samples
were tested for their gross and net CV (GCV and NCV), moisture
content, ash content, volatile matter, and also underwent elemental analysis. The relevance of the values for EfW will be discussed
and potential issues highlighted. The study concludes with a theoretical based mass balance analysis to determine potential energy
output generated by the waste if used in EfW systems.

2. Methodology
2.1. Sample collection and preparation
A waste sampling campaign was conducted between February
and March of 2010 where C&IW samples were collected from three
NW waste management sites in addition to Lancaster University
campus. A sampling strategy was devised according to CEN/TR
15310 and adhered to as practically and safely feasible. At each
site, a thick 3.9 m  4.9 m polyethylene tarpaulin was used as a
surface to separate and mix the waste material. Refuse bags, collected from separate locations on-site, were emptied onto the tarpaulin and thoroughly mixed using a two-handed stainless steel
spade. Items greater than 10 cm2 were reduced in size using hand
shears. From this, a 10 kg gross waste sample was obtained after
removing recyclable products, such as plastics and metals. This

Table 1
NW C&IW samples. Recyclates removed refers to those manually sorted before
sampling whereas Residual refers to sorting conducted by the site operator. New
and Old refer to the amount of time the waste was left to decompose prior to
collection. In this case, Old was approximately 2 weeks.
Sample

Site

1
2
3
4
5
6

Lancaster University
Waste Management Site
Waste Management Site
Waste Management Site
Waste Management Site
Waste Management Site

Condition
1
1
2
3
3

Recyclates removed
Recyclates removed
Residual
Recyclates removed
New pre-sorted and shredded
Old pre-sorted and shredded

was done in order to produce an accurate representative sample

post-recycling which would otherwise be performed by a materials
recovery facility, or the on-site operators. The sample was subsequently shredded to produce a ner particle size (materials within
sample <5 cm2) using a Fritsch P19 cutting mill. After homogenising the shredded waste sample by thorough mixing, 1 kg subsamples were placed into double-bagged polythene bags and stored at
20 C in dry place to maintain sample integrity prior to laboratory
analysis. A total of six triplicate subsamples were used for analysis
(Table 1).
In some instances, two gross samples were taken from the locations to account for differing pre-treatments, or other factors that
could affect waste characteristics. Ultimately, the waste data was
used to produce an average characterisation of UK C&IW but
understanding characteristic variability in response to such treatments is vital for appreciating parameter interactions.
2.2. Sample analysis
Each waste sample was analysed in triplicate. CV was measured
using a bomb calorimeter according to the CEN/TS 14918 method.
Moisture content was determined in accordance with CEN/TS
14774 whereby the sample was dried to 105 2 C until constant
weight. Air atmosphere was changed several times per hour and
the loss of mass was used to calculate moisture content. Ash content was determined using CEN/TS 14775 whereby the sample was
heated to 550 10 C and the inorganic residue measured. Volatile
matter in the samples was measured in accordance with CEN/TS
15148. Sulphur and chlorine were measured using the CEN/TS
15289 method. Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen were determined
using an elemental analyser as stated by CEN/TS 15104. This standard was also applied to determine total organic content (TOC). Finally, oxygen content was determined using desk-based
calculations.

3. Results
Data was rst examined within data sets, and then subsequently compared against known fuel data obtained from the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
3.1. Intra-sample results
The mean and standard deviations based on the triplicate samples for each test are presented in Fig. 1 for each waste sample
(note the use of scaling for total sulphur, nitrogen, and chlorine).
Note AR is as received material, Dry is dry material and DAF
is dry, ash-free material. The standard deviations show intrasample variations were minimal with the exception of samples 5
and 6. These samples differed from the others as they were collected in a pre-treated state (shredded and sorted) and, particularly

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

C.J. Lupa et al. / Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Fig. 1. Intra-sample comparisons between waste sample data.

