705721

research-article2017
WMR0010.1177/0734242X17705721Waste Management & ResearchNordi et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Electricity production from municipal

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
solid waste in Brazil sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X17705721
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17705721
journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

Guilherme Henrique Nordi1, Reynaldo Palacios-Bereche1,

Antonio Garrido Gallego1 and Silvia Azucena Nebra1,2

Abstract
Brazil has an increasing production of municipal solid waste that, allied to the current waste management system, makes the search
for alternatives of energy recovery essential. Thus, this work aims to study the incineration of municipal solid waste and the electricity
production through steam cycles evaluating the influence of municipal solid waste composition. Several scenarios were studied, in
which it was assumed that some fractions of municipal solid waste were removed previously. The municipal solid waste generated in
Santo André city, São Paulo State, Brazil, was adopted for this study. Simulation results showed that the removal of organic matter
and inert components impacts advantageously on the cycle performance, improving their parameters in some cases; in addition, there
is the possibility of reusing the separated fractions. The separation of some recyclables, as plastic material, showed disadvantages
by the reduction in the electricity generation potential owing to the high calorific value of plastics. Despite the high energy content
of them, there are other possible considerations on this subject, because some plastics have a better recovery potential by recycling.

Keywords
Waste, municipal solid waste, incineration, Rankine cycle, boiler, efficiency, net power

Received 17th August 2016, accepted 23th March 2017 by Associate Editor Dave Ross.

Introduction
The generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Brazil has been
rising over the years. Between the years 2013 and 2014, according
to ABRELPE (2015), a rise of 2.02% occurred in the MSW gen-
eration resulting in a value, in 2013, of 1.06 kg inhab-1 day-1. In
Brazil, the waste produced is allocated in landfills, controlled land-
fills and open dumps. From these options, the only one that is con-
sidered adequate is the allocation in landfills. Landfills are areas
that have been treated to receive the residues, they have been water-
proofed, which includes soil levelling and base sealing; moreover,
they are covered and have a drainage system for the slurry and a gas
dispersion system. On the other hand, an open dump is defined as a
land disposal site, which provides no suitable treatment for the
waste. Controlled landfills are an intermediate solution between
landfills and the open dump; they are covered, but do not receive
soil sealing or gas dispersion systems. In Brazil, only 58.4% of the
waste has adequate destination (ABRELPE, 2015).
Brazilian authorities, in 2010, began to take actions aiming to
improve the present waste management system. In this context,
the National Policy on Solid Waste (NPSW) (LEI Nº 12.305, da
Presidência da República, 2010) was published. This document
MSW can be treated through energetic and non-energetic
routes. The non-energetic routes are basically, recycling, that is
the use of material in order to produce new products for public
use, and composting, that is the biodegradation of the organic
fraction of the waste. The energetic routes can be divided into
biochemical (spontaneous or controlled digestion) and thermal
(incineration, gasification and pyrolysis).
From these, the thermal route of incineration presents a spe-
cial interest. According to Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002) the
advantages of incineration are as follows.
•• Immediate reduction of volume and weight of the waste,
without long periods of residence.
•• Can be incinerated on-site.
•• The air emission can be controlled to minimum values.
•• Ashes are sterile.
1UniversidadeFederal do ABC, Santo André, Brazil
2Interdisciplinary
Centre of Energy Planning, University of Campinas,
Campinas, Brazil

states that, until 2014, only MSW without economic viability
whatsoever can be allocated in landfills. The policy also states
that open dumps and controlled landfills should be closed
(ANEEL, 2012). Until this moment, these two governmental
decisions were not accomplished.
Corresponding author:
Guilherme Henrique Nordi, Universidade Federal do ABC, Centro de
Engenharia, Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas (CECS/UFABC),
Av. dos Estados 5001, CEP 09210-580, Santo André, São Paulo,
Brazil.
Email: gnordi@gmail.com
2 Waste Management & Research 0(0)

Table 1.  MSW composition for each fraction.

Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Sulphur Nitrogen Ash Moisture Volatile matter

% db % db % db % db % db % db % wb % wb
Metal 4.50 0.60 4.30 0.00 0.10 90.5 3.00 0.00
Plastic 60.00 7.20 22.8 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.20 95.8
Paper 43.4 5.80 44.3 0.00 0.30 6.00 10.2 75.9
Glass 0.50 0.10 0.40 0.20 0.10 98.9 2.00 0.00
Wood 26.30 3.00 2.00 0.20 0.50 68.00 3.20 20.00
Organic matter 48.00 6.40 37.6 0.40 2.60 5.00 70.00 21.4
Others 49.5 6.00 42.7 0.10 0.20 1.50 20.00 68.10

Db: dry basis; wb: wet basis.

Source: Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), Nakamura (2008) and Balcazar et al. (2013).