Fig. 2. Mean waste data and standard deviations comparison with other known fuels.

in the case of sample 6, had undergone partial decomposition. It is

likely, therefore, that the observed variability is as result of this.
ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to identify
any differences between the waste samples. It revealed there to be
no signicant difference between the samples with respect to GCV,
carbon, volatile matter, xed carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen
(p = 0.05). For the remaining parameters, signicant differences
were found. This was particularly pertinent when examining ash
data whereby samples 5 and 6 had a much greater ash content
than the other samples. Decomposition of these samples would
have likely reduced the amount of organic matter thereby increasing the total ash content per unit volume of waste. This is also supported by their low NCV.
3.2. Comparative analysis with known fuel types
For the purpose of comparison, data collected from all sites was
averaged to produce a mean C&IW data set. This was compared
against known fuels obtained from the ECN (Fig. 2). These were selected as a result of their similar composition and derivation to allow for purposeful comparison with the waste data set. Refuse
derived fuel (RDF) is waste that has undergone pre-processing to
increase its combustion favorability, usually performed by a
mechanical biological treatment plant. This process is largely

mechanical whereby recyclables and compostable materials are removed, followed by drying and shredding of the waste to produce a
combustible product. As most EfW technologies have been optimised for use with MSW, it too was included as a benchmark for
C&IW comparison. Furthermore, a technology that uses MSW as
a feedstock could potentially use C&IW with minimal adaptation.
Pure biomass is also included within the comparison. Anthracite
coal is used as comparative data marker as it is widely used for energy generation. All values were determined using an average of
the same fuel type. Note some parameters have been removed
due to unavailability of data for some of the stated fuel types.
In most cases, it was observed that the performance of C&IW as
a fuel did not differ considerably with the other known fuel types.
GCV was calculated as 22.98 MJ/kg, which is comparable to RDF
and MSW (24.4 and 18.7 MJ/kg, respectively). Anthracite coal,
however, has a GCV 55% greater than that of the mean waste sample. This is to be expected as result of its near 100% organic content
which is largely related to CV. The NCV of the waste showed a 59%
drop when compared with GCV (9.5 MJ/kg). This is as result of the
high moisture content within the waste sample. It is necessary to
ensure the feedstock is as dry as possible prior to thermal conversion as dryer fuels obtain higher temperatures and thermal efciencies (Miskam et al., 2009). Moreover, McKendry (2002a,b)
suggested a fuel with a moisture content of above 30% would be

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

C.J. Lupa et al. / Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

difcult to ignite and would reduce the heating value of the resultant gas. However, the NCV was still higher than that of MSW
(6.4 MJ/kg), a key waste stream for EfW processes (note only one
NCV value was available for MSW). This is further supported by literature values that suggest unsorted MSW has a NCV between 8.5
and 9 MJ/kg (Dong and Daji Li, 2003; MacDonald, 2008).
Ash content was calculated as 24.7% but with a large standard
deviation as a result of samples 5 and 6, discussed previously.
Ash is the end product of a material after thermal treatment and
comprises of inorganic mineral oxides that form the residual,
non-combustible fraction of the material. Ash precludes thermal
processes, such as gasication, and requires removal to ensure
thermal efciencies are at an optimum level. At high enough temperatures, ash forms a liquid slag which can increase the risk of
feed blockages. It is benecial, therefore, to use a feedstock that
is of high CV and low ash content. However, since CV is largely related to organic content, it is unlikely that a feedstock with high CV
would have a high ash content.
Volatile matter was high in all fuels apart from coal. No data
was available for biomass pellets but is thought to be comparable
to waste (Miskam et al., 2009). Tar formation is proportional to volatile matter and so fuels with high volatile content are undesirable
as they can cause problems within a thermal conversion system
(Miskam et al., 2009). It is therefore necessary to adapt the system
(e.g. gasier) design to ensure tar formation does not inhibit the
process (Turare, 1997).
Sulphur, nitrogen, and chlorine content was especially low for
all fuel types; calculated as 0.43%, 1.3%, and 1.5%, respectively for
the C&IW sample. The issues surrounding sulphur content include
sulphur dioxide (SO2) production with subsequent emission to the
atmosphere a precursor for acid rain. However, concerns regarding SO2 emissions usually lie with fossil fuels, such as coal, as a result of their higher sulphur contents (0.83%, approximately twice
that of the waste sample). SO2, however, will only form if oxygen
is present to allow for oxidation. Under anoxic conditions, used
in gasication for example, sulphur preferentially combines with
hydrogen to form hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and minor amounts of
COS (carbonyl sulphide) (Jazbec et al., 2004). Both require removal
from the synthesis gas, typically using calcium oxide (Yang and
Chen, 1979). Similarly, nitrogen forms the basis of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and can too produce atmospheric contaminants such as tropospheric ozone (O3) (Jacob, 2000). Chlorine content in the waste
sample (1.5%) was comparable to MSW but an order of magnitude
greater than RDF, biomass pellets, and coal. Other literature values
have suggested lower chlorine contents (Wenchao et al., 2010). In a
thermal conversion process, chlorine promotes the formation of
toxic chlorinated organic compounds such as dioxins. If, however,
low oxygen levels are employed in the process, such as in gasication, hydrogen chloride (HCl) is formed (McKendry, 2002b) and
will require removal to prevent degradation of mechanical components. Hydrogen content was higher than that of sulphur, nitrogen,
and chlorine (7.2%). Concentrations did not vary considerably compared with RDF (8.4%), MSW (5.2%), or biomass pellets (5.7%).
However, anthracite coal contains only 3.5%, less than half that