•• Less area needed when compared with landfills areas.
•• The cost of the process can be covered with the power
generation
These issues include on-site possibilities, however, material
recovery from separation of valuable fractions can bring addi-
tional energy savings.
According to the same authors, the disadvantages of incinera-
tion are as follows.
•• High capital costs.
•• Need for skilled personal.
•• Not all materials are combustible.
•• Need for additional fuel to start and sometimes sustain
combustion.
•• The residues from the flue gas cleaning can contaminate the
environment if not handled appropriately.
This work has, as a main goal, the study of the incineration of
MSW in appropriate boilers and the electricity generation through
steam cycles. In order to take into account the influence of MSW
composition, several scenarios were studied in which some frac-
tions of MSW are removed previously, for instance organic mat-
ter, recyclables and inert materials. Although the separation of
valuable fractions from MSW can be done mechanically in indus-
trial levels, this study assumes source separation by the citizens.
An example can be cited by Tercan et al. (2015), who indicate that
in some districts of Gaziantep, Turkey, residents collect packaging
wastes, such as glass, plastic bottles, cartons and metal containers
in the plastic bags/containers distributed to them by the munici-
pality. Then these fractions are sent to different facilities in order
to process these materials. The MSW generated in Santo André
city (São Paulo State, Brazil) was adopted for this study. Five
cases were studied. Impacts in the electricity generation, heating
value of MSW (high heating value (HHV) and low heating value
(LHV)), the amount of MSW available for incineration and the
cycle efficiency were evaluated for each case. Mass and energy
balances in the steam cycle were accomplished using Thermoflex®
software (Thermoflow Inc, 2013) as a tool.
Furthermore, the main energy losses in the boiler were
evaluated for each case. Thus, energy losses by exhaust gases,
moisture in fuel and heat loss through the walls, by ashes,
incomplete combustion, etc., were determined. In order to show
the influence of moisture in the boiler efficiency, this compari-
son was done with a HHV.
Methodology
As mentioned, this study was realised based on the data of Santo
André city, which is located in the metropolitan region of São
Paulo, Brazil, and has 676,407 habitants (IPEA, 2014). According
to SEMASA (2008), each inhabitant of Santo André generates
0.73 kg hab-1 day-1 of MSW, which results in a production of
approximately 494 t of total waste per day.
The waste generated in this city can be characterised by the
gravimetric analysis supplied by SEMASA (2008). Ultimate and
proximate analysis for this waste can be estimated using litera-
ture data, hence, the composition of each fraction presented by
Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), Nakamura (2008) and Balcazar
et al. (2013) was used for each gravimetric fraction (Table 1).
Although the Tchobanoglous composition corresponds to a resi-
due of a different country, it was used because there is a lack of
available information regarding the residues of Brazilian cities.
From the values of Table 1 the composition of each fraction
can be determined. To calculate the composition in wet basis, the
moisture factor is applied according to:
100 − H 2OWB
X WB = X DB * (1)
100
where XWB is the percentage on wet basis of the component X,
where X is a component on the ultimate analysis; XDB is the per-
centage in dry basis of the component X; and H2OWB is the mois-
ture content of the fuel in percentage on wet basis. Thus, from the
gravimetric analysis measured by SEMASA (2008) and the com-
position of each fraction (Table 1), the average composition of
MSW was calculated. This data are presented in Table 2.
The HHV and LHV are important parameters in combustion
process analysis, thus their determination is necessary to char-
acterise the MSW. In this study, the HHV of the waste is esti-
mated using the DuLong Modified Method that, according to
Kathiravale et al. (2003), is the most used for the HHV
Nordi et al. 3

Table 2.  MSW composition for Santo André city.

Base case
Gravimetric analysis (% weight)
Metal 1.98
Plastic 18.65
Paper 12.73
Glass 1.07
Wood 0.89
Organic matter 56.46
Others 8.22
Fuel composition (%wet basis)
Carbon 26.70
Hydrogen 3.37
Oxygen 16.14
Nitrogen 0.52
Sulfur 0.11
Ash 11.87
Moisture 41.30

Source: SEMASA, 2008.

determination of MSW. A more appropriate approach would be Cases

using the heating value of each fraction determined experi-
mentally, however, it was not possible because of the lack of
available information about this issue. Thus, according to
Komilis et al. (2011), the HHV of MSW was calculated by
equation (2) in kcal kg-1 as:
HHV = 80.5 * CDB + 338.6 * H DB − 42.3 * ODB +
(2)
22.2 * S DB + 5.55 * N DB
where CDB, HDB, ODB, SDB, NDB are the percentages of carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, nitrogen in dry basis.
The LHV is calculated from the HHV values obtained in
equations (2) and (3):
LHV = (HHV − λ *(r +0.09*H DB )) *
(100 − H 2OWB ) (3)
100
where λ is the water vaporisation enthalpy (2310 kJ kg-1) and r is
described by:
Five scenarios were formulated and compared in this work: The
base case and four other alternative scenarios. For all cases it was
assumed separation of valuable materials by the residences
(source separation of the fractions) and separate collection of the
fractions for alternative routes. The cases were chosen aiming to:
(i) cover a wide possibility of materials that can be removed in
MSW; and (ii) analyse different variations of waste including a
high absence of certain materials. The detailed descriptions of the
five cases are presented as follows.
Base case. This case considers the MSW composition as
received without any previous separation.
Case 1.  In Case 1, it was assumed that 50% of the organic matter
was separated, supposing that this separation happens in the
source, for instance in the residences. The organic fraction has
high moisture, which causes losses in the boiler efficiency; so, in
this case, it was considered that the separated organic matter was
used with a bio digester to produce biogas, which will feed an
engine to produce electricity.

H 2OWB
r= (4)
100 − H 2OWB
Thus, from data of Table 2 and applying equations (1), (2) and
(3), it is possible to calculate the LHV wet basis for Santo André’s
MSW. For the base case, which considers the raw MSW without
any separation, the LHV, on a wet basis, resulted in 9230 kJ kg-1.
Although there is no available experimental data to compare this
value for Brazilian cities, it can be compared with LHV values
reported by Liu et al. (1996) for Kaohsiung city in Taiwan. These
values are in the range of 4490 to 9950 kJ kg-1 for moisture con-
tents between 37% and 60%.
Case 2.  In Case 2, it was assumed that 90% of both metal and
plastic were separated. Although it is a very high separation rate,
especially for plastics, the study tried to evaluate the potential
consequences of this separation. Both fractions are sent for recy-
cling, however, they have different energetic potentials in the
combustion process.
Both metal and plastic can be recycled, which is, as said before,
a more valuable way of treatment for this waste. From the ener-
getic point of view, while the metal is a problem to incinerate, the
plastic has a high LHV, but on the other hand it is a non-renewable
part of the MSW and its combustion contributes to the formation of
dioxins and furans owing to the chlorine present in its composition
4 Waste Management & Research 0(0)

Table 3.  Analysed MSW compositions.

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Gravimetric analysis (%weight)
Metal 2.76 0.24 0.20 1.41
Plastic 25.99 2.29 19.18 26.55
Paper 17.74 15.63 13.09 18.12
Glass 1.49 1.31 0.11 0.76
Wood 1.24 1.09 0.91 1.27
Organic matter 39.33 69.33 58.05 40.19
Fuel composition (%wet basis)
Carbon 31.54 20.45 27.46 33.77
Hydrogen 3.94 2.66 3.46 4.23
Oxygen 18.05 15.13 16.60 21.87
Nitrogen 0.41 0.63 0.53 0.39
Sulfur 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.06
Ash 15.94 10.33 9.38 7.18
Moisture 30.01 50.67 42.46 32.47

(Assunção and Pesquero, 1999). Although it is rather difficult to be
applied in countries like Brazil, this scenario tries to show the con-
sequences of recycling these materials in the incineration process.
Case 3.  In Case 3, it was assumed that 90% of metal and glass
were separated. Both fractions are inert and they only contribute
to reduce the energy recovery efficiency. On the other hand these
fractions can be recycled.
Case 4.  This case considers the simultaneous separation of inert
and organic fractions. Thus, Case 4 assumed that 50% of metal,
glass and organic fractions were separated.
Table 3 shows the gravimetric composition of each fraction of
MSW for all cases (% weight). This table also shows the compo-
sition in terms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur
and moisture for each case (% wet basis).
The impact of MSW composition was evaluated considering
the removal of certain fractions: The percentiles of removal
adopted in this analysis try to take into account the efficiency of
the devices and the success of selective collection in Case 2.
It must be pointed that with devices, manual separation and
regulations, which foment the previous separation where the gen-
eration of the residues occurs, it is possible to achieve quantities
close to that presented here, however, only an experimental and
economic analysis can dictate if these separation processes will
be feasible over time. Despite that, the results obtained here can
be used as a tool for the decision makers.
Rankine cycle
In this work, a steam power cycle (Rankine) using MSW as fuel
is studied. This cycle was simulated using the Thermoflex® soft-
ware (Thermoflow Inc, 2013). Figure 1 shows the flow sheet of
the steam power cycle built in this software.
The waste is fed into a grate boiler (Device 1) that, according
to Themelis (2003), is the most common technology for MSW
incineration. Preheated air, heated by the exhaust gases, is used in
the grate boiler. The air temperature at the outlet of the air heater
(Device 8) is determined by heat balance. The exhaust gas tem-
perature at the air-heater outlet (Outlet 10) was set at 199 °C
according to Chang and Huang (2001). Thus the air was pre-
heated until 425 °C. The proportion of primary and secondary air
was selected also according to these authors.
In the base case, the waste is fed at a rate of 5.68 kg s-1
(20.44 t h-1), which corresponds to the total waste produced by
Santo André city. The excess air ratio adopted was 100% (Chang
and Huang, 2001; Kumar, 2012).
The grate boiler produces saturated steam at 40 bar, which
goes to the superheater (Device 7) where it is heated until 420 °C
at 40 bar (Ma et al., 2010).
The pressure and temperature of super-heated steam are lim-
ited to these values owing to the possibility of corrosion caused
by the chlorine content of some materials found in the MSW.
This limitation is the main cause of the low efficiency in the elec-
tricity generation cycle.
This super-heated steam goes to the high-pressure steam tur-
bine (Device 2), where it undergoes an expansion until 1.6 bar.
Part of the exhaust steam is sent to the deaerator, while the
remaining flow is directed to the low pressure turbine (Device
12). For both turbines, a dry step isentropic efficiency of 85%
was adopted.
After passing through the low-pressure steam turbine, the
saturated steam–liquid mixture is sent to the condenser (Device
14), which operates at 6 kPa. After that, the liquid is pumped
(Device 15) to the deaerator (Device 9), which heats the feed
water in order to reduce the amount of oxygen and non-conden-
sable gases dissolved into. The operation pressure of the deaera-
tor is set at 1.6 bar. It was adopted that water goes out from
deaerator as a saturated liquid. Finally the, saturated liquid is
pumped until the operation pressure of the boiler (Device 13).
Before entering the grate boiler, the water is pre-heated at the
economizer (Device 3) with a temperature increase of 100 °C.
Nordi et al. 5
Figure 1.  Flow sheet of the steam cycle in the Thermoflex® software.
MSW: municipal solid waste.
Flue gas treatment
The lay-out of the flue gas treatment was assumed according to
Kawasaki Plant Systems Ltd (2017). This scheme is presented in
Figure 2. There, the spray gas cooling, bag filter, induced-draft
fan, wet scrubber, activated carbon absorption tower (it discharges
the dioxin absorbed in the activated carbon), catalytic denitration
reactor and stack can be found. For energy calculations, pressure
drops of 2 kPa in the bag filter, 2.5 kPa in the water scrubber and
2.5 kPa in the set of activated carbon absorption tower and deni-
tration reactor were assumed, according to Kropáč et al. (2013).
Additionally, an electricity consumption of 0.5 kWh/1000 Nm3
was taken into account in the water scrubber (Carlsson, 2008).
Energy losses in the boiler
Energy losses are responsible for the falling efficiency in the
boiler and the cycle. These losses occur when part of the energy
delivered to the boiler (fuel energy content) exits from the system
through heat flux by the walls and by material flows that go out.
Several energy losses were considered in this work: (i) the ash
losses related to the heat carried out by the hot ash collected in the
bottom of the grate; (ii) the losses by dry exhaust gases related to
the hot gas formed in the combustion (without taking into account
the water) that goes out from the system; (iii) the moisture losses
related to the fuel moisture content, which enters into the furnace
at room temperature and exits as steam at the same temperature as
the exhaustion gases; (iv) losses by the water formed in combus-
tion; (v) unburned carbon present in the ashes and exhaust gases;
and (vi) heat losses through the walls. These losses were consid-
ered according to the standard ASME PCT 4–2008, which consid-
ers the percentages in a HHV basis (ASME, 2008).
Ash losses
The ash losses were calculated from the energy of the non-
combustible material (solids) resultant at the bottom of the grate
and in the flue gases. The temperature of the bottom ashes was
adopted as 425 °C (Athanasiou et al., 2015) and the flue ashes
temperature was specified as 199 °C (exhaust gas temperature).
These flue ashes can be collected in multi-cyclones, however,
more recent waste to energy (WtE) plant designs use electrostatic
precipitators and/or fabric filters instead.
The enthalpy of the ash was estimated by Song et al. (2013) by
the equation (5). It is noteworthy that the enthalpy of the ashes is
something difficult to estimate owing to the great variability of
fuel compositions and therefore this model was chosen in order to
obtain the best possible results based on the available input data:
hash = 0.0004056T 2 + 0.01057T − 54.4 (5)
6 Waste Management & Research 0(0)

Figure 2.  Scheme of the flue gas treatment in incineration plant with energy recovery.
SCR: Selective catalytic reduction.