of the waste sample. Hydrogen is a key component if using the derived syngas for energy generation due to its combustion properties. Oxygen content was similar across all fuel types apart from
anthracite coal. As coal is predominantly made up of high-energy
carboncarbon bonds, very little oxygen is to be expected within
its chemical structure. Conversely, in waste derived fuels, lower
energy carbonoxygen bonds are present thereby causing the elevated oxygen concentrations. Indeed, bond energies are a key factor affecting CV (McKendry, 2002a).

4. Mass balance analysis of C&IW in EfW systems

Although somewhat different in composition, C&IW could be
utilised in EfW processes with little retrotting of current thermal
conversion technologies. In this section, these technologies will be
discussed and used to estimate total electrical output using the
sampled C&IW. For the purpose of this study, a plant with a
throughput of 100,000 tpa was selected and assumptions including
constant undisturbed 24 h operation and perfect waste homogeneity were made. As the latent heat of moisture cannot be used effectively for thermal conversion, the NCV was used as the foundation
of deriving total electrical output. In this study, a mean NCV of
9.47 MJ/kg was determined. Mean efciency data used for mass
balance calculations was obtained from Fichtner (2004), whereby
an average of the reported range values for each thermal conversion process were used. Assuming no radiant or mechanical loses
within the combustion chamber, a plant operating at 100,000 tpa
could produce 30.01 MW of thermal energy. Without conversion,
however, this energy would be lost. This calculation, in addition
to those expressed below, have been determined using the NCV
of the sampled C&IW, plant feed rate, and plant efciencies detailed in Table 2. Typically, incineration is considered the simplest
form of converting waste to energy on the premise that a thermal
conversion unit is present, such as boiler and steam turbine. In this
instance, the waste is combusted in super-stoichiometric oxygen
conditions to produce heat that converts water into steam for
use in a turbine. A typical incinerator with steam turbine has a
combined efciency of 23%. However, this gure is an estimation
as factors such as turbine design and combustion temperatures
will greatly affect the efciency of the system. Using a boiler and
steam turbine operating at this efciency, total annual electrical
output can be calculated at 24.9 GWh. This, however, is assuming
no thermal energy is recovered for heat applications (e.g. district
heating) which would reduce the electrical output but increase
the overall efciency of the plant. Advantages of using incineration
as part of a thermal recovery process are largely accredited to the
robustness of the plant to operate with a vast majority of unprocessed, heterogeneous waste derived from differing sources. However, efciencies of steam turbines are somewhat lower than other
technologies that are available for energy generation.
Other, more advanced technologies are available for energy
generation from waste. Unlike incineration, many of these do not
use the heat for energy conversion, but use the derived syngas as