where T is the ash temperature (K) and hash is the ash enthalpy in
kJ kg-1.
With the value of the ash enthalpy, it is possible to calculate
the losses owing to ash as described in:
( )
QLash = mash * hash ,exit − hash, reference (6)
where QLash are the losses caused by the ash content in the fuel,
mash is the mass flow of the ashes, hash,exit is the specific enthalpy
in the ash exit and hash,reference is the specific enthalpy of the ashes
at the reference conditions (25 °C, 1 bar).
Moisture in fuel losses
The energy losses by fuel moisture were calculated, according to:
( )
QLmoisture = mwater , fuel * hwater ,exit − hwater , reference (7)
where QLmoisture are the energy losses caused by the water in the
fuel, mwater,fuel is the mass flow of water in the fuel, hwater,exit is
the specific enthalpy of water in the gases exit and hwater,reference
is the specific enthalpy of water at the reference conditions
(25 °C, 1 bar).
Losses by dry exhaust gases
The exhaust gas composition was calculated by the stoichiomet-
ric balance of the combustion, and the exhaust gas energy losses
were calculated from:
QLgases = ∑m * ( h
y y , exit )
− hy , reference (8)
where QLgas are the energy losses caused by the dry exhaust
gases, my is the mass flow of the component y in the dry exhaust
gases, hy,exit is the specific enthalpy of the component y in the dry
exhaust gases at the air heat outlet, illustrated in Figure 1 as
number 10 and hy,reference is the specific enthalpy of the component
y at the reference conditions (25 °C, 1 bar).
Losses by water formed in combustion
These losses are related to the water formed in combustion from
hydrogen content of fuel. They were calculated, according to:
( )
QLwater ,comb = mwater ,comb * hwater ,exit − hwater , reference (9)
where QLwater,comb are the energy losses caused by the water
formed in combustion and mwater,comb is the mass flow of water
formed in combustion.
Uncombusted carbon
The energy losses owing to unburned carbon in the ash were
assumed for the system as being 2% (Thermoflow). This value
was assumed in order to achieve an overall efficiency in the range
of literature values.
Energy loss through the walls
Since the simulation does not model the constructive characteris-
tics of the boiler, the energy that flows through the wall was
assumed by the system as 0.5% according to experimental stud-
ies in biomass boilers (Thermoflow).
Economic assessment
The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of electricity pro-
duction and to do a comparative analysis between the different
evaluated cases. Initial cost investment was calculated from the
function presented by Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006):
y = 5000 x 0.8 (10)
Nordi et al. 7
where y is the initial capital investment in € and x is the plant
capacity in tons/year. The value was updated by inflation index
and increased using and additional factor of 15% for local
taxes, royalties and importation taxes according to the procedure
of Arcadis and Eunomia (2009). Operating costs were also
estimated from the function of Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos
(2006).
y = 700 x −0.3 (11)
where y is in € t-1.
As a financing consideration, it assumed that 90% of the ini-
tial capital cost is financed, the loan period is 16 years and the
interest rate is 2.5% (Nordi, 2015). Revenues were assumed as
the sale of electricity and the gate fee of MSW treatment. Gate
fee of MSW was assumed to be 20 US$ t-1 of MSW, which cor-
responds to the highest value practised in Brazilian landfills
according to EPE (2014). The revenues resulting from the sale of
electricity were calculated from the electricity available for sale
and the electricity price, which was assumed to be equal to the
cost of electricity production, in order to find the equilibrium
point between revenues and expenses. Thus, the cost of electric-
ity production can be calculated through an iterative process. Ash
disposal, operating and maintenance costs, and financing annual
payment were assumed as expenses. The disposal cost for ash
was assumed to be 20 US$ t-1 of ash (EPE, 2014). Additionally, a
lifetime of the plant of 20 years, a hurdle rate of 18% and an oper-
ating time of 7884 h y-1 were also assumed. Finally, the cost of
electricity production in US$ MWh-1 was obtained when the net
present value is equal to zero (Nordi, 2015).
Exceeding electricity production from
biogas
Additional energy can be produced from the biogas produced
with the removed organic matter of the MSW in Case 2 and
Case 4. The process technology DRANCO (DRy ANaerobic
COmposting) was adopted to estimate the potential of biogas
production. DRANCO biodigesters can operate at a dry matter
content of up to 40%. It is a vertical reactor with single phase
digestion and intensive recycling of digestate. The electricity
production for this case can be estimated by:
Wbiogas =biogas .Vbiogas .m organic , waste LHVbiogas (11)
where Wbiogas is the power generated on an internal combustion
engine using the biogas produced on a Dranco Biodigester®,
ηbiogas is the electric efficiency on an engine running with biogas,
reported by EPE (2014) as being 33%, Vbiogas is the volume flow-
rate of biogas (this rate was obtained from the values presented
by OWS (2012), as 125 Nm³ t-1 of waste), m organic , waste is the mass
flow of organic matter recovered from MSW and LHVbiogas is the
lower heating value on volumetric base for the biogas, reported
by EPE (2014) as being 21.6 MJ Nm-³.
Regarding the investment cost and operating and maintenance
costs, the functions of Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006)
were used to estimate it.
Energy savings by recovery of materials
In cases with recovery of materials (recyclables), such as Cases 2, 3
and 4, energy savings from recycling were estimated according
to literature rates. These rates are commonly expressed in
kWh kg-1, and they can vary depending on the criteria and the meth-
ods (EPE, 2008). In this study, the rates adopted for estimations
correspond to a Brazilian study reported by EPE (2008), these rates
being 5.06 kWh kg-1 for plastics, 0.64  kWh  kg-1 for glass and
5.3 kWh kg for metals. In Case 2, the recycling potential was esti-
-1
mated for recyclables fractions, such as PET (polyethylene tereph-
thalate), HDPE (high-density polyethylene), PVC (polyvinyl
chloride), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), PP (polypropylene)
and PS (polystyrene), that sum up 34.8% of plastic fraction accord-
ing to SEMASA (2008). Regarding the metal fractions, in Cases 2,
3 and 4, the recycling potential was estimated for the aluminium
fraction in metals, which corresponds to 20.7% of metal fraction
(SEMASA, 2008). It is worth mentioning that those rates are theo-
retical and real energy savings could be lower. Additionally, Grosso
(2016) indicates that it is a complex issue and the success will
depend on all players (package producers, citizens, waste manag-
ers, etc.) who must combine efforts to achieve an appropriately
source separation and separate collection of different fractions.
Results and discussions
From the composition values described in Tables 2 and 3, it is pos-
sible to simulate a steam cycle that burns MSW as fuel. Table 4
shows the values at each point of the cycle presented in Figure 1
for the base case.
The simulation of the Rankine cycle was done for each case.
The main results are presented in Table 5.
From the values obtained in each case it is possible to com-
ment the following.
Case 1
In the first case, 50% of the organic matter was removed from the
total waste. This fraction is responsible for the high moisture con-
tent in the fuel and has combustible potential, which makes it
interesting to evaluate whether it should or should not be partially
removed from the MSW. In the case of removal, the removed
fraction could be used either for composting or biodigestion.
The first analysed parameter for this case is the HHV. The frac-
tion removed has an energetic potential owing to its combustible
nature. The partial removal of the organic matter leads to a small
decrease of the HHV (0.22%); it happened owing to the percentile
rise of the others fractions. Although the HHV value fell, the LHV
wet basis increased considerably (24%). This rise occurs owing to
the high moisture content of the organic matter, which led to a
moisture content reduction of 27.4% in the fuel as a whole.
8 Waste Management & Research 0(0)

Table 4.  Main streams of steam cycle simulation – base case.

Stream Fluid P T m h

bar C kg s-1 kJ kg-1

1.  Feedwater of furnace w/ grate [1] Water 40.8 213.8 15.1 915.7
2.  Steam inlet of superheater [7] Water 40.8 251.5 14.9 2799.8
3.  Air inlet of tubular air heater [8] Gas/Air 1.11 25.0 40.1 0.0
4.  Over fire air inlet of furnace w/ grate [1] Gas/Air 1.09 425.1 16.0 417.6
5.  Under grate air inlet of furnace w/ grate [1] Gas/Air 1.09 425.1 24.1 417.6
6.  Fuel inlet of furnace w/ grate [1] Fuel 1.03 25.0 5.7 9230.0
7.  Gas inlet of superheater [7] Gas/Air 1.03 760.0 45.1 865.2
8.  Gas inlet of economiser [3] Gas/Air 1.03 638.3 45.1 711.3
9.  Inlet of splitter [5] Gas/Air 1.09 425.1 40.1 417.6
10.  Inlet of ST group [2] Water 40.0 420.0 14.9 3262.1
11.  Inlet of splitter [11] Water 1.6 113.3 14.9 2642.0
12.  Flue gas inlet of tubular air heater [8] Gas/Air 1.03 519.5 45.1 564.9
13.  Inlet of gas/air sink [10] Gas/Air 1.01 199.0 45.1 191.3
14.  Inlet of ST group [12] Water 1.6 113.3 13.0 2642.0
15.  Outlet 3 of splitter [11] -> inlet of valve [18] Water 1.6 113.3 1.9 2642.0
16.  Suction of general pump [13] Water 1.6 113.3 15.1 475.4
17.  Water inlet of economiser [3] Water 41.62 113.9 15.1 480.6
18.  Inlet of makeup / blowdown [17] Water 1.6 38.8 13.0 162.4
19.  Suction of general pump [15] Water 0.07 38.7 13.0 162.2
20.  Steam inlet of water-cooled condenser [14] Water 0.07 38.7 13.0 2278.2
21.  Warm CW inlet of wet cooling tower [16] Water 1.01 34.5 659.0 144.5
22.  Coolant inlet of water-cooled condenser [14] Water 1.01 24.5 659.0 102.7
23.  Feedwater inlet of deaerator [9] Water 1.6 38.5 13.2 161.3
24.  Heating stream inlet of deaerator [9] Water 1.6 113.3 1.9 2642.0

ST: Steam turbine; CW: Cooling water.

Since the organic matter is the highest fraction in the gravimetric
analysis, the removal of 50% of this fraction leads to a considerable
reduction in the quantity of available fuel for combustion (28.2%).
This decrease is the main cause of the reduction in the net power
produced (9.4%). These results indicate that smaller devices will be
necessary, with a consequently smaller production of electric
energy. Thus, the removal of organic matter resulted in a reduction
of the net power of the cycle, which, in an isolated analysis, would
suggest that this action would not be beneficial. However, the spe-
cific net power presented an increase of 26.6% in comparison with
the base case; this increase suggests that less quantity of organic
matter is beneficial to improve the quality of the fuel and to reduce
the size of the WtE plant. Moreover, the organic matter separated
was 5.77 t h-1; this fraction could be sent to a biodigester to produce
biogas that would be used in internal combustion engines, which
would increase the net power for this case in 1.43 MW (giving a
total power of slightly higher than the base case).
The decrease of fuel moisture content led to a rise in the cycle
efficiency of 1.69% in comparison with the base case. Regarding
the boiler efficiency in the LHV and HHV basis, the percentile
increases were respectively, 1.61% and 5.96% in comparison
with the base case. Since the rise in the efficiency happens owing
to the removal of fuel moisture content, it is expected that the
most sensible change would be found in the boiler efficiency in
the HHV basis. The difference between LHV and HHV effi-
ciency can be explained because the effect of the fuel water con-
tent is hidden behind the LHV value.
The notable difference between the efficiencies of the cycle
and the boiler can be explained by the fact that the cycle effi-
ciency is related to exergetic efficiency of the boiler, which takes
into account the quality of heat fluxes, so, it mainly depends on
the steam pressure and temperature parameters gotten in the
boiler.
Regarding the energy losses in the boiler, the ones that are
caused by the ashes presented the smallest variation in compari-
son with the base case over all losses (4.16%), while those pro-
duced by the fuel moisture and exhaust gases were, respectively;
47.8% and 15.3% lower in comparison with the base case.
Case 2
In the second case, the removal of 90% of metals and plastics was
simulated. Both materials have recycling potential. Metals are non-
combustible materials and are heated only in the furnace, stealing
combustion heat, thus its removal is desirable. Plastic materials, on
other hand, have a high LHV, hence its removal is not desirable from
an energetic point of view. But the question around plastic removal
is wider than an energetic matter only. Dealing with priorities in
waste management hierarchy, the recycling is above the incineration
process. Moreover, the fact that the plastics are petroleum deriva-
tives makes this a non-renewable fraction, whose removal from
burning is desirable, taking into account environmental issues.
As previously asserted, plastics have the highest LHV
content over all other fractions. Consequently, the removal of
Nordi et al. 9

Table 5.  Parameters and energy flows in each simulated case.