Table 2
Potential electrical output using sampled C&IW and typical EfW technologies. Output was calculated on the basis of using a hypothetical, 100,000 tpa plant (scenario 1), current
annual Northwest C&IW EfW usage (scenario 2), total annual output if all qualifying waste in the NW is used in EfW (scenario 3), and total annual output if all qualifying C&IW in
the UK is used in EfW (scenario 4).
Technology

Mean efciency (%)

Electrical output
(scenario 1) (GWh)

Electrical output
(scenario 2) (GWh)

Electrical output
(scenario 3) (GWh)

Electrical output
(scenario 4) (TWh)

Incineration with steam cycle

Gasication with gas engine
Gasication with CCGT
Gasication with co-generation

23
19
25
31

24.9
20.5
27.0
33.5

12.4
10.3
13.5
16.8

223.6
184.7
243.1
301.4

6.0
4.9
6.4
8.0

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

C.J. Lupa et al. / Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

a fuel. Syngas, a mixture of predominately CO and H2, is produced

via the thermal conversion of a solid feedstock to a gas in a process
known as gasication. Since gasication is also a thermal process,
there are losses associated with this conversion with most gasiers
achieving an efciency between 55% and 75% (Fichtner, 2004).
This, therefore, will reduce the overall efciency of the EfW process
as losses are incurred at both the gasication stage in addition to
the energy generation stage. Post gasication, the syngas can be
combusted using an energy conversion technology such as a gas
engine. Several leading companies have been producing gas engines for many years. These, however, are manufactured for use
with natural gas (CH4) or biogas. To date, very few have been produced to utilise waste derived syngas. It is expected, however, that
little modication will be required to enable such gas engines to
use this gasfuel. Assuming a combined efciency of 19%, total annual electrical output can be calculated as 20.5 GWh. This, however, is less than the calculated output using a traditional steam
turbine despite the technology being more advanced. As mentioned previously, the reason for this discrepancy is that the total
combined efciency, when using gasication, is lower that that
of an incinerator and steam cycle. When considering a stand-alone
gas engine, efciencies of 40% (natural gas) can be achieved compared with just 30% for a steam turbine. However, as steam turbines only require heat for operation, they are more efcient for
energy conversion. From this, it would appear that it is unnecessary to use a less efcient gasication-gas engine combination.
However, there are many benets associated with using gasication. This form of thermal treatment reduces the amount of harmful gases, such as dioxins, SO2 and NOx, that are emitted to the
atmosphere. Moreover, CO2 levels are lowered as carbon and oxygen are in the simpler molecular form of CO due to the high temperatures employed and sub-stoichiometric oxygen levels (FoE,
2009). A new incentive known as the ROO, mentioned previously,
has been introduced in the UK to incentivise the deployment of novel, renewable energy technologies by awarding power supply
companies with a Renewables Obligation Certicate (ROC) for
every MWh of renewable energy produced. These have monetary
value and, in most cases, the income associated with ROCs will exceed that of the energy sold to the national grid. ROCs will be
awarded depending on the caloric value of the syngas. A syngas
of caloric value between 2 and 4 MJ/m3 is classed as standard
gasication and is awarded 1 ROC. A syngas of caloric value
greater than 4 MJ/m3 is classed as advanced gasication and is
awarded 2 ROCs. EfW using incineration is not eligible for ROCs unless the fuel contains greater than 90% biodegradable matter.
Perhaps the most advanced of all EfW systems is combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). This system utilises a gasier to convert the
waste to syngas that is subsequently fed into a gas turbine for
power generation. The excess heat produced from this process is
used to convert water to steam for use in a steam turbine. Parasitic
load (total energy consumed by process) of this system is very
high, but efciencies can be as great as 26% when using a typical
gasier. Once again, the CCGT process itself can yield efciencies
much greater than 40%, even on a small scale, but the losses associated with the gasier reduces the total efciency of the conversion process. Using an average value of 25% efciency, total
annual electrical output was calculated as 27.0 GWh.
It is possible to use a mixture of waste and fossil fuel in a process called co-generation, or co-ring. This supplements the energy content of the primary waste feedstock to increase total
electrical output. However, it is not a process that relies solely on
dirty fossil fuels and so does not have the associated negative image. Furthermore, as this process can utilise gasication or pyrolysis, it can be eligible for ROCs. Using and estimated mean efciency
of 31% for incineration with steam cycle, total annual electrical
output was calculated as 33.5 GWh.

A recent study conducted by Envirolink Northwest found that

the North West region of the UK has the potential to use
900,000 tonnes of C&IW in EfW systems. In 2006, however, only
50,000 (5%) was utilised in this way. On a national scale, an estimated 36 million tonnes of C&IW qualies for EfW assuming an
eligibility gure of 43%. However, it is likely that a portion of this
will be removed for recycling. Little data is available for C&IW
recycling, however Friends of the Earth (2003) have suggested a
national recycling and reuse gure of 34%. This leaves 24 million
tonnes of C&IW available for EfW systems per annum in the UK. Indeed, this is an estimation as the recycling gure applies to total
national C&IW arisings, not just the EfW eligible portion. However,
it is likely that the recycled component of C&IW will be largely derived from the eligible waste (i.e. contaminated and chemical
wastes are not recycled). Using incineration coupled with a steam
cycle, perhaps the simplest of recovery systems, this would equate
to approximately 6 TWh of electrical energy per annum. In 2005,
the national grid had a demand of almost 310 TWh meaning a potential fossil fuel diversion of 1.9% if all qualifying C&IW were to be
used in this way. In order to conform to the EU 2020 directive, the
UK government has set a target of generating 30% of all electricity
from renewable sources by 2020. Therefore, C&IW alone could contribute 6.5% to this goal. A summary of the potential electrical outputs calculated is shown in Table 2.

5. Conclusions
C&IW has the potential to be of great benet for the future of
renewable energy generation. MSW is a proven feedstock for use
in energy generation systems and analysis of C&IW has shown
there to be similarities between the two waste streams. Furthermore, waste arisings data has shown a higher production rate of
C&IW in the UK. It is for these reasons that C&IW must not be overlooked when considering future fuels for energy generation. Furthermore, appropriate use of this waste would reduce the
amount being sent to landll with an estimated Northwest diversion of 22% if all qualifying C&IW was used in EfW (Envirolink,
2009). There are, however, difculties associated with the use
C&IW in EfW systems. MSW, although largely heterogeneous, does
not vary as greatly as C&IW. There are two predominant C&IW substreams that can be used, discussed previously, which may require
segregation from a gross waste stream depending on the waste
management company. In the case of this study, the samples collected were from management sites that only dealt with mixedordinary C&IW. Furthermore, C&IW is dealt with by private
companies whereas MSW is the responsibility of the local authorities. Issues surrounding the use of waste derived syngas in energy
conversion systems remain. Further work should be undertaken to
characterise the syngas derived from a C&IW stream to determine
its suitability in large-scale gas engine, or gas turbine, applications.
This will indeed unveil any issues surrounding gas quality and help
determine design retrot, if any, of existing EfW plants.
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Stopford Energy and Environment, the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council, and the Technology Strategy Board who helped fund this project.
References
Baggio, P., Baratieri, M., Gasparella, A., Longo, G.A., 2008. Energy and environmental
analysis of an innovative system based on municipal solid waste (MSW)
pyrolysis and combined cycle. Applied Thermal Engineering 28, 136144
(Elsevier).

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002

C.J. Lupa et al. / Waste Management xxx (2011) xxxxxx

British Standards Institute, 2004a. CEN/TS 14774-1:2004 Solid Biofuels.