Unit Base Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Parameters  
HHV, dry basis MJ kg-1 18.60 18.56 17.40 19.12 19.9
LHV, as received MJ kg-1 9.23 11.45 6.81 9.28 11.8
Fuel t h-1 20.45 14.68 16.65 19.89 14.37
Produced steam t h-1 53.71 48.60 31.72 52.38 49.2
Specific steam production tsteam twaste-1 2.63 3.31 1.90 2.63 3.42
Ash flow t h-1 2.43 2.34 1.72 1.87 1.03
Specific ash flow tash twaste-1 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.07
Specific net power (steam cycle) MWh twaste-1 0.64 0.81 0.46 0.64 0.84
Cycle efficiency %LHV 25.05 25.48 24.43 24.99 25.57
Boiler efficiency %LHV 79.75 80.37 77.76 78.89 80.64
Boiler efficiency %HHV 66.87 70.85 61.69 66.54 70.44
Boiler’s energy flow  
Energy input MWHHV 62.02 52.97 39.70 60.78 53.9
Ash losses MW 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.11
Fuel moisture loses MW 6.66 3.57 6.64 6.64 3.56
Losses by water formed in combustion MW 5.83 5.14 3.92 6.08 5.16
Losses by exhaustion dry gases MW 6.78 5.89 4.20 6.87 5.89
Ash losses % 0.39 0.44 0.43 0.30 0.20
Fuel moisture losses % 10.73 6.74 16.74 10.93 6.6
Losses by water formed in combustion % 9.40 9.70 9.87 10.00 9.6
Losses by exhaustion dry gases % 10.94 11.12 10.58 11.30 10.9
WEE  
Net power, steam cycle MW 13.14 11.90 7.70 12.80 12.05
Electricity consumption – flue treatment gases WEE (fan + scrubber) MW 0.72 0.58 0.45 0.70 0.58
Electricity consumption – flue treatment gases WEE (fan + scrubber) kWh twaste-1 35.4 39.8 27.3 35.4 40.7
Electricity for sale MW 12.41 11.32 7.25 12.10 11.46
Energy supplied MWh y-1 97,855 89,214 57,136 95,402 90,360
Economic assessment – incineration plant  
Initial capital investment Million US$ 100.1 76.8 84.9 97.9 75.5
Revenues  
Electricity sales Million US$ y-1 9.2 7.3 8.8 8.6 7.2
Gate fee of waste reception Million US$ y-1 3.2 2.3 2.6 3.1 2.3
Total revenues Million US$ y-1 12.4 9.6 11.4 11.8 9.5
Annual costs  
Ash disposal Million US$ y-1 0.22 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.16
O&M cost Million US$ y-1 3.7 2.9 3.2 3.6 2.9
Financing Million US$ y-1 6.9 5.3 5.9 6.8 5.2
Total annual cost 10.8 8.4 9.2 10.5 8.3
Cost of electricity production US$ MWh-1 94.3 81.4 154.0 90.7 79.9
By-products recovery and utilisation  
Biogas production  
Recovery of organic matter t y-1 — 45,515 — — 45,515
Biogas production Nm3 h-1 — 721.6 — — 721.6
Electricity production from biogas MW — 1.43 — — 1.43
Initial capital investment Million US$ — 27.5 — — 27.5
O&M cost Million US$ y-1 — 1.56 — — 1.56
Material recovery  
Metal t y-1 — — 3149 3149 1749
Plastic t y-1 — — 30,069 — —
Glass t y-1 — — — 1725 958
Energy saving by recycling  
Metal MWh y-1 — — 3454 3454 1919
Plastic MWh y-1 — — 52,948 — —
Glass MWh y-1 — — — 1104 613
Total MWh y-1 56,402 4558 2532

HHV: higher heating value; LHV: lower heating value; O&M: Operation and Maintenance.