Determination of Moisture Content. Oven Dry Method. Total Moisture.
Reference Method. British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2004b. CEN/TS 14775:2004 Solid Biofuels.
Determination of Ash Content. British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2006a. CEN/TS 15104:2005 Solid Biofuels.
Determination of Total Content of Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen.
Instrumental Methods. British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2006b. CEN/TS 1418:2005 Solid Biofuels. Method for the
Determination of Caloric Value. British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2006c. CEN/TS 15148:2005. Solid Biofuels.
Determination of the Content of Volatile Matter. British Standards Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2006d. CEN/TS 15289:2006 Soilid Biofuels.
Determination of Total Content of Sulphur and Chlorine. British Standards
Institute.
British Standards Institute, 2006e. CEN/TR 15310-2:2006 Characterization of Waste.
Sampling of Waste Materials. Guidance on Sampling Techniques. British
Standards Institute.
Defra, 2006a. Estimated Total Annual Waste Arisings, by Sector. [Online] (Updated
28th September 2006). Available at: <http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/
statistics/environment/waste/kf/wrkf02.htm> (accessed 10.03.10).
Defra, 2006b. Key Facts About: Waste and Recycling [Online] (Created 13th
February 2006). Available at: <http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/
environment/waste/kf/wrkf14.htm> (accessed 10.03.10).
Dong, C., Daji Li, B.J., 2003. Predicting the heating value of MSW with a feed forward
neural network. Waste Management 23, 103106 (Elsevier).
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Phyllis, the Composition of
Biomass and Waste [Online]. Available at: <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis>
(accessed 15.03.10).
Envirolink Northwest, 2009. Energy from Waste (EfW), Northwest Opportunities
Study. British Standards Institute.
Fichtner, 2004. The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatment of MSW in the UK.
Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd. Published by Environmental Services
Training and Education Trust.

Friends of the Earth, 2003. Commercial and Industrial Waste. British Standards
Institute.
Friends of the Earth, 2009. Pyrolysis, Gasication and Plasma. British Standards
Institute.
Jacob, D.J., 2000. Heterogeneous chemistry and tropospheric ozone. Atmospheric
Environment 34, 21312159 (Elsevier).
Jazbec, M., Sendt, K., Haynes, B., 2004. Kinetic and thermodynamic analysis of the
fate of sulphur compounds in gasication products. Fuel 83, 21332138
(Elsevier).
Lawrence, R.A., 1998. Energy from municipal solid waste: a comparison with coal
combustion technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 24, 545
564 (Elsevier).
MacDonald, M., 2008. Review of Plasma Arc Technology. Surrey County Council.
British Standards Institute.
McKendry, P., 2002a. Energy production from biomass (part 1): overview of
biomass. Bioresource Technology 83, 3746 (Elsevier).
McKendry, P., 2002b. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasication
technologies. Bioresource Technology 83, 5563 (Elsevier).
Miskam, A., Zainal, Z.A., Yusof, I.M., 2009. Characterization of sawdust residues for
cyclone gasier. Journal of Applied Sciences 12, 22942300.
Nakamura, M.R., Castaldi, M.J., Themelis, N.J., 2010. Stochastic and physical
modeling of motion of municipal solid waste (MSW) particles on a waste-toenergy (WTE) moving grate. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 49, 984
992 (Elsevier).
Psomopoulos, C.S., Bourka, A., Themelis, N.J., 2009. Waste-to-energy: a review of the
status and benets in USA. Waste Management 29, 17181724 (Elsevier).
Turare, C., 1997. Biomass Gasication Technology and Utilization. Artes Institute,
University of Flensburg, Germany.
Wenchao, M.A., Hoffmann, G., Schirmer, M., Chen, G.C., Rotter, V.S., 2010. Chlorine
characterisation and thermal behaviour in MSW and RDF. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 178, 489498 (Elsevier).
Yang, R.T., Chen, J.M., 1979. Kinetics of desulfurization of hot fuel gas with calcium
oxide. Reaction between carbonyl sulde and calcium oxide. American
Chemical Society 13 (5), 549553.

Please cite this article in press as: Lupa, C.J., et al. The use of commercial and industrial waste in energy recovery systems A UK preliminary study. Waste
Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.002