recyclables, which are mainly plastics, leads to a decrease of the increase of the organic matter fraction influences in the waste
average HHV and LHV. This reduction was 6.5% and 26.2% for composition, resulting in a bigger moisture content in this case.
the HHV and LHV, respectively, in comparison with the base Since the plastic fraction is not small, the removal of the recy-
case. The biggest decrease on the LHV happens because the clables (metal and plastics) decreases by 18.6% (3.9 t h-1) the
10 Waste Management & Research 0(0)
waste amount available for burning. This decrease would be an
important material flow directed to recycling. This removal
would impact – also, in the resultant ashes from incineration,
which would have a decrease of 23% in comparison with the base
case – this fact could increase, substantially, the operation time of
the landfill where these ashes would be stored.
The decrease of the amount of waste available to be burned
and the resultant LHV lead to a fall of the specific steam pro-
duced (27.8%), net power (41.4%) and specific net power
(28.1%) in comparison with the base case. These variations show
that, from an energetic point of view, the removal of these materi-
als would not be beneficial to the process. It can also be observed
that the cycle efficiency was lower than the base case efficiency.
In contrast, with the reduced amount of plastic, there is a possi-
bility of decrease in the chlorine content of the gas, enabling the
increase of the steam temperature.
About the energy losses in the boiler, a decrease of energy losses
by ash and exhaust gases can be pointed out. The decrease by the
exhaust gas losses can be explained by the loss of combustible con-
tent of the fuel. The plastic fraction of the fuel has a low content of
moisture and ash, thus almost all this fraction can be incinerated gen-
erating combustion gases that will carry energy from the system.
Case 3
The third case corresponds to the removal of 90% of the glass and
metal content of the fuel. The removal of inert material is crucial
because these materials carry energy outside of the system in the
form of hot ashes.
The most important aspect to be analysed here is the mass of
ash produced and the energy losses by ash in the boiler. The ash
produced decreased 23% in comparison with the base case; this is
the biggest variation over all cases. Regarding the energy losses
by ashes, there was a diminution of 20.9% in comparison with the
base case; it was also the biggest variation for this parameter.
All the other parameters suffered variations smaller than 3%,
showing that the removal of glass and metal would not impact
negatively in the process. Another aspect that can be mentioned
is that the removal of these two waste components, made where
the waste generation occurs, is easier than all the others.
Case 4
Results for this case are very similar to Case 1 in terms of elec-
tricity production and cost of electricity production. However,
there is an additional energy saving that could come from recy-
cling of metal and glass (2532 MWh y-1).
Regarding the energy saving from recycling in other cases,
Table 5 shows values of 56,402 MWh y-1 and 4558 MWh y-1 for
Cases 2 and 3, respectively. Case 2 presents a high value because
of the high amount of plastic recovered (30,069 t y-1, of which
34.8% is considered for recycling, resulting in 52,948 MWh y-1 of
energy saving); this value of energy saving by recycling is close to
the electricity supplied by electricity sale (57,136 MWh y-1).
However, the results in this section depend strongly on the hypoth-
eses assumed and the references adopted. The recycling of metals
assumed only the aluminium fraction in MSW, however, if ferrous
materials are considered in calculations, the energy saving from
recycling of metal fraction increases to 12,349 MWh y-1 for Cases
2 and 3, and 6860 MWh y-1 for Case 4.
It is worth mentioning that these numbers are theoretical val-
ues that, in practise, and for different reasons, could not be
achieved. Among these reasons, the natural losses in the collec-
tion and selection process of MSW can be mentioned.
Nevertheless, these results indicate that the recycling alternative
should not be ruled out.
Additionally, these results can also be compared with an
additional scenario that considers the conventional disposal in
landfills, with capture of biogas and electricity generation in
internal combustion engines running with biogas. For calcula-
tions, equations presented by Silva (2015) and parameters
determined by Candiani (2011) were used. It was assumed an
average MSW deposition rate, equal to the current MSW mass
flow for base case (161.2 kt y-1), and a deposition time of
18 years. For this data, the maximum power production was
estimated as 5.14 MW (which happens at year 18), which is
very low in comparison with incineration results. This result
can be compared with results of Silva (2015), who studied the
Caieiras landfill in Sao Paulo, Brazil. According to this author,
the deposition rate in 2015 was 3571 kt y-1 and the maximum
power production was estimated in 42 MW.
Sensitivity analysis
In order to evaluate the variation of the main assumptions in each
scenario, a sensitivity analysis was accomplished. Figure 3 shows
variations in electricity for sale and the cost of electricity produc-
tion for each case and different percentages of removal of organic
matter (Cases 1 and 4), plastics (Case 2), metal (Cases 2, 3 and 4)
and glass (Cases 3 and 4).
It can be observed that electricity for sale as well as the cost of
electricity production are the same for Case 1 and Case 4, which
indicates that separation of metal and glass do not affect signifi-
cantly because of the low percentage of these fractions. Regarding
the organic matter, its removal leads to a moderate reduction
(12%) in electricity for sale when it is compared with the removal
rates of 90% and 25%. Regarding the cost of electricity produc-
tion, the reduction was around 27%, thus the removal of 90% of
organic matter decreases the cost of electricity production to
68.5 US$ MWh-1. The removal of only glass and metal in Case 3
do not vary in a significant way the results of electricity and cost
production. On the other hand, there was a significant decrease of
electricity for sale with the removal of plastics (Case 2), according
to Figure 3(a) it went from 10.8 MW to 6.5 MW (reduction of
40%) for a removal rate of 25% and 90%, respectively. Regarding
the cost of electricity production, in Case 2 there was a high
increase that resulted in 103.6 US$ MWh-1 and 154 US$ MWh-1
for a removal rate of 25% and 90%, respectively.
Nordi et al. 11
Figure 3.  Variation in electricity for sale (a) and the cost of electricity production (b) for each case and different percentages of
removal of organic matter (Cases 1 and 4), plastics (Case 2), metal (Cases 2, 3 and 4) and glass (Cases 3 and 4).
WEE: Electric power; USD: U.S. dollar.
Furthermore, according to Nordi et al. (2014), it would be
possible to meet 8.89% of the population of Santo André with
the energy generated from the waste produced by the city in
nature, showing that this technology would be important to meet
part of the generation of the city, diversifying the energy matrix
and generating jobs.
About the separation of metals, the removal of this material
did not affect negatively the production of electricity; moreover,
it increases the recoverable materials and lessens the amount of
ash that would be sent to landfills. The separation of glass has,
also, beneficial potential for the process, resulting in a decrease
of the materials discarded to the landfills. Because separation at
source was assumed, separation costs were not considered.
Regarding the benefits of recycling materials, Table 5 shows esti-
mations for energy savings obtained for Cases 2, 3 and 4.
The separation of the organic matter was significant, increas-
ing the heating value of the fuel. Another advantage of this
removal is the possibility of getting other by-products: The pro-
duction of biogas increased the total amount of energy produced
to similar values found in the base case, showing that, for the
incineration process, this separation is beneficial, however, there
is a significant capital investment cost and operating cost associ-
ated to the biogas production and utilisation (Table 5). Additionally,
another problem here is to enable this separation, because chang-
ing the habits in the population will be necessary, in such a way
that organic matter can be separated in the generation spot with an
appropriate structure of collection. Although mechanical separa-
tion is possible, it is expensive and it would change the composi-
tion of fuel since mechanical separation is very inaccurate and
could also remove some useful materials from the fuel.
The separation of plastic is, probably, the most difficult option
to asses. The removal of the plastic content is not desirable when
the objective is maximising the electricity generated. The prob-
lem here is that MSW combustion has a lot of drawbacks owing
to it is a complex mixture of combustible and non-combustible
fractions and some of these fractions have a better material
recovery potential than an energy potential. If the main objective
of a plant is the power generation, it would be better to use a fuel
that is intended for this purpose instead of burning a material that
can go under better processes. In case source separation is not
possible, energy savings as well as separation costs should be
taken into consideration to estimate the economic feasibility of
this operation. In addition to the above, the plastics combustion,
owing to the presence of chlorine in its composition, can cause
corrosion of the boiler, this being the main reason for the low
temperature of the steam in this type of system.
Data contained in this work show that the technology is viable
for the country, indicating a potential improvement in fuel quality,
to increase the amount of power generated per tonne of waste. Also,
it is important to note that incineration does not arise as a uniquely
cost-effective alternative for the treatment of MSW, and it is impor-
tant to seek the best alternative on economic, social and environ-
mental context and in view of the analysis in this work, separation
of materials is important to obtain a complete system of waste treat-
ment, be the inclusion of collectors, recycling of materials, reduc-
tion of dioxin emissions or reduction of material sent to landfills.
Conclusions
A study of the incineration of MSW and electricity generation
through a steam power cycle was accomplished, taking into
account the influence of MSW composition and adopting several
scenarios. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis and an economic
assessment was accomplished to evaluate the effects of the source
separation of certain fractions, and to estimate the cost of elec-
tricity production in each case. The results showed values for
electricity for sale in the range of 6 to 13 MW (and cost of elec-
tricity production of 60 to 150 US$ MWh-1 for the evaluated
cases from the hypotheses assumed. These values consider a
stand-alone incineration plant type. Biogas production and
energy savings by recovery of valuable materials were also con-
sidered, but being done by a different enterprising, in this way
future studies are necessary in order to accomplish the analysis in
an integrated way.
The analysis showed that the removal of metal, glass and
organic matter is beneficial to the process of electricity
12 Waste Management & Research 0(0)
generation in Rankine cycles, while the separation of plastics
had worsened the main energetic parameters of the cycle; how-
ever, the separation of materials by the citizens in residences,
assumed in this study, is a complex issue and its success depends
on the combined efforts of several players. Another important
conclusion of this study is that even with the separation of
materials, it is still possible to obtain competitive energy prices
in the Brazilian energy market, showing that the generation
from MSW serves the population’s needs on several levels, with
the achievement of better waste treatment, employment, recy-
cling incentive and revenue generation.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
The authors would like to thank the Program of Research and
Development of the Electricity Sector Regulated by ANEEL and the
financial support provided by PETROBRAS, CAPES, CNPq
[Process:306303/2014-0] and UFABC.
References
ABRELPE (2015) Panorama of solid waste in Brazil 2014. São Paulo, SP:
ABRELPE [in Portuguese].
ANEEL (2012). Call No. 014/2012. Strategic project: Technical and com-
mercial arrangements for energy production from biogas from solid and
liquid effluent aiming the insertion in Brazilian energy matrix. Brasília,
DF: National Electric Energy Agency [in Portuguese].
Arcadis B and Eunomia R&C (2009) Final report: Assessment of the options
to improve the management of bio-waste in the European union Annex
E: Approach to estimating costs. Arcadis, Infraestructure, Environment,
Facilities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 18 July 2015).
ASME (2008) ASME PCT 4–2008 Fired steam generators - Performance
test codes (Revision of ASME PTC 4–1998).
Assuncao JV and Pesquero CR (1999) Dioxins and furans: Origins and risks.
Review of Public Health 33: 523–530 [in Portuguese].
Athanasiou CJ, Tsaldikis DA, Kalogirou E and Voudrias EA (2015)
Feasibility analysis of municipal solid waste mass burning in the Region
of East Macedonia - Thrace in Greece. Waste Management & Research
33: 561–569.
Balcazar JGC, Dias RA and Balestieri JAP (2013) Analysis of hybrid waste-
to-energy for medium-sized cities. Energy 55: 728–741.
Candiani G (2011) Study of methane generation in a cell of a landfill. PhD
Thesis, Federal University of ABC, Santo André [in Portuguese].
Carlsson K (2008) Gas cleaning in flue gas from combustion of biomass.
Paper prepared for the EU project ThermalNet in January 2008. Available
at: https://ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 21 December 2016).
Chang MB and Huang CK (2001) Characteristics of Energy flow in munici-
pal solid waste incinerator. Journal of Environmental Engineering 127:
78–81.
EPE (2014) Economic viability and competitiveness of energy utilization
from municipal solid waste. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: EPE [in Portuguese].
EPE (2008). Energy use of municipal solid wastes from Campo Grande. Rio
de Janeiro, RJ: EPE [in Portuguese].
Grosso M (2016) Sound and advanced municipal waste management: Moving
from slogans and politics to practice and technique. Waste Management
& Research 34: 977–979.
IPEA (2014) Consult to profile of Santo André. Avaliable at: http://atlasbrasil.
org.br/2013/perfil/santo-andre_sp (accessed 15 July 2014) [in Portuguese].
Kathiravale S, Yunus MNM, Sopian K, et al. (2003) Modeling the heating
value of municipal solid waste. Fuel 82: 1119–1125.
Kawasaki Plant Systems (2017). Incineration (heat recovery plant). Available
at: http://global.kawasaki.com/en/industrial_equipment/environment_recy-
cling/waste/heat.html (accessed 15 February 2017).
Komilis D, Evangelou A, Giannakis G, et al. (2011) Revisiting the elemental
composition and the calorific value of the organic fraction of municipal
solid wastes. Waste Management 32: 372–81.
Kropáč J, Ferdan T and Pavlas M (2013) Waste-to-energy modelling –
energy efficiency versus minimized environmental impact. Chemical
Engineering Transactions 35: 901–906.
Kumar R (2012) Boilers: A Practical Reference. CRC Press. Avaliable at:
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=ELgp4ctCzXkC&pg=PA316&lp
g=PA316&dq=RDF+boilers&source=bl&ots=DryIh5Sc6Q&sig=X3N
1pIUt7i3YAP-1w1-wtU1wK3g&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=LsSTUr-mDJL-
wkQfP_oDwCA&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=RDF%20
boilers&f=false (accesed 8 August 2014).
LEI Nº 12.305, da Presidência da República (2010) Available at: http://www.
planalto.gov.br/ (accessed 25 October 2014)
Liu J-I, Paode RD and Holsen TM (1996) Modeling the energy content of
municipal solid waste using multiple regression analysis. Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association 46: 650–656.
Ma W, Hoffmann G, Schirmer M, et al. (2010) Chlorine characterization and
thermal behaviour in MSW and RDF. Journal of Hazardous Materials
178: 489–498.
Nakamura M (2008) Mathematical and physical modeling of mixing and
flow phenomena of municipal solid waste particles on a reverse acting
grate. PhD Thesis, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied
Science, Columbia University, New York.
Nordi GH (2015) Technical-economic evaluation of WTE (waste-to-energy)
plants based on steam Power cycles. Santo André: Federal University of
ABC [in Portuguese].
Nordi GH, Palacios-Bereche R, Gallego AG, et al. (2014) Energetic analysis
of electricity production in Rankine cycles from municipal solid waste in
Brazil. In: International Solid Waste Association Congress, São Paulo,
8–11 September, Brazil.
OWS (2012) Biogas plants. Available at: http://www.ows.be/household_
waste/dranco/ (accessed 8 August 2014).
SEMASA (2008) Gravimetric characterization of municipal solid waste in
Santo André. Santo André, SP: SEMASA [in Portuguese].
Silva ER (2015) Estimative of the energetic potential of municipal solid
wastes by different treatment routes. PhD thesis, Federal University of
ABC, Santo André [in Portuguese].
Song G, Shen L, Xiao J, et al. (2013) Estimation of the specific enthalpy and
exergy of biomass and coal ash. Energy Sources Part A 35: 809–816.
Themelis NJ (2003) An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry.
Waste Management World 3: 40–47.
Tchobanoglous G and Kreith F (2002) Handbook of Solid Waste Management,
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil S (1993) Integrated Solid Waste
Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tercan SH, Cabalar AF and Yaman G (2015) Analysis of a landfill gas to
energy system at the municipal solid waste landfill in Gaziantep Turkey.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65: 912–918.
Thermoflow Inc (2013) Thermoflex 25. Southborough, EUA.
Tsilemou K and Panagiotakopoulos D (2006) Approximate cost functions
for solid waste treatment facilities. Waste Management & Research 24:
310–322.